Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating
Critical Habitat: Petition To List Eleven New Species Including One New
Genus of Bryozoans From Capron Shoal, Florida, as Threatened or
Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
[Federal Register: May 28, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 103)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28965-28968]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28my99-35]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 990520140-9140-01; I.D. 041699A]
Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating
Critical Habitat: Petition To List Eleven New Species Including One New
Genus of Bryozoans From Capron Shoal, Florida, as Threatened or
Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS received on February 11, 1999, a petition to list eleven
new species (including one new genus, Cymulopora) of bryozoans as
threatened or endangered under the ESA. The following are the new
species: Alcyonidium capronae, Membranipora triangularis, Disporella
plumosa, Cymulopora uniserialis, Cribilaria parva, Reginella
repangulata, Hippothoa balanophila, Phylactella ais, Trematooecia
psammophila, Cleidochasma angustum, and Drepanophora torquata,
hereafter referred to as ``Capron shoal bryozoans.'' NMFS finds that
the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information to warrant the petitioned action, per 50 CFR 424.14.
DATES: This petition finding was made on May 18, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition may be obtained from NMFS, Protected
Resources Division, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL
33702; or from NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The petition finding and supporting
data are available for public inspection by appointment during normal
business hours at the above addresses.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Hawk, NMFS, Protected Resources
Division, (727)570-5312, or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA contains provisions concerning petitions
from interested persons requesting the
[[Page 28966]]
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to list species under the ESA.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) requires that, to the maximum extent practicable,
within 90 days after receiving such a petition, the Secretary make a
finding whether the petition presents substantial scientific
orcommercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted. Section 424.14(b)(1) of NMFS' ESA implementing regulations
define ``substantial information'' as the amount of information that
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in
the petition may be warranted (see 50 CFR 424.14). Section 424.14(b)(2)
of these regulations contains factors the Secretary considers in
evaluating a petitioned action.
On February 11, 1999, the Secretary received a petition dated that
day from Eric R. Glitzenstein and Cara Romanzo, counsels for the St.
Lucie County Conservation Alliance, St. Lucie Waterfront Council Inc.,
St. Lucie County Audubon Society Inc., Dr. Judith E. Winston, and K.
Brian Killday, hereafter referred to collectively as ``the
petitioners,'' to list the Capron Shoal bryozoans as threatened or
endangered. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) intends to dredge
the sandy shoal where these bryozoans reside, as a plentiful source of
sand for eroded beach restoration. The petitioners cite ``significant
risk to the well-being'' and threat of extinction of these new species
(discovered between 1983 and 1985) ``not known to exist anywhere other
than * * * Capron Shoal'' from ``an ill-conceived, imminent project to
dredge and thereby destroy their only known habitat.'' The petitioners
also cite the ``potential anti-carcinogenic and other medicinal
properties'' of the species and genus at issue as additional reasons
why the bryozoans should be immediately listed under the ESA. However,
the petitioners do not present substantial information with regard to
these claims.
The petitioners sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against
the Corps dredging project, alleging that the Corps did not conduct a
thorough National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, and
alleging that immediate and irreparable harm would result if dredging
went forward. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and issued a
TRO on March 5, 1999. Subsequently, the Corps and the petitioners
reached a Settlement Agreement, which committed the Corps to fund
bryozoan studies of Capron Shoal and nearby shoals ($200,000), dredge
only in the southern portion of the currently authorized borrow area
during the first phase of the beach renourishment project, conduct a
survey of the effect of beach nourishment on the near-shore hardbottom,
and do additional NEPA analysis before beginning the next phases.
NMFS has reviewed the petition and information available in NMFS
files and consulted with one of the petitioners and bryozoan
researcher, Dr. Judith E. Winston, as well as with its own experts.
There is a fundamental uncertainty about the taxonomy of many marine
groups (Knowlton, 1993; Wallace and Willis, 1994; Miller, personal
communication, 1999). ``The petitioners' scientific paper describing
these new species (Winston and Hakansson, 1986) discusses the great
morphological plasticity of many of the bryozoan species they found at
Capron Shoal. Indeed, these authors describe several of the
interstitial bryozoans that they found at Capron Shoal as the same
species that grow as encrusting colonies in other habitats. In the
absence of any population genetic data, which appears to be absent in
this case, the discernment of species within this context of
morphological plasticity is extremely problematic.'' (Miller, personal
communication, 1999) Thus, although the data presented by the
petitioners appear to support the conclusion that the species are new
and to date have been found only on Capron Shoal, without corroborating
genetics information, even that conclusion is perhaps premature.
Furthermore, the data presented by the petitioners do not support the
conclusion that the species are not likely to be found anywhere other
than in Capron Shoal or even in deeper portions of Capron Shoal. The
petitioners state that ``the only assertion which rises to the level of
a scientific certainty is that these bryozoans are not currently known
to exist anywhere other than the shallower portions of Capron Shoal
where [Drs. Winston and Hakansson's] research was actually conducted.''
In her February 10, 1999 affidavit, Dr. Winston states that ``there is
no scientific basis for concluding that the newly discovered bryozoans
exist throughout the entire shoal'' or at other nearby shoals. However,
she acknowledges that her sampling of subtidal habitats off Fort Pierce
was ``preliminary.''
Dr. Winston's statement in her affidavit that whether or not
bryozoans exist elsewhere on Capron Shoal and at other nearby shoals
``is an important question that must be answered'' indicates that these
bryozoans may exist elsewhere or that they may exist throughout Capron
Shoal. Further, when contacted by NMFS on February 12, 1999, Dr.
Winston stated that she happened to discover these species while
sampling the biodiverse Capron Shoal (Nammack, personal communication,
1999); no bryozoan-specific surveys have ever been conducted in the
area. At the time, Dr. Winston also denied stating that these bryozoans
did not occur anywhere else (Nammack, personal communication, 1999).
NMFS does not dispute the petitioners' assertion that, currently,
the ``shallow areas of Capron Shoal are the only known habitat for the
bryozoans at issue.'' However, NMFS is convinced that this is due to
sampling limitations and incompleteness of the sampling regime. NMFS
feels that the limited and preliminary nature of the surveys which led
Drs. Winston and Hakansson to the discovery of these new species of
bryozoans does not preclude their existence on other portions of Capron
Shoal or at nearby shoals with similar sand characteristics. NMFS feels
that, due to the limited and preliminary nature of the sampling, this
should not be used as a basis to assert that these bryozoans may not
exist elsewhere and are threatened with extinction.
Bryozoans are found in many aquatic and marine environments. It is
likely that many species of bryozoans have never been described because
they are not very well studied as a group. NMFS believes that the
petitioners' argument that the Capron Shoal bryozoans are ``unique'' is
weak and undocumented. NMFS believes that discovery of a new species
(especially of a poorly studied group of organisms) does not
automatically mean the species is rare, threatened, or endangered.
The petitioners raise concerns that the bryozoans, even if they
exist throughout the entirety of Capron Shoal, might not survive a
dredging project which involves the removal of sand from even a portion
of Capron Shoal. The petitioners cite concerns over direct destruction
of habitat and ``secondary impacts from dredging, in the form of
increased turbidity and the constant resuspension of fine sediments
over the medium coarse sand the bryozoans select for.'' The petitioners
are concerned that dredging would interrupt and possibly stifle
bryozoan reproduction. The petitioners assert that, because bryozoan
larvae are non-feeding organisms, they must settle on an appropriate
grain of sand quickly and metamorphose to form a new colony before they
die. According to the published literature, bryozoan larvae must
disperse and settle within hours. ``They spend a very short period of
time (less than 24 hours) in the plankton.'' (Winston and Hakansson,
1986) Thus, the larvae do not generally disperse far
[[Page 28967]]
from the parent organism. Dr. Winston asserts that ``Bryozoan larvae,
therefore, do not cover great distances before settling and it is
erroneous to suggest that their reproductive mechanisms make it
extremely likely that they occur elsewhere in the region.'' (Winston,
1999)
In asserting the limited distribution of the bryozoans, the
petitioners did not adequately consider the natural dispersal action of
winter wave patterns that cause breaking waves and strong currents over
and on Capron Shoal nor the strong tidal and wind-generated currents
typical of the area. Significant wave action and 3 to 6-knot currents
are not uncommon, according to professional mariners familiar with the
area (Hawk, personal communication, 1999). During spring tides (full
moon events) at Fort Pierce Inlet, predicted maximum flood and ebb tide
currents may reach 4 to 5 knots (NOAA, 1993). The nearshore effects of
the northward flowing Gulf Stream cannot be discounted. The proximity
of other nearby shoals also can reasonably be expected to provide
suitable substrate for settling planktonic bryozoan larvae from Capron
Shoal and serve as a source of planktonic larvae for Capron Shoal.
Pierce Shoal, St. Lucie Shoal, Indian River Shoal and various unnamed
shoals are all within 10 nautical miles of Capron Shoal, and several
are much closer. NMFS believes that the petitioners' argument that the
larvae may exist nowhere else but in Capron Shoal is inaccurate,
particularly since adequate larval dispersal mechanisms and nearby
shoals with similar sand characteristics to Capron Shoal are present
(Corps, 1998). These shoals would, in all likelihood, provide fertile
substrate for settling larvae.
NMFS acknowledges that dredging Capron Shoal will temporarily
remove a portion of the bryozoan population and some features that make
this area suitable habitat for bryozoans. However, NMFS biologists are
confident that new surfaces exposed by dredging, when reshaped by
natural events such as prevailing currents and wave action, will
support the recolonization of the site by bryozoan larvae. The source
for these bryozoan larvae will be undredged portions of Capron Shoal,
nearby shoals, and the Indian River Lagoon system.
Further, NMFS does not believe the bryozoan population of Capron
Shoal is a precariously small population. The average abundance of
living encrusting (nonlunulitiform) bryozoan species found in Capron
Shoal samples taken by Winston and Hakansson was 0.75 per cm. Thus,
one square meter of sediment 1 cm in depth would contain 7,500 living
colonies. Winston and Hankansson calculated that for the inner
continental shelf of Florida alone this would yield a population of
about 1.2 x 10<SUP>12</SUP> colonies, and ``this estimate is
conservative, as living colonies are known to occur much deeper than 1
cm into the sediment.'' (Winston and Hakansson, 1986) The researchers
state that ``In fact, the interstitial refuge may be an important
factor in maintaining distributions of encrusting species, acting
almost like the seed bank for populations of plants, by buffering the
effects of physical and biological perturbations and lowering the
chances of local extinction.'' (Winston and Hakansson, 1986)
This documented abundance and intrinsic though unquantifiable
degree of protection from local extinction offered by the interstitial
habitat characteristic of these species, coupled with their current-
mediated reproductive dispersal mechanism, supports the strong
likelihood that the subject bryozoans exist as yet undiscovered on
other parts of Capron Shoal as well as on other nearby shoals and that
their existence is not as precarious as the petitioners present.
Further, NMFS believes that these species are much more abundant than
the petitioners suspect, and it is very unlikely that the dredging of
significant portions or even all of Capron Shoal by the Corps would
jeopardize the existence of these species which are likely to occur on
other nearby shoals.
In summary, the strong currents, seasonal high energy environment
that prevails in and near Fort Pierce Inlet and Capron Shoal, current-
mediated reproductive dispersal mechanism characteristic of these
species, and proximity of other nearby shoals which provide similar
depth and sand characteristics to those found on Capron Shoal all
combine to make it highly probable that healthy populations of the
bryozoans listed by the petitioners exist elsewhere.
The Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County, Inc. (CASLCI) (one
of the petitioners) affirms that ``Bugula neritina ... a common
inhabitant of the Indian River lagoon just a few miles from Capron
Shoal ... has been found to contain a potent anti-cancer agent,
Bryostatin 1.'' (CASLCI, 1998) Another of the petitioners, organic
chemist/marine natural products chemistry researcher K. Brian Killday,
asserts that ``Bryostatin 1 is currently in Phase II human clinical
trials for the treatment of lymphoma and leukemia.'' (Killday, 1998)
Dr. Winston asserts that the Capron Shoal bryozoans for which ESA
listing and protection are sought ``belong to the same order
taxonomically as the bryozoan species which is the source of a potent
anti-cancer agent, Bryostatin 1.'' She also asserts that ``Bryostatin 1
derives from the bryozoan Bugula species of bryozoan which is also
present in ... Capron Shoal.'' (Winston, 1999)
NMFS does not accept the implication or characterization of Bugula
neritina as closely related to the species in question. NMFS feels that
the implication of close biological relatedness between Bugula neritina
and the Capron Shoal bryozoans (i.e., between bryozoans of the same
Order but different Genus)--with implied potential commonality of
highly beneficial (but as yet unproven) pharmaceutical properties--is
questionable. Regardless, the petitioners' appeal to the potential
pharmaceutical applications of one or all of these bryozoans is
irrelevant because it does not provide any information indicating that
the species may be threatened or endangered.
Therefore, NMFS finds that the petition does not present
substantial scientific information indicating that listing the Capron
Shoal bryozoans as threatened or endangered under the ESA may be
warranted.
References Cited:
CASLCI. 1998. Letter from Grace Stock, President of Conservation
Alliance of St. Lucie County, Inc. to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville District, May 29.
Corps. 1998. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. General re-evaluation
report with environmental assessment. Appendix B: Geotechnical
Investigations. Fort Pierce Shore Protection Project, St. Lucie County,
FL. September.
Corps. 1993. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (Revised April 1994, May
1995). Re-evaluation report: section 934 study with environmental
assessment. Fort Pierce Shore Protection Project, St. Lucie County, FL.
August.
Killday, K.B. 1998. Letter to Florida Inland Navigation District
Commissioners. June 20.
Knowlton, N. 1993. Sibling species in the sea. Ann. Rev. Ecol.
Syst. 24:189-216.
Miller, M. 1999. Personal communication. NMFS Biologist Dr.
Margaret Miller email to Eric Hawk. March 31.
Nammack, M. 1999. Personal communication. NMFS Biologist Marta
Nammack telephone conversation with Dr. Judith Winston. February 12.
NOAA. 1993. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Tidal
[[Page 28968]]
Current Tables: Atlantic Coast of North America. Government Printing
Office.
Hawk, E.G. 1999. Personal communication. NMFS Biologist Eric Hawk
with Captain Robert McCabe. February 17.
Wallace, C.C. and B. L. Willis. 1994. ``Systematics of the coral
genus Acropora: implications of new biological findings for the species
concepts'', Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25:237-62.
Winston, J.E. 1999. Affidavit. February 10.
Winston, J.E. and E. Hakansson. 1986. ``The interstitial bryozoan
fauna from Capron Shoal'', FL. Am. Mus. Novitates 2865:1-50.
Author:
The primary author of this document is Mr. Eric Hawk, NMFS, St.
Petersburg, FL (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 23, 1998.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 99-13556 Filed 5-25-99; 3:10 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}