76302 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE required fields, and enter or attach your Background comments. We listed twenty coral species as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Instructions: You must submit threatened under the ESA effective Administration comments by the above to ensure that October 10, 2014 (79 FR 53851, we receive, document, and consider September 10, 2014). Five of the corals 50 CFR Parts 223 and 226 them. Comments sent by any other occur in the Caribbean: Orbicella [Docket No. 200918–0250] method or received after the end of the annularis, O. faveolata, O. franksi, comment period, may not be Dendrogyra cylindrus, and RIN 0648–BG26 considered. All comments received are Mycetophyllia ferox. The final listing a part of the public record and will determinations were all based on the Endangered and Threatened Species; generally be posted to http:// best scientific and commercial Critical Habitat for the Threatened www.regulations.gov without change. information available on a suite of Caribbean Corals All Personal Identifying Information (for demographic, spatial, and susceptibility example, name, address, etc.) components that influence the species’ AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries vulnerability to extinction in the face of Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and voluntarily submitted by the commenter continuing threats over the foreseeable Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), may be publicly accessible. Do not future. All of the species had undergone Commerce. submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or population declines and are susceptible ACTION: Proposed rule; request for protected information. to multiple threats, including: Ocean comments. NMFS will accept anonymous warming, diseases, ocean acidification, ecological effects of fishing, and land- SUMMARY: We, NMFS, propose to comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required based sources of pollution. However, designate critical habitat for the fields if you wish to remain aspects of the species’ demography and threatened Caribbean corals: Orbicella anonymous). annularis, O. faveolata, O. franksi, distribution buffer the effects of the Dendrogyra cylindrus, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: threats. We determined that all the Mycetophyllia ferox pursuant to section Jennifer Moore, NMFS, SERO, 727–824– Caribbean coral species are likely to 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 5312, [email protected]; Celeste become endangered throughout all of Twenty-eight mostly overlapping Stout, NMFS, Office of Protected their ranges within a foreseeable future specific occupied areas containing Resources, 301–427–8436, of the next several decades as a result physical features essential to the [email protected]. of a combination of threats, of which the conservation of all these coral species most severe are related to climate SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In change, and we listed them as are being proposed for designation as accordance with section 4(b) of the ESA critical habitat; these areas contain threatened. and our implementing regulations (50 This proposed rule is based on our approximately 15,000 square kilometers CFR 424.12), this proposed rule is based Draft Information Report and peer (km2; 5,900 square miles (mi2)) of on the best scientific information review comments on the report. All of marine habitat. We have considered available concerning the range, biology, the information that we used to make positive and negative economic, habitat, threats to the habitat, and our determinations in this proposed rule national security, and other relevant conservation objectives for the is contained in that report. The Draft impacts of the proposed designations, threatened Caribbean boulder star coral Information Report is available on and we propose to exclude one area (Orbicella franksi), lobed star coral (O. NMFS’s Southeast Regional Office from the critical habitat designations annularis), mountainous star coral (O. website at [https:// due to anticipated impacts on national faveolata), pillar coral (Dendrogyra www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/ security. We are soliciting comments cylindrus), and rough cactus coral document/5-caribbean-coral-proposed- from the public on all aspects of the (Mycetophyllia ferox). We have CH-Information-Report and at proposal, including our identification of reviewed the available information and www.regulations.gov, see ADDRESSES]. the geographical area and depths have used it to identify a composite occupied by the species, the physical physical feature essential to the Natural History and biological feature essential to the conservation of each coral, the specific This section summarizes life history coral species’ conservation and areas within the occupied geographical and biological characteristics of the five identification, areas not included and areas that contain the physical essential corals to provide context for the excluded, and consideration of impacts feature that may require special identification of the physical and of the proposed action. management considerations or biological feature essential for the DATES: Comments on this proposal must protections, the Federal activities that conservation of these species. In this be received by January 26, 2021. may impact the proposed critical section, we cover several topic areas, Public hearings: If requested, we will habitat, and the potential impacts of including an introduction to reef- hold at least one public hearing on this designating critical habitat for the building corals, reproduction, proposed rule. corals. The economic, national security, settlement and growth, coral habitat ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, and other relevant impacts of the types, and coral reef ecosystems. The identified by the docket number proposed critical habitat designations amount of information available on the NOAA–NMFS–2020–0131, by any of the are described in the draft document life history, reproductive biology, and following methods: titled, Draft Information Basis and ecology varies for each of the five corals • Electronic Submissions: Submit all Impact Considerations of Critical that occur in U.S. waters of the electronic public comments via the Habitat Designations for Threatened Caribbean. We provide specific Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to Caribbean Corals (Draft Information information for each species where www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= Report). This supporting document is possible. In addition, we provide NOAA-NMFS-2020-0131 click the available at www.regulations.gov or information on the biology and ecology ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon, complete the upon request (see ADDRESSES). of Caribbean corals in general,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76303

highlighting traits that these five corals accretion of reef structure, Asexual reproduction in coral species share. The information below is largely characterizing the ‘‘palmata’’ and usually occurs by fragmentation, when summarized from the final listing rule ‘‘cervicornis’’ zones in the classical colony pieces or fragments are (79 FR 53852, September 10, 2014), and descriptions of Caribbean reefs (Goreau, dislodged from larger colonies to updated with the best scientific 1959). The three species (O. annularis, establish new colonies, or by the information available to date. O. faveolata, and O. franski) in the budding of new polyps within a colony. Reef-building corals, in the phylum Orbicella star coral species complex Depending on the mode of Cnidaria, are marine invertebrates that have also been dominant components fertilization, coral larvae (called occur as polyps. The Cnidaria include on Caribbean coral reefs, characterizing planulae) undergo development either true stony corals (class Anthozoa, order the ‘‘buttress zone’’ and ‘‘annularis mostly within the mother colony Scleractinia), the blue coral (class zone.’’ After the die-off of Acropora (brooders) or outside of the mother Anthozoa, order Helioporacea), and fire spp., the star coral species complex colony, adrift in the ocean (broadcast corals (class Hydrozoa, order became the major reef-builder in the spawners). In either mode of larval Milleporina). These species secrete greater Caribbean due to their large size. development, larvae presumably massive calcium carbonate skeletons Most reef-building coral species are experience considerable mortality (up to that form the physical structure of coral colonial, producing colonies made up of 90 percent or more) from predation or reefs. Reef-building coral species polyps that are connected through tissue other factors prior to settlement and collectively produce coral reefs over and skeleton. In a colonial species, a metamorphosis (Goreau et al., 1981). time when growth outpaces erosion. single larva will develop into a discrete Such mortality cannot be directly Corals may also occur on hard substrate unit (the primary polyp) that then observed, but is inferred from the large that is interspersed among other benthic produces modular units of itself (i.e., number of eggs and sperm spawned features (e.g., seagrass beds in the back genetically-identical copies, or clones, versus the much smaller number of reef lagoon) in the coral reef ecosystem, of the primary polyp). Each polyp recruits observed later. Coral larvae are but not on the physical structure of consists of a column with mouth and relatively poor swimmers; therefore, coral reefs. Corals also contain tentacles on the upper side growing on their dispersal distances largely depend symbiotic algae within their cells. As top of a calcium carbonate skeleton that on the duration of the pelagic phase and described below, corals produce clones the polyps produced through the the speed and direction of water of themselves by several different process of calcification. Colony growth currents transporting the larvae. means, and most corals occur as is achieved mainly through the addition All three species of the Orbicella star colonies of polyps. of more cloned polyps. The colony can coral species complex are Reef-building corals are able to grow continue to exist even if numerous hermaphroditic broadcast spawners, and thrive in the characteristically polyps die or if the colony is broken spawning over a 3-night period, 6 to 8 nutrient-poor environments of tropical apart or otherwise damaged. The five nights following the full moon in late and subtropical regions due to their corals are all colonial species, although August, September, or early October ability to form mutually beneficial polyp size, colony size, and colony (Levitan et al., 2004). Fertilization symbioses with unicellular morphology vary considerably by success measured in the field was photosynthetic algae (zooxanthellae) species, and can also vary based on generally below 15 percent for all three belonging to the dinoflagellate genus environmental variables in different species and correlated to the number of Symbiodinium living within the host habitats. Colonies can produce clones, colonies concurrently spawning coral’s tissues. Zooxanthellae provide a most commonly through fragmentation (Levitan et al., 2004). The minimum food source for their host by or budding (described in more detail colony size at first reproduction for the translocating fixed organic carbon and below). The five corals are all clonal Orbicella species complex is 83 cm2 other nutrients. In return, the algae species with the ability to produce (Szmant-Froelich, 1985). Successful receive shelter and nutrients in the form colonies of cloned polyps as well as recruitment by the Orbicella species has of inorganic waste metabolites from host clones of entire colonies. The way they seemingly always been rare with many respiration. This exchange of energy, produce colony-level clones varies by studies throughout the Caribbean nutrients, and inorganic metabolites species. For example, branching species reporting negligible to no recruitment allows the symbiosis to flourish and are much more likely than encrusting (Bak and Engel, 1979; Hughes and helps the coral secrete the calcium species to produce clones via Tanner, 2000; Rogers et al., 1984; Smith carbonate that forms the skeletal fragmentation. and Aronson, 2006). structure of the coral colony, which in Corals use a number of reproductive Dendrogyra cylindrus is a gonochoric turn contributes to the formation of the strategies that have been researched (having separate sexes) broadcast reef. Thus, reef-building corals are also extensively; however, many individual spawning species with relatively low known as zooxanthellate corals. Some species’ reproductive modes remain annual egg production for its size. The corals, which do not contain poorly described. Most coral species use combination of gonochoric spawning zooxanthellae, form skeletons much both sexual and asexual propagation. with persistently low population more slowly, and therefore are not Sexual reproduction in corals is densities is expected to yield low rates considered reef-building. The five corals primarily through gametogenesis (i.e., of successful fertilization and low larval discussed in this proposed rule are development of eggs and sperm within supply. Spawning has been observed zooxanthellate species, and thus are the polyps near the base). Some coral several nights after the full moon of reef-building species that can grow large species have separate sexes August in the Florida Keys (Neely et al., skeletons that contribute to the physical (gonochoric), while others are 2013; Waddell and Clarke, 2008). In structure of coral reefs. hermaphroditic (individuals Curac¸ao, D. cylindrus was observed to Only about 10 percent of the world’s simultaneously containing both sexes), spawn over a 3-night period, 2–5 nights approximately 800 reef-building coral and others are a combination of both after the full moons in August and species occur in the Caribbean. The (Richmond, 1997). Strategies for September (Marhaver et al., 2015). Lab- acroporids were once the most abundant fertilization are either by brooding reared embryos developed into and most important species on (internal fertilization) or broadcast swimming planulae larvae within 16 Caribbean coral reefs in terms of spawning (external fertilization). hours after spawning and were

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76304 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

competent to settle relatively soon colony. Further, the substrate must and results in reductions in adult afterward (Marhaver et al., 2015). provide a habitat where burial by colony calcification and survival (79 FR Despite short duration from spawn to sediment or overgrowth by competing 53852, September 10, 2014). Some settlement competency in the lab, organisms (i.e., algae) will not occur. In additional information on the biological sexual recruitment of this species is general, on proper stimulation, coral requirements for reproduction, low, and there are no reported juvenile larvae settle and metamorphose on settlement, and growth is provided colonies in the Caribbean (Bak and appropriate hard substrates. Some below in the Physical or Biological Engel, 1979; Chiappone, 2010; Rogers et evidence indicates that chemical cues Features Essential to Conservation al., 1984). Dendrogyra cylindrus can from crustose coralline algae (CCA), section. propagate by fragmentation following microbial films, and/or other reef Coral reefs are fragile ecosystems that storms or other physical disturbance organisms or acoustic cues from reef exist in a narrow band of environmental (Hudson and Goodwin, 1997). Recent environments stimulate planulae’s conditions that allow the skeletons of investigations determined that there is settlement behaviors. Calcification of reef-building coral species to grow no genetic differentiation along the the newly-settled larva begins with the quickly enough for reef accretion to Florida Reef Tract, meaning that all forming of the basal plate. Buds formed outpace reef erosion. High-growth colonies belong to a single mixed on the initial corallite develop into conditions for reef-building corals population (Baums et al., 2016). The daughter corallites. Once larvae have include clear, warm waters with same study found that all sampled metamorphosed onto appropriate hard abundant light, and low levels of colonies from Curac¸ao belonged to a substrate, metabolic energy is diverted nutrients, sediments, and freshwater. single population that was distinct from to colony growth and maintenance. There are several categories of coral the Florida population. Similar studies Because newly settled corals barely reefs: Fringing reefs, barrier reefs, patch have not been conducted elsewhere in protrude above the substrate, juveniles reefs, platform reefs, and atolls. Despite the species’ range. need to reach a certain size to limit Mycetophyllia ferox is a damage or mortality from threats such the differences between the reef hermaphroditic brooding species as grazing, sediment burial, and algal categories, most fringing reefs, barrier producing larvae during the winter overgrowth. In some species, it appears reefs, atolls, and platform reefs consist months (Szmant, 1986). Brooded larvae there is virtually no limit to colony size of a reef slope, a reef crest, and a back- are typically larger than broadcast beyond structural integrity of the colony reef, which in turn are typically spawned larvae and are expected to skeleton, as polyps apparently can bud characterized by distinctive habitats. have higher rates of survival once indefinitely. The characteristics of these habitat types settled. However, recruitment of M. Polyps are the building blocks of vary greatly by reef categories, locations, ferox appears to be very low, even in colonies, and colony growth occurs both latitudes, frequency of disturbance, etc., studies from the 1970s (Dustan, 1977; by increasing the number of polyps, as and there is also much habitat Rogers and Garrison, 2001). well as extending the supporting variability within each habitat type. Spatial and temporal patterns of coral skeleton under each polyp. Reef- Temporal variability in coral habitat recruitment are affected by substrate building corals combine calcium and conditions is also very high, both availability and community structure, carbonate ions derived from seawater cyclically (e.g., from tidal, seasonal, grazing pressure, fecundity, mode and into crystals that form their skeletons. annual, and decadal cycles) and timing of reproduction, behavior of Skeletal expansion rates vary greatly by episodically (e.g., storms, temperature larvae, hurricane disturbance, physical taxa, morphology, location, habitat and anomalies, etc.). Together, all these oceanography, the structure of other factors. For example, in general, factors contribute to the habitat established coral assemblages, and branching species (e.g., most Acropora heterogeneity of coral reefs. chemical cues. Additionally, several species) have much higher skeletal The five corals vary in their recorded other factors may influence extension rates than massive species depth ranges and habitat types (Table 1). reproductive success and reproductive (e.g., Orbicella species). The energy All five corals generally have isolation, including external cues, required to produce new polyps and overlapping ranges and occur genetic precision, and conspecific build calcium carbonate skeleton is throughout the wider-Caribbean. The signaling. provided by the symbiotic relationship major variance in their distributions Like most corals, the threatened corals have with photosynthetic occurs at the northern-most extent of Caribbean corals require hard, zooxanthellae. Therefore, corals need their ranges in Florida or the Flower consolidated substrate, including light for their zooxanthellae to Garden Banks (FGB) in the northwest attached, dead coral skeleton, for their photosynthesize and provide the coral Gulf of Mexico. As described below, larvae to settle. The settlement location with food, and thus also require low critical habitat can be designated only in on the substrate must be free of turbidity for energy, growth, and areas under U.S. jurisdiction, thus we macroalgae, turf algae, or sediment for survival. Lower water clarity sharply provide the species’ distribution in U.S. larvae to attach and begin growing a reduces photosynthesis in zooxanthellae waters (Table 1).

TABLE 1—DISTRIBUTIONS OF THREATENED CARIBBEAN CORALS IN THE UNITED STATES

Species Depth distribution U.S. geographic 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76305

TABLE 1—DISTRIBUTIONS OF THREATENED CARIBBEAN CORALS IN THE UNITED STATES—Continued

Species Depth distribution U.S. geographic distribution

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 species or threatened species to the inclusive of all areas they use and move typical ranges and do not apply to the point at which the measures provided through seasonally (50 CFR 424.02; 81 depths in which the species occur at pursuant to this chapter are no longer FR 7413, February 11, 2016). The ranges FGB, which are much deeper due to the necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). Therefore, of the five threatened corals span the unique setting and conditions at that critical habitat is the habitat essential wider-Caribbean, and specifically site. for the species’ recovery. However, Florida, Puerto Rico, and USVI in the section 3(5)(C) of the ESA clarifies that, United States (79 FR 53851, September Critical Habitat Identification and except in those circumstances 10, 2014). We did not consider Designations determined by the Secretary, critical geographical areas outside of the United The purpose of designating critical habitat shall not include the entire States, because we cannot designate habitat is to identify the areas that are geographical area which can be critical habitat areas outside of U.S. essential to the species’ recovery. Once occupied by the threatened or jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(g)). critical habitat is designated, it can endangered species. contribute to the conservation of listed To identify and designate critical Physical or Biological Features Essential species in several ways, including by habitat, we considered information on to Conservation identifying areas where Federal agencies the distribution of the five threatened Within the geographical area can focus their section 7(a)(1) Caribbean corals, their major life stages, occupied, critical habitat consists of conservation programs, and helping habitat requirements of those life stages, specific areas on which are found those focus the efforts of other conservation threats to the species, and conservation PBFs essential to the conservation of the partners, such as States and local objectives that can be supported by species and that may require special governments, nongovernmental identifiable essential physical or management considerations or organizations, and individuals (81 FR biological features (hereafter also protection. PBFs essential to the 7414, February 11, 2016). Designating referred to as ‘‘PBFs’’ or ‘‘essential conservation of the species are defined critical habitat also provides a features’’). In the final listing rule, ocean as the features that occur in specific significant regulatory protection by warming, diseases, ocean acidification, areas and that are essential to support ensuring that the Federal government trophic effects of reef fishing, nutrient the life-history needs of the species, considers the effects of its actions in enrichment, sedimentation, and including water characteristics, soil accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms type, geological features, sites, prey, ESA and avoids or modifies those were found to be the main threats vegetation, symbiotic species, or other actions that are likely to destroy or contributing to the threatened status of features. A feature may be a single adversely modify critical habitat. This all five corals. Several other threats also habitat characteristic, or a more requirement is in addition to the section contributed to the species’ statuses, but complex combination of habitat 7 requirement that Federal agencies were considered to be relatively lower characteristics. Features may include ensure that their actions are not likely in importance as compared to the main habitat characteristics that support to jeopardize the continued existence of threats. Therefore, we evaluated ephemeral or dynamic habitat ESA-listed species. Critical habitat physical and biological features of their conditions. Features may also be requirements do not apply to citizens habitats to determine what features are expressed in terms relating to principles engaged in activities on private land essential to the conservation of each of conservation biology, such as patch that do not involve a Federal agency. coral. size, distribution distances, and Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines Accordingly, our step-wise approach connectivity (50 CFR 424.02). critical habitat as (i) the specific areas for identifying potential critical habitat In the final listing rule, we within the geographical area occupied areas for the threatened corals was to determined that the five corals were by the species, at the time it is listed in determine: (1) The geographical area threatened under the ESA. This means accordance with the provisions of occupied by each coral at the time of that while the species are not in danger section 4 of the ESA, on which are listing; (2) the physical or biological of extinction currently, they are likely to found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of become so within the next several features (I) essential to the conservation the corals; (3) whether those features decades based on their current of the species and (II) which may may require special management abundances and trends in abundance, require special management considerations or protection; (4) the distributions, and threats they considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas of the occupied experience now and in the future. specific areas outside the geographical geographical area where these features Further, the reproductive strategies of area occupied by the species at the time occur; and, (5) whether any unoccupied the three Caribbean Orbicella spp. and it is listed in accordance with the areas are essential to the conservation of Dendrogyra cylindrus present a provisions of section 4 of the ESA, upon any of the corals. challenge to repopulation after mortality a determination by the Secretary that events they have experienced and will such areas are essential for the Geographical Area Occupied by the likely experience in the future. The goal conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. Species of an ESA listing is to first prevent 1532(5)(A)). Conservation is defined in ‘‘Geographical area occupied’’ in the extinction, and then to recover the section 3 of the ESA as the use of all definition of critical habitat is species so they no longer meet the methods and procedures which are interpreted to mean the entire range of definition of a threatened species and necessary to bring any endangered the species at the time it was listed, no longer need the protections of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76306 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

ESA. One of the first steps in recovery threats impeding recovery. The essential recruitment of larvae or asexual planning we completed after listing feature we ultimately identified is sites fragments. Recruitment substrate these coral species was to develop a with a complex combination of provides the physical surface and space Recovery Outline that contains a substrate and water column necessary for settlement of coral larvae, Recovery Vision, which describes what characteristics that support normal and a stable environment for the state of full recovery looks like for functions of all life stages of the corals. metamorphosis of the larvae into the the species. We identified the following Due to corals being sessile for almost primary polyp, growth of juvenile and Recovery Vision for the five corals listed their entire life cycle, they carry out adult colonies, and re-attachment of in 2014: Populations of the five most of their demographic functions in fragments. The substrate must be threatened Caribbean corals should be one location. Thus, we have identified available at appropriate physical and present across their historical ranges, sites with a combination of certain temporal scales for attachment to occur. with populations large enough and substrate and water column In other words, the attachment location genetically diverse enough to support characteristics as the essential feature. A must be available at the physical scale successful reproduction and recovery detailed discussion of how this feature of the larva or fragment, and at the from mortality events and dense enough was determined will follow. temporal scale of when the larva or to maintain ecosystem function (https:// Specifically, these sites have attributes fragment is ‘‘seeking’’ recruitment. www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/ that determine the quality of the Larvae can also settle and attach to dead document/5-caribbean-coral-species- appropriate attachment substrate, in coral skeleton (Grober-Dunsmore et al., recovery-outline). Recovery of these association with warm, aragonite- 2006; Jorda´n-Dahlgren, 1992). species will require conservation of the supersaturated, oligotrophic, clear A number of features have been coral reef ecosystem through threats marine water, which are essential to shown to influence coral larval abatement to ensure a high probability reproduction and recruitment, survival, settlement. Positive cues include the of survival into the future (NMFS, and growth of all life stages of all five presence of particular species of 2015). The key conservation objective species of coral. These sites can be crustose coralline algae (Morse and that facilitates this Recovery Vision, and impacted by ocean acidification and Morse, 1996; Ritson-Williams et al., that can be assisted through these ocean warming, trophic effects of reef 2010), microbial biofilms (Sneed et al., critical habitat designations, is fishing, nutrient enrichment, 2014; Webster et al., 2004), and cryptic supporting successful reproduction and sedimentation, and contamination. habitat such as crevices and holes recruitment, and survival and growth of Based on the best scientific (Edmunds et al., 2004; Edwards et al., all life stages, by abating threats to the information available we propose the 2014; Nozawa, 2012). Features that corals’ habitats. In the final listing rule, following essential physical feature for negatively affect settlement include we identified the major threats the five corals: presence of sediment, turf algae, contributing to the five corals’ Reproductive, recruitment, growth, sediment bound in turf algae, and extinction risk: Ocean warming, disease, and maturation habitat. Sites that macroalgae (Birrell et al., 2005; Kuffner ocean acidification, trophic effects of support the normal function of all life et al., 2006; Richmond et al., 2018; reef fishing, nutrient enrichment, and stages of the corals are natural, Speare et al., 2019; Vermeij et al., 2009). sedimentation. Five of the six major consolidated hard substrate or dead While sediment, turf algae, and threats (i.e., all but disease) impact coral skeleton free of algae and sediment macroalgae are all natural features of the coral reef ecosystem, it is the relative corals in part by changing the corals’ at the appropriate scale at the point of proportion of free space versus occupied habitat, making it unsuitable for them to larval settlement or fragment space that influences recruitment; carry out the essential functions at all reattachment, and the associated water recruitment rate is positively correlated life stages. Although it was not column. Several attributes of these sites with free space (Connell et al., 1997). considered to be posing a major threat determine the quality of the area and The recruitment substrate feature is at the time of listing, we also identified influence the value of the associated adversely affected by four of the major contaminants as a potential threat to feature to the conservation of the threats to the five corals: Ocean each of these corals (79 FR 53852, species: (1) Substrate with presence of crevices acidification, trophic effects of reef September 10, 2014). Thus, we identify and holes that provide cryptic habitat, fishing, nutrient enrichment, and ocean warming, ocean acidification, the presence of microbial biofilms, or sedimentation. trophic effects of reef fishing, nutrient presence of crustose coralline algae; The dominance of fleshy macroalgae enrichment, sedimentation, and (2) Reefscape (all the visible features as major space-occupiers on many contaminants as the threats to the five of an area of reef) with no more than a Caribbean coral reefs impedes the corals’ habitat that are impeding their thin veneer of sediment and low recruitment of new corals. A shift in recovery. Protecting essential features of occupancy by fleshy and turf benthic community structure over the corals’ habitat from these threats macroalgae; recent decades from the dominance of will facilitate the recovery of these (3) Marine water with levels of stony corals to fleshy algae on Caribbean threatened species. temperature, aragonite saturation, coral reefs is generally attributed to the We then turned to determining the nutrients, and water clarity that have greater persistence of fleshy macroalgae physical or biological features essential been observed to support any under reduced grazing regimes due to to this conservation objective of demographic function; and human overexploitation of herbivorous supporting successful reproduction and (4) Marine water with levels of fishes (Edwards et al., 2014; Hughes, recruitment, and survival and growth of anthropogenically-introduced (from 1994; Jackson et al., 2014) and the all life stages. There are many physical humans) chemical contaminants that do regional mass mortality of the and biological features that are not preclude or inhibit any demographic herbivorous long-spined sea urchin in important in supporting the corals’ function. 1983–84 (Hughes et al., 1987). As habitat; therefore, we focused on a As described in detail in the Draft overall coral cover has declined, the composite habitat feature that supports Information Report, all corals require absolute area occupied by macroalgae the conservation objective through its exposed natural consolidated hard has increased and herbivore grazing relevance to the major threats and substrate for the settlement and capacity is spread more thinly across a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76307

larger relative amount of space recruitment, and survival (Kuffner and Nelson et al. (2016) identify sediment (Williams et al., 2001). Further, impacts Paul, 2004; Kuffner et al., 2006; Paul et depth less than 0.5 cm as posing to water quality (principally nutrient al., 2011). Furthermore, algal turfs can minimal stress to corals and settlement input) coupled with low herbivore trap sediments (Kendrick, 1991; Nugues habitat. grazing are also believed to enhance and Roberts, 2003a; Purcell and Sediment texture also affects the fleshy macroalgal productivity. Fleshy Bellwood, 2001; Purcell, 2000; Steneck severity of impacts to corals and macroalgae are able to colonize dead and Testa, 1997; Wilson and Harrison, recruitment substrate. Fine grain coral skeleton and other available 2003), which then creates the potential sediments have greater negative effects substrate, preempting space available for algal turfs and sediments to act in to live coral tissue and to recruitment for coral recruitment (McCook et al., combination to hinder coral settlement substrate (Erftemeijer et al., 2012). 2001; Pastorok and Bilyard, 1985). The (Birrell et al., 2005; Nugues and Roberts, Accumulation of sediments is also a increasing frequency of coral mortality 2003a). These turf algae-sediment mats major cause of mortality in coral recruits events, such as the 2014–2016 global also can suppress coral growth under (Fabricius et al., 2003). In some bleaching event, continues to increase high sediment conditions (Nugues and instances, if mortality of coral recruits the amount of dead skeleton available to Roberts, 2003b) and may gradually kill does not occur under heavy sediment be colonized by algae. the marginal tissues of stony corals with conditions, then settled coral planulae The persistence of fleshy macroalgae which they come into contact (Dustan, may undergo reverse metamorphosis under reduced grazing regimes also 1977). and die in the water column (Te, 1992). negatively impacts CCA growth, Coral recruitment habitat is also Sedimentation, therefore, impacts the potentially reducing settlement cues adversely impacted by sediment cover. health and survivorship of all life stages which may reduce settlement of coral Sediments enter the reef environment (i.e., adults, fragments, larvae, and larvae (Sharp et al., 2010). Most CCA are through many processes that are natural recruits) of corals, in addition to susceptible to fouling by fleshy algae, or anthropogenic in origin, including adversely affecting recruitment habitat. particularly when herbivores are absent coastal erosion, coastal development, The literature provides several (Steneck, 1986). Patterns observed in St. resuspension of bottom sediments, recommendations on maximum Croix, USVI, also indicate a strong terrestrial erosion and run-off, in-water sedimentation rates for coral reefs (i.e., positive correlation between CCA construction, dredging for coastal levels that managers should strive to abundance and herbivory (Steneck and construction projects and navigation stay under). De’ath and Fabricius (2008) Testa, 1997). Both turf and macroalgal purposes, and in-water and beach and The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park cover increases and CCA cover placement of dredge spoils. The rate of Authority (2010) recommend that decreases with reductions in herbivory, sedimentation affects reef distribution, sediment levels on the Great Barrier which may last for a period of time even community structure, growth rates, and Reef (GBR) be less than a mean annual when herbivores are reintroduced (de coral recruitment (Dutra et al., 2006). sedimentation rate of 3 mg/cm2/day, Ruyter van Steveninck and Bak, 1986; Accumulation of sediment can smother and less than a daily maximum of 15 Liddell and Ohlhorst, 1986; Miller et al., living corals, cover dead coral skeleton, mg/cm2/day. Rogers (1990) recommends 1999). The ability of fleshy macroalgae and exposed hard substrate (Erftemeijer that sediment levels on coral reefs to affect growth and survival of CCA has et al., 2012; Fabricius, 2005). Sediment globally be less than a mean maximum indirect, yet important, impacts on the accumulation on dead coral skeletons of 10 mg/cm2/day to maintain healthy ability of coral larvae to successfully and exposed hard substrate reduces the corals, and also notes that moderate to settle and recruit. amount of available substrate for coral severe effects on corals are generally In addition to the direct impacts of larvae settlement and fragment expected at mean maximum ocean acidification on the corals from reattachment (Rogers, 1990). The sedimentation rates of 10 to 50 mg/cm2/ reduced aragonite saturation state location of larval settlement must be day, and severe to catastrophic effects at (discussed later in this section), free of sediment for attachment to occur >50 mg/cm2/day. Similarly, Erftemeijer significant impacts to recruitment (Harrington et al., 2004; Mundy and et al. (2012) suggest that moderate to habitat are also expected. Kuffner et al. Babcock, 1998). severe effects to corals are expected at (2007) and Jokiel et al. (2008) showed The depth of sediments over hard mean maximum sediment levels of >10 dramatic declines in the growth rate of substrate affects the duration that the mg/cm2/day, and catastrophic effects at CCA and other reef organisms, and an substrate may be unavailable for >50 mg/cm2/day. Nelson et al. (2016) increase in the growth of fleshy algae at settlement. The deeper the sediment, suggest that sediment depths of >0.5 cm atmospheric CO2 levels expected later the longer it may take for natural waves result in substantial stress to most coral this century. The decrease in CCA and currents to remove the sediment species, and that sediment depths of growth, coupled with rapid growth of from the settlement substrate. Lirman et >1.0 cm are lethal to most coral species. fleshy algae, will result in less available al. (2003) found sediment depth next to The above generalizations are for coral habitat and more competition for live coral colonies was approximately 1 reef communities and ecosystems, settlement and recruitment of new coral cm deep and significantly lower than rather than individual species. colonies. mean sediment depth collected Sublethal effects of sediment to corals Several studies show that coral haphazardly on the reef. Sediment potentially occur at much lower levels recruitment tends to be greater when deposition threshold criteria have than mortality. Sublethal effects include macroalgal biomass is low (Birrell et al., recently been proposed for classifying reduced growth, lower calcification 2008a; Birrell et al., 2005; Birrell et al., sediment impacts to reef habitats based rates and reduced productivity, 2008b; Connell et al., 1997; Edmunds et on threshold values in peer-reviewed bleaching, increased susceptibility to al., 2004; Hughes, 1985; Kuffner et al., studies and new modeling approaches diseases, physical damage to coral tissue 2006; Rogers et al., 1984; Vermeij, (Nelson et al., 2016). Nelson et al. (2016) and reef structures (breaking, abrasion), 2006). In addition to preempting space suggest that sediment depth greater than and reduced regeneration from tissue for coral larvae settlement, many fleshy 1 cm represents a significant impact to damage (see reviews by Fabricius et al., macroalgae produce secondary corals, while sediment between 0.5 and 2005; Erftemeijer et al., 2012; Browne et metabolites with generalized toxicity 1 cm depth represents a moderate al., 2015; and Rogers, 1990). Erftemeijer that also may inhibit larval settlement, impact, with the ability to recover. et al. (2012) states that sublethal effects

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76308 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

for coral species that are sensitive, duration of any deviations from aragonite saturation state, dissolved intermediate, or tolerant to sediment conditions conducive to a particular inorganic nitrogen (Barker, 2018; (i.e., most reef-building coral species) coral’s growth, reproduction and Cunning and Baker, 2013; Fabricius, occur at mean maximum sedimentation recruitment. Deviations from tolerance 2005; Wooldridge, 2013); suspended rates of between <10 and 200 mg/cm2/ levels of certain parameters result in sediments and turbidity (Anthony et al.; day, depending on species, exposure direct negative effects on all life stages. Devlin-Durante et al.); trace metals such duration, and other factors. As described in the Draft Information as copper (Kwok et al., 2016; Negri and Artificial substrates and frequently Report, corals thrive in warm, clear, Hoogenboom, 2011; Woods et al., 2016); disturbed ‘‘managed areas’’ are not nutrient-poor marine waters with ultraviolet radiation (Anthony et al., essential to coral conservation. Only calcium carbonate concentrations that 2007); and salinity, nitrates, and natural substrates provide the quality allow for symbiont photosynthesis, phosphates (Negri and Hoogenboom, and quantity of recruitment habitat coral physiological processes, and 2011), among other physical, necessary for the conservation of skeleton formation. The water must also physiological, and chemical stressors threatened corals. Artificial substrates have low to no levels of contaminants (Barker, 2018). are generally less functional than (e.g., heavy metals, chemicals) that Ocean warming is one of the most natural substrates in terms of supporting would interfere with normal functions significant threats to the five ESA-listed healthy and diverse coral reef of all life stages. Water quality that Caribbean corals (Brainard et al., 2011). ecosystems (Edwards and Gomez, 2007; supports normal functions of corals is Mean seawater temperatures in reef- USFWS, 2004). Artificial substrates are adversely affected by ocean warming, building coral habitat in both the man-made or introduced substrates that ocean acidification, nutrient Caribbean and Indo-Pacific have are not naturally occurring to the area. enrichment, sedimentation, and increased during the past few decades, Examples include, but are not contamination. and are predicted to continue to rise necessarily limited to, fixed and floating Temperature is a particularly between now and 2100 (IPCC, 2013). structures, such as aids-to-navigation important limiting factor of coral The primary observable coral response (AToNs), jetties, groins, breakwaters, habitat. Corals occur in a fairly-wide to ocean warming is bleaching of adult seawalls, wharves, boat ramps, fishpond temperature range across geographic coral colonies, wherein corals expel walls, pipes, wrecks, mooring balls, locations (15.7 °C–35.5 °C weekly their symbiotic zooxanthellae in docks, aquaculture cages, and other average and 21.7–29.6 °C annual response to stress (Brown, 1997). For artificial structures. The proposed average; Guan et al., 2015), but only many corals, an episodic increase of essential feature does not include any thrive in areas with mean temperatures only 1 °C–2 °C above the normal local artificial substrate. In addition, there are in a fairly-narrow range (typically 25 seasonal maximum ocean temperature some natural substrates that, because of °C–29 °C) as indicated by the formation can induce bleaching (Hoegh-Guldberg their consistently disturbed nature, also of coral reefs (Brainard et al., 2011; et al., 2007; Jones, 2008; Whelan et al., do not provide the quality of substrate Kleypas et al., 1999; Stoddart, 1969; 2007). Corals can withstand mild to necessary for the conservation of Vaughan, 1919). Short-term exposures moderate bleaching; however, severe, threatened corals. While these areas (days) to temperature increases of a few repeated, or prolonged bleaching can may provide hard substrate for coral degrees (i.e., 3 °C–4 °C increase above lead to colony death (Brown, 1997; settlement and growth over short climatological mean maximum summer Whelan et al., 2007). Increased sea periods, the periodic nature of direct temperature) or long-term exposures surface temperatures are occurring more human disturbance renders them poor (several weeks) to minor temperature frequently and leading to multiple mass environments for coral growth and increases (i.e., 1 °C–2 °C above mean bleaching events (Hughes et al., 2017), survival over time (e.g., they can maximum summer temperature) can which are reoccurring too rapidly for become covered with sediment). cause significant thermal stress and coral populations to rebound in between Therefore, they are not essential to the mortality to most coral species (Hughes et al., 2018). conservation of the species. Specific (Berkelmans and Willis, 1999; Jokiel In addition to coral bleaching, other areas that may contain these disturbed and Coles, 1990). In addition to coral effects of ocean warming detrimentally natural substrates are described in the bleaching, elevated seawater affect virtually every life-history stage in Specific Areas Containing the Essential temperatures impair coral fertilization reef-building corals. Impaired Features within the Geographical Area and settlement (Negri and Heyward, fertilization and developmental Occupied by the Species section of this 2000; Nozawa and Harrison, 2007) and abnormalities (Negri and Heyward, proposed rule. cause increases in coral disease (Jones et 2000), mortality, and impaired The substrate characterized al., 2004b; Miller et al., 2009). Effects of settlement success (Nozawa and previously must be associated with elevated seawater temperatures are well- Harrison, 2007; Putnam et al., 2008; water that also supports all life studied for reef-building corals, and Randall and Szmant, 2009) have all functions of corals that are carried out many approaches have been used to been documented. Increased seawater at the site. Water quality conditions estimate temperature thresholds for temperature also may act synergistically fluctuate greatly over various spatial coral bleaching and mortality (see with coral diseases to reduce coral and temporal scales in natural reef reviews by (Baker et al., 2008; health and survivorship (Bruno and environments (Kleypas et al., 1999). Berkelmans, 2002; Brown, 1997; Coles Selig, 2007). Coral disease outbreaks However, certain levels of particular and Brown, 2003; Coles and Riegl; often have either accompanied or parameters (e.g., water clarity, water Jokiel, 2004; Jones, 2008)). The tolerance immediately followed bleaching events temperature, aragonite saturation) must of corals to temperature is species- (Brandt and McManus, 2009; Jones et occur on average to provide the specific (Barker, 2018; Bruno et al., al., 2004a; Lafferty et al., 2004; Miller et conditions conducive to coral growth, 2007; Eakin et al., 2010; Heron et al., al., 2009; Muller et al., 2008). Outbreaks reproduction, and recruitment. Corals 2010; Ruzicka et al., 2013; Smith and also follow seasonal patterns of high may tolerate and survive in conditions Buddemeier, 1992; van Woesik et al., seawater temperatures (Sato et al., 2009; outside these levels, depending on the 2011; Vega-Rodriguez et al., 2015) and Willis et al., 2004). local conditions to which they have depends on suites of other variables that Coles and Brown (2003) defined a acclimatized and the intensity and include acclimation temperature, general bleaching threshold for reef-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76309

building corals as increases in seawater the expenditure of energy. The aragonite declining carbonate saturation state. temperatures of 1–3 °C above maximum saturation state varies greatly within Laboratory experiments have also annual mean temperatures at a given and across coral reefs and through daily shown that skeletal deposition and location. GBRMPA (2010) defined a cycles with temperature, salinity, initiation of calcification in newly general ‘‘trigger value’’ for bleaching in pressure, and localized biological settled corals is reduced by declining reef-building corals as increases in processes such as photosynthesis, aragonite saturation state (Albright et seawater temperatures of no more than respiration, and calcification by marine al., 2008; Cohen et al., 2009). Field 1 °C above maximum annual mean organisms (Gray et al., 2012; McMahon studies from a variety of coral locations temperatures at a given location. et al., 2013; Shaw et al., 2012b)). Coral in the Caribbean, Indo-Pacific, and Red Because duration of exposure to reefs form in an annually-averaged Sea have shown a decline in linear elevated temperatures determines the saturation state of 4.0 or greater for extension rates of coral skeleton under extent of bleaching, several methods optimal calcification, and an annually- decreasing aragonite saturation state have been developed to integrate averaged saturation state below 3.3 will (Bak et al., 2009; De’ath et al., 2009; duration into bleaching thresholds, result in reduced calcification at rates Schneider and Erez, 2006; Tanzil et al., including the number of days, weeks, or insufficient to maintain net positive reef 2009). In addition to effects on growth months of the elevated temperatures accretion, resulting in loss of reef and calcification, recent laboratory (Berkelmans, 2002; Eakin et al., 2009; structure (Guinotte et al., 2003; Hoegh- experiments have shown that increased Goreau and Hayes, 1994; Podesta and Guldberg et al., 2007). Guinotte et al. CO2 also substantially impairs Glynn, 1997). NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch (2003) classified the range of aragonite fertilization and settlement success in Program utilizes the Degree Heating saturation states between 3.5–4.0 as Acropora palmata (Albright et al., Week method (Glynn & D’Croz, 1990; ‘‘adequate’’ and < 3 as ‘‘extremely 2010). Reduced calcification and slower Eakin et al. 2009), which defines a marginal.’’ Thus, aragonite saturation growth will mean slower recovery from general bleaching threshold for reef- state between 3 and 4 is likely necessary breakage, whether natural (hurricanes building corals as seawater temperatures for coral calcification. But, generally, and storms) or human (breakage from of 1 °C above maximum monthly mean seawater Warg should be 3.5 or greater vessel groundings, anchors, fishing gear, at a given location for 4 consecutive to enable maximum calcification of reef- etc.), or mortality from a variety of weeks (https://coralreefwatch.noaa. building corals, and average Warg in disturbances. Slower growth also gov/). most coral reef areas is currently in that implies even higher rates of mortality These general thresholds were range (Guinotte et al., 2003). Further, for newly settled corals due to the developed for coral reef communities (Kleypas et al., 1999) concluded that a longer time it will take to reach a colony and ecosystems, rather than individual general threshold for Warg occurs near size that is no longer vulnerable to species. Many of these studies are 3.4, because only a few reefs occur overgrowth competition, sediment community or ecosystem-focused and where saturation is below this level. smothering, and incidental predation. do not account for species-specific Guan et al. (2015) found that the Reduced calcification and slower responses to changes in seawater minimum aragonite saturation observed growth means more time to reach temperatures, and instead are focused where coral reefs currently occur is reproductive size and reduces sexual on long-term climatic changes and large- 2.82; however, it is not known if those and asexual reproductive potential. scale impacts (e.g., coral reef locations hosted live, accreting corals. Increased pCO2 coupled with increased distribution, persistence). These general characterizations and sea surface temperature can lead to even In summary, temperature deviations thresholds were identified for coral reef lower rates of calcification, as found in from local averages prevent or impede communities and ecosystems, rather the meta-analysis by Kornder et al. successful completion of all life history than individual species. (2018). stages of the listed coral species. Ocean acidification is a term referring In summary, aragonite saturation Identifying temperatures at which the to changes in ocean carbonate reductions prevent or impede successful conservation value of habitat for listed chemistry, including a drop in the pH completion of all life history stages of corals may be affected is inherently of ocean waters, that is occurring in the listed coral species. Identifying the complex and influenced by taxa, response to the rise in the quantity of declining aragonite saturation state at exposure duration, and other factors. atmospheric CO2 and the partial which the conservation value of habitat 2¥ Carbonate ions (CO3 ) are used by pressure of CO2 (pCO2) absorbed in for listed corals may be affected is many marine organisms, including oceanic waters (Caldeira and Wickett, inherently complex and influenced by corals, to build calcium carbonate 2003). As pCO2 rises, oceanic pH taxa, exposure duration, acclimatization skeletons. The mineral form of calcium declines through the formation of to localized nutrient regimes, and other carbonate used by corals to form their carbonic acid and subsequent reaction factors. skeletons is aragonite. The more with water resulting in an increase of Nitrogen and phosphorous are two of carbonate ions dissolved in seawater, free hydrogen ions. The free hydrogen the main nutrients that affect the the easier it is for corals to build their ions react with carbonate ions to suitability of the water column in coral aragonite skeletons. The metric used to produce bicarbonate, reducing the reef habitats (Fabricius et al., 2005; express the relative availability of amount of carbonate ions available, and Fabricius, 2005). These two nutrients calcium and carbonate ions is the thus reducing the aragonite saturation occur as different compounds in coral aragonite saturation state (Warg). Thus, state. Ocean acidification is one of the reef habitats and are necessary in low the lower the Warg of seawater, the most significant threats to reef-building levels for normal reef function. lower the abundance of carbonate ions, corals (Brainard et al., 2011; Jokiel, Dissolved inorganic nitrogen and and the more energy corals have to 2015). dissolved inorganic phosphorus in the ¥ expend for skeletal calcification, and A variety of laboratory studies forms of nitrate (NO3 ) and phosphate 3¥ vice versa (Cohen and Holcomb, 2009). conducted on corals and coral reef (PO4 ) are particularly important for At saturation states between 1 and 20, organisms (Langdon and Atkinson, photosynthesis, with dissolved organic marine organisms can create calcium 2005) consistently show declines in the nitrogen also providing an important carbonate shells or skeletons using a rate of coral calcification and growth source of nitrogen, and are the dominant physiological calcifying mechanism and with rising pCO2, declining pH, and forms of nitrogen and phosphorous in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76310 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

coral reef waters. Nutrients are a major terrestrial runoff is in the particulate inputs are likely to be better component of land-based sources of forms, PN and PP are the most common acclimatized or adapted to higher pollution (LBSP), which is one of the bio-available forms of nutrients for turbidity than colonies of the same most significant threats to reef-building corals on coastal zone reefs (Cooper et species occurring on offshore barrier corals (Brainard et al., 2011). Excessive al., 2008). De’ath and Fabricius (2008) reefs or around atolls with very little or nutrients affect corals through two main and GBRMPA (2010) provide general no groundwater inputs. In some cases, mechanisms: Direct impacts on coral recommendations on maximum annual corals occupy naturally turbid habitats physiology, such as reduced fertilization mean values for PN and PP of 1.5 mmol/ (Anthony and Larcombe, 2000; and growth (Harrison and Ward, 2001; l PN and 0.09 mmol/l PP for coastal zone McClanahan and Obura, 1997; Te, 2001) Ferrier-Pages et al., 2000), and indirect reefs. These generalizations are for coral where they may benefit from the effects through nutrient-stimulation of reef communities and ecosystems, reduced amount of UV radiation to other community components (e.g., rather than individual species. which they are exposed (Zepp et al., macroalgae seaweeds, turfs/filamentous As noted above, identifying nutrient 2008). As turbidity and nutrients algae, cyanobacteria, and filter feeders) concentrations at which the increase, thus decreasing water clarity, that compete with corals for space on conservation value of habitat for listed reef community composition shifts from the reef (79 FR 53851, September 10, corals may be affected is inherently coral-dominated to macroalgae- 2014). As discussed previously, the complex and influenced by taxa, dominated, and ultimately to latter also affects the quality of exposure duration, and acclimatization heterotrophic animals (Fabricius et al., recruitment substrate. The physiological to localized nutrient regimes, and other 2012). Light penetration is diminished response a coral exhibits to an increase factors. by suspended abiotic and biotic in nutrients mainly depends on Water clarity or transparency is a key particulate matter (esp. clay and silt- concentration and duration. A short factor for marine ecosystems and it is sized particles) and some dissolved duration of a high increase in a nutrient the best explanatory variable for a range substances (Fabricius et al., 2014). The may result in a severe adverse response, of bioindicators of reef health (Fabricius availability of light decreases directly as just as a chronic, lower concentration et al., 2012). Water clarity affects the a function of particle concentration and might. Increased nutrients can result in light availability for photosynthetic water depth, but also depends on the adverse responses in all life stages and organisms and food availability for filter nature of the suspended particles. Fine affect most physiological processes, feeders. Corals depend upon their clays and organic particles are easily resulting in reduced number and size of symbiotic algae for nutrition and thus suspended from the sea floor, reducing gametes (Ward and Harrison, 2000), depend on light availability for algal light for prolonged periods, while reduced fertilization (Harrison and photosynthesis. Reduced water clarity is undergoing cycles of deposition and Ward, 2001), reduced growth, mortality determined by the presence of particles resuspension. Suspended fine particles of sediment, organic matter, and/or (Ferrier-Pages et al., 2000; Koop et al., also carry nutrients and other plankton in the water, and so is often 2001), increased disease progression contaminants (Fabricius et al., 2013). associated with elevated sedimentation (Vega Thurber et al., 2013; Voss and Increased nutrient runoff into semi- and/or nutrients. Water clarity can be Richardson, 2006), tissue loss (Bruno et enclosed seas accelerates phytoplankton measured in multiple ways, including al., 2003), and bleaching (Kuntz et al., production to the point that it also percent of solar irradiance at depth, 2005; Wiedenmann et al., 2012). increases turbidity and reduces light Secchi depth (the depth in the water penetration, and can also settle on Most coral reefs occur where annual column at which a black and white disk colony surfaces (Fabricius, 2005). In mean nutrient levels are low. Kleypas et is no longer visible), and Nephelometric areas of nutrient enrichment, light for al. (1999) analyzed dissolved nutrient Turbidity Unit (NTU) (measure of light data from nearly 1,000 coral reef sites, scatter based on particles in the water benthic organisms can be additionally finding mean values of 0.25 micromoles column). Reef-building corals naturally severely reduced by dense stands of large fleshy macroalgae shading per liter (mmol/l) for NO3, and 0.13 occur across a broad range of water adjacent corals (Fabricius, 2005). mmol/l for PO4. Over 90 percent of the clarity levels from very turbid waters on sites had mean NO3 values of <0.6 enclosed reefs near river mouths The literature provides several mmol/l, and mean PO4 values of <0.2 (Browne et al., 2012) to very clear recommendations on maximum mmol/l (Kleypas et al., 1999). Several waters on offshore barrier reefs, and turbidity levels for coral reefs (i.e., authors, including Bell and Elmetri many intermediate habitats such as levels that managers should strive to (1995) and Lapointe (1997) have open coastal and mid-shelf reefs stay under). GBRMPA (2010) proposed threshold values of 1.0 mmol/ (GBRMPA, 2010). Coral reefs appear to recommends minimum mean annual l for NO3, and 0.1–0.2 mmol/l for PO4, thrive in extremely clear areas where water clarity, or ‘‘trigger values’’, in beyond which reefs are assumed to be Secchi depth is ≥ 15 m or light scatter Secchi distances for the GBR depending eutrophic. However, concentrations of is < 1 NTU (De’ath and Fabricius, 2010). on habitat type: For enclosed coastal dissolved nutrients are poor indicators Typical levels of total suspended solids reefs, 1.0–1.5 m; for open coastal reefs of coral reef status, and the concept of (TSS) in reef environments are less than and mid-shelf reefs, 10 m; and for a simple threshold concentration that 10 mg/L (Rogers, 1990). The minimum offshore reefs, 17 m. De’ath and indicates eutrophication has little light level for reef development is about Fabricius (2008) recommend a validity (McCook, 1999). One reason for 6–8 percent of surface irradiance minimum mean annual water clarity that is because corals are exposed to (Fabricius et al., 2014). trigger value in Secchi distance nutrients in a variety of forms, including For a particular coral colony, tolerated averaged across all GBR habitats of 10 dissolved nitrogen (e.g., NO3), dissolved water clarity levels likely depend on m. Bell and Elmetri (1995) recommend phosphorus (e.g., PO43), particulate several factors, including species, life a maximum value of 3.3 mg/L TSS nitrogen (PN), and particulate history stage, spatial variability, and across all GBR habitats. Thomas et al. phosphate (PP). Since the dissolved temporal variability. For example, (2003) recommend a maximum value of forms are assimilated rapidly by colonies of a species occurring on 10 mg/L averaged across all Papua New phytoplankton, and the majority of fringing reefs around high volcanic Guinea coral reef habitats. Larcombe et nitrogen and phosphorus discharged in islands with extensive groundwater al. (2001) recommend a maximum value

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76311

of 40 mg/L TSS for GBR ‘‘marginal heavy metals (also called trace metals), cause oxidative DNA damage to coral reefs’’, i.e., reefs close to shore with high pesticides, and hydrocarbons. Other larvae (Vijayavel et al., 2012). natural turbidity levels. Guan et al. organic contaminants, such as Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (2015) recommend a minimum light chemicals in personal care products, (PAHs) are found in fossil fuels such as intensity (mmol photons second/m2) of polychlorinated biphenyl, and oil and coal and can be produced by the 450 mmol photons second/m2 globally surfactants, have also been studied. incomplete combustion of organic for coral reefs. The above Contaminants may be delivered to coral matter. PAHs disperse through non- generalizations are for coral reef reefs via point or non-point sources. point sources such as road run-off, communities and ecosystems, rather Specifically, contaminants enter the sewage, and deposition of particulate air than individual species. marine environment through pollution. PAHs can also disperse from A coral’s response to a reduction in wastewater discharge, shipping, point sources such as oil spills and water clarity is dependent on the industrial activities, and agricultural industrial sites. Studies have found intensity and duration of the particular and urban runoff. These contaminants adverse effects of oil pollution on corals conditions. For example, corals can cause negative effects to coral that include growth impairments, exhibited partial mortality when reproduction, development, growth, mucus production, and decreased exposed to 476 mg/L TSS (Bengtsson et photosynthesis, and survival. reproduction, especially at increased al., 1996) for 96 hours, but had total Heavy metals (e.g., copper, cadmium, temperature (Kegler et al., 2015). mortality when exposed to 1000 mg/L manganese, nickel, cobalt, lead, zinc, Hydrocarbons have also been found to TSS for 65 hours (Thompson and Bright, and iron) can be toxic at concentrations affect early life stages of corals. Oil- 1980). Depending on the duration of above naturally-occurring levels. Heavy contaminated seawater reduced exposure, most coral species exhibited metals are persistent in the environment settlement of O. faveolata and of sublethal effects when exposed to and can bioaccumulate. Metals are Agaricia humilis and was more severe turbidity levels between 7 and 40 NTU adsorbed to sediment particles, which than any direct or latent effects on (Erftemeijer et al., 2012). The most can result in their long distance survival (Hartmann et al., 2015). Natural tolerant coral species exhibited transport away from sources of gas (water accommodated fraction) decreased growth rates when exposed to pollution. Corals incorporate metals in exposure resulted in abortion of larvae 165 mg/L TSS for 10 days (Rice and their skeleton and accumulate them in during early embryogenesis and early Hunter, 1992). By reducing water their soft tissue (Al-Rousan et al., 2012; release of larvae during late embryogenesis, with higher clarity, turbidity also reduces the Barakat et al., 2015). Although heavy maximum depth at which corals can concentrations of natural gas yielding metals can occur in the marine live, making deeper habitat unsuitable higher adverse effects (Villanueva et al., environment from natural processes, in (Fabricius, 2005). Existing data suggest 2011). Exposure to oil, dispersants, and nearshore waters they are mostly a that coral reproduction and settlement a combination of oil and dispersant result of anthropogenic sources (e.g., are more highly sensitive to changes in significantly decreased settlement and wastewater, antifouling and water clarity than adult survival, and survival of Porites astreoides and anticorrosive paints from marine vessels these functions are dependent on clear Orbicella faveolata larvae (Goodbody- and structures, land filling and dredging water. Suspended particulate matter Gringley et al., 2013). for coastal expansion, maritime reduces fertilization and sperm function Anthracene (a PAH that is used in activities, inorganic and organic (Ricardo et al., 2015), and strongly dyes, wood preservatives, insecticides, inhibits larvae survival, settlement, pollutants, crude oil pollution, shipping and coating materials) exposure to recruitment, and juvenile survival processes, industrial discharge, apparently healthy fragments and (Fabricius, 2005). agricultural activities), and are found diseased fragments (Caribbean yellow In summary, water clarity deviations near cities, ports, and industrial band disease) of O. faveolata reduced from local averages prevent or impede developments. activity of enzymes important for successful completion of all life history The effects of copper on corals protection against environmental stages of the listed coral species. include physiological impairment, stressors in the diseased colonies Identifying turbidity levels at which the impaired photosynthesis, bleaching, (Montilla et al., 2016). The results conservation value of habitat for listed reduced growth, and DNA damage indicated that diseased tissues might be corals may be affected is inherently (Bielmyer et al., 2010; Schwarz et al., more vulnerable to exposure to PAHs complex and influenced by taxa, 2013). Adverse effects to fertilization, such as anthracene compared to healthy exposure duration, and acclimatization larval development, larval swimming corals. PAH concentrations similar to to localized nutrient regimes, and other behavior, metamorphosis, and larval those present after an oil spill inhibited factors. survival have also been documented metamorphosis of Acropora tenuis The water column may include levels (Kwok and Ang, 2013; Negri and larvae, and sensitivity increased when of anthropogenically-introduced Hoogenboom, 2011; Puisay et al., 2015; larvae were co-exposed to PAHs and chemical contaminants that prevent or Reichelt-Brushett and Hudspith, 2016; ‘‘shallow reef’’ ultraviolet (UV) light impede successful completion of all life Rumbold and Snedaker, 1997). Toxicity levels (Negri et al., 2016). history stages of the listed coral species. of copper was found to be higher when Pesticides include herbicides, For the purposes of this rule, temperatures are elevated (Negri and insecticides, and antifoulants used on ‘‘contaminants’’ is a collective term to Hoogenboom, 2011). Nickel and cobalt vessels and other marine structures. describe a suite of anthropogenically- can also have negative effects on corals, Pesticides can affect non-target marine introduced chemical substances in such as reduced growth and organisms like corals and their water or sediments that may adversely photosynthetic rates (Biscere et al., zooxanthellae. Diuron, an herbicide, affect corals. The study of the effects of 2015), and reduced fertilization success decreased photosynthesis in contaminants on corals is a relatively (Reichelt-Brushett and Hudspith, 2016). zooxanthellae that had been isolated new field and information on sources Chronic exposure of corals to higher from the coral host and grown in culture and ecotoxicology is incomplete. The levels of iron may significantly reduce (Shaw et al., 2012a). Irgarol, an additive major groups of contaminants that have growth rates (Ferrier-Pages et al., 2001). in copper-based antifouling paints, been studied for effects to corals include Further, iron chloride has been found to significantly reduced settlement in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76312 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Porites hawaiiensis (Knutson et al., photosynthesis, or growth; however, the biology, local average conditions to 2012). Porites astreoides larvae exposed exposure concentration and duration which the species are acclimatized, and to two major mosquito pesticide may alter the expression of certain genes intensity and duration of exposure to ingredients, naled and permethrin, for involved in various important cellular adverse conditions. In other words, 18–24 hours showed differential functions (Chen et al., 2012). changes in the water column parameters responses. Concentrations of 2.96 mg/L Surfactants are used as detergents and discussed above that exceed the or greater of naled significantly reduced soaps, wetting agents, emulsifiers, tolerance ranges may induce adverse larval survivorship, while exposure of foaming agents, and dispersants. Linear effects in a particular species. Thus, the up to 6.0 mg/L of permethrin did not alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS) is one of concept of individual species’ tolerance result in reduced larval survivorship. the most common surfactants in use. limits is a different aspect of water Larval settlement, post-settlement Biodegradation of surfactants can occur quality conditions compared to survival, and zooxanthellae density within a few hours up to several days, conditions that are conducive for were not impacted by any treatment but significant proportions of formation and growth of reef structures. (Ross et al., 2015). surfactants attach to suspended solids These values presented in the Benzophenone-2 (BP–2) is a chemical and remain in the environment. This summaries above constitute the best additive to personal care products (e.g., sorption of surfactants onto suspended available information at the time of this sunscreen, shampoo, body lotions, soap, solids depends on environmental factors rulemaking. It is possible that future detergents), product coatings (oil-based such as temperature, salinity, or pH. scientific research will identify species- paints, polyurethanes), acrylic Exposure of Pocillopora verrucosa to specific values for some of these adhesives, and plastics that protects LAS resulted in tissue loss on fragments parameters that become more applicable against damage from UV light. It is (Kegler et al., 2015). The combined to the five listed coral species, though released into the ocean through effects of LAS exposure with increased it is also possible that future species- municipal and boat/ship wastewater temperature (+3 °C, from 28 to 31 °C) specific research will document that discharges, landfill leachates, resulted in greater tissue loss than LAS conducive or tolerance ranges for the residential septic fields, and unmanaged exposure alone (Kegler et al., 2015). five Caribbean corals fall within these cesspits (Downs et al., 2014). BP–2 is a In summary, there are multiple ranges. Because the ESA requires us to known endocrine disruptor and a DNA chemical contaminants that prevent or use the best scientific information mutagen, and its effects are worse in the impede successful completion of all life available in conducting consultations light. It caused deformation of history stages of the listed coral species. under section 7, we will incorporate any scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata Identifying contaminant levels at which such new scientific information into larvae, changing them from a motile the conservation value of habitat for consultations when evaluating potential planktonic state to a deformed sessile listed corals may be affected is impacts to the critical habitat. condition at low concentrations (Downs inherently complex and influenced by Need for Special Management et al., 2014). It also caused increasing taxa, exposure duration, and other Considerations or Protection larval bleaching with increasing factors. concentration (Downs et al., 2014). As described above, the best-available Specific areas within the geographical Benzophenone-3 (BP–3; oxybenzone) is information shows coral reefs form on area occupied by a species may be an ingredient in sunscreen and personal solid substrate but only within a narrow designated as critical habitat only if they care products (e.g., hair cleaning and range of water column conditions that contain essential features that may styling products, cosmetics, insect on average allow the deposition rates of require special management repellent, soaps) that protects against corals to exceed the rates of physical, considerations or protection (16 U.S.C. damage from UV light. It enters the chemical, and biological erosion (i.e., 1532(5)(A)(i)(II). Special management marine environment through swimmers conducive conditions, Brainard et al., considerations or protection are any and municipal, residential, and boat/ 2005). However, as with all ecosystems, methods or procedures useful in ship wastewater discharges and can water column conditions are dynamic protecting physical or biological cause DNA mutations. Oxybenzone is a and vary over space and time. features for the conservation of listed skeletal endocrine disruptor, and it Therefore, we also describe species (50 CFR 424.02). caused larvae of S. pistillata to encase environmental conditions in which The proposed essential feature is themselves in their own skeleton coral reefs currently exist globally, thus particularly susceptible to impacts from (Downs et al., 2016). Exposure to indicating the conditions that may be human activity because of the relatively oxybenzone transformed S. pistillata tolerated by corals and allow at least for shallow water depth range (less than larvae from a motile state to a deformed, survival. To the extent tolerance 295 ft (90 m)) the corals inhabit. The sessile condition (Downs et al., 2016). conditions deviate in duration and proximity of this habitat to coastal areas Larvae exhibited an increasing rate of intensity from conducive conditions, subjects this feature to impacts from coral bleaching in response to they may not support coral reproduction multiple activities, including, but not increasing concentrations of and recruitment, and reef growth, and limited to, coastal and in-water oxybenzone (Downs et al., 2016). thus would impair recovery of the construction, dredging and disposal Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are species. Further, annually and spatially activities, beach nourishment, environmentally stable, persistent averaged-tolerance ranges provide the stormwater run-off, wastewater and organic contaminants that have been limits of the environmental conditions sewage outflow discharges, point and used as heat exchange fluids in in which coral reefs exist globally (Guan non-point source discharges of electrical transformers and capacitors et al., 2015), but these conditions do not contaminants, and fishery management. and as additives in paint, carbonless necessarily represent the conditions that Further, the global oceans are being copy paper, and plastics. They can be may be tolerated by individual coral impacted by climate change from transported globally through the species. Individual species may or may greenhouse gas emissions, particularly atmosphere, water, and food chains. A not be able to withstand conditions the tropical oceans in which the study of the effects of the PCB, Aroclor within or exceeding the globally- Caribbean corals occur (van Hooidonk et 1254, on the Stylophora pistillata found averaged tolerance ranges for coral reefs, al., 2014). The impacts from these no effects on coral survival, depending on the individual species’ activities, combined with those from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76313

natural factors (e.g., major storm events), as critical habitat, are located in to draw the boundaries of each specific significantly affect habitat for all life proximity to one another, an inclusive area on the maps in the proposed stages for these threatened corals. We area may be designated as critical critical habitat designations. conclude that the essential feature is habitat (50 CFR 424.12(d)). Within the areas bounded by depth currently and will likely continue to be Within the geographical areas and species occurrence, we evaluated negatively impacted by some or all of occupied by each of the five corals in available data on the essential feature. these factors. U.S. waters, at the time of listing, there For substrate, we used information from Greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., fossil are five or six broad areas in which the the NCCOS Benthic Habitat Mapping fuel combustion) lead to global climate essential feature occurs. For each of the program that provides data and maps at change and ocean acidification. These five corals, boundaries of specific areas http:// activities adversely affect the essential were determined by each coral’s products.coastalscience.noaa.gov/ feature by increasing sea surface commonly occupied minimum and collections/benthic/default.aspx and the temperature and decreasing the maximum depth ranges within each Unified Florida Reef Tract Map found at aragonite saturation state. Coastal and coral’s specific geographic distribution. https://myfwc.com/research/gis/ in-water construction, channel Across all five coral species, a total of regional-projects/unified-reef-map/. dredging, and beach nourishment 28 specific areas were identified as Using GIS software, we extracted all activities can directly remove the being under consideration for critical habitat classifications that could be essential feature by dredging it or by habitat designation. There are five or six considered potential recruitment depositing sediments on it, making it specific areas per species, depending on habitat, including hardbottom and coral unavailable for settlement and whether it occurs in FGB; one each in reef. The benthic habitat information recruitment of coral larvae or fragments. Florida, Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. assisted in identifying any major gaps in These same activities can impact the John, USVI, St. Croix, USVI, FGB, and the distribution of the substrate essential feature by creating turbidity Navassa Island. Within each of these essential feature. The data show that during operations. Stormwater run-off, areas, the individual species’ specific hard substrate is unevenly distributed wastewater and sewage outflow areas are largely-overlapping. For throughout the ranges of the species. discharges, and point and non-point example, in Puerto Rico, there are five However, there are large areas where source contaminant discharges can largely-overlapping specific areas, one benthic habitat characterization data are adversely impact the essential feature by for each species, that surround each of still lacking, particularly deeper than 30 allowing nutrients and sediments, as the islands. The difference between m (99 ft). Therefore, we made well as contaminants, from point and each of the areas is the particular depth assumptions that the substrate feature non-point sources, including sewage, contours that were used to create the does exist in those areas, though in stormwater and agricultural runoff, river boundaries. For example, Dendrogyra unknown quantities, because the discharge, and groundwater, to alter the cylindrus’ specific area in Puerto Rico species occur there. The available data natural levels in the water column. The extends from the 1-m contour to the 25- also represent a snapshot in time, while same activities can also adversely affect m contour, which mostly overlaps the the exact location of the habitat feature the essential feature by increasing the Orbicella annularis specific area that may change over time (e.g., natural growth rates of macroalgae, allowing extends from the 0.5-m contour to the sediment movement covering or them to preempt available recruitment 20-m contour. Overlaying all of the exposing hard substrate). habitat. Fishery management can specific areas for each species results in There are areas within the adversely affect the essential feature if it the maximum geographic extent of the geographical and depth ranges of the allows for the reduction in the number areas under consideration for species that contain natural hard of herbivorous fishes available to designation, which covers 0.5–90 m (1.6 substrates that, due to their consistently control the growth of macroalgae on the to 295-ft) water depth around all the disturbed nature, do not provide the substrate. islands of Puerto Rico, USVI, and quality of substrate essential for the Given these ongoing threats Navassa, FGB, and from St. Lucie Inlet, conservation of threatened corals. These throughout the corals’ habitat, we find Martin County to Dry Tortugas, Florida. disturbances may be naturally occurring that the essential feature may require To these specific areas, we reviewed or caused by human activities. While special management considerations. available species occurrence, these areas may provide hard substrate bathymetric, substrate, and water for coral settlement and growth over Specific Areas Containing the Essential quality data. We used the highest short periods, the periodic nature of Features Within the Geographical Area resolution bathymetric data available direct human disturbance renders them Occupied by the Species from multiple sources depending on the poor habitat for coral growth and The definition of critical habitat geographic location. In Florida and the survival over time. These ‘‘managed requires us to identify specific areas on FGB, we used contours created from areas,’’ for the purposes of this proposed which are found the physical or National Ocean Service Hydrographic rule, are specific areas where the biological features essential to the Survey Data and NOAA ENCDirect substrate has been persistently species’ conservation that may require bathymetric point data (NPS) and disturbed by planned management special management considerations or contours created from NOAA’s Coastal activities authorized by local, state, or protection. Our regulations state that Relief Model. In Puerto Rico, contours Federal governmental entities at the critical habitat will be shown on a map, were derived from the National time of critical habitat designation, and with more-detailed information Geophysical Data Center’s (NGDC) 2005 expectations are that the areas will discussed in the preamble of the U.S. Coastal Relief Model. In USVI, we continue to be periodically disturbed by rulemaking documents in the Federal used contours derived from NOAA’s such management activities. Examples Register, which will reference each area 2004–2015 Bathymetric Compilation. In include, but are not necessarily limited by the State, county, or other local Navassa, contours were derived from to, dredged navigation channels, vessel governmental unit in which it is located NOAA’s NGDC 2006 bathymetric data. berths, and active anchorages. These (50 CFR 424.12(c)). Our regulations also These bathymetric data (i.e., depth managed areas are not under state that when several habitats, each contours) were used with other consideration for critical habitat satisfying requirements for designation geographic or management boundaries designation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76314 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

NMFS is aware that dredging may relatively large spatial scale (e.g., 1° X described in the final listing rule (79 FR result in sedimentation impacts beyond 1° grid) are available from Guan et al. 53852, September 10, 2014). the actual dredge channel. To the extent (2015), using 2009 data for some Specifically, ocean warming, disease, that these impacts are persistent, are parameters, and updated with newer and ocean acidification are the three expected to recur whenever the channel data from the World Ocean Atlas (2013) most significant threats that will impact is dredged and are of such a level that for temperature and nutrients. Those the potential for recovery of all the the areas in question have already been maps indicate that conditions that listed coral species. Because the primary made unsuitable for coral, then NMFS support coral reef growth, and thus threats are global in nature, adapting to expects that the federal action agency coral demographic functions, occur changing conditions will be critical to can assess and identify such areas throughout the specific areas under the species’ conservation and recovery. during their pre-dredging planning and consideration. We issued guidance in June 2016 on provide their rationale and information Based on the available data, we the treatment of climate change supporting this conclusion. To the identified 28 mostly-overlapping uncertainty in ESA decisions, which extent that the federal action agency specific areas that contain the essential addresses critical habitat specifically does so, NMFS proposes that these feature. The units can generally be (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ persistently impacted areas be grouped as the: (1) Florida units, (2) national/endangered-species- considered part of the managed areas Puerto Rico units, (3) St. Thomas/St. conservation/endangered-species-act- and excluded from critical habitat. John units (STT/STJ), (4) St. Croix units, guidance-policies-and-regulations). The GIS data of the locations of some (5) Navassa units, and (6) FGB units. guidance states that, when designating managed areas were available and Within each group of units, each species critical habitat, NMFS will consider extracted from the maps of the specific has its own unique unit that is specific proactive designation of unoccupied areas being considered for critical to its geographic and depth habitat as critical habitat when there are habitat designation. These data were not distributions. Therefore, within a group adequate data to support a reasonable available for every managed area; there are five mostly-overlapping inference that the habitat is essential for however, regardless of whether the units—one for each species. The the conservation of the species because managed area is extracted from the exception is that there are only three of the function(s) it is likely to serve as maps depicting the specific areas being completely-overlapping units in the climate changes. Further, we will only proposed as critical habitat, no managed FGB group, because only the three consider unoccupied areas to be areas are part of the specific areas that species of Orbicella occur there. The essential where a critical habitat contain the essential feature. essential feature is unevenly distributed designation limited to geographical The nearshore surf zones of Martin, throughout these 28 specific areas. areas occupied would be inadequate to Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Within these areas there exists a mosaic ensure the conservation of the species Counties are also consistently disturbed of habitats at relatively small spatial (50 CFR 424.12(b)(2). We specifically by naturally-high sediment movement, scales, some of which naturally contain address this consideration for suspension, and deposition levels. Hard the essential features (e.g., coral reefs) threatened Caribbean corals in this substrate areas found within these and some of which do not (e.g., seagrass section. nearshore surf zones are ephemeral in beds). Further, within these large areas, All five corals occur in the Caribbean, nature and are frequently covered by specific managed areas and naturally an area predicted to have more rapid sand, and the threatened coral species disturbed areas, as described above, also and severe impacts from climate change have never been observed there. Thus, exist. Due to the spatial scale at which (van Hooidonk et al., 2014). Shifting this area (water in depths from 0 ft to the essential feature exists interspersed into previously unoccupied habitats that 6.5 ft [0 m to 2 m] offshore St. Lucie with these other habitats and disturbed become more suitable as other parts of Inlet to Government Cut) does not areas, we are not able to more discretely their range become less suitable may be contain the essential feature and is not delineate the specific areas under a strategy these corals employ in the considered part of the specific areas consideration for critical habitat future to adapt to changing conditions. under consideration for critical habitat. designation. However, due to the nature of the The shallow depth limit (i.e., inshore Caribbean basin, there is little boundary) was identified based on the Unoccupied Critical Habitat Areas opportunity for range expansion. The lack of these or any reef building corals ESA section 3(5)(A)(ii) defines critical only area of potential expansion is north occurring in this zone, indicating habitat to include specific areas outside up the Florida coast. Several of the five conditions are not suitable for their the geographical area occupied by the coral species have different northern settlement and recruitment into the species at the time of listing if the areas limits to their current range, with population. These conditions do not are determined by the Secretary to be Orbicella faveolata’s limit at St. Lucie exist in the area south of Government essential for the conservation of the Inlet, Martin County, Florida, being the Cut, nor in the nearshore zones around species. Our regulations at 50 CFR farthest north and at the limit of coral the islands of Puerto Rico and the U.S. 424.12(b)(2) further explain that reef formation in Florida for these Virgin Islands. In these areas the unoccupied areas shall only be species. A northern range expansion hydrodynamics allow for the growth of designated after determining that along Florida’s coast beyond this limit some (e.g., Orbicella spp.) of the occupied areas are inadequate to ensure is unlikely due to lack of evidence of threatened coral in the shallow depths. the conservation of the species, and the historical reef growth under warmer Due to the ephemeral nature of unoccupied areas are reasonably certain climates. Further, northern expansion is conditions within the water column and to contribute to the conservation of the inhibited by hydrographic conditions the various scales at which water species and contain one or more (Walker and Gilliam, 2013). The other quality data are collected, this aspect of essential feature. corals could theoretically expand into the essential feature is difficult to map The threats to these five corals are the area between their current northern at fine spatial or temporal scales. generally the same threats affecting extents to the limit of reef formation. However, annually-averaged plots of coral reefs throughout the world However, temperature is not likely the temperature, aragonite saturation, (climate change, fishing, and land-based factor limiting occupation of those nitrate, phosphate, and light, at sources of pollution) and are fully areas, given the presence of other reef-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76315

building corals. Thus, there are likely with areas considered for the proposed conservation effectiveness, which will other non-climate-related factors critical habitat is approximately 800 ensure continued benefits to the species. limiting the northern extent of the acres. Within this area, four of the Annual reviews of the INRMP for 2011– corals’ ranges. threatened corals (D. cylindrus, O. 2015 found that the INRMP executions, Because the extent of the proposed annularis, O. faveolata, and O. franksi) including actions that minimize or critical habitat designations is the entire and the proposed essential feature are eliminate land-based sources of occupied areas of the species, we present in densities and proportions pollution, ‘‘satisfied’’ or ‘‘more than believe that the designations are similar to those throughout the rest of satisfied’’ conservation objectives. We adequate to provide for the conservation the nearshore habitat in the Florida believe the NASKW INRMP provides of the five corals. Further, no Keys. The species use this area in the the types of benefits to the threatened unoccupied areas exist that would add same way that they do all areas corals described in our regulations (50 to the conservation of the five corals. proposed for critical habitat—to carry CFR 424.12(h)). Therefore, we are not considering any out all life functions. As detailed in Four (D. cylindrus, O. annularis, O. unoccupied areas for designation of Chapter 4 and Appendix C of the faveolata, and O. franksi) of the five critical habitat for the five corals. INRMP, the plan provides benefits to corals’ specific areas overlap with the threatened corals and existing NASKW, based on the depth in which Application of ESA Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) the species occur and the distance from (Military Lands) Acropora critical habitat through the following NASKW broad programs and shore covered by NASKW’s INRMP. Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA activities: (1) Erosion control—which Therefore, pursuant to section prohibits designating as critical habitat 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA, we determined will prevent sediments from entering any lands or other geographical areas that the INRMP provides a benefit to into the water; (2) Boca Chica Clean owned or controlled by the Department those threatened corals, and we are not Marina Designation—which eliminates of Defense (DoD), or designated for its designating critical habitat within the or significantly reduces the release of use, that are subject to an Integrated boundaries covered by the INRMP. nutrients and contaminants; (3) Natural Resources Management Plan stormwater quality improvements— Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2) (INRMP) prepared under section 101 of which prevent or reduce the amount of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires nutrients, sediments, and contaminants; Secretary determines in writing that that we consider the economic impact, and (4) wastewater treatment—which such plan provides a benefit to the impact on national security, and any reduces the release of nutrients and species for which critical habitat is other relevant impact, of designating contaminants consistent with Florida proposed for designation. Our any particular area as critical habitat. Surface Water Quality Standards. regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h) provide Additionally, the Secretary has the Within these categories, there are 15 that, in determining whether an discretion to consider excluding any specific management activities and applicable benefit is provided, we will area from critical habitat if (s)he projects that provide benefit to the consider: determines, based upon the best (1) The extent of the area and features corals and their habitat (see Table 4–2 scientific and commercial data present; of the INRMP). These types of best available, the benefits of exclusion (that (2) The type and frequency of use of management practices have been is, avoiding some or all of the impacts the area by the species; ongoing at NASKW since 1983; thus, that would result from designation) (3) The relevant elements of the they are likely to continue into the outweigh the benefits of designation. INRMP in terms of management future. Further, the plan specifically The Secretary may not exclude an area objectives, activities covered, and best provides assurances that all NASKW from designation if exclusion will result management practices, and the certainty staff have the authority and funding in the extinction of the species. Because that the relevant elements will be (subject to appropriations) to implement the authority to exclude is discretionary, implemented; and the plan. The plan also provides exclusion is not required for any (4) The degree to which the relevant assurances that the conservation efforts particular area under any elements of the INRMP will protect the will be effective through annual reviews circumstances. habitat from the types of effects that conducted by state and Federal natural The ESA provides the U.S. Fish and would be addressed through a resource agencies. These activities Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NMFS destruction-or-adverse-modification provide a benefit to the species and the (the Services) with broad discretion in analysis. identified essential feature in the how to consider impacts. (See, H.R. Rep. Naval Air Station Key West (NASKW) proposed critical habitat designations by No. 95–1625, at 17, reprinted in 1978 is the only installation controlled by the reducing sediment and nutrient U.S.C.C.A.N. 9453, 9467 (1978). DoD, specifically the Department of the discharges into nearshore waters, which Economics and any other relevant Navy (Navy), that coincides with any of addresses some of the particular impact shall be considered by the the areas under consideration for critical conservation and protection needs that Secretary in setting the limits of critical habitat. On September 21, 2015, the critical habitat would afford. These habitat for such a species. The Secretary Navy requested in writing that the areas activities are similar to those that we is not required to give economics or any covered by the 2014 INRMP for NASKW describe below as project modifications other relevant impact predominant not be designated as critical habitat, for avoiding or reducing adverse effects consideration in his specification of pursuant to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), to the proposed critical habitat. critical habitat. The consideration and and provided the INRMP for our review. Therefore, were we to consult on the weight given to any particular impact is The NASKW INRMP covers the lands activities in the INRMP that may affect completely within the Secretary’s and waters—generally out to 50 yards the proposed critical habitat, we would discretion.). Courts have noted the ESA (45.7 m)—adjacent to NASKW, likely not require any project does not contain requirements for any including several designated restricted modifications based on best particular methods or approaches. (See, areas (see INRMP figures C–1 through management practices in the INRMP. e.g., Bldg. Indus. Ass’n of the Bay Area C–14). The total area of the waters Further, the INRMP includes provisions et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce et al., covered by the INRMP that overlaps for monitoring and evaluating No. 13–15132 (9th Cir., July 7, 2015),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76316 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

upholding district court’s ruling that the The Draft Information Report authorized by U.S. Army Corps of ESA does not require the agency to describes the projected future Federal Engineers (USACE); follow a specific methodology when activities that would trigger section 7 • Channel dredging (maintenance designating critical habitat under consultation requirements if they are dredging of existing channels and section 4(b)(2)). For this proposed rule, implemented in the future, because they offshore disposal of dredged material) we followed the same basic approach to may affect the essential feature and conducted or authorized by USACE; describing and evaluating impacts as we consequently may result in economic • Beach nourishment/shoreline have for several recent critical habitat costs or negative impacts. The report protection (placement of sand onto rulemakings, as informed by our Policy also identifies the potential national eroding beaches from onshore or Regarding Implementation of Section security and other relevant impacts that offshore borrow sites) conducted or may arise due to the proposed critical authorized by USACE; 4(b)(2) of the ESA (81 FR 7226, February • 11, 2016). habitat designations, such as positive Water quality management (revision The following discussion of impacts impacts that may arise from of state water quality standards, issuance of National Pollutant Discharge is summarized from our Draft conservation of the species and its Elimination System (NPDES) permits Information Report, which identifies the habitat, state and local protections that and Total Maximum daily load (TMDL) economic, national security, and other may be triggered as a result of standards under the CWA, and pesticide relevant impacts that we projected designation, and education of the public registrations under the Federal would result from including each of the to the importance of an area for species Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide specific areas in the proposed critical conservation. Act) authorized by the Environmental habitat designations. We considered Economic Impacts Protection Agency (EPA); these impacts when deciding whether to Economic impacts of the critical • Protected area management exercise our discretion to propose habitat designations result through (development of management plans for excluding particular areas from the implementation of section 7 of the ESA national parks, marine sanctuaries, designations. Both positive and negative in consultations with Federal agencies wildlife refuges, etc.) conducted by the impacts were identified and considered to ensure their proposed actions are not National Park Service (NPS) and NOAA (these terms are used interchangeably likely to destroy or adversely modify National Ocean Service (NOS); with benefits and costs, respectively). critical habitat. The economic impacts • Fishery management (development Impacts were evaluated in quantitative of consultation may include both of fishery management plans under the terms where feasible, but qualitative administrative and project modification Magnuson-Stevens Fishery appraisals were used where that is more costs; economic impacts that may be Conservation and Management Act) appropriate to particular impacts. associated with the conservation conducted by NMFS; The primary impacts of a critical benefits resulting from consultation are • Aquaculture (development of habitat designation result from the ESA described later. aquaculture facilities) authorized by section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal In 2016, we examined the ESA section EPA and USACE, and funded by NMFS; agencies ensure their actions are not 7 consultation record for the period and likely to result in the destruction or 2004–2014, as compiled in our Public • Military activities (e.g., training adverse modification of critical habitat, Consultation Tracking System (PCTS) exercises) conducted by DoD. and that they consult with NMFS in database, to identify the types of Federal By conducting interviews and fulfilling this requirement. Determining activities that may affect the five querying the database for these these impacts is complicated by the fact threatened Caribbean corals’ proposed categories of activities in the maximum that section 7(a)(2) also requires that critical habitat. We will also review geographic extent of the sum of the five Federal agencies ensure their actions are more recent consultation information corals’ proposed critical habitat, we not likely to jeopardize the species’ prior to the publication of any final rule. estimate that 5 programmatic, 39 formal, continued existence. One incremental We requested that Federal action and 272 informal section 7 impact of designation is the extent to agencies provide us with information on consultations (for a total of 307) are which Federal agencies modify their any additional future consultations that likely to occur over the next 10 years proposed actions to ensure they are not may affect the proposed critical habitat, and will require analysis of impacts to likely to destroy or adversely modify the and therefore should be included in our the proposed critical habitat. Because critical habitat beyond any analysis. Of the types of past we have data on past consultations for modifications they would make because consultations that may affect the impacts to the acroporid corals as well of listing and the requirement to avoid essential feature in any unit of proposed as their critical habitat, we believe it is jeopardy to listed corals. When the same critical habitat, we determined that a reasonable assumption that the modification would be required due to none of the activities would solely affect breakout of the type of past impacts to both the species and critical the essential feature. That is, all consultations (into informal, formal, and habitat, there would be no additional or categories of the activities identified programmatic consultations) likely incremental impact attributable to the have potential routes of effects to both reflects the breakout of future critical habitat designation beyond the the threatened corals and the critical consultations. In addition to the type of administrative impact associated with habitat. consultation, we also present the data conducting the critical habitat analysis. We identified the following 10 across the geopolitical groups of units Relevant, existing regulatory protections categories of activities implemented by (i.e., the scale at which economic data are referred to as the ‘‘baseline’’ for the six different Federal entities as having is collected) that overlap with the analysis and are discussed in the Draft the potential to affect the essential maximum geographic extent (i.e., the Information Report. In this case, notable feature of the five corals’ critical habitat: area that is determined by the species baseline protections include the ESA • Coastal and in-water construction with the widest geographic and depth listings of the threatened corals, and the (e.g. docks, seawalls, piers, marinas, ranges) of the proposed critical habitat existing critical habitat for elkhorn and port expansions, anchorages, pipelines/ designations. We are not able to display staghorn corals (73 FR 72210; November cables, bridge repairs, aids to the data by individual species’ specific 26, 2008). navigation, etc.) conducted or areas due to the largely overlapping but

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76317

distinct nature of the specific areas for • The five corals are present in each implementing conservation efforts (i.e., all the species within a geopolitical of the areas proposed for them, and are reasonable and prudent alternatives in area, and the limitations on the way the already expected to receive significant the case of an adverse modification historical consultation data are recorded protections related to the listing of the finding) resulting from the designation (i.e., by county or region, rather than species under the ESA that may also of critical habitat are the direct, specific location). protect the critical habitat. However, incremental compliance costs of As discussed in more detail in our there is uncertainty on whether a designating critical habitat. Draft Information Report, all categories particular species may be present within Designation of critical habitat for the of activities identified as having the a particular project site, due to their five corals is unlikely to result in any potential to affect the proposed essential patchy distribution throughout their new section 7 consultations. Given the feature also have the potential to affect habitat. listing of the five corals, and the fact the threatened Caribbean corals. To • The 2008 Acropora critical habitat that the proposed critical habitat estimate the economic impacts of designation overlaps significantly with overlaps, in part, with Acropora critical critical habitat designation, our analysis the specific areas under consideration, habitat, section 7 consultations are compares the state of the world with and the overlap includes the areas already likely to occur for activities with and without the designation of critical where the vast majority of projects and a Federal nexus throughout the habitat for the five corals. The ‘‘without activities potentially affected are proposed critical habitat areas. critical habitat’’ scenario represents the projected to occur. The existing critical However, the need to address adverse baseline for the analysis, considering habitat designation shares the substrate modification of the proposed critical protections already afforded the aspect of the essential feature with this habitat in future consultations will add proposed critical habitat as a result of proposed designation for the five corals, an incremental administrative burden, the listing of the five corals as but not the water quality components. but only for those activities that would threatened species and as a result of The activities that may affect the not have affected Acropora critical other Federal, state, and local proposed critical habitat water column habitat (i.e., the Federal action areas are regulations or protections, notably the feature are the same as those that would outside the boundaries or the actions previous designation of critical habitat affect the Acropora critical habitat involve increases in water temperature for the two Caribbean acroporids. The substrate feature, with the exception of that is not considered under existing ‘‘with critical habitat’’ scenario activities that would increase water Acropora critical habitat). Thus, some of describes the state of the world with the temperature. the categories of activities identified critical habitat designations. The Incremental impacts result from above as having the potential to affect incremental impacts that will be changes in the management of projects the proposed critical habitat will not associated specifically with these and activities, above and beyond those result in incremental impacts due to critical habitat designations if finalized changes resulting from existing required these designations. We estimate that 1 as proposed are the difference between or voluntary conservation efforts programmatic, 19 formal and 34 the two scenarios. Baseline protections undertaken due to other Federal, state, informal, for a total of 54 consultations exist in large areas proposed for and local regulations or guidelines will result in incremental costs over the designation; however, there is (baseline requirements). The added next 10 years. Table 2 shows the uncertainty as to the degree of administrative costs of considering predicted number of consultations, by protection that these protections critical habitat in section 7 consultation activity and Federal agency, that are provide. In particular: and the additional impacts of projected to result in incremental costs.

TABLE 2—FORECAST INCREMENTAL SECTION 7 CONSULTATIONS BY ACTIVITY AND ACTION AGENCY (2016–2025)

Coastal & Water in-water Channel Beach quality Military Unit construction dredging nourishment mgmt. (NAVY) Total (USACE) (USACE) (USACE) (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 are expected to require comparatively NMFS and a Federal action agency. address adverse effects to the proposed higher levels of administrative effort. Incremental administrative costs per critical habitat is assumed to be the For all formal and informal consultation effort are expected on same, on average, across activities consultations, we anticipate that average to be $9,200 for programmatic regardless of the type of activity (e.g., incremental administrative costs will be consultations, $5,100 for formal beach nourishment versus channel incurred by NMFS, a Federal action consultations, and $2,400 for informal dredging). Informal consultations are agency, and potentially a third party consultations. The cost per consultation expected to require comparatively low (e.g., applicant, permittee). For effort is multiplied by the number of levels of administrative effort, while programmatic consultations, we each anticipated type of consultation formal and programmatic consultations anticipate that costs will be incurred by (i.e., programmatic, formal, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76318 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

informal) within each unit under activities that are likely to be affected by costs are a result of the increased consideration. Incremental the proposed critical habitat administrative effort to analyze impacts administrative costs are expected to designations, (2) projected the to the proposed critical habitat in future total approximately $140,000 over the likelihood that forecasted activities will consultations on activities that are not next 10 years for an annualized cost of in fact need to be modified, and (3) projected to affect Acropora critical $20,000 (discounted at 7 percent as estimated the average costs of habitat (i.e., in areas outside the required by the Office of Management modifications needed to comply with boundaries, projects with impacts to and Budget (OMB)). the ESA’s critical habitat provisions. water temperature, or pesticide To determine the incremental impact Based on this analysis, incremental registrations). The high-end costs are a of the designations of critical habitat project modifications and associated result of the increased administrative from project modifications triggered costs are projected to result only from effort (i.e., low-end costs) plus the specifically to avoid potential coastal and in-water construction, incremental project modification costs destruction or adverse modification of channel dredging, beach nourishment/ that stem solely from the proposed critical habitat, we evaluated whether shoreline protection, water quality critical habitat. Incremental project and where critical habitat designations management activities, and military modification costs are a result of future may generate project modifications activities. consultations that are not projected to above and beyond those undertaken We recognize that uncertainty exists have effects on Acropora critical habitat. under the baseline, for example, to regarding whether, where, and how The high-end costs also assume that the avoid jeopardy to the five corals or to frequently surveys will identify the project modifications will be solely a avoid destruction or adverse presence of the five coral species. modification of existing Acropora Should one of the listed corals be result of the proposed critical habitat, critical habitat. Depending on the present within the area of a future and not the presence of the species. circumstances, project modifications project that may also affect proposed However, the high-end estimate is very may be considered baseline (e.g., would critical habitat, the costs of project likely an overestimate on incremental be required regardless of critical habitat modifications would not be incremental costs because an undetermined number designation) or incremental (e.g., to the critical habitat. To reflect the of future consultations will have project resulting from critical habitat uncertainty with respect to the modifications that address adverse designation). The types of project likelihood that these consultations will effects to one or more of the five corals, modifications that may be require additional project modifications as well as adverse effects to the new recommended to avoid adverse due to impacts to new critical habitat, critical habitat. Nearly 86 percent of modification of the five corals critical we estimated a range of costs. The low- total high-end incremental costs result habitat are the same as those that would end estimate assumes that no from project modifications, primarily for be recommended to avoid adverse incremental project modifications will coastal and in-water construction and modification of the existing Acropora occur because any project modifications water quality management critical habitat (with the exception of would be required to address impacts to consultations. The relative percentage modifications to address increases in one of the five corals or to existing costs by unit and depth is illustrated in water temperature), or to avoid jeopardy Acropora critical habitat in a project Table 3 and Table 4 for the low-end and to the five corals. Whether projects will area. The high-end estimate assumes high-end scenarios, respectively (depth require modifications solely due to the that all the project modifications would is included to illustrate areas being proposed critical habitat will depend be incremental because none of the five proposed beyond existing Acropora on: (1) Geographic location, (2) activity corals are present and the action would critical habitat, which extends to 30 m). type, and (3) results of surveys to not affect existing Acropora critical At the high end, approximately 30 determine the potential presence of at habitat. Taking into consideration the percent of these costs is related to least one of the five corals. Project types and cost estimates of the project activity in Florida and another 50 modifications would be incremental modifications that may be required for percent is related to activity occurring only in cases where the five listed corals predicted consultations identified, we in Puerto Rico. This cost distribution is are all absent and thus would not be estimate the high-end incremental costs, as expected due to the size of the human affected, and the project would also not which total $880,000 over 10 years for populations adjacent to the proposed affect existing Acropora critical habitat. an annualized cost of $88,000 units, and thus human activity, in these We conducted the following steps to (discounted at 7 percent). jurisdictions, as compared to the other quantify the incremental impacts of Total incremental costs resulting from units. In other words, the highest potential project modifications to the the five corals critical habitat are proportion of the incremental costs activities that we ultimately concluded estimated to range from $140,000 to occurs in those units with the highest would not affect one of the five corals $1.02 million over 10 years, an number of future consultations, which and Acropora critical habitat: (1) annualized cost of $20,000 to $140,000 is proportional to the human population Identified the types and occurrence of (discounted at 7 percent). The low-end 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76319

TABLE 3—LOW-END TOTAL INCREMENTAL COSTS (ADMINISTRATIVE) BY UNIT, 2016–2025 ($2015, 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE)—Continued

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

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 ranging from $70,600 to $500,000 over costs. This result is expected because high-end incremental costs by activity 10 years (discounted at 7 percent). At this is the category of activity with the type. The activity with the highest costs the high end this represents most frequent projects that occur in the is coastal and in-water construction, approximately 50 percent of the total 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76320 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

National Security Impacts The SFOMF–RA contains underwater these areas. NMFS will provide Our critical habitat impacts analyses cables and benthic sensor systems that exclusion determinations for this recognize that impacts to national enable real-time data acquisition from request in the final rule. Navy sensor systems used in Navy security result only if a designation Other Relevant Impacts exercises. The previous consultations, would trigger future ESA section 7 We identified three broad categories consultations because a proposed in 2011 and 2013, were for the installation of new cables. These of other relevant impacts of this military activity ‘‘may affect’’ the proposed critical habitat: Conservation physical or biological feature(s) consultations did not affect any coral species, because the cables were routed benefits, both to the species and to essential to the listed species’ society; impacts on governmental or conservation. Anticipated interference to avoid the corals. These consultations did not consider effects to Acropora private entities that are implementing with mission-essential training or existing management plans that provide testing or unit readiness, through the critical habitat because the area was excluded from the 2008 Acropora benefits to the listed species; and additional commitment of resources to critical habitat designation based on educational and awareness benefits. Our an adverse modification analysis and national security impacts. However, Draft Impacts Analysis discusses expected requirements to modify the installation of the cables would have conservation benefits of designating the action to prevent adverse modification affected the substrate feature. Because 28 specific areas, and the benefits of of critical habitat, has been identified as the installation of new cables in the conserving the five corals to society, in an impact of critical habitat future may affect the proposed critical both ecological and economic metrics. designations. Our impacts analyses also habitat substrate feature, and the area recognize that whether national security Conservation Benefits was excluded from Acropora critical impacts result from the designation habitat, we expect that there may be an The primary benefit of critical habitat depends on whether future incremental impact to the Navy due to designation is the contribution to the consultations would be required under the proposed critical habitat conservation and recovery of the five the jeopardy standard, due to the coral designations. The impact would result corals. That is, in protecting the features being present, regardless of the critical from the added administrative effort to essential to the conservation of the habitat designation, and whether the consider impacts to the proposed species, critical habitat directly designation would add new burdens critical habitat and project contributes to the conservation and beyond those related to the consultation modifications to avoid adverse effects to recovery of the species. This analysis on effects to the corals. the substrate aspect of the essential contemplates three broad categories of As described previously, we feature. These impacts would likely be benefits of critical habitat designation: identified DoD military operations as a incremental due to the critical habitat (1) Increased probability of category of activity that has the designations. conservation and recovery of the five potential to affect the essential feature of The Navy has conducted extensive corals. The most direct benefits of the the proposed critical habitat for the five benthic surveys in the SFOMF–RA and critical habitat designations stem from corals. However, most of the actions we has mapped the locations of all listed the enhanced probability of have consulted on in the past would not corals. Thus, they would be able to conservation and recovery of the five result in incremental impacts in the avoid impacts to the listed corals from corals. From an economic perspective, future, because the consultations would the installation of new cables. However, the appropriate measure of the value of be required to address impacts to either if the cables were laid over the proposed this benefit is people’s ‘‘willingness-to- the five corals or the substrate feature of critical habitat’s substrate feature, the pay’’ for the incremental change. While Acropora critical habitat. Based on our cable would make the substrate the existing economics literature is review of historical consultations, only unavailable for settlement and insufficient to provide a quantitative those activities that would be conducted recruitment. Thus, we would require estimate of the extent to which people in the South Florida Ocean Measuring consultation to evaluate impact of this value incremental changes in recovery Facility operated by the Navy would adverse effect to the essential feature. potential, the literature does provide involve incremental impacts due to the The administrative costs and project evidence that people have a positive proposed designations, and thus only modification costs would be preference for listed species consultations on naval activities in this incremental impacts of the proposed conservation, even beyond any direct particular area could result in national critical habitat. The Navy concluded (e.g., recreation, such as viewing the security impacts. that critical habitat designations at the species while snorkeling or diving) or In 2015, we requested the DoD SFOMF–RA would likely impact indirect (e.g., reef fishing that is provide us with information on military national security by diminishing supported by the presence of healthy activities that may affect the proposed military readiness through the reef ecosystems) use for the species. critical habitat and whether the requirement to consult on their (2) Ecosystem service benefits. proposed critical habitat would have a activities within critical habitat beyond Overall, coral reef ecosystems, including national security impact due to the the requirement to consult on the those comprising populations of the five requirement to consult on those threatened corals and through any corals, provide important ecosystem activities. The Navy responded that additional project modifications. services of value to individuals, activities associated with the designated In 2019, the Navy requested the communities, and economies. These restricted area managed by the South exclusion of the Federal Danger Zones include recreational opportunities (and Florida Ocean Measuring Facility and Restricted Areas off NAS Key West associated tourism spending in the (SFOMF–RA), defined in 33 CFR designated in 33 CFR 334.610 and 33 regional economy), habitat and nursery 334.580, and located offshore of Dania, CFR 334.620 in Navy’s Key West functions for recreationally and Florida, may affect the proposed critical Operations Area. However, at this time commercially valuable fish species, habitat. This assertion is supported by NMFS is unable to make a shoreline protection in the form of wave two previous consultations on cable- determination and has been in attenuation and reduced beach erosion, laying activities in the SFOMF–RA over discussion with the Navy to identify the and climate stabilization via carbon the past 10 years. potential national security impacts in sequestration. The total annual

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76321

economic value of coral reefs in U.S. public’s awareness that there are special Thus, the five corals’ critical habitat jurisdictions in 2012 has been considerations to be taken within the designations would provide unique summarized as: (1) Florida—$324M/ area. benefits for the corals, beyond the year, (2) Puerto Rico—$1,161M/year, Similarly, state and local governments benefits provided by these existing and (3) USVI—$210M/year (Brander may be prompted to enact laws or rules management plans. However, the and Van Beukering, 2013). Efforts to to complement the critical habitat identified areas not only contain the conserve the five corals also benefit the designations and benefit the listed essential feature, but they also contain broader reef ecosystems, thereby corals. Those laws would likely result in one or more of the five corals, and they preserving or improving these additional impacts of the designations. overlap with previously designated ecosystem services and values. However, it is impossible to quantify the Acropora critical habitat. Hence, any Conservation benefits to each coral in beneficial effects of the awareness section 7 impacts will likely be limited all their specific areas are expected to gained through, or the secondary to administrative costs. Because we result from the designations. Critical impacts from state and local regulations identified resource management as a habitat most directly influences the resulting from, the critical habitat category of activities that may affect recovery potential of the species and designations. both the five corals and the critical protects coral reef ecosystem services Impacts to Governmental and Private habitat, these impacts would not be through its implementation under Entities With Existing Management incremental. In addition, we found no section 7 of the ESA. That is, these evidence that relationships with the Plans Benefitting the Essential Features benefits stem from the implementation Federal protected area managers would of project modifications undertaken to Among other relevant impacts of the be negatively affected, or that negative avoid destruction and adverse critical habitat designations we impacts to other agencies’ ability to modification of critical habitat. considered under section 4(b)(2) of the provide for the conservation of the Accordingly, critical habitat designation ESA are impacts on relationships with, listed coral species would result from is most likely to generate the benefits or the efforts of, private and public designation. Therefore, we do not discussed in those areas expected to be entities involved in management or expect the critical habitat designations subject to additional recommendations conservation efforts benefiting listed to impact natural resource agencies for project modifications (above and species. In some cases, the additional implementing management plans. beyond any conservation measures that regulatory layer of a designation could may be implemented in the baseline due negatively impact the conservation Discretionary Exclusions Under Section to the listing status of the species or for benefits provided to the listed species 4(b)(2) other reasons). In addition, critical by existing or proposed management or We are not exercising our discretion habitat designation may generate conservation plans. to consider exclusions based on ancillary environmental improvements Impacts on entities responsible for economic impacts. Our conservative and associated ecosystem service natural resource management, identification of the highest potential benefits (i.e., to commercial fishing and conservation plans, or the functioning of incremental economic impacts indicates recreational activities) in areas subject those plans depend on the type and that any such impacts will be relatively to incremental project modifications. number of section 7 consultations that small—$20,000 to $140,000 annually. While neither benefit can be directly may result from the designations in the The incremental costs are split between monetized, existing information on the areas covered by those plans, as well as the incremental administrative effort value of coral reefs provides an any potential project modifications and incremental project modification indication of the value placed on those recommended by these consultations. costs for the relatively few (about 54) ecosystems. As described in section 10.1.3.5 of the consultations over the next 10 years. (3) Education and Awareness Draft Information Report, there were six Further, the analysis indicates that there Benefits. There is the potential for past consultations on Federal protected is no particular area within the units education and awareness benefits area management plans (three formal, that meet the definition of critical arising from the critical habitat three informal) in the units being habitat where economic impacts would designations. This potential stems from proposed as critical habitat. The three be particularly high or concentrated as two sources: (1) Entities that engage in formal consultations were related to the compared to the human population and section 7 consultation and (2) members NPS management plans at the following level of activities in each unit. of the general public interested in coral Federal protected areas: We are proposing to exclude one conservation. The former potential • Buck Island Reef National particular area on the basis of national exists from parties who alter their Monument in St. Croix, U.S. VI; security impacts. National security activities to benefit the species or • Everglades National Park in Monroe impacts would occur in the designated essential feature because they were County, FL; and restricted area managed by the SFOMF– made aware of the critical habitat • Biscayne National Park in Miami- RA offshore Dania Beach, Florida, designations through the section 7 Dade County, FL. which coincides with all five threatened consultation process. The latter may Negative impacts to the NPS could corals’ proposed critical habitats. The engage in similar efforts because they result if the critical habitat designations area does support the essential feature learned of the critical habitat interfere with these agencies’ ability to and contains the five threatened designations through outreach provide for the conservation of the Caribbean corals. The Navy concluded materials. For example, we have been species, or otherwise hampers that critical habitat designations at the contacted by diver groups in the Florida management of these areas. Existing SFOMF–RA would likely impact Keys who are specifically seeking the management plans in these three national security by diminishing two Caribbean acroporid corals on dives protected areas and their associated military readiness through the and reporting those locations to NMFS, regulations protect existing coral reef requirement to consult on their thus assisting us in planning and resources, but they do not specifically activities within critical habitat beyond implementing coral conservation and protect the substrate and water quality the requirement to consult on the management activities. In our feature for purposes of increasing listed threatened corals and potentially result experience, designation raises the coral abundance and eventual recovery. in additional project modifications. This

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76322 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

is likely because the Navy, which has consultation requirements due to this map instead of using lengthy textual comprehensive maps of all threatened exclusion, since this area is under descriptions to describe critical habitat coral locations within the SFOMF–RA, exclusive military control. Therefore, in boundaries, with additional information would need to avoid impacts to the our judgment, the benefit of including discussed in the preamble of the substrate aspect of the essential feature the particular area of the SFOMF–RA is rulemaking and in agency records (50 in addition to avoiding impacts to the outweighed by the benefit of avoiding CFR 424.12(c)). When several habitats, listed corals themselves, should any the impacts to national security the each satisfying the requirements for new cables or sensors be installed. The Navy would experience if it were designation as critical habitat, are Navy stated that impediments to required to consult based on critical located in proximity to one another, an SFOMF operations would adversely habitat. Given the small area (5.5 mi2 inclusive area may be designated as impact the Navy’s ability to maintain an (14.2 km2)) that meets the definition of critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12(d)). underwater stealth advantage of future critical habitat encompassed by this The habitat containing the essential classes of ships and submarines and area, we conclude that exclusion of this feature and that may require special impede our nation’s ability to address area will not result in extinction of any management considerations or emergent foreign threats. The Navy of the five threatened Caribbean corals. protection is marine habitat of particular stated that the critical habitat We are not able to make a depths for each species in the Atlantic designations would hinder its ability to determination on the exclusion of the Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean continue carrying out the unique Key West Operations Area at this time Sea. The boundaries of each specific submarine training provided by this due to a lack of information to conduct area for each coral species are facility, as no other U.S. facility has the the proper analysis and our deadline for determined by the species’ commonly capability to make the cable-to-shore the proposed designations. NMFS, in occupied minimum and maximum measurements enabled at the SFOMF close coordination with the Navy, will depth ranges (i.e., depth contour) within that satisfy its requirement to assure the reconsider this matter consistent with their specific geographic distributions, newest submarines are not vulnerable to the weighing factors, and will provide as described in the literature and electromagnetic detection. The Navy exclusion determinations for this advised the loss of this capability would observed in monitoring data. All depths request in the final rule. are relative to mean low water (MLW). directly impact new construction of We are not proposing to exclude any Because the quality of the available GIS submarines and submarines already in particular area based on other relevant data varies based on collection method, the fleet that are being readied for impacts. Other relevant impacts include resolution, and processing, the proposed deployment. Therefore, SFOMF’s conservation benefits of the critical habitat boundaries are defined activities are necessary to maintain designations, both to the species and to by the maps in combination with the proficiency in mission-essential tactics society. Because the feature that forms textual information included in the for winning wars, deterring aggression, the basis of the critical habitat proposed regulation. This textual and maintaining freedom of the seas. designations is essential to the information clarifies and refines the The excluded area comprises a very conservation of the five threatened location and boundaries of each area. In small portion of the areas that meet the Caribbean corals, the protection of particular, the textual information definition of critical habitat. Navy critical habitat from destruction or clarifies the proposed boundaries of the regulations prohibit anchoring, trawling, adverse modification may at minimum critical habitat for each coral species dredging, or attaching any object within prevent loss of the benefits currently based on a specific water-depth range. the area; thus, the corals and their provided by the species and their The textual information also lists certain habitat will be protected from these habitat and may contribute to an particular areas that are not included in threats. Further, the corals and their increase in the benefits of these species the proposed critical habitat. habitat will still be protected through to society in the future. While we ESA section 7 consultations that cannot quantify or monetize the Occupied Critical Habitat Unit prohibit jeopardizing the species’ benefits, we believe they are not Descriptions continued existence and require negligible and would be an incremental modifications to minimize the impacts benefit of these designations. Table 7 describes each unit of critical of incidental take. Further, we do not habitat for each species. It contains the foresee other Federal activities that Proposed Critical Habitat Designations geographic extent and water depths, might adversely impact critical habitat Our critical habitat regulations state which generally form the boundaries of that would be exempted from future that we will show critical habitat on a each unit.

TABLE 7—DESCRIPTION AND EXTENT OF EACH CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT BY SPECIES

Critical habitat unit Area Species name Location Geographic extent Water depth range (approx. rounded)

Orbicella annularis OANN–1 ...... Florida ...... Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County 2–20 m (6.5–65.6 3,800 km2 (1,300 to Government Cut, Miami-Dade ft). mi2). County. Florida ...... Government Cut, Miami-Dade County 0.5–20 m (1.6– to Dry Tortugas. 65.6 ft). OANN–2 ...... Puerto Rico ...... All islands ...... 0.5–20 m (1.6– 2,100 km2 (830 65.6 ft). mi2). OANN–3 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Thomas and St. 0.5–20 m (1.6– 100 km2 (40 mi2). John. 65.6 ft). OANN–4 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Croix ...... 0.5–20 m (1.6– 230 km2 (89 mi2). 65.6 ft). OANN–5 ...... Navassa ...... Navassa Island ...... 0.5–20 m (1.6– 0.13 km2 (0.05 65.6 ft). mi2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76323

TABLE 7—DESCRIPTION AND EXTENT OF EACH CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT BY SPECIES—Continued

Critical habitat unit Area Species name Location Geographic extent Water depth range (approx. rounded)

OANN–6 ...... FGB ...... East Flower Garden Bank and West 17–90 m (55–295 41 km2 (16 mi2). Flower Garden Bank. ft). Orbicella faveolata OFAV–1 ...... Florida ...... St. Lucie Inlet, Martin County to Gov- 2–90 m (6.5–295 7,900 km2 (3,100 ernment Cut, Miami-Dade County. ft). mi2). Florida ...... Government Cut, Miami-Dade County 0.5–90 m (1.6–295 to Dry Tortugas. ft). OFAV–2 ...... Puerto Rico ...... All islands of Puerto Rico ...... 0.5–90 m (1.6–295 5,500 km2 (2,100 ft). mi2). OANN–3 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Thomas and St. 0.5–90 m (1.6–295 1,400 km2 (520 John. ft). mi2). OFAV–4 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Croix ...... 0.5–90 m (1.6–295 360 km2 (140 mi2). ft). OFAV–5 ...... Navassa ...... Navassa Island ...... 0.5–90 m (1.6–295 11 km2 (4 mi2). ft). OFAV–6 ...... FGB ...... East Flower Garden Bank and West 17–90 m (55–295 41 km2 (16 mi2). Flower Garden Bank. ft). Orbicella franksi .... OFRA–1 ...... Florida ...... St. Lucie Inlet, Martin County to Gov- 2–90 m (6.5–295 7,900 km2 (3,100 ernment Cut, Miami-Dade County. ft). mi2). Florida ...... Government Cut, Miami-Dade County 0.5–90 m (1.6–295 to Dry Tortugas. ft).. OFRA–2 ...... Puerto Rico ...... All islands of Puerto Rico ...... 0.5–90 m (1.6–295 5,500 km2 (2,100 ft). mi2). OFRA–3 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Thomas and St. 0.5–90 m (1.6–295 1,400 km2 (520 John. ft). mi2). OFRA–4 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Croix ...... 0.5–90 m (1.6–295 360 km2 (140 mi2). ft). OFRA–5 ...... Navassa ...... Navassa Island ...... 0.5–90 m (1.6–295 11 km2 (4 mi2). ft). OFRA–6 ...... FGB ...... East Flower Garden Bank and West 17–90 m (55–295 41 km2 (16 mi2). Flower Garden Bank. ft). Dendrogyra DCYL–1 ...... Florida ...... Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County 2–25 m (6.5–82 ft) 4,300 km2 (1,700 cylindrus. to Government Cut, Miami-Dade mi2). County. Florida ...... Government Cut, Miami-Dade County 1–25 m (3.3–82 ft). to Dry Tortugas. DCYL–2 ...... Puerto Rico ...... All islands ...... 1–25 m (3.3–82 ft) 2,800 km2 (1,100 mi2). DCYL–3 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Thomas and St. 1–25 m (3.3–82 170 km2 (65 mi2). John. ft)). DCYL–4 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Croix ...... 1–25 m (3.3–82 ft) 300 km2 (120 mi2). DCYL–5 ...... Navassa ...... Navassa Island ...... 1–25 m (3.3–82 0.5 km2 (0.2 mi2). ft)). Mycetophyllia ferox MFER–1 ...... Florida ...... Broward County to Dry Tortugas ...... 5–90 m (16.4–295 6,400 km2 (2,500 ft). mi2). MFER–2 ...... Puerto Rico ...... All islands of Puerto Rico ...... 5–90 m (16.4–295 5,000 km2 (1,900 ft). mi2). MFER–3 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Thomas and St. 5–90 m (16.4–295 1,300 km2 (510 John. ft). mi2). MFER–4 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Croix ...... 5–90 m (16.4–295 310 km2 (120 mi2). ft). MFER–5 ...... Navassa ...... Navassa Island ...... 5–90 m (16.4–295 11 km2 (4 mi2). ft).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designations modify proposed critical habitat, report may be adopted as the biological pursuant to section 7(a)(2). opinion when the species is listed or Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies, including NMFS, to A conference involves informal critical habitat designated, if no insure that any action authorized, discussions in which NMFS may significant new information or changes funded, or carried out by the agency is recommend conservation measures to to the action alter the content of the not likely to jeopardize the continued minimize or avoid adverse effects. The opinion. existence of any threatened or discussions and conservation When a species is listed or critical endangered species or destroy or recommendations are documented in a habitat is designated, Federal agencies adversely modify designated critical conference report provided to the must consult with NMFS on any agency habitat. Federal agencies are also Federal agency. If requested by the actions that may affect a listed species required to confer with NMFS regarding Federal agency, a formal conference or its critical habitat. During the any actions likely to jeopardize a report may be issued, including a consultation, we evaluate the agency species proposed for listing under the biological opinion prepared according action to determine whether the action ESA, or likely to destroy or adversely to 50 CFR 402.14. A formal conference may adversely affect listed species or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76324 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

critical habitat and issue our findings in their potential to affect and jeopardize stemming from this designation. We a letter of concurrence or in a biological the continued existence of listed also seek comments on the identified opinion. If we conclude in the biological species. For example, activities may geographic area and depths occupied by opinion that the agency action would adversely modify the substrate portion the species. You may submit your likely result in the destruction or of the essential feature by removing or comments and materials concerning this adverse modification of critical habitat, altering the substrate or adversely proposal by any one of several methods we would also identify any reasonable modify the water column portion of the (see ADDRESSES). We will consider all and prudent alternatives to the action. essential feature by reducing water comments pertaining to these Reasonable and prudent alternatives are clarity through turbidity. These designations received during the defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative activities would require ESA section 7 comment period in preparing the final actions identified during formal consultation when they are authorized, rule. Accordingly, the final designations consultation that can be implemented in funded, or carried out by a Federal may differ from this proposal. a manner consistent with the intended agency. A private entity may also be Information Quality Act and Peer purpose of the action, that are consistent affected by these proposed critical Review with the scope of the Federal agency’s habitat designations if it is a proponent legal authority and jurisdiction, that are of a project that requires a Federal The data and analyses supporting this economically and technologically permit or receives Federal funding. proposed action have undergone a pre- feasible, and that would avoid the Categories of activities that may be dissemination review and have been destruction or adverse modification of affected by the designations include determined to be in compliance with critical habitat. coastal and in-water construction, applicable information quality Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require channel dredging, beach nourishment guidelines implementing the Federal agencies that have retained and shoreline protection, water quality Information Quality Act (Section 515 of discretionary involvement or control management, and military activities. Pub. L. 106–554). On December 16, over an action, or where such Questions regarding whether specific 2004, OMB issued its Final Information discretionary involvement or control is activities may constitute destruction or Quality Bulletin for Peer Review authorized by law, to reinitiate adverse modification of critical habitat (Bulletin). The Bulletin was published consultation on previously reviewed should be directed to us (see ADDRESSES in the Federal Register on January 14, actions in instances where: (1) Critical and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 2005 (70 FR 2664), and went into effect habitat is subsequently designated; or Identifying concentrations at which the on June 16, 2005. The primary purpose (2) new information or changes to the conservation value of habitat for listed of the Bulletin is to improve the quality action may result in effects to critical corals may be affected is inherently and credibility of scientific information habitat not previously considered in the complex and influenced by taxa, disseminated by the Federal government biological opinion. Consequently, some exposure duration, and acclimatization by requiring peer review of ‘‘influential Federal agencies may request to localized seawater regimes. scientific information’’ and ‘‘highly reinitiation of consultation or Consequently, the actual responses of influential scientific information’’ prior conference with NMFS on actions for the critical habitat (and listed corals) to to public dissemination. ‘‘Influential which formal consultation has been changes in the essential feature resulting scientific information’’ is defined as completed, if those actions may affect from future Federal actions will be case information the agency reasonably can designated critical habitat or adversely and site-specific, and predicting such determine will have or does have a clear modify or destroy proposed critical responses will require case and site- and substantial impact on important habitat. specific data and analyses. public policies or private sector Activities subject to the ESA section decisions. The Bulletin provides 7 consultation process include activities Public Comments Solicited agencies broad discretion in on Federal lands and activities on We request that interested persons determining the appropriate process and private or state lands requiring a permit submit comments, information, and level of peer review. Stricter standards from a Federal agency or some other suggestions concerning this proposed were established for the peer review of Federal action, including funding. ESA rule during the comment period (see highly influential scientific assessments, section 7 consultation would not be DATES). We are soliciting comments or defined as information whose required for Federal actions that do not suggestions from the public, other dissemination could have a potential affect listed species or critical habitat concerned governments and agencies, impact of more than $500 million in any and for actions that are not federally the scientific community, industry, or one year on either the public or private funded, authorized, or carried out. any other interested party concerning sector or that the dissemination is novel, the areas proposed for designation. We controversial, or precedent-setting, or Activities That May Be Affected also request comment on areas we are has significant interagency interest. Section 4(b)(8) of the ESA requires proposing for exclusion, including but The information in the Draft that we describe briefly, and evaluate in not limited to the types of areas that Information Report supporting this any proposed or final regulation to qualify as managed area (e.g., areas proposed critical habitat rule is designate critical habitat, those adjacent to dredged channels, nearshore considered influential scientific activities that may adversely modify placement areas). Additionally, we information and subject to peer review. such habitat or that may be affected by request comment on all aspects of this To satisfy our requirements under the such designation. As described in our proposal, including whether specific OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent Draft Information Report, a wide variety language regarding such areas should be peer review of the information used to of Federal activities may require ESA included in the text of the regulations draft this document, and incorporated section 7 consultation because they may and whether any discussion of or the peer review comments into this draft affect the essential feature of critical references to this topic in this preamble prior to dissemination of this proposed habitat. Specific future activities will or the regulatory text should otherwise rulemaking. Comments received from need to be evaluated with respect to be further clarified or defined. We also peer reviewers are available on our their potential to destroy or adversely solicit comments regarding specific, website at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/ modify critical habitat, in addition to foreseeable benefits and impacts services_programs/prplans/ID346.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76325

Classification However, the high-end estimate is very regulatory action could also have likely an overestimate on incremental significant adverse effects if it: (1) Takings (Executive Order 12630) costs because an undetermined number Adversely affects in a material way the Under E.O. 12630, Federal agencies of future consultations will have project productivity, competition, or prices in must consider the effects of their actions modifications that address adverse the energy sector; (2) adversely affects in on constitutionally protected private effects to one or more of the five corals, a material way productivity, property rights and avoid unnecessary as well as adverse effects to the new competition or prices within a region; takings of private property. A taking of critical habitat. (3) creates a serious inconsistency or property includes actions that result in otherwise interferes with an action Federalism (Executive Order 13132) physical invasion or occupancy of taken or planned by another agency private property, and regulations Pursuant to the Executive Order on regarding energy; or (4) raises novel imposed on private property that Federalism, E.O. 13132, we determined legal or policy issues adversely affecting substantially affect its value or use. In that this proposed rule does not have the supply, distribution or use of energy accordance with E.O. 12630, this significant federalism effects and that a arising out of legal mandates, the proposed rule would not have federalism assessment is not required. President’s priorities, or the principles significant takings implications. A However, in keeping with Department set forth in E.O. 12866 and 13211. takings implication assessment is not of Commerce policies and consistent This rule, if finalized, will not have a required. These designations would with ESA regulations at 50 CFR significant adverse effect on the supply, affect only Federal agency actions (i.e., 424.16(c)(1)(ii), we will request distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, those actions authorized, funded, or information for this proposed rule from we have not prepared a Statement of carried out by Federal agencies). state and territorial resource agencies in Energy Effects. Therefore, the critical habitat Florida, Puerto Rico, and USVI. The designations does not affect landowner proposed designations may have some Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 actions that do not require Federal benefit to state and local resource et seq.) funding or permits. agencies in that the proposed rule more We prepared an initial regulatory clearly defines the essential feature and flexibility analysis (IRFA) pursuant to Regulatory Planning and Review the areas in which that feature is found. section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility (Executive Order 12866), Reducing It may also assist local governments in Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.). The Regulation and Controlling Regulatory allowing them to engage in long-range IRFA analyzes the impacts to small Costs (Executive Order 13771) planning (rather than waiting for case entities that may be affected by the This proposed rule has been by-case ESA section 7 consultations to proposed designations and is included determined to be significant for occur). as Appendix B of the Draft Information purposes of E.O. 12866 review. This Report and is available upon request Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use proposed rulemaking is expected to be (see ADDRESSES section). The IRFA is regulatory under E.O. 13771. A draft (Executive Order 13211) summarized below, as required by report evaluating the economic impacts Executive Order 13211 requires section 603 of the RFA. of the proposed rule has been prepared agencies to prepare Statements of Our IRFA uses the best available and is included the Draft Information Energy Effects when undertaking an information to identify the potential Report, incorporating the principles of action expected to lead to the impacts of critical habitat on small E.O. 12866. promulgation of a final rule or entities. However, a number of Based on the economic impacts regulation that is a significant regulatory uncertainties complicate quantification evaluation in the Draft Information action under E.O. 12866 and is likely to of these impacts. This includes (1) the Report, Total incremental costs resulting have a significant adverse effect on the fact that the manner in which these from the five corals critical habitat are supply, distribution, or use of energy. potential impacts will be allocated estimated to range from $140,000 to OMB Guidance on Implementing E.O. between large and small entities is $1.02 million over 10 years, an 13211 (July 13, 2001) states that unknown; and (2) as discussed in the annualized cost of $20,000 to $140,000 significant adverse effects could include main body of the report, uncertainty (discounted at 7 percent). The low-end any of the following outcomes regarding the potential effects of critical costs are a result of the increased compared to a world without the habitat designations, which requires administrative effort to analyze impacts regulatory action under consideration: some categories of potential impacts be to the proposed critical habitat in future (1) Reductions in crude oil supply in described qualitatively. This IRFA consultations on activities that are not excess of 10,000 barrels per day; (2) analysis therefore focuses on providing projected to affect Acropora critical reductions in fuel production in excess the best available information regarding habitat (i.e., in areas outside the of 4,000 barrels per day; (3) reductions the potential magnitude of impacts to boundaries, projects with impacts to in coal production in excess of 5 million small entities in affected industries. As water temperature, or pesticide tons per year; (4) reductions in natural the proposed critical habitat is marine registrations). The high-end costs are a gas production in excess of 25 million habitat, this analysis references the result of the increased administrative cubic feet per year; (5) reductions in number of small businesses in each effort (i.e., low-end costs) plus the electricity production in excess of 1 affected industry that is associated with incremental project modification costs billion kilowatt-hours per year or in counties and territories sharing that stem solely from the proposed excess of 500 megawatts of installed coastline with the designations. critical habitat. Incremental project capacity; (6) increases in energy use The total maximum annualized modification costs are a result of future required by the regulatory action that impacts to small entities are estimated consultations that are not projected to exceed any of the thresholds above; (7) to be $130,000, which represents have effects on Acropora critical habitat. increases in the cost of energy approximately 90 percent of the total The high-end costs also assume that the production in excess of one percent; (8) quantified incremental impacts project modifications will be solely a increases in the cost of energy forecasted to result from the proposed result of the proposed critical habitat, distribution in excess of one percent; or rule. This impact assumes that all of the and not the presence of the species. (9) other similarly adverse outcomes. A incremental project modification costs

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76326 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

will be incurred by small entities. These forecasts $85,000 in annualized impacts rule. However, other aspects of the ESA impacts are anticipated to be borne by would be borne by a single small entity. may overlap with the critical habitat the small entities that obtain funds or Though this estimate is almost certainly designations. For instance, listing of the permits from Federal agencies that an overstatement of the costs borne by threatened corals under the ESA consult with NMFS regarding the five a single small entity, the impact is requires Federal agencies to consult coral species critical habitat in the next nonetheless expected to result in with NMFS to avoid jeopardy to the 10 years. Given the uncertainty impacts that are less than 3 percent of species, and large portions of the regarding which small entities in a the average annual revenues for a small proposed designations overlap with given industry will obtain funds or entity in this industry. Estimated existing Acropora critical habitat. permits from Federal agencies that will annualized impacts under this scenario However, this analysis examines only need to consult with NMFS, this for the industries related to water the incremental impacts to small analysis estimates impacts to small quality are expected to be $48,000 and entities from these proposed critical entities under two different scenarios. comprise less than 2 percent of annual habitat designations. These scenarios are intended to reflect revenues. The alternatives to the designations the range of uncertainty regarding the While these scenarios present a broad considered consisted of a no-action number of small entities that may be range of potentially affected entities and alternative and an alternative based on affected by the designations and the the associated revenue effects, we identical geographic designations for potential impacts of critical habitat expect the actual number of small each of the five corals. The no-action, or designations on their annual revenues entities affected and revenue effects will no designation, alternative would result within that range. be somewhere in the middle. In other in no additional ESA section 7 Under Scenario 1, this analysis words, some subset greater than 2 and consultations relative to the status quo assumes that all third parties less than 43 of the small entities will of the species’ listing. Critical habitat participating in future consultations are participate in section 7 consultations on must be designated if prudent and small, and that incremental impacts are the five corals’ critical habitat and bear determinable. NMFS determined that distributed evenly across all of these associated impacts annually. Regardless, the proposed critical habitat is prudent entities. Scenario 1 accordingly reflects our analysis demonstrates that, even if and determinable, and the ESA requires a high estimate of the number of we assume a low-end estimate of critical habitat designation in that potentially affected small entities and a affected small entities, the greatest circumstance. Further, we have low estimate of the potential effect in potential revenue effect is still less than determined that the physical feature terms of percent of revenue. This 3 percent. forming the basis for our critical habitat scenario therefore most likely overstates Even though we cannot definitively designations is essential to the corals’ the number of small entities likely to be determine the numbers of small and conservation, and conservation of these affected by the rule and potentially large entities that may be affected by species will not succeed without this understates the revenue effect. This this proposed rule, there is no feature being available. Thus, the lack of analysis anticipates that 43 small indication that affected project protection of the critical habitat feature entities will collectively incur applicants would be only small entities from adverse modification could result approximately $130,000 in annualized or mostly small entities. It is unclear in continued declines in abundance of costs under Scenario 1. These costs are whether small entities would be placed the five corals. We rejected this no distributed between two industries: (1) at a competitive disadvantage compared action alternative because it does not Approximately $85,000 expected to be to large entities. However, as described provide the level of conservation borne by 38 entities engaged in coastal in the Draft Information Report, necessary for the five Caribbean corals. and in-water construction and dredging consultations and project modifications In addition, declines in abundance of activities (NAICS Codes 237310, will be required based on the type of the five corals would result in loss of 237990, 237990), and (2) approximately permitted action and its associated associated economic and other values $43,000 expected to be borne by 5 impacts on the essential critical habitat these corals provide to society, such as entities engaged in water quality feature. Because the costs of many recreational and commercial fishing and activities (NAICS Codes 221112, potential project modifications that may diving services and shoreline protection 324110, 221320). However, because be required to avoid adverse services. Thus, small entities engaged in these costs are shared among 38 and 5 modification of critical habitat are unit some coral reef-dependent industries entities, respectively, annualized costs (e.g., per mile of shoreline, per would be adversely affected by the impacts of the rule are estimated to cubic yard of sand moved), such that continued declines in the five corals. As make up less than 0.05 percent of total project modification costs would a result, the no action alternative is not annual revenues for each affected small be proportional to the size of the project, necessarily a ‘‘no cost’’ alternative for entity. it is not unreasonable to assume that small entities. Under Scenario 2, this analysis larger entities would be involved in The identical geographic designation assumes costs associated with each implementing the larger projects with alternative would designate exactly the consultation action are borne by a single proportionally larger project same geography for each of the five small entity within an industry. This modification costs. corals (i.e., 0.5 to 90 m throughout the method understates the number of small There are no record-keeping maximum geographic extent of all the entities affected but overstates the likely requirements associated with the rule. corals’ ranges collectively). This impacts on an entity. Therefore, this Similarly, there are no reporting alternative would likely result in the method arrives at a low estimate of requirements other than those that same number and complexity of potentially affected entities and a high might be associated with reporting on consultations as the proposed rule, estimate of potential effects on revenue, the progress and success of because collectively all of the units in assuming that quantified costs represent implementing project modifications, the proposed rule cover the same a complete accounting of the costs likely which do not require specific skills to geography as the identical geographic to be borne by private entities. For the satisfy. designation alternative. However, this coastal and in-water construction and No Federal laws or regulations alternative does not provide the dredging industry, this scenario duplicate or conflict with this proposed appropriate conservation benefits for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76327

each species, as it would designate areas an action may be indirectly impacted by References Cited in which one particular species may not the designation of critical habitat, but exist (e.g., Dendrogyra cylindrus only the Federal agency has the legally A complete list of all references cited occupies 1 to 25 m). Therefore, we binding duty to avoid destruction or in this rulemaking can be found on our rejected the identical geographic adverse modification of critical habitat. website at [https:// designation alternative because it does We do not anticipate that this rule, if www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ not provide the level of conservation finalized, will significantly or uniquely proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat- necessary for the five Caribbean corals. affect small governments. Therefore, a threatened-caribbean-corals] and is The agency seeks specific comments Small Government Action Plan is not available upon request from the NMFS from small entities on its Initial required. SERO in St. Petersburg, Florida (see Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. ADDRESSES). Consultation and Coordination With Coastal Zone Management Act Indian Tribal Governments (Executive List of Subjects We have determined that this action Order 13175) 50 CFR Part 223 will have no reasonably foreseeable The longstanding and distinctive effects on the enforceable policies of Endangered and threatened species, relationship between the Federal and Exports, Imports, Transportation. approved Florida, Puerto Rico, and tribal governments is defined by USVI coastal zone management plans. treaties, statutes, executive orders, 50 CFR Part 226 Upon publication of this proposed rule, judicial decisions, and agreements, these determinations will be submitted which differentiate tribal governments Endangered and threatened species. to responsible state agencies for review from the other entities that deal with, or Dated: September 22, 2020. under section 307 of the Coastal Zone are affected by, the Federal Government. Samuel D. Rauch III, Management Act. This relationship has given rise to a Deputy Assistant Administrator for Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 special Federal trust responsibility Regulatory Programs, National Marine U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) involving the legal responsibilities and Fisheries Service. obligations of the United States toward This proposed rule does not contain For the reasons set out in the Indian Tribes and with respect to Indian any new or revised collection of preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR lands, tribal trust resources, and the information requirements. This rule, if parts 223 and 226 as follows: adopted, would not impose exercise of tribal rights. Pursuant to recordkeeping or reporting requirements these authorities, lands have been PART 223—THREATENED MARINE on State or local governments, retained by Indian Tribes or have been AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES individuals, businesses, or set aside for tribal use. These lands are organizations. managed by Indian Tribes in accordance ■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 with tribal goals and objectives within continues to read as follows: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 the framework of applicable treaties and U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) laws. Executive Order 13175, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart Consultation and Coordination with B, § 223.201–202 issued under 16 U.S.C. This proposed rule will not produce 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for a Federal mandate. The designation of Indian Tribal Governments, outlines the § 223.206(d)(9). critical habitat does not impose a responsibilities of the Federal legally-binding duty on non-Federal Government in matters affecting tribal ■ 2. Amend § 223.102(e), under the government entities or private parties. interests. heading ‘‘Corals’’ by revising the entries The only regulatory effect is that Federal In developing this proposed rule, we ‘‘Coral, boulder star’’; ‘‘Coral, lobed agencies must ensure that their actions reviewed maps and did not identify any star’’; ‘‘Coral, mountainous star’’; are not likely to destroy or adversely areas under consideration for critical ‘‘Coral, pillar’’; and ‘‘Coral, rough modify critical habitat under section 7 habitat that overlap with Indian lands. cactus’’. of the ESA. Non-Federal entities that Based on this, we preliminarily found receive Federal funding, assistance, the proposed critical habitat § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species. permits or otherwise require approval or designations for threatened Caribbean authorization from a Federal agency for corals do not have tribal implications. (e) * * *

Species 1 Citation(s) for listing Description of determination(s) Critical habitat ESA rules Common name Scientific name listed entity

Corals

******* Coral, boulder star ...... Orbicella franksi ...... Entire species 79 FR 53852, Sept. 10, 2014 226.227 NA. Coral, lobed star ...... Orbicella annularis ...... Entire species 79 FR 53852, Sept. 10, 2014 226.227 NA. Coral, mountainous star ...... Orbicella faveolata ...... Entire species 79 FR 53852, Sept. 10, 2014 226.227 NA. Coral, pillar ...... Dendrogyra cylindrus ...... Entire species 79 FR 53852, Sept. 10, 2014 226.227 NA. Coral, rough cactus ...... Mycetophyllia ferox ...... Entire species 79 FR 53852, Sept. 10, 2014 226.227 NA.

******* 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).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76328 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

PART 226—DESIGNATED CRITICAL § 226.227 Critical habitat for the Caribbean (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ HABITAT Boulder Star Coral (Orbicella franksi), proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitat- Lobed Star Coral (O. annularis), threatened-caribbean-corals) to enable a ■ Mountainous Star Coral (O. faveolata), Pillar 3. The authority citation for part 226 Coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus), and Rough more precise inspection of proposed continues to read as follows: Cactus Coral (Mycetophyllia ferox). critical habitat for Orbicella franksi, O. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533. Critical habitat is designated in the annularis, O. faveolata, Dendrogyra following states and counties for the cylindrus, and Mycetophyllia ferox. ■ 4. Add § 226.227 to read as follows: following species as depicted in the (a) Critical habitat locations. Critical maps below and described in habitat is designated for the following paragraphs (a) through (h) of this five Caribbean corals in the following section. The maps can be viewed or states and counties, and offshore obtained with greater resolution 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 annularis, O. faveolata, Dendrogyra Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management as noted in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this cylindrus, and Mycetophyllia ferox. Council (GMFMC; 50 CFR 600.105), the section, critical habitat for the five Depth contours or other identified Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Caribbean corals is defined as all marine boundaries on the maps form the (15 CFR part 922 subpart P, appendix I), waters in the particular depth ranges boundaries of the critical habitat units. and the Caribbean Island Management relative to mean low water as depicted Specifically, the COLREGS Demarcation Area (50 CFR part 622, appendix E), in the maps below and described in the Lines (33 CFR 80), the boundary create portions of the boundaries in Table of the locations of the critical between the South Atlantic Fishery several units. habitat units for Orbicella franksi, O. Management Council (SAFMC) and the

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 Species habitat unit Location Geographic extent Water depth range name

Orbicella annularis ...... OANN–1 ...... Florida ...... Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County to Government 2–20 m, (6.5–65.6 ft). Cut, Miami-Dade County. Florida ...... Government Cut, Miami-Dade County to Dry Tortugas 0.5–20m, (1.6–65.6 ft). OANN–2 ...... Puerto Rico .. All islands ...... 0.5–20m, (1.6–65.6 ft). OANN–3 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Thomas and St. John ...... 0.5–20m, (1.6–65.6 ft). 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 West Flower Garden 17–90 m, (55–295 ft). Bank. Orbicella faveolata ...... OFAV–1 ...... Florida ...... St. Lucie Inlet, Martin County to Government Cut, 2–90 m, (6.5–295 ft). Miami-Dade County. Florida ...... Government Cut, Miami-Dade County to Dry Tortugas 0.5–90 m, (1.6–295 ft). OFAV–2 ...... Puerto Rico .. All islands of Puerto Rico ...... 0.5–90 m, (1.6–295 ft).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76329

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—Continued

Critical Species habitat unit Location Geographic extent Water depth range name

OANN–3 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Thomas and St. John ...... 0.5–90 m, (1.6–295 ft). 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 West Flower Garden 17–90 m, (55–295 ft). Bank. Orbicella franksi ...... OFRA–1 ...... Florida ...... St. Lucie Inlet, Martin County to Government Cut, 2–90 m, (6.5–295 ft). Miami-Dade County. Florida ...... Government Cut, Miami-Dade County to Dry Tortugas 0.5–90 m, (1.6–295 ft). 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 and St. John ...... 0.5–90 m, (1.6–295 ft). 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 West Flower Garden 17–90 m, (55–295 ft). Bank. Dendrogyra cylindrus ...... DCYL–1 ...... Florida ...... Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County to Government 2–25 m, (6.5–82 ft). Cut, Miami-Dade County. Florida ...... Government Cut, Miami-Dade County to Dry Tortugas 1–25 m, (3.3–82 ft). DCYL–2 ...... Puerto Rico .. All islands ...... 1–25 m, (3.3–82 ft). DCYL–3 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Thomas and St. John ...... 1–25 m, (3.3–82 ft).) 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 Tortugas ...... 5–90 m, (16.4–295 ft). MFER–2 ...... Puerto Rico .. All islands of Puerto Rico ...... 5–90 m, (16.4–295 ft). MFER–3 ...... USVI ...... All islands of St. Thomas and St. John ...... 5–90 m, (16.4–295 ft). 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 not preclude or inhibit any demographic dredged navigation channels, shipping essential to the conservation of function. basins, vessel berths, and active Orbicella franksi, O. annularis, O. (d) Areas not included in critical anchorages. Specific federally- faveolata, Dendrogyra cylindrus, and habitat. Critical habitat does not include authorized channels and harbors Mycetophyllia ferox is: Reproductive, the following particular areas where considered as managed areas not recruitment, growth, and maturation they overlap with the areas described in included in the designations are: habitat. Sites that support the normal paragraphs (a) through (c) of this (i) St. Lucie Inlet. function of all life stages of threatened section: (ii) Palm Beach Harbor. corals are natural, consolidated hard (1) Pursuant to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B), (iii) Hillsboro Inlet. substrate or dead coral skeleton, which all areas subject to the 2014 Naval Air (iv) Port Everglades. is free of algae and sediment at the Station Key West Integrated Natural (v) Baker’s Haulover Inlet. appropriate scale at the point of larval Resources Management Plan. (vi) Miami Harbor. (vii) Key West Harbor. settlement or fragment reattachment, (2) Pursuant to ESA section (viii) Arecibo Harbor. and the associated water column. 3(5)(A)(i)(I), areas where the essential (ix) San Juan Harbor. Several attributes of these sites feature does not occur; (x) Fajardo Harbor. determine the quality of the area and (3) Pursuant to ESA section (xi) Ponce Harbor. influence the value of the associated 3(5)(A)(i)(I), all managed areas that may (xii) Mayaguez Harbor. feature to the conservation of the contain natural hard substrate but do (xiii) St. Thomas Harbor. species: not provide the quality of substrate (xiv) Christiansted Harbor. (1) Substrate with the presence of essential for the conservation of (4) Pursuant to ESA section 3(5)(A)(i), crevices and holes that provide cryptic threatened corals. Managed areas that artificial substrates including but not habitat, the presence of microbial do not provide the quality of substrate limited to: Fixed and floating structures, biofilms, or presence of crustose essential for the conservation of the five such as aids-to-navigation (AToNs), coralline algae; Caribbean corals are defined as seawalls, wharves, boat ramps, fishpond (2) Reefscape with no more than a particular areas whose consistently walls, pipes, submarine cables, wrecks, thin veneer of sediment and low disturbed nature renders them poor mooring balls, docks, and aquaculture occupancy by fleshy and turf habitat for coral growth and survival cages. macroalgae; over time. These managed areas include (e) Areas excluded from critical (3) Marine water with levels of specific areas where the substrate has habitat. Pursuant to ESA Section 4(b)(2), temperature, aragonite saturation, been disturbed by planned management the following area is excluded from nutrients, and water clarity that have authorized by local, state, or Federal critical habitat where it overlaps with been observed to support any governmental entities at the time of the areas described in paragraphs (a) demographic function; and critical habitat designation, and will through (c) of this section: The (4) Marine water with levels of continue to be periodically disturbed by designated restricted area managed by anthropogenically-introduced (from such management. Examples include, the South Florida Ocean Measuring humans) chemical contaminants that do but are not necessarily limited to, Facility, defined in 33 CFR 334.580.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 76330 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

(f) Maps. Critical habitat maps for the Star Coral, Mountainous Star Coral, Caribbean Boulder Star Coral, Lobed Pillar Coral, and Rough Cactus Coral: BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.041 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76331

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.042 76332 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.043 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76333

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.044 76334 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.045 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76335

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.046 76336 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.047 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76337

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.048 76338 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.049 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76339

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.050 76340 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.051 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76341

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.052 76342 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.053 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76343

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.054 76344 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.055 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76345

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.056 76346 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.057 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76347

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.058 76348 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.059 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76349

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.060 76350 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.061 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76351

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.062 76352 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.063 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76353

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.064 76354 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.065 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76355

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.066 76356 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.067 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 229 / Friday, November 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules 76357

[FR Doc. 2020–21229 Filed 11–25–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–C

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:20 Nov 25, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27NOP3.SGM 27NOP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP27NO20.068