[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 229 (Friday, November 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76302-76357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21229]
[[Page 76301]]
Vol. 85
Friday,
No. 229
November 27, 2020
Part IV
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 223 and 226
Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for the Threatened
Caribbean Corals; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 76302]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 226
[Docket No. 200918-0250]
RIN 0648-BG26
Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for the
Threatened Caribbean Corals
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, propose to designate critical habitat for the
threatened Caribbean corals: Orbicella annularis, O. faveolata, O.
franksi, Dendrogyra cylindrus, and Mycetophyllia ferox pursuant to
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Twenty-eight mostly
overlapping specific occupied areas containing physical features
essential to the conservation of all these coral species are being
proposed for designation as critical habitat; these areas contain
approximately 15,000 square kilometers (km\2\; 5,900 square miles
(mi\2\)) 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 one area 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-2020-0131, 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-2020-0131 click the ``Comment Now'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: You must submit comments by the above to ensure that
we receive, document, and consider them. Comments sent by any other
method 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: Jennifer Moore, NMFS, SERO, 727-824-
5312, [email protected]; Celeste Stout, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, 301-427-8436, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 4(b) of the ESA
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 threatened Caribbean boulder star coral (Orbicella
franksi), lobed star coral (O. annularis), mountainous star coral (O.
faveolata), pillar coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus), and rough cactus coral
(Mycetophyllia ferox). We have reviewed the available information and
have used it to identify a composite physical feature essential to the
conservation of each coral, the specific areas within the occupied
geographical areas that contain the physical essential feature that may
require special management considerations or protections, the Federal
activities that may impact the proposed critical habitat, and the
potential impacts of designating critical habitat for the corals. The
economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of the proposed
critical habitat designations are described in the draft document
titled, Draft Information Basis and Impact Considerations of Critical
Habitat Designations for Threatened Caribbean Corals (Draft Information
Report). This supporting document is available at www.regulations.gov
or upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Background
We listed twenty coral species as threatened under the ESA
effective October 10, 2014 (79 FR 53851, September 10, 2014). Five of
the corals occur in the Caribbean: Orbicella annularis, O. faveolata,
O. franksi, Dendrogyra cylindrus, and Mycetophyllia ferox. The final
listing determinations were all based on the best scientific and
commercial information available 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 of the species had undergone population declines and are
susceptible to multiple threats, including: Ocean warming, diseases,
ocean acidification, ecological effects of fishing, and land-based
sources of pollution. However, aspects of the species' demography and
distribution buffer the effects of the threats. We determined that all
the Caribbean coral species are likely to become endangered throughout
all of their ranges within a foreseeable future of the next several
decades as a result of a combination of threats, of which the most
severe are related to climate change, and we listed them as threatened.
This 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 on NMFS's Southeast
Regional Office website at [https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/5-caribbean-coral-proposed-CH-Information-Report and at
www.regulations.gov, see ADDRESSES].
Natural History
This section summarizes life history and biological characteristics
of the five 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, reproduction, settlement and
growth, coral habitat types, and coral reef ecosystems. The amount of
information available on the life history, reproductive biology, and
ecology varies for each of the five corals that occur in U.S. waters of
the Caribbean. We provide specific information for each species where
possible. In addition, we provide information on the biology and
ecology of Caribbean corals in general,
[[Page 76303]]
highlighting traits that these five corals share. The information below
is largely summarized from the final listing rule (79 FR 53852,
September 10, 2014), and updated with the best scientific information
available to date.
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 when growth outpaces
erosion. Corals may also occur on hard substrate that is interspersed
among other benthic features (e.g., seagrass beds in the back reef
lagoon) in the coral reef ecosystem, but not on the physical structure
of coral reefs. Corals also contain symbiotic algae within their cells.
As described below, corals produce clones of themselves by several
different means, and most corals occur as colonies of polyps.
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)
belonging to the dinoflagellate genus Symbiodinium living within the
host coral's tissues. Zooxanthellae provide a food source for their
host by translocating fixed organic carbon and other nutrients. In
return, the algae receive shelter and nutrients in the form of
inorganic waste metabolites from host respiration. This exchange of
energy, nutrients, and inorganic metabolites allows the symbiosis 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, which do not contain
zooxanthellae, form skeletons much more slowly, and therefore are not
considered reef-building. The five corals discussed in this proposed
rule are zooxanthellate species, and thus are reef-building species
that can grow large skeletons that contribute to the physical structure
of coral reefs.
Only about 10 percent of the world's approximately 800 reef-
building coral species occur in the Caribbean. The acroporids were once
the most abundant and most important species on Caribbean coral reefs
in terms of accretion of reef structure, characterizing the ``palmata''
and ``cervicornis'' zones in the classical descriptions of Caribbean
reefs (Goreau, 1959). The three species (O. annularis, O. faveolata,
and O. franski) in the Orbicella star coral species complex have also
been dominant components on Caribbean coral reefs, characterizing the
``buttress zone'' and ``annularis zone.'' After the die-off of Acropora
spp., the star coral species complex became the major reef-builder in
the greater Caribbean due to their large size.
Most reef-building coral species are colonial, producing colonies
made up of polyps that are connected 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). Each
polyp consists of a column with mouth and tentacles on the upper side
growing on top of a calcium carbonate skeleton that the polyps produced
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 five corals are all colonial species, although
polyp size, colony size, and colony morphology vary considerably by
species, and can also vary based on environmental variables in
different habitats. Colonies can produce clones, most commonly through
fragmentation or budding (described in more detail below). The five
corals are all clonal species with the ability to produce colonies of
cloned polyps as well as clones of entire 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.
Corals use a number of 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
near the base). Some coral species have separate sexes (gonochoric),
while others are hermaphroditic (individuals simultaneously containing
both sexes), and others are a combination of both (Richmond, 1997).
Strategies for fertilization are either by brooding (internal
fertilization) or broadcast spawning (external fertilization). Asexual
reproduction in coral species usually occurs by fragmentation, when
colony pieces or fragments are dislodged from larger colonies to
establish new colonies, or by the budding of new polyps within a
colony.
Depending on the mode of fertilization, coral larvae (called
planulae) undergo development either mostly within the mother colony
(brooders) or outside of the mother colony, adrift in the ocean
(broadcast spawners). In either mode of larval development, larvae
presumably experience considerable mortality (up to 90 percent or more)
from predation or other factors prior to settlement and metamorphosis
(Goreau et al., 1981). 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. Coral larvae are
relatively poor swimmers; therefore, their dispersal distances largely
depend on the duration of the pelagic phase and the speed and direction
of water currents transporting the larvae.
All three species of the Orbicella star coral species complex are
hermaphroditic broadcast spawners, spawning over a 3-night period, 6 to
8 nights following the full moon in late August, September, or early
October (Levitan et al., 2004). Fertilization success measured in the
field was generally below 15 percent for all three species and
correlated to the number of colonies concurrently spawning (Levitan et
al., 2004). The minimum colony size at first reproduction for the
Orbicella species complex is 83 cm\2\ (Szmant-Froelich, 1985).
Successful recruitment by the Orbicella species has seemingly always
been rare with many studies throughout the Caribbean reporting
negligible to no recruitment (Bak and Engel, 1979; Hughes and Tanner,
2000; Rogers et al., 1984; Smith and Aronson, 2006).
Dendrogyra cylindrus is a gonochoric (having separate sexes)
broadcast spawning species with relatively low annual egg production
for its size. The combination of gonochoric spawning with persistently
low population densities is expected to yield low rates of successful
fertilization and low larval supply. Spawning has been observed several
nights after the full moon of August in the Florida Keys (Neely et al.,
2013; Waddell and Clarke, 2008). In Cura[ccedil]ao, D. cylindrus was
observed to spawn over a 3-night period, 2-5 nights after the full
moons in August and September (Marhaver et al., 2015). Lab-reared
embryos developed into swimming planulae larvae within 16 hours after
spawning and were
[[Page 76304]]
competent to settle relatively soon afterward (Marhaver et al., 2015).
Despite short duration from spawn to settlement competency in the lab,
sexual recruitment of this species is low, and there are no reported
juvenile colonies in the Caribbean (Bak and Engel, 1979; Chiappone,
2010; Rogers et al., 1984). Dendrogyra cylindrus can propagate by
fragmentation following storms or other physical disturbance (Hudson
and Goodwin, 1997). Recent investigations determined that there is no
genetic differentiation along the Florida Reef Tract, meaning that all
colonies belong to a single mixed population (Baums et al., 2016). The
same study found that all sampled colonies from Cura[ccedil]ao belonged
to a single population that was distinct from the Florida population.
Similar studies have not been conducted elsewhere in the species'
range.
Mycetophyllia ferox is a hermaphroditic brooding species producing
larvae during the winter months (Szmant, 1986). Brooded larvae are
typically larger than broadcast spawned larvae and are expected to have
higher rates of survival once settled. However, recruitment of M. ferox
appears to be very low, even in studies from the 1970s (Dustan, 1977;
Rogers and Garrison, 2001).
Spatial and temporal patterns of coral recruitment are affected by
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. Additionally, several
other factors may influence reproductive success and reproductive
isolation, including external cues, genetic precision, and conspecific
signaling.
Like most corals, the threatened Caribbean corals require hard,
consolidated substrate, including attached, dead coral skeleton, for
their larvae to settle. The settlement location on the substrate must
be free of macroalgae, turf algae, or sediment for larvae to attach and
begin growing a colony. Further, the substrate must provide a habitat
where burial by sediment or overgrowth by competing organisms (i.e.,
algae) will not occur. In general, on proper stimulation, coral larvae
settle and metamorphose on appropriate hard substrates. Some evidence
indicates that chemical cues from crustose coralline algae (CCA),
microbial films, and/or other reef organisms or acoustic cues from reef
environments stimulate planulae's settlement behaviors. Calcification
of the newly-settled larva begins with the forming of the basal plate.
Buds formed on the initial corallite develop into daughter corallites.
Once larvae have metamorphosed onto appropriate hard substrate,
metabolic energy is diverted to colony growth and maintenance. Because
newly settled corals barely protrude above the substrate, juveniles
need to reach a certain size to limit damage or mortality from threats
such as grazing, sediment burial, and algal overgrowth. In some
species, it appears there is virtually no limit to colony size beyond
structural integrity of the colony skeleton, as polyps apparently can
bud indefinitely.
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 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., Orbicella
species). The energy required to produce new polyps and build calcium
carbonate skeleton is provided by the symbiotic relationship corals
have with photosynthetic zooxanthellae. Therefore, corals need light
for their zooxanthellae to photosynthesize and provide the coral with
food, and thus also require low turbidity for energy, growth, and
survival. Lower water clarity sharply reduces photosynthesis in
zooxanthellae and results in reductions in adult colony calcification
and survival (79 FR 53852, September 10, 2014). Some additional
information on the biological requirements for reproduction,
settlement, and growth is provided below in the Physical or Biological
Features Essential to Conservation section.
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.
There are several categories of coral reefs: Fringing reefs,
barrier reefs, patch reefs, platform reefs, and atolls. 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 these habitat types vary
greatly by reef categories, locations, latitudes, frequency of
disturbance, etc., and there is also much habitat 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.
The five corals vary in their recorded depth ranges and habitat
types (Table 1). All five corals generally have overlapping ranges and
occur throughout the wider-Caribbean. The major variance in their
distributions occurs at the northern-most extent of their ranges in
Florida or the Flower Garden Banks (FGB) in the northwest Gulf of
Mexico. As described below, critical habitat can be designated only in
areas under U.S. jurisdiction, thus we provide the species'
distribution in U.S. waters (Table 1).
Table 1--Distributions of Threatened Caribbean Corals in the United
States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depth U.S. geographic
Species distribution distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dendrogyra cylindrus.......... 1 to 25 m Southeast Florida
from Lake Worth
Inlet in Palm Beach
County to the Dry
Tortugas; Puerto
Rico; USVI; Navassa
Island.
Mycetophyllia ferox........... 5 to 90 m Southeast Florida
from Broward County
to the Dry Tortugas;
Puerto Rico; USVI;
Navassa Island.
Orbicella annularis........... 0.5 to 20 m Southeast Florida
from Lake Worth
Inlet in Palm Beach
County to the Dry
Tortugas; FGB;
Puerto Rico; USVI;
Navassa Island.
Orbicella faveolata........... 0.5 to 90 m Southeast Florida
from St. Lucie Inlet
in Martin County to
the Dry Tortugas;
FGB; Puerto Rico;
USVI; Navassa
Island.
[[Page 76305]]
Orbicella franksi............. 0.5 to 90 m Southeast Florida
from Lake Worth
Inlet in Palm Beach
County to the Dry
Tortugas; FGB;
Puerto Rico; USVI;
Navassa Island.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The depth ranges in Table 1 are the typical ranges and do not apply
to the depths in which the species occur at FGB, which are much deeper
due to the unique setting and conditions at that site.
Critical Habitat Identification and Designations
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 five threatened Caribbean
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 five 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 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 (50 CFR 424.02; 81 FR 7413, February 11, 2016). The ranges
of the five threatened corals span the wider-Caribbean, and
specifically Florida, Puerto Rico, and USVI in the United States (79 FR
53851, September 10, 2014). 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)).
Physical or Biological Features Essential to 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 five 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. Further, the reproductive strategies of the three Caribbean
Orbicella spp. and Dendrogyra cylindrus present a challenge to
repopulation after mortality events they have experienced and will
likely experience 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
[[Page 76306]]
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 five corals listed in 2014: Populations of the
five threatened Caribbean corals should be present across their
historical ranges, with populations large enough and genetically
diverse enough to support successful reproduction and recovery from
mortality events and dense enough to maintain ecosystem function
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/5-caribbean-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 five 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 five corals' habitat that are impeding their recovery.
Protecting essential features of the corals' habitat from these threats
will facilitate the recovery of these threatened species.
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. 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 five 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 propose the
following essential physical feature for the five corals:
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, all corals
require exposed natural consolidated hard substrate for the settlement
and recruitment of larvae or asexual fragments. Recruitment substrate
provides the physical surface and space necessary for settlement of
coral larvae, and a stable environment for metamorphosis of the larvae
into the primary polyp, growth of juvenile and adult colonies, and re-
attachment of fragments. The substrate must be available at appropriate
physical and temporal scales for attachment to occur. In other words,
the attachment location must be available at the physical scale of the
larva or fragment, and at the temporal scale of when the larva or
fragment is ``seeking'' recruitment. Larvae can also settle and attach
to dead coral skeleton (Grober-Dunsmore et al., 2006; Jord[aacute]n-
Dahlgren, 1992).
A number of features have been shown to influence coral larval
settlement. Positive cues include the presence of particular species of
crustose coralline algae (Morse and Morse, 1996; Ritson-Williams et
al., 2010), microbial biofilms (Sneed et al., 2014; Webster et al.,
2004), and cryptic habitat such as crevices and holes (Edmunds et al.,
2004; Edwards et al., 2014; Nozawa, 2012). Features that negatively
affect settlement include presence of sediment, turf algae, sediment
bound in turf algae, and macroalgae (Birrell et al., 2005; Kuffner et
al., 2006; Richmond et al., 2018; Speare et al., 2019; Vermeij et al.,
2009). While sediment, turf algae, and macroalgae are all natural
features of the coral reef ecosystem, it is the relative proportion of
free space versus occupied space that influences recruitment;
recruitment rate is positively correlated with free space (Connell et
al., 1997). The recruitment substrate feature is adversely affected by
four of the major threats to the five corals: Ocean acidification,
trophic effects of reef fishing, nutrient enrichment, and
sedimentation.
The dominance of fleshy macroalgae as major space-occupiers on many
Caribbean coral reefs impedes the recruitment of new corals. A shift in
benthic community structure over recent decades from the dominance of
stony corals to fleshy algae on Caribbean coral reefs is generally
attributed to the greater persistence of fleshy macroalgae under
reduced grazing regimes due to human overexploitation of herbivorous
fishes (Edwards et al., 2014; Hughes, 1994; Jackson et al., 2014) and
the regional mass mortality of the herbivorous long-spined sea urchin
in 1983-84 (Hughes et al., 1987). As overall coral cover has declined,
the absolute area occupied by macroalgae has increased and herbivore
grazing capacity is spread more thinly across a
[[Page 76307]]
larger relative amount of space (Williams et al., 2001). Further,
impacts to water quality (principally nutrient input) coupled with low
herbivore grazing are also believed to enhance fleshy macroalgal
productivity. Fleshy macroalgae are able to colonize dead coral
skeleton and other available substrate, preempting space available for
coral recruitment (McCook et al., 2001; Pastorok and Bilyard, 1985).
The increasing frequency of coral mortality events, such as the 2014-
2016 global bleaching event, continues to increase the amount of dead
skeleton available to be colonized by algae.
The persistence of fleshy macroalgae under reduced grazing regimes
also negatively impacts CCA growth, potentially reducing settlement
cues which may reduce settlement of coral larvae (Sharp et al., 2010).
Most CCA are susceptible to fouling by fleshy algae, particularly when
herbivores are absent (Steneck, 1986). Patterns observed in St. Croix,
USVI, also indicate a strong positive correlation between CCA abundance
and herbivory (Steneck and Testa, 1997). Both turf and macroalgal cover
increases and CCA cover decreases with reductions in herbivory, which
may last for a period of time even when herbivores are reintroduced (de
Ruyter van Steveninck and Bak, 1986; Liddell and Ohlhorst, 1986; Miller
et al., 1999). The ability of fleshy macroalgae to affect growth and
survival of CCA has indirect, yet important, impacts on the ability of
coral larvae to successfully settle and recruit.
In addition to the direct impacts of ocean acidification on the
corals from reduced aragonite saturation state (discussed later in this
section), significant impacts to recruitment habitat are also expected.
Kuffner et al. (2007) and Jokiel et al. (2008) showed dramatic declines
in the growth rate of CCA and other reef organisms, and an increase in
the growth of fleshy algae at atmospheric CO2 levels
expected later this century. The decrease in CCA growth, coupled with
rapid growth of fleshy algae, will result in less available habitat and
more competition for settlement and recruitment of new coral colonies.
Several studies show that coral recruitment tends to be greater
when macroalgal biomass is low (Birrell et al., 2008a; Birrell et al.,
2005; Birrell et al., 2008b; Connell et al., 1997; Edmunds et al.,
2004; Hughes, 1985; Kuffner et al., 2006; Rogers et al., 1984; Vermeij,
2006). In addition to preempting space for coral larvae settlement,
many fleshy macroalgae produce secondary metabolites with generalized
toxicity that also may inhibit larval settlement, recruitment, and
survival (Kuffner and Paul, 2004; Kuffner et al., 2006; Paul et al.,
2011). Furthermore, algal turfs can trap sediments (Kendrick, 1991;
Nugues and Roberts, 2003a; Purcell and Bellwood, 2001; Purcell, 2000;
Steneck and Testa, 1997; Wilson and Harrison, 2003), which then creates
the potential for algal turfs and sediments to act in combination to
hinder coral settlement (Birrell et al., 2005; Nugues and Roberts,
2003a). These turf algae-sediment mats also can suppress coral growth
under high sediment conditions (Nugues and Roberts, 2003b) and may
gradually kill the marginal tissues of stony corals with which they
come into contact (Dustan, 1977).
Coral recruitment habitat is also adversely impacted by sediment
cover. Sediments enter the reef environment through many processes that
are natural or anthropogenic in origin, including coastal erosion,
coastal development, resuspension of bottom sediments, terrestrial
erosion and run-off, in-water construction, dredging for coastal
construction projects and navigation purposes, and in-water and beach
placement of dredge spoils. The rate of sedimentation affects reef
distribution, community structure, growth rates, and coral recruitment
(Dutra et al., 2006). Accumulation of sediment can smother living
corals, cover dead coral skeleton, and exposed hard substrate
(Erftemeijer et al., 2012; Fabricius, 2005). 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). The location of larval settlement must be
free of sediment for attachment to occur (Harrington et al., 2004;
Mundy and Babcock, 1998).
The depth of sediments over hard substrate affects the duration
that the substrate may be unavailable for settlement. The deeper the
sediment, the longer it may take for natural waves and currents to
remove the sediment from the settlement substrate. Lirman et al. (2003)
found sediment depth next to live coral colonies was approximately 1 cm
deep and significantly lower than mean sediment depth collected
haphazardly on the reef. Sediment deposition threshold criteria have
recently been proposed for classifying sediment impacts to reef
habitats based on threshold values in peer-reviewed studies and new
modeling approaches (Nelson et al., 2016). Nelson et al. (2016) suggest
that sediment depth greater than 1 cm represents a significant impact
to corals, while sediment between 0.5 and 1 cm depth represents a
moderate impact, with the ability to recover. Nelson et al. (2016)
identify sediment depth less than 0.5 cm as posing minimal stress to
corals and settlement habitat.
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). Sedimentation,
therefore, impacts the health and survivorship of all life stages
(i.e., adults, fragments, larvae, and recruits) of corals, in addition
to adversely affecting recruitment habitat.
The literature provides several recommendations on maximum
sedimentation rates 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 (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) suggest 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) suggest 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 above
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
[[Page 76308]]
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.
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 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 structures. The proposed essential feature 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 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 Area 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 occur 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. The 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.
Temperature is a particularly important limiting factor of coral
habitat. Corals occur in a fairly-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 fairly-narrow range (typically 25
[deg]C-29 [deg]C) as indicated by the formation of coral reefs
(Brainard et al., 2011; Kleypas et al., 1999; Stoddart, 1969; Vaughan,
1919). Short-term exposures (days) to temperature increases of a few
degrees (i.e., 3 [deg]C-4 [deg]C increase above climatological 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 (Negri and Heyward, 2000;
Nozawa and Harrison, 2007) and cause increases in coral disease (Jones
et al., 2004b; 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 (Baker et al., 2008;
Berkelmans, 2002; Brown, 1997; Coles and Brown, 2003; Coles and Riegl;
Jokiel, 2004; Jones, 2008)). The tolerance of corals to temperature is
species-specific (Barker, 2018; Bruno et al., 2007; Eakin et al., 2010;
Heron et al., 2010; Ruzicka et al., 2013; Smith and Buddemeier, 1992;
van Woesik et al., 2011; Vega-Rodriguez et al., 2015) and depends on
suites of other variables that include acclimation temperature,
aragonite saturation state, dissolved inorganic nitrogen (Barker, 2018;
Cunning and Baker, 2013; Fabricius, 2005; Wooldridge, 2013); suspended
sediments and turbidity (Anthony et al.; Devlin-Durante et al.); trace
metals such as copper (Kwok et al., 2016; Negri and Hoogenboom, 2011;
Woods et al., 2016); ultraviolet radiation (Anthony et al., 2007); and
salinity, nitrates, and phosphates (Negri and Hoogenboom, 2011), among
other physical, physiological, and chemical stressors (Barker, 2018).
Ocean warming is one of the most significant threats to the five
ESA-listed Caribbean corals (Brainard et al., 2011). Mean seawater
temperatures in reef-building coral habitat in both the Caribbean and
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). 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; Whelan et al., 2007). Corals can withstand
mild to moderate bleaching; however, severe, repeated, or prolonged
bleaching can lead to colony death (Brown, 1997; Whelan et al., 2007).
Increased sea surface temperatures are occurring more frequently and
leading to multiple mass bleaching events (Hughes et al., 2017), which
are reoccurring too rapidly for coral populations to rebound in between
(Hughes et al., 2018).
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; Putnam et al., 2008; Randall and Szmant,
2009) 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
(Brandt and McManus, 2009; Jones et al., 2004a; Lafferty et al., 2004;
Miller et al., 2009; Muller et al., 2008). Outbreaks also follow
seasonal patterns of high seawater temperatures (Sato et al., 2009;
Willis et al., 2004).
Coles and Brown (2003) defined a general bleaching threshold for
reef-
[[Page 76309]]
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; Goreau and Hayes, 1994; Podesta and Glynn, 1997). NOAA's
Coral Reef Watch Program utilizes the Degree Heating Week method (Glynn
& 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 4 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. The mineral form of calcium carbonate used by corals to form
their skeletons is aragonite. The more carbonate ions 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 below this level. 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 (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). In addition to effects on growth and calcification, recent
laboratory experiments have shown that increased CO2 also
substantially impairs fertilization and settlement success in Acropora
palmata (Albright et al., 2010). 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 the water column in coral reef habitats (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
[[Page 76310]]
coral reef waters. Nutrients are a major component of land-based
sources of pollution (LBSP), which is one of the most significant
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 high increase in a
nutrient may result in a severe adverse response, just as a chronic,
lower concentration might. Increased nutrients can result in adverse
responses in all life stages and affect most physiological processes,
resulting in reduced number and size of gametes (Ward and Harrison,
2000), reduced fertilization (Harrison and Ward, 2001), reduced growth,
mortality (Ferrier-Pages et al., 2000; Koop et al., 2001), increased
disease progression (Vega Thurber et al., 2013; Voss and Richardson,
2006), tissue loss (Bruno et al., 2003), and bleaching (Kuntz et al.,
2005; Wiedenmann et al., 2012).
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, beyond which reefs are assumed to be 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, 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 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 et al., 2008). 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 above, 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). 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 (esp. 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
[[Page 76311]]
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/m\2\) of 450 [mu]mol
photons second/m\2\ globally for coral reefs. The above 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
the intensity and duration of the particular conditions. 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). By reducing water clarity, turbidity also 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 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). Adverse 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 adverse effects of oil pollution on corals
that 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 O. 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). Exposure to oil,
dispersants, and a combination of oil and dispersant significantly
decreased settlement and survival of Porites astreoides and Orbicella
faveolata larvae (Goodbody-Gringley et al., 2013).
Anthracene (a PAH that is used in dyes, wood preservatives,
insecticides, and coating materials) exposure to apparently healthy
fragments and diseased fragments (Caribbean yellow band disease) 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 exposure to PAHs such as anthracene compared to 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''
ultraviolet (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 in zooxanthellae that had been
isolated from the coral host and grown in culture (Shaw et al., 2012a).
Irgarol, an additive in copper-based antifouling paints, significantly
reduced settlement in
[[Page 76312]]
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, while exposure of up to 6.0 [micro]g/L of
permethrin did not result in reduced larval survivorship. 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., sunscreen, shampoo, body lotions, soap, detergents),
product coatings (oil-based paints, polyurethanes), acrylic adhesives,
and plastics that protects against damage from UV light. It is released
into the ocean through municipal and boat/ship wastewater discharges,
landfill leachates, residential septic fields, and unmanaged cesspits
(Downs et al., 2014). BP-2 is a known endocrine disruptor and a DNA
mutagen, and its effects are worse in the light. It caused deformation
of scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata larvae, changing them from
a motile planktonic state to a deformed sessile condition at low
concentrations (Downs et al., 2014). 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
UV 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 (Downs et al., 2016). Exposure to oxybenzone transformed S.
pistillata larvae from a motile state to a deformed, sessile condition
(Downs et al., 2016). 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 contaminants 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 chains. A study of the
effects of the PCB, Aroclor 1254, on the Stylophora pistillata found no
effects on coral survival, photosynthesis, or growth; however, the
exposure concentration and duration may alter the expression of certain
genes involved in various 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 up 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 (Kegler et al., 2015). The
combined effects of LAS exposure with increased temperature (+3 [deg]C,
from 28 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 above, 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 above 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 summaries above 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 five
listed coral species, though it is also possible that future species-
specific research will document that conducive or tolerance ranges for
the five Caribbean 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 range (less than 295 ft (90 m)) the corals inhabit. The proximity
of this habitat to coastal areas subjects 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 discharges of contaminants, and
fishery management. Further, the global oceans are being impacted by
climate change from greenhouse gas emissions, particularly the tropical
oceans in which the Caribbean corals occur (van Hooidonk et al., 2014).
The impacts from these activities, combined with those from
[[Page 76313]]
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 Area Occupied by the Species
The definition of critical habitat requires us to identify specific
areas on which are found the physical or biological features essential
to the species' conservation that may require special management
considerations or protection. Our regulations state that critical
habitat will be shown on a map, with more-detailed information
discussed in the preamble of the rulemaking documents in the Federal
Register, which will reference 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)).
Within the geographical areas occupied by each of the five corals
in U.S. waters, at the time of listing, there are five or six broad
areas in which the essential feature occurs. For each of the five
corals, boundaries of specific areas were determined by each coral's
commonly occupied minimum and maximum depth ranges within each coral's
specific geographic distribution. Across all five coral species, a
total of 28 specific areas were identified as being under consideration
for critical habitat designation. There are five or six specific areas
per species, depending on whether it occurs in FGB; one each in
Florida, Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, USVI, St. Croix, USVI,
FGB, and Navassa Island. Within each of these areas, the individual
species' specific areas are largely-overlapping. For example, in Puerto
Rico, there are five largely-overlapping specific areas, one for each
species, that surround each of the islands. The difference between each
of the areas is the particular depth contours that were used to create
the boundaries. For example, Dendrogyra cylindrus' specific area in
Puerto Rico extends from the 1-m contour to the 25-m contour, which
mostly overlaps the Orbicella annularis specific area that extends from
the 0.5-m contour to the 20-m contour. Overlaying all of the specific
areas for each species results in the maximum geographic extent of the
areas under consideration for designation, which covers 0.5-90 m (1.6
to 295-ft) water depth around all the islands of Puerto Rico, USVI, and
Navassa, FGB, and from St. Lucie Inlet, Martin County to Dry Tortugas,
Florida.
To these specific areas, we reviewed available species occurrence,
bathymetric, substrate, and water quality data. We used the highest
resolution bathymetric data available from multiple sources depending
on the geographic location. In Florida and the FGB, we used contours
created from National Ocean Service Hydrographic Survey Data and NOAA
ENCDirect bathymetric point data (NPS) and contours created from NOAA's
Coastal Relief Model. In Puerto Rico, contours were derived from the
National Geophysical Data Center's (NGDC) 2005 U.S. Coastal Relief
Model. In USVI, we used contours derived from NOAA's 2004-2015
Bathymetric Compilation. In Navassa, contours were derived from NOAA's
NGDC 2006 bathymetric data. These bathymetric data (i.e., depth
contours) were used with other geographic or management boundaries to
draw the boundaries of each specific area on the maps in the proposed
critical habitat designations.
Within the areas bounded by depth and species occurrence, we
evaluated available data on the essential feature. For substrate, we
used information from the NCCOS Benthic Habitat Mapping program that
provides data and maps at http://products.coastalscience.noaa.gov/collections/benthic/default.aspx and the Unified Florida Reef Tract Map
found at https://myfwc.com/research/gis/regional-projects/unified-reef-map/. Using GIS software, we extracted all habitat classifications that
could be considered potential recruitment habitat, including hardbottom
and coral reef. The benthic habitat information assisted in identifying
any major gaps in the distribution of the substrate essential feature.
The data show that hard substrate is unevenly distributed throughout
the ranges of the species. However, there are large areas where benthic
habitat characterization data are still lacking, particularly deeper
than 30 m (99 ft). Therefore, we made assumptions that the substrate
feature does exist in those areas, though in unknown quantities,
because the species occur there. The available data also represent a
snapshot in time, while the exact location of the habitat feature may
change over time (e.g., natural sediment movement covering or exposing
hard substrate).
There are areas within the geographical and depth ranges of the
species that contain natural hard substrates that, due to their
consistently disturbed nature, do not provide the quality of substrate
essential for the conservation of threatened corals. These disturbances
may be naturally occurring or caused by human activities. 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 habitat for coral growth and survival over time. These
``managed areas,'' for the purposes of this proposed rule, are specific
areas where the substrate has been persistently disturbed by planned
management activities authorized by local, state, or Federal
governmental entities at the time of critical habitat designation, and
expectations are that the areas will continue to be periodically
disturbed by such management activities. Examples include, but are not
necessarily limited to, dredged navigation channels, vessel berths, and
active anchorages. These managed areas are not under consideration for
critical habitat designation.
[[Page 76314]]
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.
GIS data of the locations of some managed areas were available and
extracted from the maps of the specific areas being considered for
critical habitat designation. These data were not available for every
managed area; however, regardless of whether the managed area is
extracted from the maps depicting the specific areas being proposed as
critical habitat, no managed areas are part of the specific areas that
contain the essential feature.
The nearshore surf zones of Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-
Dade Counties are also consistently disturbed by naturally-high
sediment movement, suspension, and deposition levels. Hard substrate
areas found within these nearshore surf zones are ephemeral in nature
and are frequently covered by sand, and the threatened coral species
have never been observed there. Thus, this area (water in depths from 0
ft to 6.5 ft [0 m to 2 m] offshore St. Lucie Inlet to Government Cut)
does not contain the essential feature and is not considered part of
the specific areas under consideration for critical habitat. The
shallow depth limit (i.e., inshore boundary) was identified based on
the lack of these or any reef building corals occurring in this zone,
indicating conditions are not suitable for their settlement and
recruitment into the population. These conditions do not exist in the
area south of Government Cut, nor in the nearshore zones around the
islands of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In these areas the
hydrodynamics allow for the growth of some (e.g., Orbicella spp.) of
the threatened coral in the shallow depths.
Due to the ephemeral nature of conditions within the water column
and the various scales at which water quality data are collected, this
aspect of the essential feature is difficult to map at fine spatial or
temporal scales. However, annually-averaged plots of temperature,
aragonite saturation, nitrate, phosphate, and light, at relatively
large spatial scale (e.g., 1[deg] X 1[deg] grid) are available from
Guan et al. (2015), using 2009 data for some parameters, and updated
with newer data from the World Ocean Atlas (2013) for temperature and
nutrients. Those maps indicate that conditions that support coral reef
growth, and thus coral demographic functions, occur throughout the
specific areas under consideration.
Based on the available data, we identified 28 mostly-overlapping
specific areas that contain the essential feature. The units can
generally be grouped as the: (1) Florida units, (2) Puerto Rico units,
(3) St. Thomas/St. John units (STT/STJ), (4) St. Croix units, (5)
Navassa units, and (6) FGB units. Within each group of units, each
species has its own unique unit that is specific to its geographic and
depth distributions. Therefore, within a group there are five mostly-
overlapping units--one for each species. The exception is that there
are only three completely-overlapping units in the FGB group, because
only the three species of Orbicella occur there. The essential feature
is unevenly distributed throughout these 28 specific areas. Within
these areas there exists a mosaic of habitats at relatively small
spatial scales, some of which naturally contain the essential features
(e.g., coral reefs) and some of which do not (e.g., seagrass beds).
Further, within these large areas, specific managed areas and naturally
disturbed areas, as described above, also exist. Due to the spatial
scale at which the essential feature exists interspersed with these
other habitats and disturbed areas, we are not able to more discretely
delineate the specific areas under consideration for critical habitat
designation.
Unoccupied Critical Habitat Areas
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. Our regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(b)(2) further explain that unoccupied areas shall only be
designated after determining that occupied areas are inadequate to
ensure the conservation of the species, and the unoccupied areas are
reasonably certain to contribute to the conservation of the species and
contain one or more essential feature.
The threats to these five corals are generally the same threats
affecting coral reefs throughout the world (climate change, fishing,
and land-based sources of pollution) and are fully described in the
final listing rule (79 FR 53852, September 10, 2014). Specifically,
ocean warming, disease, and ocean acidification are the three most
significant threats that will impact the potential for recovery of all
the listed coral species. Because the primary threats are global in
nature, adapting to changing conditions will be critical to the
species' conservation and recovery.
We issued guidance in June 2016 on the treatment of climate change
uncertainty in ESA decisions, which addresses critical habitat
specifically (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/endangered-species-act-guidance-policies-and-regulations). The guidance states that, when designating critical
habitat, NMFS will consider proactive designation of unoccupied habitat
as critical habitat when there are 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. Further, we will only consider unoccupied areas to be
essential where a critical habitat designation limited to geographical
areas occupied would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species (50 CFR 424.12(b)(2). We specifically address this
consideration for threatened Caribbean corals in this section.
All five corals occur in the Caribbean, an area predicted to have
more rapid and severe impacts from climate change (van Hooidonk et al.,
2014). Shifting into previously unoccupied habitats that become more
suitable as other parts of their range become less suitable may be a
strategy these corals employ in the future to adapt to changing
conditions. However, due to the nature of the Caribbean basin, there is
little opportunity for range expansion. The only area of potential
expansion is north up the Florida coast. Several of the five coral
species have different northern limits to their current range, with
Orbicella faveolata's limit at St. Lucie Inlet, Martin County, Florida,
being the farthest north and at the limit of coral reef formation in
Florida for these species. A northern range expansion along Florida's
coast beyond this limit is unlikely due to lack of evidence of
historical reef growth under warmer climates. Further, northern
expansion is inhibited by hydrographic conditions (Walker and Gilliam,
2013). The other corals could theoretically expand into the area
between their current northern extents to the limit of reef formation.
However, temperature is not likely the factor limiting occupation of
those areas, given the presence of other reef-
[[Page 76315]]
building corals. Thus, there are likely other non-climate-related
factors limiting the northern extent of the corals' ranges.
Because the extent of the proposed critical habitat designations is
the entire occupied areas of the species, we believe that the
designations are adequate to provide for the conservation of the five
corals. Further, no unoccupied areas exist that would add to the
conservation of the five corals. Therefore, we are not considering any
unoccupied areas for designation of critical habitat for the five
corals.
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 determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h) provide that, in determining whether an
applicable benefit is provided, we will consider:
(1) The extent of the area and features present;
(2) The type and frequency of use of the area by the 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 from the types of effects that would be addressed
through a destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis.
Naval Air Station Key West (NASKW) is the only installation
controlled by the DoD, specifically the Department of the Navy (Navy),
that coincides with any of the areas under consideration for critical
habitat. On September 21, 2015, the Navy requested in writing that the
areas covered by the 2014 INRMP for NASKW not be designated as critical
habitat, pursuant to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), and provided the INRMP
for our review.
The NASKW INRMP covers the lands and waters--generally out to 50
yards (45.7 m)--adjacent to NASKW, including several designated
restricted areas (see INRMP figures C-1 through C-14). The total area
of the waters covered by the INRMP that overlaps with areas considered
for the proposed critical habitat is approximately 800 acres. Within
this area, four of the threatened corals (D. cylindrus, O. annularis,
O. faveolata, and O. franksi) and the proposed essential feature are
present in densities and proportions similar to those throughout the
rest of the nearshore habitat in the Florida Keys. The species use this
area in the same way that they do all areas proposed for critical
habitat--to carry out all life functions. As detailed in Chapter 4 and
Appendix C of the INRMP, the plan provides benefits to the threatened
corals and existing Acropora critical habitat through the following
NASKW broad programs and activities: (1) Erosion control--which will
prevent sediments from entering into the water; (2) Boca Chica Clean
Marina Designation--which eliminates or significantly reduces the
release of nutrients and contaminants; (3) stormwater quality
improvements--which prevent or reduce the amount of nutrients,
sediments, and contaminants; and (4) wastewater treatment--which
reduces the release of nutrients and contaminants consistent with
Florida Surface Water Quality Standards. Within these categories, there
are 15 specific management activities and projects that provide benefit
to the corals and their habitat (see Table 4-2 of the INRMP). These
types of best management practices have been ongoing at NASKW since
1983; thus, they are likely to continue into the future. Further, the
plan specifically provides assurances that all NASKW staff have the
authority and funding (subject to appropriations) to implement the
plan. The plan also provides assurances that the conservation efforts
will be effective through annual reviews conducted by state and Federal
natural resource agencies. These activities provide a benefit to the
species and the identified essential feature in the proposed critical
habitat designations by reducing sediment and nutrient discharges into
nearshore waters, which addresses some of the particular conservation
and protection needs that critical habitat would afford. These
activities are similar to those that we describe below as project
modifications for avoiding or reducing adverse effects to the proposed
critical habitat. Therefore, were we to consult on the activities in
the INRMP that may affect the proposed critical habitat, we would
likely not require any project modifications based on best management
practices in the INRMP. Further, the INRMP includes provisions for
monitoring and evaluating conservation effectiveness, which will ensure
continued benefits to the species. Annual reviews of the INRMP for
2011-2015 found that the INRMP executions, including actions that
minimize or eliminate land-based sources of pollution, ``satisfied'' or
``more than satisfied'' conservation objectives. We believe the NASKW
INRMP provides the types of benefits to the threatened corals described
in our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
Four (D. cylindrus, O. annularis, O. faveolata, and O. franksi) of
the five corals' specific areas overlap with NASKW, based on the depth
in which the species occur and the distance from shore covered by
NASKW's INRMP. Therefore, pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA,
we determined that the INRMP provides a benefit to those threatened
corals, and we are not designating critical habitat within the
boundaries covered by the INRMP.
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, based upon the best scientific
and commercial data available, the benefits of exclusion (that is,
avoiding some or all of the impacts that would result from designation)
outweigh the benefits of designation. 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),
[[Page 76316]]
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 discussion of impacts is summarized from our Draft
Information Report, which identifies the economic, national security,
and other relevant impacts that we projected would result from
including each of the specific areas in the proposed critical habitat
designations. We considered these impacts when deciding whether to
exercise our discretion to propose excluding particular areas from the
designations. 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 to particular impacts.
The primary impacts of a critical habitat designation result from
the ESA section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies ensure 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 they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical
habitat beyond any modifications they would make because of listing and
the requirement to avoid jeopardy to listed corals. When the same
modification would be required due to impacts to both the species and
critical habitat, there would be no additional or incremental impact
attributable to the critical habitat designation beyond the
administrative impact associated with conducting the critical habitat
analysis. Relevant, existing regulatory protections are referred to as
the ``baseline'' for the analysis and are discussed in the Draft
Information Report. In this case, notable baseline protections include
the ESA listings of the threatened corals, and the existing critical
habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals (73 FR 72210; November 26,
2008).
The Draft Information Report describes the projected future Federal
activities that would trigger section 7 consultation requirements if
they are implemented in the future, because they may affect the
essential feature and consequently may result in economic costs or
negative impacts. The report also identifies the potential national
security and other relevant impacts that may arise due to the proposed
critical habitat designations, such as positive impacts that may arise
from conservation of the species and its habitat, state and local
protections that may be triggered as a result of designation, and
education of the public to the importance of an area for species
conservation.
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. The economic impacts of
consultation may include both administrative and project modification
costs; economic impacts that may be associated with the conservation
benefits resulting from consultation are described later.
In 2016, we examined the ESA section 7 consultation record for the
period 2004-2014, as compiled in our Public Consultation Tracking
System (PCTS) database, to identify the types of Federal activities
that may affect the five threatened Caribbean corals' proposed critical
habitat. We will also review more recent consultation information prior
to the publication of any final rule. We requested that Federal action
agencies provide us with information on any additional future
consultations that may affect the proposed critical habitat, and
therefore should be included in our analysis. Of the types of past
consultations that may affect the essential feature in any unit of
proposed critical habitat, we determined that none of the activities
would solely affect the essential feature. That is, all categories of
the activities identified have potential routes of effects to both the
threatened corals and the critical habitat.
We identified the following 10 categories of activities implemented
by six different Federal entities as having the potential to affect the
essential feature of the five corals' critical habitat:
Coastal and in-water construction (e.g. docks, seawalls,
piers, marinas, port expansions, anchorages, pipelines/cables, bridge
repairs, aids to navigation, etc.) conducted or authorized by U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE);
Channel dredging (maintenance dredging of existing
channels and offshore disposal of dredged material) conducted or
authorized by USACE;
Beach nourishment/shoreline protection (placement of sand
onto eroding beaches from onshore or offshore borrow sites) conducted
or authorized by USACE;
Water quality management (revision of state water quality
standards, issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits and Total Maximum daily load (TMDL) standards under the
CWA, and pesticide registrations under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) authorized by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA);
Protected area management (development of management plans
for national parks, marine sanctuaries, wildlife refuges, etc.)
conducted by the National Park Service (NPS) and NOAA National Ocean
Service (NOS);
Fishery management (development of fishery management
plans under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act) conducted by NMFS;
Aquaculture (development of aquaculture facilities)
authorized by EPA and USACE, and funded by NMFS; and
Military activities (e.g., training exercises) conducted
by DoD.
By conducting interviews and querying the database for these
categories of activities in the maximum geographic extent of the sum of
the five corals' proposed critical habitat, we estimate that 5
programmatic, 39 formal, and 272 informal section 7 consultations (for
a total of 307) are likely to occur over the next 10 years and will
require analysis of impacts to the proposed critical habitat. Because
we have data on past consultations for impacts to the acroporid corals
as well as their critical habitat, we believe it is a reasonable
assumption that the breakout of the type of past consultations (into
informal, formal, and programmatic consultations) likely reflects the
breakout of future consultations. In addition to the type of
consultation, we also present the data across the geopolitical groups
of units (i.e., the scale at which economic data is collected) that
overlap with the maximum geographic extent (i.e., the area that is
determined by the species with the widest geographic and depth ranges)
of the proposed critical habitat designations. We are not able to
display the data by individual species' specific areas due to the
largely overlapping but
[[Page 76317]]
distinct nature of the specific areas for all the species within a
geopolitical area, and the limitations on the way the historical
consultation data are recorded (i.e., by county or region, rather than
specific location).
As discussed in more detail in our Draft Information Report, all
categories of activities identified as having the potential to affect
the proposed essential feature also have the potential to affect the
threatened Caribbean corals. To estimate the economic impacts of
critical habitat designation, our analysis compares the state of the
world with and without the designation of critical habitat for the five
corals. The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the
baseline for the analysis, considering protections already afforded the
proposed critical habitat as a result of the listing of the five corals
as threatened species and as a result of other Federal, state, and
local regulations or protections, notably the previous designation of
critical habitat for the two Caribbean acroporids. The ``with critical
habitat'' scenario describes the state of the world with the critical
habitat designations. The incremental impacts that will be associated
specifically with these critical habitat designations if finalized as
proposed are the difference between the two scenarios. Baseline
protections exist in large areas proposed for designation; however,
there is uncertainty as to the degree of protection that these
protections provide. In particular:
The five corals are present in each of the areas proposed
for them, and are already expected to receive significant protections
related to the listing of the species under the ESA that may also
protect the critical habitat. However, there is uncertainty on whether
a particular species may be present within a particular project site,
due to their patchy distribution throughout their habitat.
The 2008 Acropora critical habitat designation overlaps
significantly with the specific areas under consideration, and the
overlap includes the areas where the vast majority of projects and
activities potentially affected are projected to occur. The existing
critical habitat designation shares the substrate aspect of the
essential feature with this proposed designation for the five corals,
but not the water quality components. The activities that may affect
the proposed critical habitat water column feature are the same as
those that would affect the Acropora critical habitat substrate
feature, with the exception of activities that would increase water
temperature.
Incremental impacts result from changes in the management of
projects and activities, above and beyond those changes resulting from
existing required or voluntary conservation efforts undertaken due to
other Federal, state, and local regulations or guidelines (baseline
requirements). The added administrative costs of considering critical
habitat in section 7 consultation and the additional impacts of
implementing conservation efforts (i.e., reasonable and prudent
alternatives in the case of an adverse modification finding) resulting
from the designation of critical habitat are the direct, incremental
compliance costs of designating critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat for the five corals is unlikely to
result in any new section 7 consultations. Given the listing of the
five corals, and the fact that the proposed critical habitat overlaps,
in part, with Acropora critical habitat, section 7 consultations are
already likely to occur for activities with a Federal nexus throughout
the proposed critical habitat areas. However, the need to address
adverse modification of the proposed critical habitat in future
consultations will add an incremental administrative burden, but only
for those activities that would not have affected Acropora critical
habitat (i.e., the Federal action areas are outside the boundaries or
the actions involve increases in water temperature that is not
considered under existing Acropora critical habitat). Thus, some of the
categories of activities identified above as having the potential to
affect the proposed critical habitat will not result in incremental
impacts due to these designations. We estimate that 1 programmatic, 19
formal and 34 informal, for a total of 54 consultations will result in
incremental costs over the next 10 years. Table 2 shows the predicted
number of consultations, by activity and Federal agency, that are
projected to result in incremental costs.
Table 2--Forecast Incremental Section 7 Consultations by Activity and Action Agency (2016-2025)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal &
in-water Channel Beach Water Military
Unit construction dredging nourishment quality (NAVY) Total
(USACE) (USACE) (USACE) mgmt. (EPA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida.......................... 24 5 4 2 2 37
Puerto Rico...................... 4 0 0 7 0 11
STT/STJ.......................... 1 0 0 2 0 3
St. Croix........................ 0 0 0 2 0 2
Navassa.......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
FGB.............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 29 5 4 19 2 54
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of Total............... 43% 9% 7% 35% 4% 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administrative effort required to address adverse effects to
the proposed critical habitat is assumed to be the same, on average,
across activities regardless of the type of activity (e.g., beach
nourishment versus channel dredging). Informal consultations are
expected to require comparatively low levels of administrative effort,
while formal and programmatic consultations are expected to require
comparatively higher levels of administrative effort. For all formal
and informal consultations, we anticipate that incremental
administrative costs will be incurred by NMFS, a Federal action agency,
and potentially a third party (e.g., applicant, permittee). For
programmatic consultations, we anticipate that costs will be incurred
by NMFS and a Federal action agency. Incremental administrative costs
per consultation effort are expected on average to be $9,200 for
programmatic consultations, $5,100 for formal consultations, and $2,400
for informal consultations. The cost per consultation effort is
multiplied by the number of each anticipated type of consultation
(i.e., programmatic, formal, and
[[Page 76318]]
informal) within each unit under consideration. Incremental
administrative costs are expected to total approximately $140,000 over
the next 10 years for an annualized cost of $20,000 (discounted at 7
percent as required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)).
To determine the incremental impact of the designations of critical
habitat from project modifications triggered specifically to avoid
potential destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we
evaluated whether and where critical habitat designations may generate
project modifications above and beyond those undertaken under the
baseline, for example, to avoid jeopardy to the five corals or to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of existing Acropora critical
habitat. Depending on the circumstances, project modifications may be
considered baseline (e.g., would be required regardless of critical
habitat designation) or incremental (e.g., resulting from critical
habitat designation). The types of project modifications that may be
recommended to avoid adverse modification of the five corals critical
habitat are the same as those that would be recommended to avoid
adverse modification of the existing Acropora critical habitat (with
the exception of modifications to address increases in water
temperature), or to avoid jeopardy to the five corals. Whether projects
will require modifications solely due to the proposed critical habitat
will depend on: (1) Geographic location, (2) activity type, and (3)
results of surveys to determine the potential presence of at least one
of the five corals. Project modifications would be incremental only in
cases where the five listed corals are all absent and thus would not be
affected, and the project would also not affect existing Acropora
critical habitat.
We conducted the following steps to quantify the incremental
impacts of potential project modifications to the activities that we
ultimately concluded would not affect one of the five corals and
Acropora critical habitat: (1) Identified the types and occurrence of
activities that are likely to be affected by the proposed critical
habitat designations, (2) projected the likelihood that forecasted
activities will in fact need to be modified, and (3) estimated the
average costs of modifications needed to comply with the ESA's critical
habitat provisions. Based on this analysis, incremental project
modifications and associated costs are projected to result only from
coastal and in-water construction, channel dredging, beach nourishment/
shoreline protection, water quality management activities, and military
activities.
We recognize that uncertainty exists regarding whether, where, and
how frequently surveys will identify the presence of the five coral
species. Should one of the listed corals be present within the area of
a future project that may also affect proposed critical habitat, the
costs of project modifications would not be incremental to the critical
habitat. To reflect the uncertainty with respect to the likelihood that
these consultations will require additional project modifications due
to impacts to new critical habitat, we estimated a range of costs. The
low-end estimate assumes that no incremental project modifications will
occur because any project modifications would be required to address
impacts to one of the five corals or to existing Acropora critical
habitat in a project area. The high-end estimate assumes that all the
project modifications would be incremental because none of the five
corals are present and the action would not affect existing Acropora
critical habitat. Taking into consideration the types and cost
estimates of the project modifications that may be required for
predicted consultations identified, we estimate the high-end
incremental costs, which total $880,000 over 10 years for an annualized
cost of $88,000 (discounted at 7 percent).
Total incremental costs resulting from the five corals critical
habitat are estimated to range from $140,000 to $1.02 million over 10
years, an annualized cost of $20,000 to $140,000 (discounted at 7
percent). The low-end costs are a result of the increased
administrative effort to analyze impacts to the proposed critical
habitat in future consultations on activities that are not projected to
affect Acropora critical habitat (i.e., in areas outside the
boundaries, projects with impacts to water temperature, or pesticide
registrations). The high-end costs are a result of the increased
administrative effort (i.e., low-end costs) plus the incremental
project modification costs that stem solely from the proposed critical
habitat. Incremental project modification costs are a result of future
consultations that are not projected to have effects on Acropora
critical habitat. The high-end costs also assume that the project
modifications will be solely a result of the proposed critical habitat,
and not the presence of the species. However, the high-end estimate is
very likely an overestimate on incremental costs because an
undetermined number of future consultations will have project
modifications that address adverse effects to one or more of the five
corals, as well as adverse effects to the new critical habitat. Nearly
86 percent of total high-end incremental costs result from project
modifications, primarily for coastal and in-water construction and
water quality management consultations. The relative percentage costs
by unit and depth is illustrated in Table 3 and Table 4 for the low-end
and high-end scenarios, respectively (depth is included to illustrate
areas being proposed beyond existing Acropora critical habitat, which
extends to 30 m). At the high end, approximately 30 percent of these
costs is related to activity in Florida and another 50 percent is
related to activity occurring in Puerto Rico. This cost distribution is
as expected due to the size of the human populations adjacent to the
proposed units, and thus human activity, in these jurisdictions, as
compared to the other units. In other words, the highest proportion of
the incremental costs occurs in those units with the highest number of
future consultations, which is proportional to the human population
adjacent to those units.
Table 3--Low-End Total Incremental Costs (Administrative) by Unit, 2016-2025 ($2015, 7 percent discount rate)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value impacts Annualized impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Shore to 30 m 30 m to 90 m All depths % of Total Shore to 30 m 30 m to 90 m All depths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida................................. $15,000 $25,000 $40,000 30 $2,000 $3,600 $5,700
Puerto Rico............................. 22,000 49,000 70,000 50 3,100 7,000 10,000
STT/STJ................................. 4,000 10,000 14,000 10 600 1,400 2000
St. Croix............................... 4,000 10,000 14,000 0 600 1,400 2000
Navassa................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[[Page 76319]]
FGB..................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 45,000 95,000 140,000 100 6,300 13,500 20,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The estimates may not sum to the totals reported due to rounding.
Table 4--High-End Total Incremental Costs (Administrative and Project Modification) by Unit, 2016-2025 ($2015, 7 percent discount rate)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value impacts Annualized Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Shore to 30 m 30 m to 90 m All depths % of Total Shore to 30 m 30 m to 90 m All depths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida................................. $385,000 $154,000 $540,000 53 $55,000 $22,300 $77,700
Puerto Rico............................. 22,000 408,000 429,000 42 3,100 57,700 60,700
STT/STJ................................. 4,000 29,000 33,000 3 600 3,600 4,700
St. Croix............................... 4,000 10,000 14,000 1 600 1,400 2,000
Navassa................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FGB..................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total............................... 415,000 604,000 1,020,000 100 59,000 83,000 140,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The estimates may not sum to the totals reported due to rounding.
Tables 5 and 6 present total low and high-end incremental costs by
activity type. The activity with the highest costs is coastal and in-
water construction, ranging from $70,600 to $500,000 over 10 years
(discounted at 7 percent). At the high end this represents
approximately 50 percent of the total costs. This result is expected
because this is the category of activity with the most frequent
projects that occur in the marine environment.
Table 5--Low-End Total Incremental Costs (Administrative) by Activity, 2016-2025
[$2015, 7 percent discount rate]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal and Water Coastal and Water
Unit in-water Beach Channel quality Military Total in-water Beach Channel quality Military Total
construction nourishment dredging mgmt. activities construction nourishment dredging mgmt. activities
(USACE) (USACE) (USACE) (EPA) (Navy) ......... (USACE) (USACE) (USACE) (EPA) (Navy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida.......................................... $14,500 $5,600 $220 $9,200 $11,000 $32,500 $2,100 $800 $31 $670 $1,500 $4,600
Puerto Rico...................................... 45,400 4,100 5,000 10,500 3,000 63,000 6,500 580 710 1,000 600 8,900
STT/STJ.......................................... 5,800 80 230 7,880 0 6,200 830 10 30 600 0 880
St. Croix........................................ 4,900 0 950 8,000 0 6,000 700 0 140 600 0 830
Navassa.......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FGB.............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................ 70,600 9,700 6,300 36,000 14,000 140,000 10,000 1,400 910 3,000 2,100 18,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--High-End Total Incremental Costs (Administrative and Project Modification) by Activity, 2016-2025
[$2015, 7 percent discount rate]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal & Water Coastal & Water
Unit in-water Beach Channel quality Military Total in-water Beach Channel quality Military Total
const. nourishment dredging mgmt. const. nourishment dredging mgmt.
(USACE) (USACE) (USACE) (EPA) (NAVY) ......... (USACE) (USACE) (USACE) (EPA) (NAVY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL..................................................... $364,500 $80,600 $75,220 $9,200 $11,000 $532,500 $53,000 $11,800 $11,031 $170 $1,500 $76,600
PR..................................................... 101,400 4,100 5,000 310,500 3,000 422,000 14,500 580 710 43,000 600 59,390
STT/STJ................................................ 24,800 80 230 80 0 25,200 3,530 11 33 11 0 3,585
STX.................................................... 4,900 0 950 8,000 0 6,000 700 0 140 0 0 840
Nav.................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FGB.................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 500,600 84,700 81,300 336,000 14,000 1,020,000 71,000 12,000 12,000 43,000 2,100 140,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 76320]]
National Security Impacts
Our critical habitat impacts analyses recognize that impacts to
national security result only if a designation would trigger future ESA
section 7 consultations because a proposed military activity ``may
affect'' the physical or biological feature(s) essential to the listed
species' conservation. Anticipated interference with mission-essential
training or testing or unit readiness, through the additional
commitment of resources to an adverse modification analysis and
expected requirements to modify the action to prevent adverse
modification of critical habitat, has been identified as an impact of
critical habitat designations. Our impacts analyses also recognize that
whether national security impacts result from the designation depends
on whether future consultations would be required under the jeopardy
standard, due to the coral being present, regardless of the critical
habitat designation, and whether the designation would add new burdens
beyond those related to the consultation on effects to the corals.
As described previously, we identified DoD military operations as a
category of activity that has the potential to affect the essential
feature of the proposed critical habitat for the five corals. However,
most of the actions we have consulted on in the past would not result
in incremental impacts in the future, because the consultations would
be required to address impacts to either the five corals or the
substrate feature of Acropora critical habitat. Based on our review of
historical consultations, only those activities that would be conducted
in the South Florida Ocean Measuring Facility operated by the Navy
would involve incremental impacts due to the proposed designations, and
thus only consultations on naval activities in this particular area
could result in national security impacts.
In 2015, we requested the DoD provide us with information on
military activities that may affect the proposed critical habitat and
whether the proposed critical habitat would have a national security
impact due to the requirement to consult on those activities. The Navy
responded that activities associated with the designated restricted
area managed by the South Florida Ocean Measuring Facility (SFOMF-RA),
defined in 33 CFR 334.580, and located offshore of Dania, Florida, may
affect the proposed critical habitat. This assertion is supported by
two previous consultations on cable-laying activities in the SFOMF-RA
over the past 10 years.
The SFOMF-RA contains underwater cables and benthic sensor systems
that enable real-time data acquisition from Navy sensor systems used in
Navy exercises. The previous consultations, in 2011 and 2013, were for
the installation of new cables. These consultations did not affect any
coral species, because the cables were routed to avoid the corals.
These consultations did not consider effects to Acropora critical
habitat because the area was excluded from the 2008 Acropora critical
habitat designation based on national security impacts. However,
installation of the cables would have affected the substrate feature.
Because the installation of new cables in the future may affect the
proposed critical habitat substrate feature, and the area was excluded
from Acropora critical habitat, we expect that there may be an
incremental impact to the Navy due to the proposed critical habitat
designations. The impact would result from the added administrative
effort to consider impacts to the proposed critical habitat and project
modifications to avoid adverse effects to the substrate aspect of the
essential feature. These impacts would likely be incremental due to the
critical habitat designations.
The Navy has conducted extensive benthic surveys in the SFOMF-RA
and has mapped the locations of all listed corals. Thus, they would be
able to avoid impacts to the listed corals from the installation of new
cables. However, if the cables were laid over the proposed critical
habitat's substrate feature, the cable would make the substrate
unavailable for settlement and recruitment. Thus, we would require
consultation to evaluate impact of this adverse effect to the essential
feature. The administrative costs and project modification costs would
be incremental impacts of the proposed critical habitat. The Navy
concluded that critical habitat designations at the SFOMF-RA would
likely impact national security by diminishing military readiness
through the requirement to consult on their activities within critical
habitat beyond the requirement to consult on the threatened corals and
through any additional project modifications.
In 2019, the Navy requested the exclusion of the Federal Danger
Zones and Restricted Areas off NAS Key West designated in 33 CFR
334.610 and 33 CFR 334.620 in Navy's Key West Operations Area. However,
at this time NMFS is unable to make a determination and has been in
discussion with the Navy to identify the potential national security
impacts in these areas. NMFS will provide exclusion determinations for
this request in the final rule.
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. Our
Draft Impacts Analysis discusses conservation benefits of designating
the 28 specific areas, and the benefits of conserving the five corals
to society, in both ecological and economic metrics.
Conservation Benefits
The primary benefit of critical habitat designation is the
contribution to the conservation and recovery of the five 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 five
corals. The most direct benefits of the critical habitat designations
stem from the enhanced probability of conservation and recovery of the
five corals. From an economic 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. Overall, coral reef ecosystems,
including those comprising populations of the five 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
[[Page 76321]]
economic value of coral reefs in U.S. jurisdictions in 2012 has been
summarized as: (1) Florida--$324M/year, (2) Puerto Rico--$1,161M/year,
and (3) USVI--$210M/year (Brander and Van Beukering, 2013). Efforts to
conserve the five 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. There is the potential for
education and awareness benefits arising from the critical habitat
designations. This 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
designations 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, we have been
contacted by diver groups in the Florida Keys who are specifically
seeking the two Caribbean acroporid corals on dives and reporting those
locations to NMFS, thus assisting us in planning and implementing coral
conservation and management activities. 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, it is impossible to quantify the
beneficial effects of the awareness gained through, or the secondary
impacts from state and local regulations resulting from, the critical
habitat designations.
Impacts to Governmental and Private Entities With Existing Management
Plans Benefitting the Essential Features
Among other relevant impacts of the critical habitat designations
we considered under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA are impacts on
relationships with, or the efforts of, private and public entities
involved in management or conservation efforts benefiting listed
species. In some cases, 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.
Impacts on entities responsible for natural resource management,
conservation plans, or the functioning of those plans depend on the
type and number of section 7 consultations that may result from the
designations in the areas covered by those plans, as well as any
potential project modifications recommended by these consultations. As
described in section 10.1.3.5 of the Draft Information Report, there
were six past consultations on Federal protected area management plans
(three formal, three informal) in the units being proposed as critical
habitat. The three formal consultations were related to the NPS
management plans at the following Federal protected areas:
Buck Island Reef National Monument in St. Croix, U.S. VI;
Everglades National Park in Monroe County, FL; and
Biscayne National Park in Miami-Dade County, FL.
Negative impacts to the NPS could result if the critical habitat
designations interfere with these agencies' ability to provide for the
conservation of the species, or otherwise hampers management of these
areas. Existing management plans in these three protected areas and
their associated regulations protect existing coral reef resources, but
they do not specifically protect the substrate and water quality
feature for purposes of increasing listed coral abundance and eventual
recovery. Thus, the five corals' critical habitat designations would
provide unique benefits for the corals, beyond the benefits provided by
these existing management plans. However, the identified areas not only
contain the essential feature, but they also contain one or more of the
five corals, and they overlap with previously designated Acropora
critical habitat. Hence, any section 7 impacts will likely be limited
to administrative costs. Because we identified resource management as a
category of activities that may affect both the five corals and the
critical habitat, these impacts would not be incremental. In addition,
we found no evidence that relationships with the Federal protected area
managers would be negatively affected, or that negative impacts to
other agencies' ability to provide for the conservation of the listed
coral species would result from designation. Therefore, we do not
expect the critical habitat designations to impact natural resource
agencies implementing management plans.
Discretionary Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
We are not exercising our discretion to consider exclusions based
on economic impacts. Our conservative identification of the highest
potential incremental economic impacts indicates that any such impacts
will be relatively small--$20,000 to $140,000 annually. The incremental
costs are split between the incremental administrative effort and
incremental project modification costs for the relatively few (about
54) consultations over the next 10 years. Further, the analysis
indicates that there is no particular area within the units that meet
the definition of critical habitat where economic impacts would be
particularly high or concentrated as compared to the human population
and level of activities in each unit.
We are proposing to exclude one particular area on the basis of
national security impacts. National security impacts would occur in the
designated restricted area managed by the SFOMF-RA offshore Dania
Beach, Florida, which coincides with all five threatened corals'
proposed critical habitats. The area does support the essential feature
and contains the five threatened Caribbean corals. The Navy concluded
that critical habitat designations at the SFOMF-RA would likely impact
national security by diminishing military readiness through the
requirement to consult on their activities within critical habitat
beyond the requirement to consult on the threatened corals and
potentially result in additional project modifications. This
[[Page 76322]]
is likely because the Navy, which has comprehensive maps of all
threatened coral locations within the SFOMF-RA, would need to avoid
impacts to the substrate aspect of the essential feature in addition to
avoiding impacts to the listed corals themselves, should any new cables
or sensors be installed. The Navy stated that impediments to SFOMF
operations would adversely impact the Navy's ability to maintain an
underwater stealth advantage of future classes of ships and submarines
and impede our nation's ability to address emergent foreign threats.
The Navy stated that the critical habitat designations would hinder its
ability to continue carrying out the unique submarine training provided
by this facility, as no other U.S. facility has the capability to make
the cable-to-shore measurements enabled at the SFOMF that satisfy its
requirement to assure the newest submarines are not vulnerable to
electromagnetic detection. The Navy advised the loss of this capability
would directly impact new construction of submarines and submarines
already in the fleet that are being readied for deployment. Therefore,
SFOMF's activities are necessary to maintain proficiency in mission-
essential tactics for winning wars, deterring aggression, and
maintaining freedom of the seas. The excluded area comprises a very
small portion of the areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat. Navy regulations prohibit anchoring, trawling, dredging, or
attaching any object within the area; thus, the corals and their
habitat will be protected from these threats. Further, the corals and
their habitat will still be protected through ESA section 7
consultations that prohibit jeopardizing the species' continued
existence and require modifications to minimize the impacts of
incidental take. Further, we do not foresee other Federal activities
that might adversely impact critical habitat that would be exempted
from future consultation requirements due to this exclusion, since this
area is under exclusive military control. Therefore, in our judgment,
the benefit of including the particular area of the SFOMF-RA is
outweighed by the benefit of avoiding the impacts to national security
the Navy would experience if it were required to consult based on
critical habitat. Given the small area (5.5 mi\2\ (14.2 km\2\)) that
meets the definition of critical habitat encompassed by this area, we
conclude that exclusion of this area will not result in extinction of
any of the five threatened Caribbean corals.
We are not able to make a determination on the exclusion of the Key
West Operations Area at this time due to a lack of information to
conduct the proper analysis and our deadline for the proposed
designations. NMFS, in close coordination with the Navy, will
reconsider this matter consistent with the weighing factors, and will
provide 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 five threatened Caribbean 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 or monetize the benefits, we believe they are
not negligible and would be an incremental benefit of these
designations.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designations
Our critical habitat regulations state that we will show critical
habitat on a map instead of using lengthy textual descriptions to
describe critical habitat boundaries, with additional information
discussed in the preamble of the rulemaking and in agency records (50
CFR 424.12(c)). When several habitats, each satisfying the 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)).
The habitat containing the essential feature and that may require
special management considerations or protection is marine habitat of
particular depths for each species in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. The boundaries of each specific area for
each coral species are determined by the species' commonly occupied
minimum and maximum depth ranges (i.e., depth contour) within their
specific geographic distributions, as described in the literature and
observed in monitoring data. All depths are relative to mean low water
(MLW). Because the quality of the available GIS data varies based on
collection method, resolution, and processing, the proposed critical
habitat boundaries are defined by the maps in combination with the
textual information included in the proposed regulation. This textual
information clarifies and refines the location and boundaries of each
area. In particular, the textual information clarifies the proposed
boundaries of the critical habitat for each coral species based on a
specific water-depth range. The textual information also lists certain
particular areas that are not included in the proposed critical
habitat.
Occupied Critical Habitat Unit Descriptions
Table 7 describes each unit of critical habitat for each species.
It contains the geographic extent and water depths, which generally
form the boundaries of each unit.
Table 7--Description and Extent of Each Critical Habitat Unit by Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit Area (approx.
Species name Location Geographic extent Water depth range rounded)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orbicella annularis............... OANN-1............... Florida.............. Lake Worth Inlet, Palm 2-20 m (6.5-65.6 ft) 3,800 km\2\ (1,300
Beach County to mi\2\).
Government Cut, Miami-
Dade County.
Florida.............. Government Cut, Miami-Dade 0.5-20 m (1.6-65.6
County to Dry Tortugas. ft).
OANN-2............... Puerto Rico.......... All islands............... 0.5-20 m (1.6-65.6 2,100 km\2\ (830
ft). mi\2\).
OANN-3............... USVI................. All islands of St. Thomas 0.5-20 m (1.6-65.6 100 km\2\ (40
and St. John. ft). mi\2\).
OANN-4............... USVI................. All islands of St. Croix.. 0.5-20 m (1.6-65.6 230 km\2\ (89
ft). mi\2\).
OANN-5............... Navassa.............. Navassa Island............ 0.5-20 m (1.6-65.6 0.13 km\2\ (0.05
ft). mi\2\).
[[Page 76323]]
OANN-6............... FGB.................. East Flower Garden Bank 17-90 m (55-295 ft). 41 km\2\ (16 mi\2\).
and West Flower Garden
Bank.
Orbicella faveolata............... OFAV-1............... Florida.............. St. Lucie Inlet, Martin 2-90 m (6.5-295 ft). 7,900 km\2\ (3,100
County to Government Cut, mi\2\).
Miami-Dade County.
Florida.............. Government Cut, Miami-Dade 0.5-90 m (1.6-295
County to Dry Tortugas. ft).
OFAV-2............... Puerto Rico.......... All islands of Puerto Rico 0.5-90 m (1.6-295 5,500 km\2\ (2,100
ft). mi\2\).
OANN-3............... USVI................. All islands of St. Thomas 0.5-90 m (1.6-295 1,400 km\2\ (520
and St. John. ft). mi\2\).
OFAV-4............... USVI................. All islands of St. Croix.. 0.5-90 m (1.6-295 360 km\2\ (140
ft). mi\2\).
OFAV-5............... Navassa.............. Navassa Island............ 0.5-90 m (1.6-295 11 km\2\ (4 mi\2\).
ft).
OFAV-6............... FGB.................. East Flower Garden Bank 17-90 m (55-295 ft). 41 km\2\ (16 mi\2\).
and West Flower Garden
Bank.
Orbicella franksi................. OFRA-1............... Florida.............. St. Lucie Inlet, Martin 2-90 m (6.5-295 ft). 7,900 km\2\ (3,100
County to Government Cut, mi\2\).
Miami-Dade County.
Florida.............. Government Cut, Miami-Dade 0.5-90 m (1.6-295
County to Dry Tortugas. ft)..
OFRA-2............... Puerto Rico.......... All islands of Puerto Rico 0.5-90 m (1.6-295 5,500 km\2\ (2,100
ft). mi\2\).
OFRA-3............... USVI................. All islands of St. Thomas 0.5-90 m (1.6-295 1,400 km\2\ (520
and St. John. ft). mi\2\).
OFRA-4............... USVI................. All islands of St. Croix.. 0.5-90 m (1.6-295 360 km\2\ (140
ft). mi\2\).
OFRA-5............... Navassa.............. Navassa Island............ 0.5-90 m (1.6-295 11 km\2\ (4 mi\2\).
ft).
OFRA-6............... FGB.................. East Flower Garden Bank 17-90 m (55-295 ft). 41 km\2\ (16 mi\2\).
and West Flower Garden
Bank.
Dendrogyra cylindrus.............. DCYL-1............... Florida.............. Lake Worth Inlet, Palm 2-25 m (6.5-82 ft).. 4,300 km\2\ (1,700
Beach County to mi\2\).
Government Cut, Miami-
Dade County.
Florida.............. Government Cut, Miami-Dade 1-25 m (3.3-82 ft)..
County to Dry Tortugas.
DCYL-2............... Puerto Rico.......... All islands............... 1-25 m (3.3-82 ft).. 2,800 km\2\ (1,100
mi\2\).
DCYL-3............... USVI................. All islands of St. Thomas 1-25 m (3.3-82 ft)). 170 km\2\ (65
and St. John. mi\2\).
DCYL-4............... USVI................. All islands of St. Croix.. 1-25 m (3.3-82 ft).. 300 km\2\ (120
mi\2\).
DCYL-5............... Navassa.............. Navassa Island............ 1-25 m (3.3-82 ft)). 0.5 km\2\ (0.2
mi\2\).
Mycetophyllia ferox............... MFER-1............... Florida.............. Broward County to Dry 5-90 m (16.4-295 ft) 6,400 km\2\ (2,500
Tortugas. mi\2\).
MFER-2............... Puerto Rico.......... All islands of Puerto Rico 5-90 m (16.4-295 ft) 5,000 km\2\ (1,900
mi\2\).
MFER-3............... USVI................. All islands of St. Thomas 5-90 m (16.4-295 ft) 1,300 km\2\ (510
and St. John. mi\2\).
MFER-4............... USVI................. All islands of St. Croix.. 5-90 m (16.4-295 ft) 310 km\2\ (120
mi\2\).
MFER-5............... Navassa.............. Navassa Island............ 5-90 m (16.4-295 ft) 11 km\2\ (4 mi\2\).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of Critical Habitat Designations
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies, including
NMFS, to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by
the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. Federal agencies are also required to
confer with NMFS regarding any actions likely to jeopardize a species
proposed for listing under the ESA, or likely to destroy or adversely
modify proposed critical habitat, pursuant to section 7(a)(2).
A conference involves informal discussions in which NMFS may
recommend conservation measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects.
The discussions and conservation recommendations are documented in a
conference report provided to the Federal agency. If requested by the
Federal agency, a formal conference report may be issued, including a
biological opinion prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14. A formal
conference report may be adopted as the biological opinion when the
species is listed or critical habitat designated, if no significant new
information or changes to the action alter the content of the opinion.
When a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, Federal
agencies must consult with NMFS on any agency actions that may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat. During the consultation, we
evaluate the agency action to determine whether the action may
adversely affect listed species or
[[Page 76324]]
critical habitat and issue our findings in a letter of concurrence or
in a biological opinion. If we conclude in the biological opinion that
the agency action would likely result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat, we would also identify 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
where: (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 affect designated
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical
habitat.
Activities subject to the ESA section 7 consultation process
include activities on Federal lands and activities on private or state
lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency or some other Federal
action, including funding. 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.
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 substrate portion of the essential
feature by removing or altering the substrate or adversely modify the
water column portion of the essential feature by 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. A private entity may also be affected by these proposed
critical habitat designations if it is a proponent of 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, and
military activities. Questions regarding whether specific activities
may constitute destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
should be directed to us (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Identifying 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
seawater regimes. Consequently, the actual responses of the critical
habitat (and listed corals) to changes in the essential feature
resulting from future Federal actions will be case and site-specific,
and predicting such responses will require case and site-specific data
and analyses.
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 the areas proposed
for designation. We also request comment 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). Additionally, we request comment on all aspects of
this proposal, including whether specific language regarding such areas
should be included in the text of the regulations and whether any
discussion of or references to this topic in this preamble or the
regulatory text should otherwise be further clarified or defined. We
also solicit comments regarding specific, foreseeable benefits and
impacts stemming from this designation. We also seek comments on the
identified geographic area and depths occupied by the species. You may
submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one
of several methods (see ADDRESSES). We will consider all comments
pertaining to these designations received during the comment period in
preparing the final rule. Accordingly, the final designations 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
December 16, 2004, 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 assessments, 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 supporting this
proposed critical habitat rule is considered influential scientific
information and 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. Comments received from peer reviewers are available on our
website at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/ID346.html.
[[Page 76325]]
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 private 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. These designations
would affect only Federal agency actions (i.e., those actions
authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies). Therefore, the
critical habitat designations does not affect landowner actions that do
not require Federal funding or permits.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866), Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Executive Order 13771)
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866 review. This proposed rulemaking is expected to
be regulatory under E.O. 13771. A draft report evaluating the economic
impacts of the proposed rule has been prepared and is included the
Draft Information Report, incorporating the principles of E.O. 12866.
Based on the economic impacts evaluation in the Draft Information
Report, Total incremental costs resulting from the five corals critical
habitat are estimated to range from $140,000 to $1.02 million over 10
years, an annualized cost of $20,000 to $140,000 (discounted at 7
percent). The low-end costs are a result of the increased
administrative effort to analyze impacts to the proposed critical
habitat in future consultations on activities that are not projected to
affect Acropora critical habitat (i.e., in areas outside the
boundaries, projects with impacts to water temperature, or pesticide
registrations). The high-end costs are a result of the increased
administrative effort (i.e., low-end costs) plus the incremental
project modification costs that stem solely from the proposed critical
habitat. Incremental project modification costs are a result of future
consultations that are not projected to have effects on Acropora
critical habitat. The high-end costs also assume that the project
modifications will be solely a result of the proposed critical habitat,
and not the presence of the species. However, the high-end estimate is
very likely an overestimate on incremental costs because an
undetermined number of future consultations will have project
modifications that address adverse effects to one or more of the five
corals, as well as adverse effects to the new critical habitat.
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 state and territorial resource agencies in
Florida, Puerto Rico, and USVI. The proposed designations may have some
benefit to state and local resource agencies in that the proposed rule
more clearly defines the essential feature and the areas in which that
feature is found. It may also assist local governments in allowing them
to engage in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case by-case
ESA section 7 consultations to occur).
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 above; (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 small entities
that may be affected by the proposed designations and is included as
Appendix B of the Draft Information Report and is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES section). The IRFA is summarized below, as
required by section 603 of the RFA.
Our IRFA uses the best available information to identify the
potential impacts of critical habitat on small entities. However, a
number of uncertainties complicate quantification of these impacts.
This includes (1) the fact that the manner in which these potential
impacts will be allocated between large and small entities is unknown;
and (2) as discussed in the main body of the report, uncertainty
regarding the potential effects of critical habitat designations, which
requires some categories of potential impacts be described
qualitatively. This IRFA analysis therefore focuses on providing the
best available information regarding the potential magnitude of impacts
to small entities in affected industries. As the proposed critical
habitat is marine habitat, this analysis references the number of small
businesses in each affected industry that is associated with counties
and territories sharing coastline with the designations.
The total maximum annualized impacts to small entities are
estimated to be $130,000, which represents approximately 90 percent of
the total quantified incremental impacts forecasted to result from the
proposed rule. This impact assumes that all of the incremental project
modification costs
[[Page 76326]]
will be incurred by small entities. These impacts are anticipated to be
borne by the small entities that obtain funds or permits from Federal
agencies that consult with NMFS regarding the five coral species
critical habitat in the next 10 years. Given the uncertainty regarding
which small entities in a given industry will obtain funds or permits
from Federal agencies that will need to consult with NMFS, this
analysis estimates impacts to small entities under two different
scenarios. These scenarios are intended to reflect the range of
uncertainty regarding the number of small entities that may be affected
by the designations and the potential impacts of critical habitat
designations on their annual revenues within that range.
Under Scenario 1, this analysis assumes that all third parties
participating in future consultations are small, and that incremental
impacts are distributed evenly across all of these entities. Scenario 1
accordingly reflects a high estimate of the number of potentially
affected small entities and a low estimate of the potential effect in
terms of percent of revenue. This scenario therefore most likely
overstates the number of small entities likely to be affected by the
rule and potentially understates the revenue effect. This analysis
anticipates that 43 small entities will collectively incur
approximately $130,000 in annualized costs under Scenario 1. These
costs are distributed between two industries: (1) Approximately $85,000
expected to be borne by 38 entities engaged in coastal and in-water
construction and dredging activities (NAICS Codes 237310, 237990,
237990), and (2) approximately $43,000 expected to be borne by 5
entities engaged in water quality activities (NAICS Codes 221112,
324110, 221320). However, because these costs are shared among 38 and 5
entities, respectively, annualized impacts of the rule are estimated to
make up less than 0.05 percent of annual revenues for each affected
small entity.
Under Scenario 2, this analysis assumes costs associated with each
consultation action are borne by a single small entity within an
industry. This method understates the number of small entities affected
but overstates the likely impacts on an entity. Therefore, this method
arrives at a low estimate of potentially affected entities and a high
estimate of potential effects on revenue, assuming that quantified
costs represent a complete accounting of the costs likely to be borne
by private entities. For the coastal and in-water construction and
dredging industry, this scenario forecasts $85,000 in annualized
impacts would be borne by a single small entity. Though this estimate
is almost certainly an overstatement of the costs borne by a single
small entity, the impact is nonetheless expected to result in impacts
that are less than 3 percent of the average annual revenues for a small
entity in this industry. Estimated annualized impacts under this
scenario for the industries related to water quality are expected to be
$48,000 and comprise less than 2 percent of annual revenues.
While these scenarios present a broad range of potentially affected
entities and the associated revenue effects, we expect the actual
number of small entities affected and revenue effects will be somewhere
in the middle. In other words, some subset greater than 2 and less than
43 of the small entities will participate in section 7 consultations on
the five corals' critical habitat and bear associated impacts annually.
Regardless, our analysis demonstrates that, even if we assume a low-end
estimate of affected small entities, the greatest potential revenue
effect is still less than 3 percent.
Even though we cannot definitively determine the numbers of small
and large entities that may be affected by this proposed rule, there is
no indication that affected project applicants would be only small
entities or mostly small entities. It is unclear whether small entities
would be placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to large
entities. However, as described in the Draft Information Report,
consultations and project modifications will be required based on the
type of permitted action and its associated impacts on the essential
critical habitat feature. Because the costs of many potential project
modifications that may be required to avoid adverse modification of
critical habitat are unit costs (e.g., per mile of shoreline, per cubic
yard of sand moved), such that total project modification costs would
be proportional to the size of the project, it is not unreasonable to
assume that larger entities would be involved in implementing the
larger projects with proportionally larger project modification costs.
There are no record-keeping requirements associated with the rule.
Similarly, there are no reporting requirements other than those that
might be associated with reporting on the progress and success of
implementing project modifications, which do not require specific
skills to satisfy.
No Federal laws or regulations duplicate or conflict with this
proposed rule. However, other aspects of the ESA may overlap with the
critical habitat designations. For instance, listing of the threatened
corals under the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS to
avoid jeopardy to the species, and large portions of the proposed
designations overlap with existing Acropora critical habitat. However,
this analysis examines only the incremental impacts to small entities
from these proposed critical habitat designations.
The alternatives to the designations considered consisted of a no-
action alternative and an alternative based on identical geographic
designations for each of the five corals. The no-action, or no
designation, alternative would result in no additional ESA section 7
consultations relative to the status quo of the species' listing.
Critical habitat must be designated if prudent and determinable. NMFS
determined that the proposed critical habitat is prudent and
determinable, and the ESA requires critical habitat designation in that
circumstance. Further, we have determined that the physical feature
forming the basis for our critical habitat designations is essential to
the corals' conservation, and conservation of these species will not
succeed without this feature being available. Thus, the lack of
protection of the critical habitat feature from adverse modification
could result in continued declines in abundance of the five corals. We
rejected this no action alternative because it does not provide the
level of conservation necessary for the five Caribbean corals. In
addition, declines in abundance of the five corals would result in loss
of associated economic and other values these corals provide to
society, such as recreational and commercial fishing and diving
services and shoreline protection services. Thus, small entities
engaged in some coral reef-dependent industries would be adversely
affected by the continued declines in the five corals. As a result, the
no action alternative is not necessarily a ``no cost'' alternative for
small entities.
The identical geographic designation alternative would designate
exactly the same geography for each of the five corals (i.e., 0.5 to 90
m throughout the maximum geographic extent of all the corals' ranges
collectively). This alternative would likely result in the same number
and complexity of consultations as the proposed rule, because
collectively all of the units in the proposed rule cover the same
geography as the identical geographic designation alternative. However,
this alternative does not provide the appropriate conservation benefits
for
[[Page 76327]]
each species, as it would designate areas in which one particular
species may not exist (e.g., Dendrogyra cylindrus only occupies 1 to 25
m). Therefore, we rejected the identical geographic designation
alternative because it does not provide the level of conservation
necessary for the five Caribbean corals. The agency seeks specific
comments from small entities on its Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
analysis.
Coastal Zone Management Act
We have determined that this action will have no reasonably
foreseeable effects on the enforceable policies of approved Florida,
Puerto Rico, and USVI coastal zone management plans. Upon publication
of this proposed rule, these determinations will be submitted to
responsible state agencies for review under section 307 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act.
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 requirements. 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 are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
under section 7 of the ESA. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted 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.
In developing this proposed rule, we reviewed maps and did not
identify any areas under consideration for critical habitat that
overlap with Indian lands. Based on this, we preliminarily found the
proposed critical habitat designations for threatened Caribbean corals
do not have tribal implications.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking can be
found on our website at [https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat-threatened-caribbean-corals]
and is available upon request from the NMFS SERO in St. Petersburg,
Florida (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 223
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
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for Sec.
223.206(d)(9).
0
2. Amend Sec. 223.102(e), under the heading ``Corals'' by revising the
entries ``Coral, boulder star''; ``Coral, lobed star''; ``Coral,
mountainous star''; ``Coral, pillar''; and ``Coral, rough cactus''.
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for Critical
Description of listing habitat ESA rules
Common name Scientific name listed entity determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Coral, boulder star.......... Orbicella Entire species. 79 FR 53852, 226.227 NA.
franksi. Sept. 10, 2014.
Coral, lobed star............ Orbicella Entire species. 79 FR 53852, 226.227 NA.
annularis. Sept. 10, 2014.
Coral, mountainous star...... Orbicella Entire species. 79 FR 53852, 226.227 NA.
faveolata. Sept. 10, 2014.
Coral, pillar................ Dendrogyra Entire species. 79 FR 53852, 226.227 NA.
cylindrus. Sept. 10, 2014.
Coral, rough cactus.......... Mycetophyllia Entire species. 79 FR 53852, 226.227 NA.
ferox. Sept. 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).
[[Page 76328]]
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. 226.227 to read as follows:
Sec. 226.227 Critical habitat for the Caribbean Boulder Star Coral
(Orbicella franksi), Lobed Star Coral (O. annularis), Mountainous Star
Coral (O. faveolata), Pillar Coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus), and Rough
Cactus Coral (Mycetophyllia ferox).
Critical habitat is designated in the following states and counties
for the following species as depicted in the maps below and described
in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section. The maps can be viewed
or obtained with greater resolution (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat-threatened-caribbean-corals) to enable a more precise inspection of proposed critical
habitat for Orbicella franksi, O. annularis, O. faveolata, Dendrogyra
cylindrus, and Mycetophyllia ferox.
(a) Critical habitat locations. Critical habitat is designated for
the following five Caribbean corals in the following states and
counties, and offshore locations:
Table 1 to paragraph (a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species State--counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orbicella annularis............ FL--Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe.
PR--All.
USVI--All.
Flower Garden Banks.
Navassa Island.
O. faveolata................... FL--Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe.
PR--All.
USVI--All.
Flower Garden Banks.
Navassa Island.
O. franksi..................... FL--Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe.
PR--All.
USVI--All.
Flower Garden Banks.
Navassa Island.
Dendrogyra cylindrus........... FL--Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe.
PR--All.
USVI--All.
Navassa Island.
Mycetophyllia ferox............ FL--Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe.
PR--All.
USVI--All.
Navassa Island.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Critical habitat boundaries. Except as noted in paragraphs (d)
and (e) of this section, critical habitat for the five Caribbean corals
is defined as all marine waters in the particular depth ranges relative
to mean low water as depicted in the maps below and described in the
Table of the locations of the critical habitat units for Orbicella
franksi, O. annularis, O. faveolata, Dendrogyra cylindrus, and
Mycetophyllia ferox. Depth contours or other identified boundaries on
the maps form the boundaries of the critical habitat units.
Specifically, the COLREGS Demarcation Lines (33 CFR 80), the boundary
between the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) and the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC; 50 CFR 600.105), the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (15 CFR part 922 subpart P,
appendix I), and the Caribbean Island Management Area (50 CFR part 622,
appendix E), create portions of the boundaries in several units.
Table 2 to Paragraph (c)--Table of the Locations of the Critical Habitat Units for Orbicella franksi, O. annularis, O. faveolata, Dendrogyra cylindrus,
and Mycetophyllia ferox
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit
Species name Location Geographic extent Water depth range
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orbicella annularis................. OANN-1................. Florida................ Lake Worth Inlet, Palm 2-20 m, (6.5-65.6 ft).
Beach County to Government
Cut, Miami-Dade County.
Florida................ Government Cut, Miami-Dade 0.5-20m, (1.6-65.6 ft).
County to Dry Tortugas.
OANN-2................. Puerto Rico............ All islands................ 0.5-20m, (1.6-65.6 ft).
OANN-3................. USVI................... All islands of St. Thomas 0.5-20m, (1.6-65.6 ft).
and St. John.
OANN-4................. USVI................... All islands of St. Croix... 0.5-20m, (1.6-65.6 ft).
OANN-5................. Navassa................ Navassa Island............. 0.5-20m, (1.6-65.6 ft).
OANN-6................. FGB.................... East Flower Garden Bank and 17-90 m, (55-295 ft).
West Flower Garden Bank.
Orbicella faveolata................. OFAV-1................. Florida................ St. Lucie Inlet, Martin 2-90 m, (6.5-295 ft).
County to Government Cut,
Miami-Dade County.
Florida................ Government Cut, Miami-Dade 0.5-90 m, (1.6-295 ft).
County to Dry Tortugas.
OFAV-2................. Puerto Rico............ All islands of Puerto Rico. 0.5-90 m, (1.6-295 ft).
[[Page 76329]]
OANN-3................. USVI................... All islands of St. Thomas 0.5-90 m, (1.6-295 ft).
and St. John.
OFAV-4................. USVI................... All islands of St. Croix... 0.5-90 m, (1.6-295 ft).
OFAV-5................. Navassa................ Navassa Island............. 0.5-90 m, (1.6-295 ft).
OFAV-6................. FGB.................... East Flower Garden Bank and 17-90 m, (55-295 ft).
West Flower Garden Bank.
Orbicella franksi................... OFRA-1................. Florida................ St. Lucie Inlet, Martin 2-90 m, (6.5-295 ft).
County to Government Cut,
Miami-Dade County.
Florida................ Government Cut, Miami-Dade 0.5-90 m, (1.6-295 ft).
County to Dry Tortugas.
OFRA-2................. Puerto Rico............ All islands of Puerto Rico. 0.5-90 m, (1.6-295 ft).
OFRA-3................. USVI................... All islands of St. Thomas 0.5-90 m, (1.6-295 ft).
and St. John.
OFRA-4................. USVI................... All islands of St. Croix... 0.5-90 m, (1.6-295 ft).
OFRA-5................. Navassa................ Navassa Island............. 0.5-90 m, (1.6-295 ft).
OFRA-6................. FGB.................... East Flower Garden Bank and 17-90 m, (55-295 ft).
West Flower Garden Bank.
Dendrogyra cylindrus................ DCYL-1................. Florida................ Lake Worth Inlet, Palm 2-25 m, (6.5-82 ft).
Beach County to Government
Cut, Miami-Dade County.
Florida................ Government Cut, Miami-Dade 1-25 m, (3.3-82 ft).
County to Dry Tortugas.
DCYL-2................. Puerto Rico............ All islands................ 1-25 m, (3.3-82 ft).
DCYL-3................. USVI................... All islands of St. Thomas 1-25 m, (3.3-82 ft).)
and St. John.
DCYL-4................. USVI................... All islands of St. Croix... 1-25 m, (3.3-82 ft).
DCYL-5................. Navassa................ Navassa Island............. 1-25 m, (3.3-82 ft)).
Mycetophyllia ferox................. MFER-1................. Florida................ Broward County to Dry 5-90 m, (16.4-295 ft).
Tortugas.
MFER-2................. Puerto Rico............ All islands of Puerto Rico. 5-90 m, (16.4-295 ft).
MFER-3................. USVI................... All islands of St. Thomas 5-90 m, (16.4-295 ft).
and St. John.
MFER-4................. USVI................... All islands of St. Croix... 5-90 m, (16.4-295 ft).
MFER-5................. Navassa................ Navassa Island............. 5-90 m, (16.4-295 ft).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Essential feature. The feature essential to the conservation of
Orbicella franksi, O. annularis, O. faveolata, Dendrogyra cylindrus,
and Mycetophyllia ferox is: Reproductive, recruitment, growth, and
maturation habitat. Sites that support the normal function of all life
stages of threatened corals are natural, consolidated hard substrate or
dead coral skeleton, which is 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 the 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
2014 Naval Air Station Key West Integrated Natural Resources Management
Plan.
(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 five Caribbean 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, 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. Specific federally-
authorized channels and harbors considered as managed areas not
included in the designations are:
(i) St. Lucie Inlet.
(ii) Palm Beach Harbor.
(iii) Hillsboro Inlet.
(iv) Port Everglades.
(v) Baker's Haulover Inlet.
(vi) Miami Harbor.
(vii) Key West Harbor.
(viii) Arecibo Harbor.
(ix) San Juan Harbor.
(x) Fajardo Harbor.
(xi) Ponce Harbor.
(xii) Mayaguez Harbor.
(xiii) St. Thomas Harbor.
(xiv) Christiansted Harbor.
(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, and
aquaculture cages.
(e) Areas excluded from critical habitat. Pursuant to ESA Section
4(b)(2), the following area is excluded from critical habitat where it
overlaps with the areas described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section: The designated restricted area managed by the South Florida
Ocean Measuring Facility, defined in 33 CFR 334.580.
[[Page 76330]]
(f) Maps. Critical habitat maps for the Caribbean Boulder Star
Coral, Lobed Star Coral, Mountainous Star Coral, Pillar Coral, and
Rough Cactus Coral:
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.041
[[Page 76331]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.042
[[Page 76332]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.043
[[Page 76333]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.044
[[Page 76334]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.045
[[Page 76335]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.046
[[Page 76336]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.047
[[Page 76337]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.048
[[Page 76338]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.049
[[Page 76339]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.050
[[Page 76340]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.051
[[Page 76341]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.052
[[Page 76342]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.053
[[Page 76343]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.054
[[Page 76344]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.055
[[Page 76345]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.056
[[Page 76346]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.057
[[Page 76347]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.058
[[Page 76348]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.059
[[Page 76349]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.060
[[Page 76350]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.061
[[Page 76351]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.062
[[Page 76352]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.063
[[Page 76353]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.064
[[Page 76354]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.065
[[Page 76355]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.066
[[Page 76356]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.067
[[Page 76357]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27NO20.068
[FR Doc. 2020-21229 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C