83644 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 226 

[Docket No: 231120–0274] 

RIN 0648–BJ52 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for Five 

Species of Threatened Indo-Pacific 

Corals 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal and 

reproposal; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: On November 27, 2020, we, 

NMFS, published in the Federal 

Register a proposal to designate 17 

island units of critical habitat in the 

Pacific Islands Region for 7 Indo-Pacific 

coral species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Based 

on public comments and new 

information regarding the interpretation 

of the records of the listed corals and 

application to critical habitat, a 

substantial revision of the proposed rule 

is warranted. Accordingly, we are 

withdrawing the 2020 proposed rule 

and publishing this new proposed rule. 

We propose to designate critical habitat 

for five of the seven coral species that 

were addressed in the 2020 proposed 

rule: Acropora globiceps, Acropora 

retusa, Acropora speciosa, Euphyllia 

paradivisa, and Isopora crateriformis. 

Proposed critical habitat includes 16 

island units encompassing 

approximately 251 square kilometers 

((km2); 97 square miles (mi2)) of marine 

habitat. Several areas are ineligible for 

critical habitat because of final 

Department of Defense Integrated 

Natural Resource Management Plans 

that we have determined will benefit the 

listed corals. We have considered 

economic, national security, and other 

relevant impacts of the proposed 

designations, but are not proposing to 

exclude any areas from the critical 

habitat designations due to anticipated 

impacts. 

DATES: Comments on this proposal must 

be received by February 28, 2024. 

Public hearings: Public hearings on 

this proposed rule will be held during 

the public comment period at dates, 

times and locations to be announced in 

a forthcoming Federal Register Notice. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by the 

FDMS docket number NOAA–NMFS– 

2016–0131, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and type 

NOAA–NMFS–2016–0131 in the Search 

box (note: copying and pasting the 

FDMS Docket Number directly from this 

document may not yield search results). 

Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete 

the required fields, and enter or attach 

your comments. 

• Mail: Lance Smith, Protected 

Resources Division, NMFS, Pacific 

Islands Regional Office, NOAA Inouye 

Regional Center, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 

176, Honolulu, HI 96818. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on https://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lance Smith, NMFS, Pacific Islands 

Regional Office (PIRO), 808–725–5131, 

lance.smith@noaa.gov; or, Celeste Stout, 

NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 

301–427–8436, celeste.stout@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

We listed 20 reef coral species as 

threatened under the ESA on September 

10, 2014 (79 FR 53851), 15 of which 

occur in the Indo-Pacific. The remaining 

five species occur in the Caribbean. On 

November 27, 2020, we proposed 

critical habitat for the seven listed IndoPacific species that were then 

considered to occur within U.S. 

jurisdiction (85 FR 76262) and the five 

listed Caribbean species (85 FR 76302). 

All 20 of these listed coral species have 

undergone some level of population 

decline and are susceptible to multiple 

threats, including ocean warming, 

diseases, ocean acidification, ecological 

effects of fishing, and land-based 

sources of pollution. We determined 

that these species are likely to become 

endangered throughout their ranges 

within the foreseeable future as a result 

of a combination of threats, the most 

severe of which are related to climate 

change. 

On November 27, 2020, NMFS 

proposed to designate critical habitat for 

the seven listed Indo-Pacific corals that 

were then considered to occur within 

U.S. jurisdiction (Acropora globiceps, 

Acropora jacquelineae, Acropora retusa, 

Acropora speciosa, Euphyllia 

paradivisa, Isopora crateriformis, and 

Seriatopora aculeata) and opened a 

public comment period (85 FR 76262). 

In response to multiple requests from 

the public, the initial 60-day public 

comment period was extended three 

times, with the last extension ending on 

May 26, 2021. Two virtual public 

hearings were held in January 2021. 

Approximately 80 public comments 

were received on the proposed rule. 

The coral critical habitat proposed for 

designation in 2020 (the ‘‘2020 

proposed rule’’) consisted of substrate 

and water column habitat characteristics 

essential for the reproduction, 

recruitment, growth, and maturation of 

the seven listed coral species. A total of 

17 areas or ‘‘units’’ were proposed to be 

designated as critical habitat, including 

4 units in American Samoa (Tutuila and 

Offshore Banks, Ofu-Olosega, Ta’u, Rose 

Atoll), 1 unit in Guam, 7 units in the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands (CNMI; Rota, Aguijan, Tinian, 

Saipan, Anatahan, Pagan, Maug), and 5 

units in the Pacific Remote Islands 

Areas (PRIA; Howland, Palmyra Atoll, 

Kingman Reef, Johnston Atoll, Jarvis). 

Based on the best available information 

at that time, between 1 and 6 listed coral 

species were thought to occur within 

each of these 17 units. Several other 

areas were also found to be either 

ineligible for designation as critical 

habitat, or were proposed to be 

excluded from the designation due to 

national security impacts. These areas 

included the following: A complex of 

overlapping Navy Surface Danger Zones 

off of Ritidian Point in Guam, other 

parts of Guam, parts of Tinian in CNMI, 

a group of six Navy anchorage berths on 

Garapan Bank in Saipan in CNMI, all of 

Farallon de Medinilla in CNMI, and all 

of Wake Atoll in PRIA. 

The ESA defines critical habitat under 

section 3(5)(A) as the (1) specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, on 

which are found those physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (2) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) that 

such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 

1532(5)(A)). Conservation is defined in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83645 

section 3(3) of the ESA as to use, and 

the use of, all methods and procedures 

which are necessary to bring any 

endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to this Act 

are no longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 

1532(3)). Section 3(5)(C) of the ESA 

provides that, except in those 

circumstances determined by the 

Secretary, critical habitat shall not 

include the entire geographical area 

which can be occupied by the 

threatened or endangered species. ESA 

implementing regulations provide that 

critical habitat shall not be designated 

within foreign countries or in other 

areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 

424.12(g)). 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA 

prohibits designating as critical habitat 

any lands or other geographical areas 

owned or controlled by the Department 

of Defense (DOD) or designated for its 

use, that are subject to an Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plan 

(INRMP) prepared under section 101 of 

the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the 

Secretary determines in writing that 

such plan provides a benefit to the 

species for which critical habitat is 

designated. Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA 

requires us to designate critical habitat 

for threatened and endangered species 

on the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic, national 

security, and any other relevant impact, 

of specifying any particular area as 

critical habitat. Pursuant to this section, 

the Secretary may exclude any area from 

critical habitat if she determines the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat. However, the 

Secretary cannot exclude areas if failure 

to designate them as critical habitat will 

result in the extinction of the species 

(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). 

Once critical habitat is designated, 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires 

Federal agencies to ensure that actions 

they fund, authorize, or carry out are not 

likely to destroy or adversely modify 

that habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). This 

requirement is in addition to the section 

7(a)(2) requirement that Federal 

agencies ensure their actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of ESA-listed species. 

Specifying the geographic location of 

critical habitat also facilitates 

implementation of section 7(a)(1) of the 

ESA by identifying areas where Federal 

agencies can focus their conservation 

programs and use their authorities to 

further the purposes of the ESA. Critical 

habitat requirements do not apply to 

citizens engaged in actions on private 

land that do not involve a Federal 

agency. The requirements of section 

7(a)(2) to not destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat apply only to 

Federal agencies and do not apply to 

non-Federal entities on non-Federal 

land or within non-Federal waters in the 

absence of a Federal nexus (e.g. Federal 

funding, Federal permit). However, 

designating critical habitat can help 

focus the efforts of other conservation 

partners (e.g., state and local 

governments, individuals, and nongovernmental organizations). 

On July 5, 2022, the U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of 

California issued an order vacating the 

ESA section 4 implementing regulations 

that were revised or added to 50 CFR 

part 424 in 2019 (‘‘2019 regulations,’’ 

see 84 FR 45020, August 27, 2019) 

without making a finding on the merits. 

On September 21, 2022, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted 

a temporary stay of the district court’s 

July 5 order (Wash. Cattlemen’s Ass’n, 

No. 22–70194, 2022 WL 4393033). On 

November 14, 2022, the Northern 

District of California issued an order 

granting the government’s request for 

voluntary remand without vacating the 

2019 regulations. The District Court 

issued a slightly amended order two 

days later on November 16, 2022 (Ctr. 

for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 

19–cv–05206–JST, 2022 WL 19975245). 

As a result, the 2019 regulations remain 

in effect, and we are applying the 2019 

regulations here. We also note that, on 

June 22, 2023, our agency in 

coordination with the Department of 

Interior jointly published proposed 

revisions to the ESA section 4 

regulations (88 FR 40764). For purposes 

of this determination and in an 

abundance of caution, we considered 

whether the analysis or its conclusions 

would be any different under the 

current, pre-2019, and recently 

proposed regulations. We have 

determined that while the analysis 

differs in some ways, the conclusions 

presented here would not be any 

different. We will consider any changes 

to the section 4 regulations, as 

appropriate, should they be finalized 

and become effective prior to 

completion of a final critical habitat 

determination. 

In this rulemaking, the terms 

‘‘occupied area,’’ ‘‘specific area,’’ and 

‘‘critical habitat unit’’ each have distinct 

meanings. The terms ‘‘occupied area’’ 

and ‘‘specific area’’ are species-specific, 

whereas the term ‘‘critical habitat unit’’ 

is not species-specific. The term 

‘‘occupied area’’ is consistent with the 

definition of the ‘‘geographical area 

occupied by the species’’ in 50 CFR 

424.02 and refers to the area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences at the time of listing, as 

determined by the Secretary—i.e., range. 

Within each occupied area, ‘‘specific 

areas’’ are the areas containing the 

essential feature of critical habitat for 

the species. We use the term ‘‘critical 

habitat unit’’ to refer to the cumulative 

specific areas for one or more species 

around the 16 islands proposed for 

designation. Critical habitat units are 

named according to the particular island 

or offshore bank around, or on which, 

the coral habitat is located. For example, 

overlapping occupied areas for five 

listed coral species occur around 

Tutuila Island and its offshore banks, 

which is thus named the Tutuila and 

Offshore Banks Unit of coral critical 

habitat. 

Rationale for Withdrawing 2020 

Proposed Rule 

We evaluated the comments and 

information received during the public 

comment period and at the public 

hearings that were held for the 2020 

proposed rule, as well as other new 

information that has become available, 

as described in the Critical Habitat 

Information Report for this proposed 

rule (NMFS, 2023) and its appendices. 

Based on our consideration of the 

comments and information, a 

substantial revision of the 2020 

proposed rule is needed for three main 

reasons: 

1. The initial methodology used to 

compile existing records of listed coral 

species in U.S. waters was not 

exhaustive, resulting in the inadvertent 

exclusion of some islands within the 

occupied area for some listed species 

that should have been included as 

occupied areas. 

2. The initial methodology used to 

determine which U.S. islands were 

within the occupied area for each listed 

coral species at the time of listing (2014) 

was too simplistic, resulting in the 

inadvertent inclusion of some islands in 

the occupied area for some listed 

species that should not have been 

included. 

3. The initial methodology used to 

determine the depth range of each listed 

species on each island within its 

occupied area used incorrect 

assumptions, resulting in inaccurate 

depth ranges for some species in some 

locations (i.e., some depth ranges were 

larger than they should have been). 

With regard to the compilation of 

records of listed coral species in U.S. 

waters, in developing the 2020 proposed 

rule, we relied on Federal coral reef 

monitoring programs as the only source 

of records used for most of the remote 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83646 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

islands. However, as pointed out in the 

public comments and also as indicated 

by new information, other records exist 

for some islands. Specifically, several 

sources of photo records and expert data 

records have been published or shared 

since the 2020 proposed rule published, 

and some previously unused historical 

photo records were found to have been 

mislabeled with the names of unlisted 

species. As a result, numerous existing 

records that were not considered in the 

2020 proposed rule, including some that 

provide the only records of any listed 

coral species on some islands, were 

considered in developing this proposed 

rule. 

With regard to determining the 

occupied area within U.S. jurisdiction 

for each listed coral species for the 2020 

proposed rule, we assumed that any 

expert record of a listed coral species 

was adequate to conclude that the 

island was within the occupied area for 

that species at the time of listing. 

However, as pointed out in the public 

comments and also as indicated by new 

information, for those islands with very 

few records for a listed coral species, 

such records may not provide adequate 

evidence that the island was within the 

occupied area of the listed species at the 

time of listing. There are several 

potential reasons for this, including 

species misidentifications, old records 

of species that were no longer present at 

the time of listing, and the likelihood 

that a single record of a colony of a 

listed species represents a vagrant 

individual. For example, only a single 

colony of the listed coral Acropora 

jacquelineae has ever been recorded in 

U.S. waters on Tutuila, an island that 

has been frequently surveyed by coral 

experts since that single colony was 

recorded in 2008, and that record was 

used as the basis for including A. 

jacquelineae in the 2020 proposed rule. 

However, as indicated in the public 

comments and by new information, that 

record likely represents a vagrant 

individual of A. jacquelineae, and thus 

Tutuila should not be considered as 

being occupied by the species at the 

time of listing. Therefore, the mere 

existence of an expert record of a listed 

coral from an island is not necessarily 

adequate to support a conclusion that 

the area was within the occupied area 

of the species at the time of listing. 

With regard to the species’ depth 

ranges applied in the 2020 proposed 

rule, we assumed that the depth range 

of a listed coral species shown by the 

records from an extensively surveyed 

island was similarly representative of 

that species’ depth range on other 

islands. For example, since the records 

of A. globiceps from Tutuila showed a 

depth range of 0–20 m on that island, 

we assumed that the species’ depth 

range was 0–20 m in other locations 

where we lacked depth distribution 

data, including islands within (e.g., 

Rose Atoll) and outside (e.g., Guam) the 

Samoan Archipelago. However, as 

indicated in the public comments and 

by new information, the depth range of 

a listed coral species can vary from 

island to island, especially between 

archipelagos. For example, surveys that 

became available or were conducted 

since the 2020 proposed rule between 

10 and 20 m on both Tutuila and Guam 

indicate that A. globiceps is commonly 

found to 20 m on Tutuila in the Samoan 

Islands but only to 12 m on Guam in the 

Mariana Islands. 

In order to address these issues with 

the 2020 proposed rule, a systematic 

methodology was developed and 

implemented for compilation, 

assessment, and interpretation of the 

records of each listed coral species in 

order to determine its occupied area 

within U.S. waters at the time of listing 

in 2014 (i.e., which islands) as well as 

the depth range of each species on each 

of those islands. This new methodology 

resulted in significant changes to the 

occupied area (i.e., which islands are 

included or not), as well as depth ranges 

of critical habitat for most listed coral 

species. Ultimately, these changes 

altered which species are considered to 

occupy areas within U.S. jurisdiction 

and the location and boundaries of the 

areas proposed for designation. 

Specifically, two species included in the 

2020 proposed rule, Acropora 

jacquelineae and Seriatopora aculeata, 

are no longer considered to have 

occupied areas within U.S. jurisdiction 

at the time of listing, and we cannot 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside U.S. jurisdictions (50 CFR 

424.12(g)). In addition, some new areas 

are being proposed that were not 

included in the 2020 proposed rule 

(Alamagan and Uracas in CNMI, French 

Frigate Shoals in Hawaii). Given these 

multiple, substantial changes, we 

concluded it was necessary to withdraw 

the 2020 proposed rule and publish this 

proposed rule to provide the public an 

opportunity to comment on the new 

methodology and the different areas 

being proposed as critical habitat. 

New Methodology for Determining 

Occupied Areas and Depth Ranges 

The determinations of the occupied 

areas and depth ranges that inform 

critical habitat are based on the records 

of each listed coral species within U.S. 

waters. However, using the records for 

critical habitat requires overcoming 

three major challenges: (1) Finding all 

the records (compilation); (2) 

accounting for the high variability in the 

quality, quantity, age, species 

identification uncertainty, survey effort, 

and other factors associated with the 

records (assessment); and (3) 

interpreting the records to determine 

which islands are within the occupied 

area for each listed species and thus 

should be included in critical habitat 

(application). In order to address these 

challenges and ensure that coral critical 

habitat is based on the best available 

information, we conducted exhaustive 

searches to compile all the available 

records for each listed coral species 

around each island within U.S. Pacific 

Islands jurisdictions, and developed a 

consistent and transparent methodology 

for assessing and applying the records. 

The results are provided in appendix A 

of the Information Report (NMFS, 2023), 

hereafter referred to as the Records 

Document, and provide the foundation 

for this new proposed rule. The 

compilation, assessment, and 

application of the records are 

summarized from the Records 

Document below. 

Compilation of Records 

We compiled the available records for 

each listed coral species around each 

island within U.S. Pacific Islands waters 

via the following steps: (1) Reviewed all 

relevant NOAA Fisheries files, such as 

those used for the final coral listing rule 

and 2020 proposed critical habitat; (2) 

gathered records from government 

agencies that have conducted coral reef 

monitoring within these areas; (3) 

gathered records from other sources 

such as research projects, site surveys, 

area inventories, etc.; (4) conducted an 

exhaustive virtual search; and (5) 

consulted with experts from the 

Territorial Governments (American 

Samoa, Guam, CNMI) and the Marine 

National Monuments (Rose Atoll, 

Pacific Remote Islands, Marianas 

Trench) to ensure that no records were 

overlooked. Some of these records were 

brought to our attention by the public 

comments that we received during the 

public comment period in 2021. The 

search produced records of seven listed 

coral species (A. globiceps, A. 

jacquelineae, A. retusa, A. speciosa, E. 

paradivisa, I. crateriformis, and S. 

aculeata) from U.S. Pacific Islands 

waters (NMFS, 2023, appendix A). This 

comprehensive compilation process 

yielded more than twice as many 

records as were used for the 2020 

proposed rule, including historical 

records that we were unaware of in 2020 

as well as new data collected since then. 

The records were divided into 45 

records groups by island and species. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83647 

Throughout this proposed rule and in 

the supporting documents, we refer to 

high islands (volcanic, e.g., Guam), 

atolls (e.g., Rose Atoll), stand-alone reefs 

(e.g., Kingman Reef), shoals (e.g., French 

Frigate Shoals (FFS)), and pinnacles 

(e.g., Gardner Pinnacles) as ‘‘islands.’’ 

The 45 records groups included a total 

of 24 such islands, 4 of which were in 

American Samoa (Tutuila and Offshore 

Banks, Ofu-Olosega, Ta’u, Rose Atoll), 1 

in Guam (Guam), 9 in CNMI (Rota, 

Aguijan, Tinian, Saipan, Farallon de 

Medinilla (FDM), Alamagan, Pagan, 

Maug Islands, Uracas), 7 in PRIA 

(Howland, Baker, Palmyra Atoll, 

Kingman Reef, Johnston Atoll, Wake 

Atoll, Jarvis), and 3 in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (FFS, Maro Reef, 

Gardner Pinnacles) in Hawaii, as shown 

in table 2 of appendix A. We found no 

records of any listed species in any of 

the Main Hawaiian Islands (NMFS, 

2023, appendix A). 

Assessment of Records 

We assessed each of the 45 records 

groups (i.e., all records of a listed 

species from an island) in terms of the 

multiple factors, including (1) quality of 

records, (2) quantity of records, (3) age 

of records, (4) species identification 

uncertainty, and (5) survey effort. We 

addressed the quality of records by 

organizing the records into three 

mutually-exclusive categories: ‘‘photo 

records,’’ ‘‘expert data records,’’ or 

‘‘other records.’’ Because of species 

identification uncertainty, photo records 

are ideal, as long as the location and 

date of the photo are known, and the 

photo clearly shows colony and branch 

morphology. However, many records of 

coral species are in the form of data 

sheets or species lists, and lack photos. 

Any such record collected by a 

recognized Indo-Pacific reef-building 

coral species expert is considered an 

expert data record. Records that do not 

meet the criteria for photo records or 

expert data records are considered other 

records (e.g., personal communications). 

We confirmed all records via direct 

communication with the experts who 

took the records, or with experts who 

were able to vouch for the records. Our 

determinations of whether the island 

was within the occupied area for a listed 

species at the time of listing relied 

almost entirely upon photo records and 

expert data records. However, other 

records provided valuable information 

for some islands or parts thereof. For 

example, records that do not meet the 

criteria for photo or expert data records 

(i.e., exact dates and locations not 

available) provide information on depth 

and habitat distributions (NMFS, 2023, 

appendix A). 

Although we did not specify a 

particular quantity of records necessary 

to support a determination that a 

particular island was within the 

occupied area for a listed species at the 

time of listing, the more photo records 

and expert data records we have for a 

species from an island, the greater the 

likelihood that the island was within 

the occupied area for a listed species at 

the time of listing. Islands with a single 

photo record or expert data record of a 

listed species may or may not have been 

within the occupied area of that species 

at the time of listing (2014), depending 

on other factors (NMFS, 2023, appendix 

A). 

Older records are not necessarily 

lower quality, thus age of records was 

not a consideration for determining the 

quality of a record. However, the more 

that a record predates listing, the less 

relevance it had to our determination of 

whether the island was within the 

occupied area for a listed species at the 

time of listing (NMFS, 2023, appendix 

A). 

Species identification uncertainty is 

substantial for most of the 15 listed 

Indo-Pacific reef coral species, even for 

experts. For listed coral species that are 

consistently distinct from similar 

species and frequently observed, species 

identification uncertainty has decreased 

since listing, as survey effort and 

expertise have increased. This is the 

case with A. globiceps and I. 

crateriformis. In addition, E. paradivisa 

and S. aculeata are consistently distinct 

from similar species, although they are 

very infrequently observed within U.S. 

waters. For these four listed species, 

identification uncertainty is relatively 

low at this point in time for coral 

species experts based in the U.S. Pacific 

Islands. In contrast, for listed species 

that are very similar to other species, the 

increase in survey effort since listing in 

2014 has emphasized the difficulty in 

distinguishing them. This is the case 

with A. retusa, especially in the 

Marianas and PRIA. The combination of 

high colony morphological variability 

and low numbers of records from the 

Marianas (i.e., Guam and CNMI) and 

PRIA is such that we have low 

confidence in these records, even 

though they are expert data records. 

Even more challenging are those listed 

species that are very similar to other 

species but are very infrequently 

observed, such as A. jacquelineae and 

A. speciosa. For these three listed 

species, identification uncertainty is 

relatively high at this point in time, 

even for coral species experts who focus 

on the U.S. Pacific Islands (NMFS, 2023, 

appendix A). 

A particular species identification 

uncertainty problem is the apparent 

variability in colony morphology of A. 

retusa and related species between the 

American Samoa, Guam-CNMI, and 

PRIA archipelagos. The combination of 

high colony morphological variability 

and low numbers of records in GuamCNMI and PRIA is such that we have 

low confidence in these records, even 

though they are expert data records. 

However, in American Samoa, there is 

apparently lower colony morphological 

variability and higher numbers of 

records for A. retusa, thus we have high 

confidence in these records. 

Survey effort refers to the amount of 

expert coral species surveys that have 

been conducted on an island. Historical 

survey effort has been highly variable 

from island to island, potentially 

influencing the interpretation of the 

records. However, all islands in this 

document except FDM in CNMI have 

been included in the Pacific Islands 

Fisheries Science Center’s (PIFSC) 

species-level standardized coral reef 

monitoring surveys at least one time 

since listing in 2014, and some islands 

have also been included in standardized 

surveys by other agencies. PIFSC’s 

surveys are quite extensive around each 

island, including a large number of 

transects and covering wide depth 

ranges (appendix A). The Department of 

the Navy (DON) restricts access to FDM, 

hence PIFSC does not survey there. 

However, the Navy periodically 

conducts species-level coral surveys at 

FDM by recognized Indo-Pacific reefbuilding coral species experts, thus 

numerous surveys have been conducted 

on FDM both around and since the time 

of listing. All islands have been subject 

to extensive species-level surveys (i.e., 

the PIFSC and DON surveys) around or 

since the time of listing, including 

within the depth ranges and habitat 

types of all listed coral species (NMFS, 

2023, appendix A). 

Several other factors were taken into 

consideration in assessing the records, 

including taxonomic issues, 

morphological variability across 

archipelagos, and habitat preferences. 

Taxonomic issues include confusion of 

A. globiceps with A. humilis, and the 

name change from Acropora 

crateriformis to Isopora crateriformis, 

both of which affected how we treated 

historical records. Finally, some types of 

coral reef habitats are surveyed more 

than others, mainly because of 

accessibility and safety. Of the surveys 

that produced the records in this 

document, the majority took place on 

forereefs (AKA reef slopes) between 

about 5 and 20 m of depth, and some 

surveys included reef slopes of 20–30 m 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83648 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

depth. Fewer surveys were done in 

backreef habitats, such as pools, 

lagoons, and reef flats, raising the 

possibility that the records may not be 

representative of species’ distributions 

across habitats. However, for some of 

the more frequently surveyed islands, 

habitat-specific information is available, 

as noted in the species-island sections 

(NMFS, 2023, appendix A). 

Based on the assessment factors, we 

developed a 10-category system for 

rating the level of evidence provided by 

each records group (i.e., all records of a 

listed species from an island) that the 

island was within the occupied area for 

the listed species at the time of listing 

in 2014, from the least to the most 

evidence (table 1). Then we interpreted 

the rating results of each records group 

to determine whether the island was 

within the occupied area for the listed 

species at the time of listing, and thus 

should be included in critical habitat. 

For islands within the occupied area of 

a listed species, we also used the 

records to determine the depth range of 

that species on the island. 

TABLE 1—RATING SYSTEM FOR EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY EACH OF THE RECORDS GROUPS THAT THE ISLAND WAS WITHIN

THE OCCUPIED AREA FOR THE LISTED SPECIES AT THE TIME OF LISTING IN 2014, AND THE RESULTING RATINGS OF

THE 45 RECORDS GROUPS

[NMFS, 2023, appendix A, tables 1 and 2] 

Rating Species ID 

uncertainty Evidence category for records groups Ratings results for the 45 records groups 

1 ............................ High ...................... Up to a few pre-listing photo or expert data records 

are available, but no post-listing records are available.

10 records groups: A. jacquelineae from Tutuila; A. retusa from 

Ta’u, Guam, Rota, Tinian, Howland, Kingman Reef, and Johnston 

Atoll; and A. speciosa from Guam and Kingman Reef. 

2 ............................ Low ....................... ′′′′′′ ....................................................................... 7 records groups: A. globiceps from Howland, Baker, Kingman 

Reef, Maro Reef, and Gardner Pinnacles; and S. aculeata from 

Guam and Saipan. 

3 ............................ High ...................... Up to a few post-listing photo or expert data records 

are available, but post-listing standardized monitoring surveys have not detected colonies.

1 records group: A. retusa from Jarvis. 

4 ............................ Low ....................... ′′′′′′ ....................................................................... 2 records groups: A. globiceps from Alamagan and Uracas. 

5 ............................ High ...................... More than a few post-listing photo or expert data 

records are available, but post-listing standardized monitoring surveys have not detected colonies.

2 records groups: A. retusa from Wake Atoll; and A. speciosa from 

Tutuila. 

6 ............................ Low ....................... ′′′′′′ ....................................................................... 7 records groups: A. globiceps from Ta’u, Rose Atoll, FDM, Palmyra Atoll, Johnston Atoll, and FFS; and E. paradivisa from 

Tutuila. 

7 ............................ High ...................... More than a few post-listing photo or expert data 

records are available, and post-listing standardized monitoring surveys have detected colonies.

1 records group: A. retusa from Ofu-Olosega. 

8 ............................ Low ....................... ′′′′′′ ....................................................................... 6 records groups: A. globiceps from Ofu-Olosega, Aguijan, Pagan, 

Maug Islands, and Wake Atoll; and I. crateriformis from Ta’u. 

9 ............................ High ...................... At least dozens of post-listing photo and expert data 

records are available, and post-listing standardized monitoring surveys have detected colonies at 

multiple sites over multiple years.

2 records groups: A. retusa from Tutuila and Rose Atoll. 

10 .......................... Low ....................... ′′′′′′ ....................................................................... 7 records groups: A. globiceps from Tutuila, Guam, Rota, Tinian, 

and Saipan; and I. crateriformis from Tutuila and Ofu-Olosega. 

We interpreted the ratings of the 

records groups in terms of the 

likelihood that the island was within 

the occupied area for the listed species 

at the time of listing in 2014. We 

considered record groups with ratings of 

1–3 as providing inadequate evidence 

that the island was within the occupied 

area for the listed species at the time of 

listing. Eighteen of the 45 records 

groups were rated as 1–3 (table 1). The 

rationales for why these records groups 

provide inadequate evidence for the 

species being within the occupied area 

at the time of listing are summarized 

below from the Records Document 

(NMFS, 2023, appendix A). 

One A. jacquelineae records group 

was rated as 1 (Tutuila), a species with 

high species identification uncertainty 

even for trained experts. This record 

consists of photos of a single colony of 

A. jacquelineae on Tutuila taken in 

2008. Since then, hundreds of expert 

surveys have been conducted on Tutuila 

within the habitat and depth range of 

the species, including at the location of 

the original record, but no other records 

have been documented. The regulatory 

definition of an occupied area does not 

include habitats used solely by vagrant 

individuals (i.e., waifs). Waifs are a 

single individual or small group of 

individuals found outside of its normal 

range, presumably advected by unusual 

currents or weather conditions (Johnson 

et al., 2000), which are common among 

reef corals (Turak and DeVantier, 2019). 

Based on the fact that no other colonies 

of A. jacquelineae have been observed 

before or since 2008 on Tutuila despite 

extensive expert surveys, there is 

considerable likelihood that the single 

observed colony of A. jacquelineae on 

Tutuila was a waif colony. Since 

occupied areas do not include habitats 

used solely by vagrant individuals (i.e., 

waifs), this record provides inadequate 

evidence that Tutuila was within the 

occupied area of A. jacquelineae at the 

time of listing in 2014 (NMFS, 2023, 

appendix A). 

Seven A. retusa records groups were 

rated as 1 (Ta’u, Guam, Rota, Tinian, 

Howland, Kingman Reef, Johnston 

Atoll), a species with high species 

identification uncertainty even for 

trained experts. All seven records 

groups consist of one or two records 

collected at least several years before 

listing (2004—2010). Five of the records 

groups each consist of one or two photo 

records that all appear to be of closelyrelated but undescribed species. The 

other two records groups (Ta’u, Rota) 

each consist of a single expert data 

record but because of species 

identification uncertainty and lack of 

photos, identifications could not be 

confirmed. Because these records 

groups each consist of only one or two 

ambiguous records collected at least 

several years before listing, and expert 

surveys of all seven islands since listing 

have not recorded any A. retusa 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83649 

colonies, these records groups provide 

inadequate evidence that any of the 

seven islands were within the occupied 

area of A. retusa at the time of listing 

in 2014 (NMFS, 2023, appendix A). 

Two A. speciosa records groups were 

rated as 1 (Guam, Kingman Reef), a 

species with high species identification 

uncertainty even for trained experts. 

The Guam records group consists of 

several photos of a single colony in 

Apra Harbor of Guam taken in 2010. 

Definitive species identification requires 

examination of a skeletal sample, but no 

sample was taken. Many subsequent 

expert dives and surveys were 

conducted in the area in the following 

years, but neither the original colony 

nor any other colonies resembling A. 

speciosa were recorded. The Kingman 

Reef records group consists of a single 

expert data record collected between 

2004 and 2006 with no photos or 

skeletal sample. Because these records 

groups each consist of only a single 

ambiguous colony recorded at least 

several years before listing, and expert 

surveys of both islands since listing 

have not recorded any A. speciosa 

colonies, these records groups provide 

inadequate evidence that either island 

was within the occupied area of A. 

speciosa at the time of listing in 2014 

(NMFS, 2023, appendix A). 

Five A. globiceps records were groups 

rated as 2 (Howland, Baker, Kingman 

Reef, Maro Reef, Gardner Pinnacles), a 

species with low species identification 

uncertainty for trained experts. All five 

records groups consist of one or two 

photo records collected at least several 

years before listing (2000–2006). The 

three records groups from PRIA 

(Howland, Baker, Kingman Reef) each 

consist of one or two photo records 

taken between 2004 and 2006 and 

identified by an expert at that time but 

that are clearly not A. globiceps, and 

thus provide no evidence that these 

three islands were within the occupied 

area of A. globiceps at the time of listing 

in 2014. The two records groups from 

NWHI (Maro Reef, Gardner Pinnacles) 

are a photo of a single colony from 2004 

(Maro Reef) and photos of a group of 

colonies in close proximity from 2000 

(Gardner Pinnacles). Because these 

records groups each consist of only a 

single colony or group of colonies (i.e., 

likely clones) collected many years 

before listing, multiple expert surveys 

conducted at Maro Reef and Gardner 

Pinnacles through 2008 did not record 

any A. globiceps colonies, and an expert 

survey of both islands since listing did 

not record any A. globiceps colonies, 

these records groups provide inadequate 

evidence that either island was within 

the occupied area of A. globiceps at the 

time of listing in 2014 (NMFS, 2023, 

appendix A). 

Two S. aculeata records groups were 

rated as 2 (Guam, Saipan), a species 

with low species identification 

uncertainty for trained experts. The 

Guam records group consists of three 

photo records (two from the 1970s and 

one from 2010), while the Saipan 

records group consists of an expert data 

record of a cluster of colonies in close 

proximity (i.e., likely clones) from 2011. 

Since 2010 and 2011, hundreds of 

expert surveys have been conducted on 

Guam and Saipan within the habitat and 

depth range of S. aculeata, but no 

additional records have been 

documented. Since the most recent of 

these records were collected in 2010 

(Guam) and 2011 (Saipan), there have 

been sharp declines in coral cover 

throughout Guam and Saipan, 

especially of branching corals such as S. 

aculeata, due to a multitude of 

disturbances. There are several reasons 

why these records groups provide 

inadequate evidence that either island 

was within the occupied area of S. 

aculeata at the time the species was 

listed in 2014. First, each records group 

consists of only a few records collected 

between the 1980s and 2010. Second, 

hundreds of expert surveys have been 

conducted on Guam and Saipan since 

listing in 2014 but did not record any 

additional S. aculeata colonies. Third, 

there have been sharp declines in the 

coral cover of branching corals such as 

S. aculeata on Guam and Saipan that 

started at least several years before 

listing in 2014 (NMFS, 2023, appendix 

A). 

One A. retusa records group was rated 

as 3 (Jarvis), a species with high species 

identification uncertainty even for 

trained experts. This records group 

consists of a single photo taken in 2018 

although the photo does not clearly 

show branch and colony morphology. 

Like the other A. retusa photo records 

from PRIA, the colony could only be 

identified as possible A. retusa colonies 

because of a combination of species 

identification uncertainty and 

taxonomic ambiguity. Because A. retusa 

has high species identification 

uncertainty especially in PRIA, the 

records group consists of only one poor 

quality and ambiguous photo record, 

and post-listing standardized 

monitoring surveys in 2015 and 2018 at 

Jarvis did not detect any A. retusa 

colonies, this records group does not 

provide adequate evidence that Jarvis 

was within the occupied area of A. 

retusa at the time of listing in 2014 

(NMFS, 2023, appendix A). 

We considered record groups with 

ratings of 4–10 to provide adequate 

evidence that the island was within the 

occupied area for the listed species at 

the time of listing. Twenty-seven of the 

45 records groups were rated as 4–10 

(table 1), and the rationales for why 

these records groups provide adequate 

evidence for the species being within 

the occupied area at the time of listing 

are summarized below from the Records 

Document (NMFS, 2023, appendix A). 

Two A. globiceps records groups were 

rated as 4 (Alamagan, Uracas), a species 

with low species identification 

uncertainty for trained experts. These 

records groups consist of one 

(Alamagan) and two (Uracas) photo 

records, all taken in 2017. No expert 

surveys have been conducted on either 

island since then, except PIFSC’s 

standardized monitoring survey in 2022, 

details for which are not yet available. 

Because A. globiceps has low species 

identification uncertainty, and these 

records consist of photo records taken in 

2017, these records groups provide 

adequate evidence that the two islands 

were within the occupied area of A. 

globiceps at the time of listing in 2014 

(NMFS, 2023, appendix A). 

Two records groups were rated as 5, 

A. retusa from Wake Atoll, and A. 

speciosa from Tutuila. Both species 

have high species identification 

uncertainty even for trained experts. 

The A. retusa/Wake records group 

consists of many photo and expert data 

records since listing in 2014, although 

standardized monitoring surveys have 

not detected the species on Wake. The 

A. speciosa/Tutuila records group 

consists of several photo and expert data 

records before and after listing in 2014, 

including two from 2016 that were 

confirmed with skeletal samples, and 

one record from a standardized 

monitoring survey that was not 

confirmed with a skeletal sample. 

Although both species have high species 

identification uncertainty even for 

trained experts, the A. retusa/Wake 

records group consists of many photo 

and expert data records since listing, 

and the A. speciosa/Tutuila records 

group includes multiple post-listing 

records that were confirmed with 

skeletal samples. Thus the records 

groups provide adequate evidence that 

Wake Atoll was within the occupied 

area of A. retusa, and that Tutuila was 

within the occupied area of A. speciosa, 

at the time of listing in 2014 (NMFS, 

2023, appendix A). 

Seven records groups were rated as 6, 

six for A. globiceps (Ta’u, Rose Atoll, 

FDM, Palmyra Atoll, Johnston Atoll, 

FFS), and one for E. paradivisa from 

Tutuila. Both species have low species 

identification uncertainty for trained 

experts. Each of the seven records 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83650 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

groups include several records collected 

before and after listing in 2014. Because 

both species have low species 

identification uncertainty, multiple 

records are available for all seven 

islands, and records were collected after 

listing, these records groups provide 

adequate evidence that the six islands 

were within the occupied area of A. 

globiceps, and that Tutuila was within 

the occupied area of E. paradivisa, at the 

time of listing in 2014 (NMFS, 2023, 

appendix A). 

One A. retusa records group was rated 

as 7 (Ofu-Olosega), a species with high 

species identification uncertainty even 

for trained experts. This records group 

consists of several records collected 

before and after listing in 2014. 

Although A. retusa generally has high 

species identification uncertainty, 

colonies of the species have a typical 

and distinct appearance in American 

Samoa. Because multiple records are 

available, some of which were collected 

after listing, this records group provides 

adequate evidence that Ofu-Olosega was 

within the occupied area of A. retusa at 

the time of listing in 2014 (NMFS, 2023, 

appendix A). 

Six records groups were rated as 8, 

five for A. globiceps (Ofu-Olosega, 

Aguihan, Pagan, Maug Islands, Wake 

Atoll), and one for I. crateriformis from 

Ta’u. Both species have low species 

identification uncertainty for trained 

experts. Each of the six records groups 

consist of many records collected after 

listing in 2014. Because both species 

have low species identification 

uncertainty, and many records are 

available for all six islands since listing, 

these records groups provide adequate 

evidence that the five islands were 

within the occupied area of A. 

globiceps, and that Ta’u was within the 

occupied area of I. crateriformis, at the 

time of listing in 2014 (NMFS, 2023., 

appendix A). 

Two A. retusa records groups were 

rated as 9 (Tutuila, Rose Atoll), a 

species with high species identification 

uncertainty even for trained experts. 

These records groups each consist of 

dozens of records collected after listing 

in 2014. Although A. retusa generally 

has high species identification 

uncertainty, colonies of the species have 

a typical and distinct appearance in 

American Samoa. Because dozens of 

records are available from after listing 

for both islands, these records groups 

provide adequate evidence that Tutuila 

and Rose Atoll were within the 

occupied area of A. retusa at the time of 

listing in 2014 (NMFS, 2023, appendix 

A). 

Seven records groups were rated as 

10, five for A. globiceps (Tutuila, Guam, 

Rota, Tinian, Saipan), and two for I. 

crateriformis (Tutuila, Ofu-Olosega). 

Both species have low species 

identification uncertainty for trained 

experts. Each of the seven records 

groups consist of dozens to hundreds of 

records collected after listing in 2014. 

Because both species have low species 

identification uncertainty, and many 

records are available for all seven 

islands since listing, these records 

groups provide adequate evidence that 

the five islands were within the 

occupied area of A. globiceps, and that 

Tutuila and Ofu-Olosega were within 

the occupied area of I. crateriformis, at 

the time of listing in 2014 (NMFS, 2023, 

appendix A). 

Summary of Results for Occupied Areas 

and Depth Ranges 

In summary, and based on the new 

methodology for identifying occupied 

areas and depth ranges as described 

above and in the Records Document 

(NMFS, 2023, appendix A), 18 records 

groups each provide inadequate 

evidence that the island where the 

records were collected was within the 

occupied area of the listed species at the 

time of listing, while 27 records groups 

each provide adequate evidence that the 

island was within the occupied area of 

the listed species at the time of listing. 

These 27 records groups were from 18 

islands for A. globiceps, 4 islands for A. 

retusa, 1 island each for A. speciosa and 

E. paradivisa, and 3 islands for I. 

crateriformis (table 2). 

In addition, the 27 records groups 

were used to determine the depth ranges 

of each listed species around each 

island. For A. globiceps, the depth 

ranges are 0–20 m (3 islands), 0–12 m 

(10 islands), and 0–10 m (5 islands). For 

the other 4 species, the depth ranges are 

0–20 m for A. retusa (4 islands) and I. 

crateriformis (3 islands), and 20–50 m 

for A. speciosa and E. paradivisa (table 

2). 

TABLE 2—DEPTH RANGES (IN METERS) OF THE LISTED SPECIES AROUND EACH OF THE ISLANDS CONSIDERED TO BE

OCCUPIED AT THE TIME OF LISTING BASED ON APPLICATION OF THE RECORDS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

[NMFS, 2023, appendix A] 

Island A. globiceps A. retusa A. speciosa E. paradivisa I. crateriformis 

Tutuila and Offshore Banks ............................................. 0–20 0–20 20–50 20–50 0–20 

Ofu-Olosega ..................................................................... 0–20 0–20 ........................ ........................ 0–20 

Ta’u .................................................................................. 0–20 .................... ........................ ........................ 0–20 

Rose Atoll ......................................................................... 0–10 0–20 ........................ ........................ ................................

Guam ............................................................................... 0–12 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................

Rota .................................................................................. 0–12 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................

Aguijan ............................................................................. 0–12 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................

Tinian ............................................................................... 0–12 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................

Saipan .............................................................................. 0–12 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................

Farallon de Medinilla ........................................................ 0–12 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................

Alamagan ......................................................................... 0–12 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................

Pagan ............................................................................... 0–12 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................

Maug Islands .................................................................... 0–12 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................

Uracas .............................................................................. 0–12 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................

Palmyra Atoll .................................................................... 0–10 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................

Johnston Atoll .................................................................. 0–10 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................

Wake Atoll ........................................................................ 0–10 0–20 ........................ ........................ ................................

French Frigate Shoals ..................................................... 0–10 .................... ........................ ........................ ................................


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83651 

Changes From the 2020 Proposed Rule 

Application of the records assessment 

methodology described above led to 

substantive changes from the 2020 

proposed rule: (1) a reduction in the 

number of listed corals whose occupied 

areas occurred within U.S. jurisdiction 

at the time of listing from seven to five 

species; (2) changes in the numbers of 

islands included within the occupied 

areas for most of the listed species; and 

(3) changes in the depth ranges for all 

of the listed species. These substantive 

changes led to other changes in this 

proposed rule, including refinement of 

critical habitat boundaries, and 

elimination of all proposed exclusions 

from critical habitat under 4(b)(2). 

Changes between this and the 2020 

proposed rule are summarized in table 

3 and described in further detail below. 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2020 AND NEW PROPOSED RULES

2020 Proposed rule New proposed rule 

Listed Coral Species With Occupied Areas *.7 species: A. globiceps, A. jacquelineae, A. retusa, A. speciosa, 

E. paradivisa, I. crateriformis, S. aculeata.

5 species: A. globiceps, A. retusa, A. speciosa, E. paradivisa, I. 

crateriformis. 

Considered for Coral Critical 

Habitat (i.e., Islands Within 

Occupied Areas **).

19 island units: Tutuila & Offshore Banks, Ofu-Olosega, Ta’u, 

Rose Atoll, Guam, Rota, Aguijian, Tinian, Saipan, FDM, 

Anatahan, Pagan, Maug Islands, Howland, Palmyra Atoll, 

Kingman Reef, Johnston Atoll, Wake Atoll, Jarvis.

18 island units: Tutuila & Offshore Banks, Ofu-Olosega, Ta’u, 

Rose Atoll, Guam, Rota, Aguijan, Tinian, Saipan, FDM, 

Alamagan, Pagan, Maug Islands, Uracas, Palmyra Atoll, 

Johnston Atoll, Wake Atoll, FFS. 

Jurisdictions With Occupied 

Areas.

4 jurisdictions: American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, PRIA ................ 5 jurisdictions: American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, PRIA, Hawaii. 

Combined Depth Ranges *** ..... 0–10 m (3 units), 0–20 m (12 units), 0–40 m (4 units) ................ 0–10 m (3 units), 0–12 m (10 units), 0–20 m (4 units), 0–50 m 

(1 unit). 

Mapping of Specific Areas ........ All areas within depth ranges around all islands included ........... Only suitable substrates within depth ranges included. 

4(a)(3) Ineligible Areas .............. All of FDM and Wake, most of Tinian, part of Guam ................... No changes. 

4(b)(2) National Security Exclusions.7 areas excluded: 6 Navy anchorages off of Saipan, 1 Navy 

area off of Ritidian Point on Guam.

No areas excluded. 

Proposed for Coral Critical 

Habitat.

17 island units: The 19 island units within the occupied areas of 

the listed species, except FDM and Wake Atoll, which are ineligible because of 4(a)(3) INRMPs.

16 island units: The 18 island units within the occupied areas of 

the listed species, except FDM and Wake Atoll, which are ineligible because of 4(a)(3) INRMPs. 

* These are the listed Indo-Pacific coral species whose occupied areas include islands within U.S. jurisdiction. The islands within the occupied area for each listed 

coral species are shown in table 2. 

** These are the areas for which coral critical habitat was considered, most of which is proposed, for all of the listed coral species combined. 

*** These are the depth ranges around a given island for all of the listed species found on that island. The depth ranges of each listed species on each island are 

shown in table 2. 

Changes to the Occupied Areas 

Application of the new methodology 

for determining the occupied area for 

each listed species (NMFS, 2023, 

appendix A) resulted in changes to the 

numbers of islands included within the 

occupied areas at the time of listing 

(2014) for five of the seven listed species 

in the 2020 proposed rule. For A. 

globiceps, some new islands were added 

while some islands that were included 

in the 2020 proposed rule were 

removed. For A. jacquelineae, A. retusa, 

A. speciosa, and S. aculeata, some 

islands that were included in the 2020 

proposed rule were removed. No 

changes to the islands included within 

the occupied areas were made for E. 

paradivisa or I. crateriformis. 

For A. globiceps, four islands were 

added to the occupied area that were 

not in the 2020 proposed rule: 

Alamagan and Uracas in CNMI, 

Johnston Atoll in PRIA, and French 

Frigate Shoals in Hawaii. Also, two 

islands from the 2020 proposed rule 

were removed, Anatahan in CNMI and 

Kingman Reef in PRIA. Since 16 islands 

were within the occupied area for A. 

globiceps in the 2020 proposed rule, and 

4 new islands have been added while 2 

have been removed, this proposed rule 

includes 18 islands within the occupied 

area for A. globiceps. These 18 islands 

are in 5 jurisdictions, including 4 in 

American Samoa, 1 in Guam, 9 in 

CNMI, 3 in PRIA, and 1 in Hawaii (table 

2). 

For A. jacquelineae, one island from 

the 2020 proposed rule was removed, 

Tutuila and Offshore Banks in American 

Samoa. Since that was the only island 

within the occupied area for this 

species, the range of A. jacquelineae is 

considered to be entirely outside of U.S. 

waters. 

For A. retusa, eight islands from the 

2020 proposed rule were removed: Ta’u 

in American Samoa, Guam, Tinian in 

CNMI, and Howland, Kingman Reef, 

Johnston Atoll, Wake Atoll, and Jarvis 

in PRIA. Since 11 islands were within 

the occupied area for A. retusa in the 

2020 proposed rule, and 8 have been 

removed, this proposed rule includes 3 

islands within the occupied area for A. 

retusa, all of which are in American 

Samoa (table 2). 

For A. speciosa, one island from the 

2020 proposed rule was removed, 

Kingman Reef in PRIA. Since two 

islands were within the occupied area 

for A. speciosa in the 2020 proposed 

rule, and one has been removed, this 

proposed rule includes one island 

within the occupied area for A. 

speciosa, Tutuila and Offshore Banks in 

American Samoa (table 2). 

For S. aculeata, two islands from the 

2020 proposed rule were removed: 

Guam and Saipan in CNMI. Since these 

were the only islands within the 

occupied area for this species, the range 

of S. aculeata is considered to be 

entirely outside of U.S. waters. 

In conclusion, based on the results of 

the new methodology, the islands 

within the occupied areas changed, and 

therefore the geographical areas 

occupied by five of the seven listed 

species have been revised accordingly 

from the 2020 proposed rule, including: 

A. jacquelineae, A. globiceps, A. retusa, 

A. speciosa, and S. aculeata. Since the 

occupied areas for two of the listed 

species, A. jacquelineae and S. aculeata, 

do not include any areas within U.S. 

jurisdiction, those two species have 

been removed from this proposed rule. 

A total of 18 islands are within the 

occupied area for at least one listed 

species, including 5 islands with 

multiple listed species, Tutuila and 

Offshore Banks (5 species), Ofu-Olosega 

(3 species), and Ta’u, Rose Atoll, and 

Wake Atoll (2 species each). The other 

13 islands are within the occupied area 

for A. globiceps only (table 2). 

Changes to the Depth Ranges 

The records compiled via the new 

methodology for determining the 

occupied area for each listed species 

(NMFS, 2023, appendix A) also 

provided new depth range information 

for all five listed species in this 

proposed rule. Depth ranges were 

determined for each listed species 

around each island within its occupied 

area. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83652 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

For A. globiceps, depth ranges were 

0–20 m around all 16 islands considered 

for this species in the 2020 proposed 

rule. Based on the updated records, the 

depth ranges of A. globiceps around the 

18 islands within its occupied area are 

now 0–20 m (3 islands), 0–12 m (10 

islands), and 0–10 m (5 islands) (table 

2). 

For A. retusa, depth ranges were 0–10 

m around all 11 islands considered for 

this species in the 2020 proposed rule. 

Based on the updated records, the depth 

ranges of A. retusa around the four 

islands within its occupied area are now 

0–20 m (table 2). 

For A. speciosa, depth ranges were 

12–40 m around the two islands 

considered for this species in the 2020 

proposed rule. Based on the updated 

records, the depth range of A. speciosa 

around the one island within its 

occupied area is now 20–50 m (table 2). 

For E. paradivisa, depth range was 2– 

40 m around the one island considered 

for this species in the 2020 proposed 

rule. Based on the updated records, the 

depth range of E. paradivisa around the 

one island within its occupied area is 

now 20–50 m (table 2). 

For I. crateriformis, depth ranges were 

0–12 m around the three islands 

considered for this species in the 2020 

proposed rule. Based on the updated 

records, the depth ranges of I. 

crateriformis around the three islands 

within its occupied area are now 0–20 

m (table 2). 

Changes to the Specific Areas 

In this proposed rule, we refined the 

boundaries of the specific areas (i.e., 

areas containing the essential feature of 

critical habitat for a species) for all 

species and islands. As a result of 

additional records collected to develop 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation, we obtained new 

information on habitat preferences 

indicating that the listed coral species 

are found entirely or predominantly on 

certain types of hard substrates but not 

others. We used that new information 

along with benthic maps showing the 

types of hard substrates throughout the 

occupied areas and depth ranges to 

delineate the boundaries of the specific 

areas for each of the listed corals. That 

is, we used detailed island-scale benthic 

habitat maps illustrating the variety of 

hard substrates that occur within the 

depth ranges of the listed species, 

together with habitat preference 

information showing that the listed 

species occur entirely or predominantly 

on certain hard substrate types but not 

on others. Thus, the benthic substrate 

maps, the habitat preferences, and other 

site-specific sources of substrate and 

water quality information were used to 

delineate the boundaries of the specific 

areas around each island within the 

listed species’ occupied areas and depth 

ranges, as described further in the 

Specific Areas section. 

Changes to Areas Excluded From 

Designation 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires 

that we consider the economic impact, 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact, of designating 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The 4(b)(2) analyses in this proposed 

rule have been updated with new 

information and data on national 

security and economic impacts. In 

particular, the Navy’s exclusion request 

for six anchorage berths in the Saipan 

Unit, which was granted in the 2020 

proposed rule, is now moot because the 

depth range of proposed critical habitat 

is 0–12 m in this unit instead of 0–40 

m as in the 2020 proposed rule. That is, 

the deepest point of critical habitat in 

this proposed rule in the Saipan Unit is 

shallower than the shallowest point 

within any of these six anchorage 

berths. One national security exclusion 

request remains in this proposed rule at 

the Navy’s Ritidian Point Surface 

Danger Zone Complex on Guam. A full 

description of the 4(b)(2) analyses is 

provided in the Application of ESA 

section 4(b)(2) section of this document. 

Critical Habitat Identification and 

Designation 

In the following sections, we describe 

the relevant definitions and 

requirements in the ESA and our 

implementing regulations, and the key 

information and criteria used to prepare 

this proposed critical habitat 

designation for the five listed corals (A. 

globiceps, A. retusa, A. speciosa, E. 

paradivisa, and I. crateriformis). In 

accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the 

ESA and our implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), this proposed rule is 

based on the best scientific information 

available. 

Our five-step process for identifying 

critical habitat areas for the threatened 

corals was to determine the following: 

(1) the geographical areas occupied by 

the listed corals at the time of listing 

(i.e., occupied areas, as well as depth 

ranges for the listed corals within the 

occupied areas); (2) the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the listed corals (i.e., 

essential feature); (3) whether the 

physical or biological features within 

these geographical areas may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; (4) the specific areas within 

each of the occupied areas where the 

essential features occur (this step 

consists of four sub-steps); and (5) 

whether any unoccupied areas are 

essential to the conservation of any of 

the corals. Our evaluation and 

determinations are described in detail in 

the Information Report (NMFS, 2023) 

and are summarized below. 

Geographical Area Occupied by the 

Species (Occupied Area) 

The process for determining the 

occupied areas for the listed corals 

species is described in the preceding 

sections. The islands within the 

occupied area for each of the five listed 

species are listed in table 2, which 

include marine habitat around: 18 

islands for A. globiceps, 4 islands for A. 

retusa, 3 islands for I. crateriformis, and 

1 island each for A. speciosa and E. 

paradivisa. 

The occupied area for each listed 

species is further defined by its depth 

range around each island within its 

occupied area, also shown in table 2. 

For A. globiceps, the depth ranges are 0– 

20 m (3 islands), 0–12 m (10 islands), 

and 0–10 m (5 islands). For the other 4 

species, the depth ranges are 0–20 m for 

A. retusa (4 islands) and I. crateriformis 

(3 islands), and 20–50 m for A. speciosa 

and E. paradivisa (1 island each). 

The occupied areas for the 5 listed 

species include a total of 18 islands, 5 

of which include overlapping occupied 

areas for multiple listed species (Tutuila 

and Offshore Banks, Ofu-Olosega, Ta’u, 

Rose Atoll, and Wake Atoll). 

Physical or Biological Features Essential 

for Conservation 

Within the occupied areas, critical 

habitat consists of specific areas in 

which are found those physical and 

biological features (PBFs) essential to 

the conservation of the species and that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. PBFs 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are defined as the features that 

occur in specific areas and that are 

essential to support the life-history 

needs of the species, including water 

characteristics, soil type, geological 

features, sites, prey, vegetation, 

symbiotic species, or other features. A 

feature may be a single habitat 

characteristic, or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity (50 CFR 

424.02). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83653 

Based on the best scientific 

information available, we identify the 

following physical feature essential to 

the conservation of the five corals. 

Reproductive, recruitment, growth, 

and maturation habitat. Sites that 

support the normal function of all life 

stages of the corals, including 

reproduction, recruitment, and 

maturation. These sites are natural, 

consolidated hard substrate or dead 

coral skeleton, which is free of algae and 

sediment at the appropriate scale at the 

point of larval settlement or fragment 

reattachment, and the associated water 

column. Several attributes of these sites 

determine the quality of the area and 

influence the value of the associated 

feature to the conservation of the 

species: 

(1) Substrate with presence of crevices 

and holes that provide cryptic habitat, 

the presence of microbial biofilms, or 

presence of crustose coralline algae; 

(2) Reefscape (all the visible features 

of an area of reef) with no more than a 

thin veneer of sediment and low 

occupancy by fleshy and turf 

macroalgae; 

(3) Marine water with levels of 

temperature, aragonite saturation, 

nutrients, and water clarity that have 

been observed to support any 

demographic function; and 

(4) Marine water with levels of 

anthropogenically-introduced (from 

humans) chemical contaminants that do 

not preclude or inhibit any demographic 

function. 

With regard to the first and second 

attributes, reef-building corals, 

including the listed species, require 

exposed natural consolidated hard 

substrate for the settlement and 

recruitment of larvae or asexual 

fragments. Substrate provides the 

physical surface and space necessary for 

settlement of coral larvae, a stable 

environment for metamorphosis of the 

larvae into the primary polyp, growth of 

juvenile and adult colonies, and reattachment of fragments. A number of 

attributes have been shown to influence 

coral larval settlement. Positive cues 

include the presence of crustose 

coralline algae, biofilms, and cryptic 

habitat such as crevices and holes. 

Attributes that negatively affect 

settlement include presence of sediment 

and algae (NMFS, 2023). 

With regard to the third and fourth 

attributes, reef-building corals, 

including the listed species, require 

seawater temperature, aragonite 

saturation, nutrients, and water clarity 

conditions within suitable ranges to 

enable coral growth, reproduction, and 

recruitment. Corals may tolerate and 

survive in conditions outside these 

suitable ranges, depending on the local 

conditions to which they have 

acclimatized and the intensity and 

duration of deviations outside the 

suitable ranges. Extended deviations 

from suitable ranges result in direct 

negative effects on all life stages. The 

listed corals thrive in warm, clear, 

nutrient-poor marine waters with 

calcium carbonate concentrations that 

allow for symbiont photosynthesis, 

coral physiological processes and 

skeleton formation. This water must 

also have low to no levels of 

contaminants that would interfere with 

normal functions of all life stages 

(NMFS, 2023). 

Some new information relevant to the 

essential feature was provided during 

the public comment period for the 2020 

proposed rule or has become available 

since then, and has been added to the 

description of the essential feature in 

the Information Report (NMFS, 2023). 

The new information did not, however, 

result in any changes to the definition 

of the essential feature from the 2020 

proposed rule. 

Need for Special Management 

Considerations or Protection 

As described in the Information 

Report (NMFS, 2023), we determined 

that the essential feature may require 

special management considerations or 

protection throughout the species’ 

ranges because threats to this feature 

exist within these areas. Such threats 

include global and local threats, 

especially ocean warming, ocean 

acidification, coral disease, land-based 

sources of pollution, and fishing. There 

were no public comments on this 

section of the Draft Information Report 

or 2020 proposed rule, nor has any 

relevant new information become 

available that would alter our 

conclusion regarding the potential need 

for special management considerations 

or protection. 

Specific Areas Containing the Essential 

Feature Within the Geographical Areas 

Occupied by the Species 

As described under Geographical 

Area Occupied by the Species 

(Occupied Area) and shown in table 2, 

we identified 18 island units that we 

considered for proposed coral critical 

habitat. Each island unit includes 

occupied habitat for at least one listed 

coral species. Within each occupied 

area in each island unit, we delineated 

more specific areas that contain the 

essential feature using a 4-step process: 

(1) general information was used to 

delineate soft vs. hard substrates; (2) for 

the hard substrate areas identified in 

Step 1, specific substrate information 

was used to delineate unsuitable vs. 

suitable hard substrates; (3) for the 

suitable hard substrate areas identified 

in Step 2, we used water quality 

information to further delineate suitable 

vs. unsuitable areas; and (4) from the 

suitable areas identified in Steps 1–3, 

we removed any overlapping artificial 

substrates and managed areas. The 4 

steps were implemented for each of the 

18 units as follows: 

(1) For Step 1, we used 

comprehensive substrate maps 

developed by PIFSC (PIFSC, 2021) to 

delineate soft vs. hard substrates, 

leaving only hard substrate areas within 

the combined depth ranges of all listed 

species in each unit, except for Wake 

Atoll and FFS, for which PIFSC (2021) 

did not produce maps. For Wake Atoll, 

we used the substrate map from the 

Pacific Islands Benthic Habitat Mapping 

Center (PIBHMC) (PIBHMC 2021). For 

French Frigate Shoals, we used the 

geomorphological structure component 

of the maps developed by National 

Centers for Coastal and Ocean Sciences 

(NCCOS) (NCCOS, 2003). 

(2) For Step 2, we started with the 

hard substrate areas identified in Step 1, 

then distinguished unsuitable vs. 

suitable hard substrates. Many hard 

substrates are unsuitable because: (1) 

highly-fluctuating physical conditions 

cause frequent and extreme 

environmental changes (e.g., high tide 

surge vs. low tide sun exposure on 

many reef flat substrates); (2) water 

motion continuously mobilizes 

sediment (e.g., pavement with sand 

channels) or unstable substrate (e.g., 

rubble); or (3) flat, low-relief areas 

provide poor settlement and growth 

habitat (e.g., pavement). Removal of 

these areas left suitable hard substrates, 

including spur-and-groove, individual 

patch reef, aggregate reef, aggregated 

patch reef, scattered coral/rock, and 

rock/boulder. For this step, primary 

information sources were Brainard et al. 

(2008, 2012, 2019), NCCOS (2003, 2005, 

2010), PIBHMC (2021), PIFSC (2021), 

the detailed public comment letters 

from the Territories (AS DMWR 2021, 

Guam DOAG 2021, CNMI DLNR 2021), 

and the American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, 

PRIA, and Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands (NWHI) chapters in Waddell and 

Clarke (2008). Additional sources for 

individual units are cited in the unit 

sections in the Information Report 

(NMFS, 2023). 

(3) For Step 3, starting with the 

suitable hard substrate areas identified 

in Step 2, we used water quality 

information to further delineate suitable 

vs. unsuitable areas. Unsuitable areas 

are those with water quality conditions 

that chronically fall outside of suitable 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83654 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

ranges. For example, some of the areas 

identified in Step 2 are nearly 

constantly exposed to pollution such as 

excessive nutrients, excessive sediment 

(i.e., more than a thin veneer), or 

contaminants, making them unsuitable. 

Generally, such areas occur in enclosed 

lagoons and inner harbors where there 

is high runoff and limited water 

circulation. Outside of such areas, point 

and non-point sources of pollution 

generally do not overlap with suitable 

hard substrates because wastewater 

outfalls are located on soft substrates 

beyond the reef slopes, and stormwater 

and freshwater discharges occur 

primarily on soft substrates (sand or 

mud) or unsuitable hard substrates 

(pavement or rubble) along or near 

shorelines. For this step, primary 

information sources were Brainard et al. 

(2008, 2012, 2019), EPA (2021a–f), the 

detailed public comment letters from 

the Territories (AS DMWR, 2021, Guam 

DOAG, 2021, CNMI DLNR, 2021), 

Territory water quality assessments (AS 

EPA, 2020, CNMI BECQ, 2018), and 

sources for individual units cited in the 

Information Report (NMFS, 2023). 

(4) For Step 4, from the suitable areas 

identified via the above three steps, we 

removed any artificial substrates and 

managed areas, because they do not 

provide the essential feature. ‘‘Managed 

areas,’’ for the purposes of this proposed 

rule, are specific areas where the 

substrate has been persistently 

disturbed by planned management 

authorized by local, state, or Federal 

governmental entities at the time of 

critical habitat designation, and 

expectations are that the areas will 

continue to be periodically disturbed by 

such management. Examples include, 

but are not necessarily limited to, all 

harbors and their entrance channels, 

navigation channels, turning basins, and 

berthing areas that are periodically 

dredged or maintained. This only 

applies to existing artificial substrates 

and managed areas, not proposed or 

planned artificial substrates and 

managed areas. 

The resulting specific areas are where 

we consider the essential feature to be 

distributed currently within each island 

unit and depth range, based on the best 

available information. However, on 

smaller spatial scales, there are likely 

locations within the specific areas that 

lack the essential feature, and the exact 

locations with and without the essential 

feature are likely to change somewhat 

over time in response to changing 

conditions. Thus, the specific areas 

described below are intended to 

delineate areas containing the essential 

feature, rather than areas made up 

completely and permanently of the 

essential feature. As described in detail 

in the Information Report (NMFS, 2023), 

these 4 steps were applied to each of the 

18 units to delineate the specific areas 

of proposed coral critical habitat in 

more detail than in the 2020 proposed 

rule. 

Unoccupied Critical Habitat Areas 

Section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the ESA 

authorizes the designation of specific 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species (referred to here 

as ‘‘unoccupied areas’’), if those areas 

are determined to be essential for the 

conservation of the species. Our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) 

require that we first evaluate areas 

occupied by the species, and only 

consider unoccupied areas to be 

essential where a critical habitat 

designation limited to geographical 

areas occupied would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species. 

To evaluate unoccupied areas that 

may qualify as critical habitat, we first 

considered the ranges at the time of 

listing of the five coral species that 

occur in areas under U.S. jurisdiction 

(NMFS 2023). The best available data 

provides no evidence that those 

occupied areas have been reduced from 

the historical ranges for any of the five 

listed species. Areas within U.S. 

jurisdiction that are outside the 

occupied ranges and that could serve as 

habitat for these species represent <1% 

of the area of each of their current 

ranges. Because these species still 

occupy their historical ranges, the 

feature essential to their conservation is 

present in these areas, and the 

unoccupied areas represent a very small 

amount of potential habitat, we find the 

occupied areas adequate to ensure the 

conservation of the species (NMFS, 

2023). Thus, we are not proposing to 

designate any unoccupied areas within 

U.S. jurisdiction as critical habitat. The 

impacts of global climate change-related 

threats (especially ocean warming and 

ocean acidification) to the listed corals 

and their habitats are projected to 

substantially worsen in the foreseeable 

future, which may result in range shifts 

for some or all of the 5 listed coral 

species, as well as the other 10 species 

of corals that occur outside U.S. 

jurisdiction. For the five species 

occurring within U.S. waters, the areas 

outside their occupied ranges mostly 

occur along the northern edges of their 

ranges, thus ocean warming could make 

the ocean temperatures of these areas 

more suitable for the listed species in 

the foreseeable future. In contrast, ocean 

acidification is likely to have the 

opposite effect, causing ocean pH levels 

along the northern fringes of the species’ 

ranges to become less suitable (Brainard 

et al. 2011, NMFS 2014). However, it is 

not possible to determine where such 

changes are likely to happen, and how 

they would affect any of the listed 

species’ habitat. 

We also considered whether these 

conclusions would differ under the 

regulations that were in effect prior to 

the revisions to the regulations in 50 

CFR 424.12(b)(2) in 2019 (see 84 FR 

45020, August 27, 2019). We conclude 

that while our analysis would 

necessarily differ, the decision not to 

propose designating any unoccupied 

areas would not be any different. 

Because the five coral species each still 

occupy their historical ranges, the 

feature essential to their conservation is 

present in these areas, and unoccupied 

areas represent a very small amount of 

potential habitat, we cannot conclude 

that any unoccupied areas are essential 

to their conservation. 

Application of ESA Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

(INRMPs) 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA 

prohibits designating as critical habitat 

any lands or other geographical areas 

owned or controlled by the Department 

of Defense (DOD), or designated for its 

use, that are subject to an Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plan 

(INRMP) prepared under section 101 of 

the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the 

Secretary of Commerce determines in 

writing that such plan provides a benefit 

to the species for which critical habitat 

is proposed for designation. 

Two INRMPs are applicable to the 

proposed coral critical habitat: (1) The 

Navy’s Joint Region Marianas INRMP 

(JRM INRMP), finalized and signed in 

2019 (DON, 2019a); and (2) the Air 

Force’s INRMP for Wake Island Air 

Field, Wake Atoll, Kokee Air Force 

Station, Kauai, Hawaii, and Mt. Kaala 

Air Force Station, Oahu, Hawaii (Wake 

INRMP), finalized and signed in 2023 

(USAF, 2023a). The JRM INRMP is a 

composite of management plans for 

many distinct DOD-controlled areas in 

the Mariana Islands, including areas in 

Guam, Tinian, and FDM (DON, 2019a). 

Summaries of the analyses in the 

Information Report (NMFS, 2023) of 

whether these two INRMPs are likely to 

benefit the ESA-listed corals or their 

habitat in Guam and CNMI (JRM 

INRMP) and Wake (Wake INRMP) are 

provided below. The analyses address 

the four considerations outlined in our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(h). These four considerations 

are: (1) the extent of the area and 

essential feature present in the area; (2) 

The type and frequency of use of the 

area by the listed species; (3) The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83655 

relevant elements of the INRMP in terms 

of management objectives, activities 

covered, and best management 

practices, and the certainty that the 

relevant elements will be implemented; 

and (4) The degree to which the relevant 

elements of the INRMP will protect the 

habitat (essential feature) from the types 

of effects that would be addressed 

through a destruction-or-adversemodification analysis under section 7 of 

the ESA. 

JRM INRMP—Guam 

In Guam, the JRM INRMP 

encompasses three marine areas 

(hereafter ‘‘INRMP marine areas’’) that 

include potential proposed coral critical 

habitat for the one listed coral that 

occurs in the Mariana Islands, A. 

globiceps: (1) Naval Base Guam—Main 

Base (NBG Main Base) Submerged 

Lands; (2) Naval Base Guam— 

Telecommunications Site (NBG TS) 

Submerged Lands; and (3) Andersen Air 

Force Base (AAFB) Submerged Lands. A 

summary of the analyses of whether the 

INRMP is likely to benefit the habitat of 

A. globiceps in each of these three 

INRMP marine areas is provided below, 

from the full analyses in the Information 

Report (NMFS, 2023). 

With regard to the extent of the area 

and essential feature present: (1) the 

NBG Main Base Submerged Lands cover 

approximately 30,000 acres (12,100 

hectares) along the coastline from Orote 

Peninsula to Asan (described in the JRM 

INRMP, section 5.3, DON, 2019a); (2) 

the NBG TS Submerged Lands cover 

approximately 19,500 acres on the 

northwestern side of Guam (described 

in the JRM INRMP, section 8.3, DON, 

2019a); and (3) AAFB Submerged Lands 

cover approximately 26,500 acres 

(10,700 hectares) of Submerged Lands 

on the northern side of Guam (described 

in the JRM INRMP, section 9.3, DON, 

2019a). Each of the three INRMP marine 

areas include extensive habitat for A. 

globiceps (NMFS, 2023). The potential 

critical habitat within the three INRMP 

marine areas includes both the substrate 

and water quality components of the 

essential feature of coral critical habitat 

(i.e., characteristics of substrate and 

water quality to support coral life 

history, including reproduction, 

recruitment, growth, and maturation), 

based on information provided in the 

Guam section of the Information Report 

(NMFS, 2023) and the INRMP (DON, 

2019a). 

With regard to the relevant elements 

of the INRMP, and the certainty that the 

relevant elements will be implemented, 

the two parts of this step are addressed 

separately below. The relevant elements 

of the JRM INRMP for each INRMP 

marine area include: (1) for the NBG 

Main Base Submerged Lands, the 

INRMP includes a Coral Habitat 

Enhancement Plan (section 5.4.2.1), 

consisting of eight specific actions in 

three categories (three monitoring and 

adaptive management actions, three 

collaboration with local partners 

actions, and two reduction of vessel 

impacts actions); (2) for NBG TS 

Submerged Lands, the INRMP includes 

a Coral Habitat Enhancement plan 

(section 8.4.2.1), consisting of a similar 

set of eight specific actions as for NBG 

Main Base; and (3) for AAFB Submerged 

Lands, the INRMP includes a Coral 

Habitat Enhancement plan (section 

9.4.2.1), consisting of a similar set of 

seven specific actions as for NBG Main 

Base, except that there is less focus on 

reduction in vessel impacts because of 

the much lower vessel traffic there. The 

actions, projects, and updates through 

the end of 2023 are described in detail 

in the Information Report (NMFS, 2023). 

NMFS concludes that the Navy will 

implement the relevant elements of the 

JRM INRMP for the previously 

described three INRMP marine areas for 

three reasons: 

(1) Clear and Recent Documentation— 

the 2019 JRM INRMP includes Coral 

Habitat Enhancement plans for INRMP 

marine areas in Guam, with clear 

strategies and actions that address the 

habitat conservation needs of ESA-listed 

corals within these areas. The JRM 

INRMP’s appendix D also includes 

annual reports describing how coral 

conservation efforts had been 

implemented in the years leading up to 

the 2019 final INRMP. These coral 

habitat conservation plans, as well as 

progress reports from the most recent 

years (DON, 2019b, 2020, 2021a,b,c,d, 

2023), clearly articulate how the Navy is 

conserving coral habitat within the 

INRMP marine areas in Guam, and how 

it is planning to do so in the future. 

(2) Demonstration of Good Faith 

Efforts for Listed Corals—the Navy has 

already implemented coral habitat 

conservation projects that are beneficial 

to ESA-listed corals within some INRMP 

marine areas in Guam, as described in 

the INRMP itself and its appendix D 

(DON, 2019b), as well as progress 

reports (DON, 2019b, 2020, 2021a,b,c,d, 

2023). Many of these projects have been 

ongoing for several years and are 

proactive, in that they were not required 

of the Navy by the ESA. 

(3) History of Strong Conservation 

Work—in our experience working with 

the Navy on the development of the 

marine resource components of its 2013 

and 2019 final INRMPs (DON, 2013, 

2019a), we have found the Navy to be 

successful at carrying out marine habitat 

conservation work on Guam, and that it 

often takes the initiative on 

conservation efforts whether requested 

by NMFS or not. For example, many of 

the coral habitat conservation projects 

in the 2019 JRM INRMP (DON, 2019a) 

and progress reports (DON, 2019b, 2020, 

2021a,b,c,d, 2023) had already been 

started by the Navy before corals were 

listed in 2014, and were being done to 

improve conservation of marine 

resources on the island, regardless of 

whether they were required by Federal 

statute or not. 

The coral habitat enhancement 

elements of the JRM INRMP described 

previously are expected to substantially 

reduce the types of effects within the 

three INRMP marine areas in Guam that 

would be addressed through the 

destruction-or-adverse-modification 

analysis. The Navy would accomplish 

this primarily by using the results of its 

own monitoring program to develop and 

implement management measures to 

minimize the impacts of the Navy’s 

actions in Guam on coral habitat within 

the INRMP marine areas. Thus, 

implementation of the JRM INRMP is 

likely to provide substantial protection 

to the essential feature of coral critical 

habitat (reproductive, recruitment, 

growth, and maturation habitat) within 

the Guam INRMP marine areas from the 

types of effects that would be addressed 

through critical habitat consultation 

(DON, 2021a,b,d, 2023). 

JRM INRMP—CNMI 

In CNMI, the JRM INRMP 

encompasses two marine areas that 

include potential proposed coral critical 

habitat for the one listed coral that 

occurs in the Mariana Islands, A. 

globiceps: (1) the Tinian Marine Lease 

Area (Tinian MLA) Submerged Lands; 

and (2) the Farallon de Medinilla (FDM) 

Submerged Lands (DON, 2019a). A 

summary of the analyses of whether the 

INRMP is likely to benefit the habitat of 

A. globiceps in each of these two INRMP 

marine areas is provided below, from 

the full analyses in the Information 

Report (NMFS, 2023). 

With regard to the extent of the area 

and essential feature present: (1) the 

Tinian MLA Submerged Lands cover 

approximately 47,500 acres (19,200 

hectares) surrounding the northern 

portion of Tinian (described in the JRM 

INRMP, section 11.3, DON, 2019a); (2) 

the FDM Submerged Lands consists of 

approximately 25,000 acres (10,100 

hectares) surrounding FDM (described 

in the JRM INRMP, section 12.3, DON, 

2019a). Most or all of the potential 

critical habitat within the two INRMP 

marine areas includes both the substrate 

and water quality components of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83656 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

essential feature of coral critical habitat 

(i.e., characteristics of substrate and 

water quality to support coral life 

history, including reproduction, 

recruitment, growth, and maturation), 

based on information provided in the 

Tinian and FDM sections of the 

Information Report (NMFS, 2023) and 

the INRMP (DON, 2019a). 

With regard to the relevant elements 

of the INRMP, and the certainty that the 

relevant elements will be implemented, 

the two parts of this step are addressed 

separately below. The relevant elements 

of the JRM INRMP for each INRMP 

marine area include: (1) for the Tinian 

MLA Submerged Lands, the INRMP 

includes a Coral Habitat Enhancement 

plan, consisting of three specific actions 

to enhance coral habitat by monitoring 

health and acute impacts (section 

11.4.2.1; DON, 2019a); and (2) for the 

FDM Submerged Lands, the INRMP 

includes marine habitat management 

actions, consisting of surveys and 

mapping of ESA-listed corals, coral reef, 

and other marine habitats within the 

area (section 12.4.2; DON, 2019a). The 

INRMP also includes an assessment of 

ESA-listed corals, as required by the 

2015 biological opinion on the Navy’s 

Mariana Islands Testing and Training 

program (section 12.4.2.2; DON, 2019a). 

The actions, projects, and updates 

through the end of 2021, are described 

in detail in the Information Report 

(NMFS, 2023). 

NMFS concludes that the Navy will 

implement these relevant elements of 

the JRM INRMP for three reasons: 

(1) Clear and Recent Documentation— 

the 2019 JRM INRMP includes Coral 

Habitat Enhancement plans for INRMP 

marine areas in CNMI (Tinian MLA, 

FDM Submerged Lands), with clear 

strategies and actions that address the 

habitat conservation needs of ESA-listed 

corals within these areas. The JRM 

INRMP’s appendix D also includes 

annual reports describing how coral 

conservation efforts had been 

implemented in the years leading up to 

the 2019 final INRMP. These coral 

habitat conservation plans, as well as 

progress reports from the most recent 

years (DON, 2019b, 2020, 2021a,b,c,d, 

2023), clearly articulate how the Navy is 

conserving coral habitat within the 

INRMP marine areas in CNMI, and how 

it will do so in the future. 

(2) Demonstration of Good Faith 

Efforts for Listed Corals—the Navy has 

already implemented coral projects that 

have the potential to benefit the habitat 

of ESA-listed corals within INRMP 

marine areas in CNMI (Tinian MLA, 

FDM Submerged Lands). For example, 

coral species presence and abundance 

surveys were conducted within the 

Tinian MLA in 2013 (Tetra Tech, 2014) 

and 2017 (DON, 2017), and around FDM 

in 2012 (Smith and Marx, 2016), 2017 

(Carilli et al., 2018), and 2022 (DON 

2023). These surveys have the potential 

to benefit the habitat of ESA-listed 

corals by providing the information 

needed to better protect these areas in 

the future. 

(3) History of Strong Conservation 

Work—the Navy has a long history of 

carrying out successful marine habitat 

conservation work in the Mariana 

Islands and often takes the initiative on 

conservation efforts whether requested 

by NMFS or not. For example, many of 

the coral habitat conservation projects 

in the 2019 JRM INRMP (DON 2019a) 

and progress reports (DON, 2019b, 2020, 

2021a,b,c,d, 2023) had already been 

started by the Navy before corals were 

listed in 2014. These projects were 

conducted to improve the conservation 

of marine resources on the island, 

regardless of whether they were 

required by Federal statute or not. While 

the majority of these projects have been 

implemented in Guam rather than 

CNMI, the JRM INRMP includes many 

plans for CNMI (as noted above), and 

the same Navy command (Joint Region 

Marianas) is responsible for carrying out 

such work in both Guam and CNMI. 

The coral habitat enhancement 

elements of the JRM INRMP described 

above will substantially reduce the 

types of effects within the INRMP 

marine areas in CNMI that would be 

addressed through the destruction-oradverse-modification analysis. The 

Navy would accomplish this primarily 

by using the results of its own 

monitoring program to develop and 

implement management measures to 

minimize the impacts of the Navy’s 

actions in CNMI on coral habitat within 

the INRMP marine areas. Thus, 

implementation of the JRM INRMP is 

likely to provide substantial protection 

to the essential feature of coral critical 

habitat (reproductive, recruitment, 

growth, and maturation habitat) within 

the CNMI INRMP marine areas from the 

types of effects that would be addressed 

through critical habitat consultation 

(DON 2021a,c,d, 2023). 

Wake INRMP 

On Wake Atoll, the Wake INRMP 

(USAF, 2023a) encompasses the entire 

area considered for coral critical habitat 

for the two listed corals on the atoll, A. 

globiceps and A. retusa, as described in 

the Information Report (NMFS, 2023). A 

summary of the analyses of whether the 

INRMP is likely to benefit the habitat of 

ESA-listed corals in this INRMP marine 

area is provided below, from the full 

analyses in the Information Report 

(NMFS, 2023). 

With regard to the extent of the area 

and essential feature present, the Wake 

INRMP marine area includes nearly 

500,000 acres (202,300 hectares) of 

Submerged Lands and waters within the 

lagoon and surrounding the atoll out to 

12 nautical miles (22.2 km) from the 

mean low water line (USAF, 2023a), and 

thus includes all reef-building corals 

and coral reefs associated with the atoll. 

Most or all of the potential critical 

habitat within the INRMP marine area 

includes both the substrate and water 

quality components of the essential 

feature of coral critical habitat (i.e., 

reproductive, recruitment, growth, and 

maturation habitat provided by suitable 

substrate and suitable water quality), 

based on information provided in the 

Wake section of the Information Report 

(NMFS, 2023) and the INRMP (USAF, 

2023a). 

With regard to the relevant elements 

of the INRMP, and the certainty that the 

relevant elements will be implemented, 

the two parts of this step are addressed 

separately below. The relevant element 

of the Wake INRMP is the coral 

conservation component that was added 

to the INMRP in 2017 (Appendix K, 

Coral Conservation Actions at Wake 

Atoll; USAF, 2023a), which is made up 

of four groups of actions, each of which 

includes multiple projects: Water 

quality improvements (six projects), 

education and outreach (two projects), 

fisheries management (four projects), 

and physical DOD presence on Wake 

Atoll (three projects; USAF, 2023a). The 

actions, projects, and updates through 

the end of 2021, are described in detail 

in the Information Report (NMFS, 2023). 

NMFS concludes that the Air Force 

will implement these relevant elements 

of the Wake INRMP for three reasons: 

(1) Clear and Recent Documentation— 

the Wake INRMP includes a coral 

conservation plan (USAF, 2023a) with a 

4-pronged strategy (water quality 

improvement, outreach and education 

for Wake-based staff, fisheries 

management, and physical DOD 

presence on Wake Atoll, i.e., restriction 

of access and overall natural resource 

management) that comprehensively 

addresses the conservation needs of 

ESA-listed corals on Wake Atoll. This 

coral conservation plan clearly 

articulates how U.S. Air Force (USAF) 

is conserving corals on Wake, and how 

it will do so in the future. The ongoing 

implementation of the Wake INRMP is 

reported via progress updates and 

reviews (USAF, 2018, 2019, 2021a,b, 

2023b). 

(2) Demonstration of Good Faith 

Efforts for Listed Corals—In the years 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83657 

leading up to the final Wake INRMP 

(USAF, 2023a), USAF implemented 

projects on Wake related to each of its 

4-pronged coral conservation strategy, 

as explained in appendix S of the Wake 

INRMP. For water quality improvement, 

in 2016 USAF began implementation of 

both the stormwater pollution 

prevention and invasive plant control 

projects. For outreach and education, in 

2016 USAF revised the Wake Island 

Dive Club Charter to further reduce the 

potential impacts of recreational 

activities on corals. For fisheries 

management, in 2017 USAF updated its 

fishing rules, which are part of the Wake 

Island Operating Guidance, to prohibit 

the use of (1) cast nets on the exterior 

of the atoll, (2) anchoring on coral reef 

habitat, and (3) and trolling over coral 

reef habitat. For physical DOD presence 

on Wake Atoll, in 2016 USAF funded 

and provided logistical support for a 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) coral 

survey that documented two ESA-listed 

corals on the atoll for the first time. 

Since 2017, USAF has implemented 

projects on Wake for each of its 4- 

pronged coral conservation strategy, as 

noted above in the 2021 updates, and 

detailed in the progress updates and 

reviews (USAF, 2018, 2019, 2021a,b, 

2023b). 

(3) History of Strong Conservation 

Work—USAF has a long history of 

carrying out successful conservation 

work on Wake and often takes the 

initiative on conservation efforts 

whether requested by NMFS or not. For 

example, many of the projects in the 

INRMP’s coral conservation strategy had 

already been started by USAF before 

corals were listed in 2014, and were 

being done to improve the conservation 

of marine and terrestrial resources on 

the atoll, regardless of whether they 

were required by Federal statute or not. 

Likewise, in 2016, USAF funded and 

supported the FWS coral survey of the 

atoll, leading to the discovery that the 

two ESA-listed corals occur on the atoll. 

In addition, USAF has historically been 

a strong conservation partner with 

NMFS, supporting a wide variety of 

marine and terrestrial conservation 

projects, and actively engaging both 

agencies in the INRMP planning and 

implementation process, as described in 

the progress updates and reviews 

(USAF, 2018, 2019, 2021a,b, 2023b). 

The coral conservation component of 

the Wake INRMP (Appendix K, Coral 

Conservation Actions at Wake Atoll; 

USAF, 2023a) is expected to reduce 

both direct and indirect impacts to 

listed corals via minimization or 

avoidance of recreational impacts 

(fishing, diving, anchoring), and 

terrestrial impacts (i.e., run-off from 

land-based activities), thereby 

addressing two of the primary threats to 

listed corals (fishing and land-based 

sources of pollution). That is, the coral 

conservation elements of the Wake Atoll 

INRMP described previously are 

expected to substantially reduce the 

types of effects at Wake Atoll that would 

be addressed through the destruction-oradverse-modification analysis. Based on 

the fact that the Wake INRMP’s coral 

conservation strategy is well-designed to 

reduce impacts to listed corals, and also 

that recent progress updates and 

reviews (USAF, 2018, 2019, 2021a,b, 

2023b) demonstrate substantial progress 

with the implementation of the strategy, 

we determined that the Wake INRMP 

provides a benefit to listed corals, and 

their critical habitat (reproductive, 

recruitment, growth, and maturation 

habitat). 

Conclusion Regarding Areas Subject to 

INRMPs 

Based on the analyses summarized 

previously and provided in the 

Information Report (NMFS, 2023), we 

conclude both the JRM INRMP (DON, 

2019a) and the Wake INRMP (USAF, 

2023a) provide a conservation benefit to 

the listed corals and their habitats 

within all INRMP marine areas on 

Guam, CNMI, and Wake. Thus, the 

potential coral critical habitat areas 

within the INRMP marine areas on 

Guam, Tinian, FDM, and Wake are 

ineligible for designation as critical 

habitat. 

Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2) 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires 

that we consider the economic impact, 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact, of designating 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

Additionally, the Secretary has the 

discretion to consider excluding any 

area from critical habitat if they 

determine that the benefits of exclusion 

(that is, avoiding some or all of the 

impacts that would result from 

designation) outweigh the benefits of 

designation based upon the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. The Secretary may not 

exclude an area from designation if 

exclusion will result in the extinction of 

the species. 

The following sub-sections 

summarize the economic, national 

security, and other relevant impacts 

analyses in the Information Report 

(NMFS, 2023) that we projected would 

result from proposed coral critical 

habitat. We considered these impacts 

when deciding whether to exercise our 

discretion to exclude particular areas 

from the designation. Both positive and 

negative impacts were identified and 

considered (these terms are used 

interchangeably with benefits and costs, 

respectively). Impacts were evaluated in 

quantitative terms where feasible, but 

qualitative appraisals were used where 

that is more appropriate. 

The primary impacts of a critical 

habitat designation result from the ESA 

section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal 

agencies ensure that their actions are 

not likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

and that they consult with NMFS in 

fulfilling this requirement. The impacts 

of designating coral critical habitat are 

only those that would be in addition to 

the impacts of listing (i.e., incremental 

impacts). The distribution of listed 

corals within critical habitat strongly 

influences the extent of incremental 

impacts. That is, the more colonies of 

listed corals that are distributed 

throughout coral critical habitat, the 

lower the proportion of Federal actions 

that would affect critical habitat but not 

listed corals, and thus the lower the 

incremental impacts of critical habitat 

designation. As described in section 

3.3.19 of the Information Report (NMFS, 

2023), colonies of listed corals are 

generally distributed throughout the 

specific areas being considered for 

proposed coral critical habitat, thus the 

incremental impacts are expected to be 

quite low. 

Summaries of the economic, national 

security, and other relevant impact 

analyses in the Information Report 

(NMFS, 2023) are provided below. The 

analyses follow the guidance for 4(b)(2) 

analyses provided in our 2016 policy 

(81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016) and 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. 

4(b)(2) Economic Impact Analysis 

The economic impacts of designating 

the areas identified as coral critical 

habitat are analyzed in the full 4(b)(2) 

Economic Impact Analysis document, 

completed in late 2021, which is 

appendix C of the Information Report 

(NMFS, 2023). Economic impacts are 

projected for the 10-year period 2022– 

2031, and uncertainty is accounted for 

by using low-end and high-end 

scenarios to estimate incremental 

impacts. The Economic Impact Analysis 

Report (NMFS, 2023, appendix C) 

presents economic impacts in terms of 

present value versus annualized costs. 

For example, table 17 of the report 

summarizes the low-end estimated cost 

of coral critical habitat as $373,171 in 

terms of the present value of the total 

cost over the 10-yr period of 2022–2031, 

with an estimated annualized cost of 

$53,131 over that 10-yr period. Present 

value over the 10-year period is not 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83658 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

simply 10 times the annualized cost 

because present value represents the 

sum of a series of past or future cash 

flows discounted at a specified discount 

rate (in this case, 7 percent) and 

expressed in constant dollars, whereas 

annualized cost provides a comparison 

of impacts across activities with varying 

forecast periods (NMFS, 2023, appendix 

C). 

For the low-end scenario, total 

incremental costs over the 10-year 

period are estimated at $373,171 for all 

jurisdictions combined or $53,131 

annualized. These are entirely 

administrative costs since the low-end 

scenario assumes that no project 

modifications would be required. For 

the high-end scenario, total incremental 

costs over the 10-year period are 

estimated at $6,815,860 for all 

jurisdictions combined or $970,425 

annualized. Of these costs, 95 percent 

are derived from project modifications 

because, for purposes of this analysis, 

the high-end scenario assumes that 100 

percent of section 7 consultations will 

be formal consultations that result in the 

need for project modifications to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

the critical habitat. The jurisdiction 

with the highest economic impacts in 

both scenarios is Guam, due to the 

relatively high number of expected 

consultations there (NMFS, 2023). 

While the low-end vs. high-end 

scenarios are useful for illustrating the 

range of potential economic impacts, the 

following points are relevant to 

interpreting the results: 

(1) Both scenarios assumed that 

proposed coral critical habitat would be 

0–50 m depth around all island units 

considered in proposed coral critical 

habitat; however, proposed coral critical 

habitat is 0–50 m depth on just one 

island (Tutuila) and 0–20 m, 0–12 m, 

and 0–10 m on the others. 

(2) Colonies of listed corals occur 

within all specific areas being 

considered for proposed coral critical 

habitat (NMFS, 2023, appendix A), thus 

reducing incremental impacts. That is, 

since colonies of listed corals occur in 

all specific areas of proposed coral 

critical habitat, there would be a low 

proportion of future Federal actions that 

would affect critical habitat but not 

listed corals. As the proposed coral 

critical habitat will not include 

extensive areas where listed coral 

colonies are absent, the incremental 

impacts of proposed coral critical 

habitat are likely to be quite low, which 

minimizes economic impacts. 

(3) A comparison of projected vs. 

actual consultations in 2016–2019 was 

included in the economic analysis done 

for the 2020 proposed coral critical 

habitat rule (NMFS 2020, appendix B), 

which showed that three times more 

formal consultations were projected in 

the high-end scenario than actually 

occurred. That is, the reality of 

consultations was more similar to the 

low-end scenario than the high-end 

scenario. 

For these reasons, it is reasonable to 

conclude that the actual economic 

impacts are likely to be much closer to 

those projected in the low-end scenario 

than the high-end scenario. In addition, 

economic benefits would be relatively 

high in the high-end scenario (because 

project modifications would provide 

better protection of coral reef 

ecosystems, which produce economic 

benefits, as described in section 5.1.6 of 

the Information Report (NMFS, 2023), 

but lower in the low-end scenario 

(because there would be no project 

modifications, and thus no increased 

protection of coral reef ecosystems). 

4(b)(2) National Security Impact 

Analysis 

We received a request from the 

Department of the Navy (Navy) to 

exclude one site based on national 

security impacts: The portion of the 

Navy’s Ritidian Point Surface Danger 

Zone (SDZ) Complex outside of DOD 

Submerged Lands on Guam. For this 

site, we weighed the national security 

impacts of designating the site as critical 

habitat against the conservation benefits 

to the listed corals of designating the 

site as critical habitat. If impacts to 

national security outweigh the benefits 

of including an area in the designation, 

the Secretary may exercise her 

discretion to exclude that particular area 

from critical habitat. If the benefits of 

including the area in the designation 

outweigh the impacts to national 

security, however, the site cannot be 

considered for exclusion from critical 

habitat (81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016). 

The Ritidian Point SDZ complex 

overlaps with a small area of forereef 

identified for potential designation as 

coral critical habitat. The area is 0–12 m 

of depth and consists primarily of spurand-groove and aggregate reef that 

provides high quality coral habitat. A 

species-level coral survey conducted in 

2021 at this site indicated that A. 

globiceps was present, finding a total of 

four colonies along eight 50-m transects 

at 6 m depth within forereef habitat at 

the site. In contrast, a species-level coral 

survey conducted in 2006 at this site 

did not find any A. globiceps colonies 

along a different set of eight 50-m 

transects between 1 and 20 m within 

forereef and reef flat habitat (NMFS, 

2023). 

National security impacts depend on 

the additional section 7 requirements 

that would result from the coral critical 

habitat, above and beyond those already 

required to avoid jeopardizing the 

continued existence of any listed 

species or avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of other, designated 

critical habitats (i.e. incremental 

impacts). The Navy noted that the 

Ritidian Point SDZ complex supports 

training at the Marine Corps Live Fire 

Training Range Complex (LFTRC) at 

AAFB, and construction of new 

facilities (e.g., range administration 

building, range maintenance building, 

and observation towers) at AAFB, to 

meet the individual weapons training/ 

qualification requirements of the Marine 

Corps. This SDZ is expected to be 

operational for 32 weeks per year and 

extends approximately 2 miles over 

open water in the event stray bullets go 

over the berm and into the ocean. If this 

occurs, the bullets will settle on the 

seafloor (NMFS, 2023). 

The Navy stated that designation of 

the marine component of this site as 

coral critical habitat would result in 

limitations on live fire training at 

LFTRC. The Navy explained that such 

limitations would occur because limited 

staff time and resources would be 

diverted to preparing additional 

documents required to implement 

activities in critical habitat areas from 

work required on other vital 

environmental items. In 2021 and 2022, 

the Navy confirmed that this 

information is still applicable to the site. 

Because many training and construction 

activities are planned at LFTRC adjacent 

to this marine area, the listed coral A. 

globiceps occurs there, and the planned 

activities have the potential to affect this 

listed species, ESA section 7 

consultations would likely be necessary 

whether critical habitat is designated or 

not. That is, the additional consultation 

requirement above and beyond what 

would already be required by the fact 

that listed corals occur at the site is not 

expected to be substantial. Also, the 

additional consultation for critical 

habitat would be for activities that are 

planned in advance, and thus the 

additional section 7 consultation 

workload would not be unpredictable 

but rather could be anticipated and 

managed ahead of time. 

The Navy noted that the individual 

live fire training for Marine Corps 

personnel at the LFTRC on Guam is a 

prerequisite for conducting unit level 

and combined level training. The Navy 

further explained that without the 

qualification of these live fire training 

events, individuals and small teams are 

not capable of conducting larger unit 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83659 

collective events, and that the LFTRC 

provides the necessary foundation for 

which training progression is built 

upon. Plans are in place to considerably 

expand LFTRC in anticipation of 

growing Marine Corps training needs. 

No other facility on Guam or elsewhere 

in the Mariana Islands provides this 

type of training. In 2021 and 2022, the 

Navy confirmed that this information is 

still applicable to the site (NMFS, 2023). 

In determining benefits to the 

conservation of ESA-listed corals we 

considered whether designation of 

critical habitat at the particular site 

would lead to additional conservation of 

the species beyond what is already 

provided by the species’ listing. The 

potential for additional conservation at 

a given site is a function of the listed 

corals’ use of the area, the level of 

protection already provided by existing 

management (e.g., the site is entirely 

within Guam National Wildlife Refuge), 

and the likelihood of non-DOD actions 

that are likely to affect the area and that 

are subject to the consultation 

requirements of section 7. 

As elsewhere on Guam, the coral reef 

habitat within the area being considered 

for proposed coral critical habitat is 

made up of forereef from 0—12 m 

depth, consisting primarily of spur-andgroove and aggregate reef. As noted 

above, A. globiceps occurs at this site. 

However, colonies of the species may 

die off in response to natural 

disturbances and not reappear for a few 

years, which may be why the 2021 

survey found A. globiceps there but the 

2006 survey did not despite surveying 

within the same habitat and depth 

range. Such mortality and recovery and 

associated disappearance and 

reappearance of coral populations at any 

given site is a normal response to 

natural disturbance. Critical habitat 

protects the essential feature whether 

colonies of the listed coral species occur 

at the site at the time of consultation or 

not. 

The area being considered for 

potential designation as coral critical 

habitat is entirely within U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) Submerged 

Lands, which forms the marine 

component of the Guam National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and is managed 

according to the Guam NWR 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The 

plan includes Strategies to Restore, 

Protect, and Maintain Native Marine 

Communities, such as marine debris 

removal and area closures. The site is 

also entirely within Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) for coral reef ecosystems, 

but EFH protections are not mandatory 

(NMFS, 2023). 

It is possible that non-DOD Federal 

actions will be proposed within this site 

that could affect the essential feature 

(e.g., actions proposed by USFWS), but 

that would no longer be subject to the 

critical habitat provision if the 

particular area were excluded from the 

designation. When the site is not closed 

by the SDZ, non-DOD actions could 

potentially occur there, for example 

those permitted or carried out by 

USFWS. Although such actions would 

presumably be consistent with the 

Guam NWR Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (USFWS 2009), they 

may affect the essential feature (NMFS, 

2023). 

Based on the considerations described 

above, we conclude that the impacts to 

national security of including this area 

within critical habitat do not outweigh 

the conservation benefits to the listed 

corals, and thus do not propose to 

exclude the Ritidian Point SDZ complex 

from proposed coral critical habitat 

designation. The most important factors 

supporting this recommendation are: (1) 

the national security impacts of coral 

critical habitat are unlikely to be either 

substantial or unpredictable because 

listed corals are known to occur at this 

site at least some of the time, meaning 

that the Navy would already be 

conducting section 7 consultations on 

listed corals for any of their activities 

that may affect listed corals at this site 

even without critical habitat, resulting 

in little additional consultation work; 

and (2) the conservation benefits of 

coral critical habitat could be 

considerable because critical habitat 

would provide additional protection of 

the high quality essential feature that is 

found throughout the area from future 

proposed Federal actions (NMFS, 2023). 

Other Relevant Impacts 

Other relevant impacts include the 

benefits of critical habitat designation 

and impacts on governmental or private 

entities that are implementing existing 

management plans that provide benefits 

to the listed species. The three main 

types of benefits of critical habitat 

designation are increased protection of 

the essential feature from Federal 

actions, ecosystem service benefits of 

coral reef conservation, and education 

and awareness. 

Critical habitat is habitat needed to 

support recovery of listed species. That 

is, the most direct benefits of the critical 

habitat designation stem from the 

increased protection of the essential 

feature from Federal actions. While 

listed corals are generally distributed 

throughout the specific areas, there are 

still many locations within the specific 

areas that lack colonies of listed corals 

at any given point in time due to natural 

spatial and temporal fluctuations of 

coral colony presence. That is, 

individual colonies of listed corals may 

decrease or disappear from particular 

locations in response to local 

disturbances, then return and increase 

as local conditions improve. Such 

dynamic spatial and temporal 

fluctuations in the distribution of 

colonies of listed corals within the 

specific areas is a natural process. 

Critical habitat thus protects the 

essential feature in locations and during 

times when specific areas lack colonies 

of listed corals and Federal actions are 

proposed at that location (NMFS, 2023). 

Overall, coral reef ecosystems, 

including those comprising populations 

of the listed corals, provide important 

ecosystem services of value to 

individuals, communities, and 

economies. These include recreational 

opportunities (and associated tourism 

spending in the regional economy), 

habitat and nursery functions for 

recreationally and commercially 

valuable fish species, shoreline 

protection in the form of wave 

attenuation and reduced beach erosion, 

and climate stabilization via carbon 

sequestration. As of 2021, the total 

economic value of coral reefs in the 

three U.S. Pacific Islands jurisdictions 

where the great majority of critical 

habitat is being proposed is (1) 

American Samoa—$13.4 million/year, 

(2) Guam—$165.0 million/year, and (3) 

CNMI—$60.4 million/year (NMFS, 

2023). Efforts to conserve the listed 

corals also benefit the broader reef 

ecosystems, thereby preserving or 

improving these ecosystem services and 

values (NOAA Coral Reef Conservation 

Program, 2013). While we cannot 

quantify the precise economic benefits 

of designating critical habitat, providing 

these values gives an indication of the 

value of conserving coral habitat. 

There is the potential for education 

and awareness benefits arising from the 

critical habitat designation, stemming 

from entities that engage in section 7 

consultations, and from members of the 

general public interested in coral 

conservation. Entities that engage in 

section 7 consultations may alter their 

activities to benefit the species or 

essential feature because they were 

made aware of the critical habitat 

designation through either the section 7 

consultation process or the original 

listings. Members of the public may 

engage in similar efforts because they 

learned of the critical habitat 

designation through outreach materials 

(NMFS, 2023). 

Impacts may also occur to 

governmental or private entities that are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83660 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

implementing existing management 

plans that provide benefits to the listed 

species, although such potential impacts 

would be limited to actions that have a 

Federal nexus and affect critical habitat. 

There are a large number of Federal 

marine protected areas in American 

Samoa, Guam, CNMI, PRIA, and NWHI 

where coral critical habitat is being 

proposed, and many of these 

jurisdictions have draft or proposed 

management plans (NMFS, 2023). 

Impacts of critical habitat designation 

on the agencies responsible for natural 

resource management planning of these 

areas (e.g., the National Park Service, 

USFWS, and Territorial natural 

resources management agencies), 

depend on the type and number of 

section 7 consultations that may result 

from the designation in the areas 

covered by those plans, as well as any 

potential project modifications 

recommended by these consultations. 

Negative impacts to these entities could 

result if the critical habitat designation 

interferes with these agencies’ ability to 

provide for the conservation of the 

species, or otherwise hampers the 

management of these areas. 

Existing or proposed management 

plans in the marine protected areas and 

their associated regulations protect 

existing coral reef resources, but they 

may not specifically protect the 

substrate and water quality components 

of the essential feature for purposes of 

increasing listed coral abundance and 

eventual recovery. However, section 7 

consultations on the implementation of 

these Federal marine protected area 

plans over the next 10 years are not 

expected to result in incremental project 

modifications, thus any section 7 

impacts will likely be limited to 

administrative costs (NMFS, 2023, 

appendix C). 

Conclusions for Section 4(b)(2) 

We are not exercising our discretion 

to exclude any areas from the proposed 

coral critical habitat based on economic 

or national security impacts. As 

summarized in the 4(b)(2) Economic 

Impact Analysis section, the economic 

impacts of the proposed coral critical 

habitat are likely to be low, even on the 

islands with concentrated economic 

activity (Tutuila, Guam, Saipan). Since 

these are the three units where most 

future proposed Federal actions that 

could affect critical habitat are expected 

(NMFS, 2023, appendix C), the 

conservation benefits of critical habitat 

are the greatest in these three units. 

Thus, economic impacts do not 

outweigh conservation benefits. 

Likewise, as summarized in the 4(b)(2) 

National Security Impact Analysis 

section, the national security impacts of 

the proposed coral critical habitat on the 

one requested exclusion site, the Navy’s 

Ritidian Point Surface Danger Zone 

complex in Guam, are not expected to 

outweigh the conservation benefits of 

designating critical habitat. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designations 

We are proposing to designate critical 

habitat for 5 listed coral species around 

16 islands in 5 U.S. Pacific Islands 

jurisdictions. For A. globiceps, specific 

areas around all 16 islands are 

proposed, including 4 in American 

Samoa, 1 in Guam, 9 in CNMI, 3 in 

PRIA, and 1 in Hawaii. The depth 

ranges of the specific areas for A. 

globiceps are 0–20 m (3 islands), 0–12 

m (9 islands), and 0–10 m (4 islands). 

For A. retusa, specific areas around 

three islands are proposed, all of which 

are in American Samoa. The depth 

ranges of the specific areas for A. retusa 

are 0–20 m on all three islands. For A. 

speciosa and E. paradivisa, specific 

areas around Tutuila and its offshore 

banks in American Samoa are proposed. 

The depth ranges of the specific areas 

for A. speciosa and E. paradivisa are 

20–50 m. For I. crateriformis, specific 

areas around three islands are proposed, 

all of which are in American Samoa. 

The depth ranges of the specific areas 

for I. crateriformis are 0–20 m on all 

three islands (table 4). The 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

INRMP analyses found that the entire 

areas around FDM and Wake Atoll, 

several areas off of Guam, and most of 

Tinian are ineligible for proposed coral 

critical habitat. Maps of the proposed 

critical habitat for each of the listed 

species around each of the 16 islands 

are provided at the end of this 

rulemaking (table 4). 

TABLE 4—THE 16 ISLAND UNITS THAT CONTAIN PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE 5 LISTED CORAL SPECIES

[For each species, depth ranges in meters and figure numbers (‘‘Fig.’’) for the maps are shown. Maps showing areas that were deemed ineligible 

for designation of critical habitat by the 4(a)(3)(B)(i) INRMP analyses are also noted.] 

Island 

(unit) 

A. globiceps A. retusa A. speciosa E. paradivisa I. crateriformis 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

Depth Fig. Depth Fig. Depth Fig. Depth Fig. Depth Fig. Fig. 

Tutuila and Offshore 

Banks ....................... 0–20 1 0–20 1 20–50 2 20–50 2 0–20 1 ..........................

Ofu-Olosega ................ 0–20 3 0–20 3 ................ ................ ................ ................ 0–20 3 ..........................

Ta’u ............................. 0–20 4 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 0–20 4 ..........................

Rose Atoll .................... 0–10 5 0–20 5 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ..........................

Guam ........................... 0–12 6 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 6 

Rota ............................. 0–12 7 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ..........................

Aguijan ........................ 0–12 8 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ..........................

Tinian ........................... 0–12 9 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 9 

Saipan ......................... 0–12 10 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ..........................

Alamagan .................... 0–12 11 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ..........................

Pagan .......................... 0–12 12 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ..........................

Maug Islands ............... 0–12 13 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ..........................

Uracas ......................... 0–12 14 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ..........................

Palmyra Atoll ............... 0–10 15 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ..........................

Johnston Atoll .............. 0–10 16 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ..........................

FFS .............................. 0–10 17 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ..........................

Effects of Critical Habitat Designations 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires 

Federal agencies, including NMFS, to 

ensure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by the agency 

does not jeopardize the continued 

existence of any threatened or 

endangered species or destroy or 

adversely modify designated critical 

habitat. When a species is listed or 

critical habitat is designated, Federal 

agencies must consult with NMFS on 

any agency actions to be conducted in 

an area where the species is present and 

that may affect the species or its critical 

habitat. During formal consultation, 

NMFS would evaluate the agency’s 

action to determine whether the action 

may adversely affect listed species or 

designated critical habitat and issue its 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83661 

findings in a biological opinion. If 

NMFS concludes in the biological 

opinion that the proposed agency action 

would likely result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat, NMFS would identify 

any reasonable and prudent alternatives 

to the action. Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives are defined in 50 CFR 

402.02 as alternative actions identified 

during formal consultation that can be 

implemented in a manner consistent 

with the intended purpose of the action, 

that are consistent with the scope of the 

Federal agency’s legal authority and 

jurisdiction, that are economically and 

technologically feasible, and that would 

avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of listed species or 

resulting in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. If NMFS 

concludes in the biological opinion that 

the proposed agency action would not 

likely result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat, NMFS may provide 

discretionary conservation 

recommendations. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies that have retained 

discretionary involvement or control 

over an action, or where such 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law, to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances in which (1) critical 

habitat is subsequently designated, or 

(2) new information or changes to the 

action may result in effects to critical 

habitat not previously considered in the 

biological opinion. Consequently, some 

Federal agencies may request 

reinitiation of consultation or to 

conference with NMFS on actions for 

which formal consultation has been 

completed, if those actions may 

adversely modify or destroy designated 

critical habitat or adversely modify or 

destroy proposed critical habitat, 

respectively. 

Activities That May Be Affected 

Section 4(b)(8) of the ESA requires 

that we describe briefly, and evaluate in 

any proposed or final regulation to 

designate critical habitat, those 

activities that may adversely modify 

such habitat or that may be affected by 

such designation. A wide variety of 

Federal activities may require ESA 

section 7 consultation because they may 

affect the essential feature of critical 

habitat (i.e., suitable substrate and 

suitable water quality). Specific future 

activities would need to be evaluated 

with respect to their potential to destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat, in 

addition to their potential to affect and 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed species. For example, activities 

may adversely modify the essential 

feature by removing or altering the 

substrate or reducing water clarity 

through turbidity. These activities 

would require ESA section 7 

consultation when they are authorized, 

funded, or carried out by a Federal 

agency. Non-Federal entities may also 

be affected by these proposed critical 

habitat designations if they are 

undertaking a project that requires a 

Federal permit or receives Federal 

funding. Categories of activities that 

may be affected by the designations 

include in-water and coastal 

construction, dredging and disposal, 

water quality and discharges, fishery 

management, military activities, 

shipwreck and marine debris removal, 

scientific research and monitoring, 

aquaculture, protected area 

management, and beach nourishment/ 

shoreline protection. Further 

information is provided in the 

Economic Impact Analysis in our 

Information Report (NMFS, 2023, 

appendix C). Questions regarding 

whether specific activities will 

constitute destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat should 

be directed to us (see ADDRESSES and 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public Comments Solicited 

We request that interested persons 

submit comments, information, and 

suggestions concerning this proposed 

rule during the comment period (see 

DATES). We are soliciting comments or 

suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governments and agencies, 

the scientific community, industry, or 

any other interested party concerning 

this proposed rule, including any 

foreseeable economic, national security, 

or other relevant impact resulting from 

the proposed designations. We are 

seeking comments on the changes in 

this proposed rule from the 2020 

proposed rule, including the following: 

(1) development of the methodology for 

using records of listed coral species to 

determine their occupied areas for 

critical habitat; (2) changes to the 

occupied areas for the listed coral 

species; (3) changes to the depth ranges 

for the listed coral species; and (4) other 

changes including refinement of critical 

habitat boundaries. These changes are 

summarized in the Summary of Changes 

From the 2020 Proposed Rule above and 

described in detail in the Information 

Report (NMFS, 2023). You may submit 

your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES). 

Copies of the proposed rule and 

supporting documentation are available 

at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

action/proposed-rule-designate-criticalhabitat-threatened-indo-pacific-corals, 

or upon request (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). We will consider 

all comments pertaining to this 

designation received during the 

comment period in preparing the final 

rule. Accordingly, the final designation 

may differ from this proposal. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available at https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitatthreatened-indo-pacific-corals, or upon 

request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). In addition, PDF copies of all 

cited documents are available upon 

request from the NMFS Pacific Islands 

Regional Office in Honolulu, HI (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Information Quality Act and Peer 

Review 

The data and analyses supporting this 

action have undergone a 

predissemination review and have been 

determined to be in compliance with 

applicable information quality 

guidelines implementing the 

Information Quality Act (section 515 of 

Pub. L. 106–554). On December 16, 

2004, OMB issued its Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

(Bulletin). The Bulletin was published 

in the Federal Register on January 14, 

2005 (70 FR 2664), and went into effect 

on June 16, 2005. The primary purpose 

of the Bulletin is to improve the quality 

and credibility of scientific information 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government by requiring peer review of 

‘‘influential scientific information’’ and 

‘‘highly influential scientific 

information’’ prior to public 

dissemination. ‘‘Influential scientific 

information’’ is defined as information 

the agency reasonably can determine 

will have or does have a clear and 

substantial impact on important public 

policies or private sector decisions. The 

Bulletin provides agencies broad 

discretion in determining the 

appropriate process and level of peer 

review. Stricter standards were 

established for the peer review of highly 

influential scientific assessments, 

defined as information whose 

dissemination could have a potential 

impact of more than $500 million in any 

one year on either the public or private 

sector or that the dissemination is novel, 

controversial, or precedent-setting, or 

has significant interagency interest. 

The information in the Critical 

Habitat Information Report (NMFS, 

2023) and its appendices was 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83662 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

considered influential scientific 

information and subject to peer review. 

To satisfy our requirements under the 

OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent 

peer review of the the Critical Habitat 

Information Report (NMFS, 2023) and 

its appendices. The resulting Peer 

Review Reports are available on our 

website https://www.noaa.gov/ 

information-technology/endangeredspecies-act-critical-habitat-designationfor-7-indo-pacific-corals-informationreport. 

Classification 

Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

Under E.O. 12630, Federal agencies 

must consider the effects of their actions 

on constitutionally protected private 

property rights and avoid unnecessary 

takings of private property. A taking of 

property includes actions that result in 

physical invasion or occupancy of 

private property and regulations 

imposed on private property that 

substantially affect its value or use. In 

accordance with E.O. 12630, this 

proposed rule would not have 

significant takings implications, because 

it does not include, occupy or invade 

private property or otherwise affect the 

value or use of private property to 

qualify as a taking. A takings 

implication assessment is not required. 

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.s 

12866, 14094, 13563) 

This rulemaking has been determined 

to be significant for purposes of E.O. 

12866 as amended by Executive Order 

14094. Executive Order 14094, which 

amends E.O. 12866 and reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O 13563, 

states that regulatory analysis should 

facilitate agency efforts to develop 

regulations that serve the public 

interest, advance statutory objectives, 

and be consistent with E.O. 12866, E.O. 

13563, and the Presidential 

Memorandum of January 20, 2021 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 

appropriate, shall recognize distributive 

impacts and equity, to the extent 

permitted by law. E.O. 13563 

emphasizes further that regulations 

must be based on the best available 

science and that the rulemaking process 

must allow for public participation and 

an open exchange of ideas. We have 

developed this proposed rule in a 

manner consistent with these 

requirements. 

A draft economic impact analysis 

report, which has been prepared as part 

of the Information Report (see appendix 

C of NMFS, 2023), considers the 

economic costs and benefits of this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

and alternatives to this rulemaking as 

required under E.O. 12866. Based on the 

impact analysis report, low-end total 

incremental costs over the 10-year 

period are estimated at $373,171 for all 

jurisdictions combined or $53,131 

annualized. These are 100 percent 

administrative costs since the low-end 

scenario assumes that no project 

modifications will be required. For the 

high-end, total incremental costs over 

the 10-year period are estimated at 

$6,815,860 for all jurisdictions 

combined or $970,425 annualized. Of 

these costs, 95 percent are derived from 

project modifications since the high-end 

scenario assumes that 100 percent of 

section 7 consultations will be formal. 

The jurisdiction with the highest 

economic impacts in both scenarios is 

Guam, due to the relatively high number 

of expected consultations there (NMFS, 

2023, appendix C). 

As explained under the 4(b)(2) 

Economic Impact Analysis, we find that 

the actual economic impacts are likely 

to be much closer to the low-end 

scenario’s projections than the high-end 

scenario’s projections. In addition, 

economic benefits would be relatively 

high in the high-end scenario (because 

project modifications would provide 

better protection of coral reef 

ecosystems, which produce economic 

benefits), but non-existent in the lowend scenario (because there would be no 

project modifications, and thus no 

increased protection of coral reef 

ecosystems). We conclude that the 

economic impacts of the proposed coral 

critical habitat are likely to be much 

closer to those projected by the low-end 

scenario than the high-end scenario, and 

also that there would be low economic 

benefits. That is, we find that the 

economic analysis and IRFA support the 

conclusion that the proposed coral 

critical habitat would have low 

economic effects on small entities. A 

proposed Economic Impact Analysis 

Report (appendix C of the Information 

Report; NMFS, 2023) and Final ESA 

section 4(b)(2) Report (i.e., the 4(b)(2) 

section of the Information Report; 

NMFS, 2023) have been prepared to 

support the exclusion process under 

section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and our 

consideration of alternatives to this 

rulemaking. These supporting 

documents are available at the link 

provided in ADDRESSES, or upon request 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

The E.O. on Federalism, Executive 

Order 13132, requires agencies to take 

into account any federalism impacts of 

regulations under development. It 

includes specific consultation directives 

for situations in which a regulation may 

preempt State law or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on State and 

local governments (unless required by 

statute). Pursuant to E.O. 13132, we 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not have significant federalism effects 

and that a federalism assessment is not 

required. In keeping with Department of 

Commerce policies and consistent with 

ESA regulations at 50 CFR 

424.16(c)(1)(ii), we requested 

information for this rulemaking from the 

appropriate marine resources agencies 

in American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, 

PRIA, and Hawaii. The designation may 

have some benefit to State and local 

resource agencies in that the rule more 

clearly defines the physical and 

biological feature essential to the 

conservation of the species and the 

areas in which that feature is found. 

While this designation would not alter 

where and what non-federally 

sponsored activities may occur, it may 

assist local governments in long-range 

planning (rather than waiting for caseby-case ESA section 7 consultations to 

occur). 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests only on the Federal 

agency. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use 

(E.O. 13211) 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking an 

action expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation that is a significant regulatory 

action under E.O. 12866 and is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

OMB Guidance on Implementing E.O. 

13211 (July 13, 2001) states that 

significant adverse effects could include 

any of the following outcomes 

compared to a world without the 

regulatory action under consideration: 

(1) reductions in crude oil supply in 

excess of 10,000 barrels per day; (2) 

reductions in fuel production in excess 

of 4,000 barrels per day; (3) reductions 

in coal production in excess of 5 million 

tons (4.5 million metric tons) per year; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83663 

(4) reductions in natural gas production 

in excess of 25 million cubic feet 

(708,000 cubic meters) per year; (5) 

reductions in electricity production in 

excess of 1 billion kilowatt-hours per 

year or in excess of 500 megawatts of 

installed capacity; (6) increases in 

energy use required by the regulatory 

action that exceed any of the thresholds 

previously described; (7) increases in 

the cost of energy production in excess 

of 1 percent; (8) increases in the cost of 

energy distribution in excess of 1 

percent; or (9) other similarly adverse 

outcomes. A regulatory action could 

also have significant adverse effects if it 

(1) adversely affects in a material way 

the productivity, competition, or prices 

in the energy sector; (2) adversely affects 

in a material way productivity, 

competition, or prices within a region; 

(3) creates a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interferes with an action 

taken or planned by another agency 

regarding energy; or (4) raises novel 

legal or policy issues adversely affecting 

the supply, distribution or use of energy 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in E.O. 12866 and 13211. 

The economic impacts of this 

rulemaking are analyzed in the full 

4(b)(2) Economic Impact Analysis, 

which is appendix C of the Information 

Report (NMFS, 2023). Based on the 

results of that analysis, the economic 

impacts on energy supply, distribution, 

and use would either be non-existent or 

far below the above thresholds. Thus, 

we have determined that this 

rulemaking will not have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

we have not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

We prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 

section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA). The IRFA analyzes the 

impacts to small entities that may be 

affected by the proposed designation 

and is included as appendix D of the 

Information Report (NMFS, 2023), 

which is available at the link provided 

in ADDRESSES, or upon request (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We 

welcome public comment on the IRFA, 

which is summarized below, as required 

by section 603 of the RFA. 

The IRFA uses the best available 

information to identify the potential 

impacts of designating critical habitat 

on small entities. However, uncertainty 

regarding the extent to which impacts of 

the proposed designation would be 

allocated between large and small 

entities complicates quantification of 

impacts specifically borne by small 

entities. Absent specific knowledge 

regarding which small entities may be 

involved in consultations with NMFS 

over the next ten years, this analysis 

relies on industry- and location-specific 

information on small businesses with 

North American Classification System 

(NAICS) codes that were identified as 

relevant to the major activity categories 

considered in the economic analysis 

and which operate within counties or 

territories that share a coastline with the 

proposed critical habitat. Activities 

considered in the draft economic report 

and the IRFA include in-water and 

coastal construction, dredging and 

disposal, water quality and discharges, 

fishery management, military activities, 

shipwreck and marine debris removal, 

scientific research and monitoring, 

aquaculture, protected area 

management, and beach nourishment/ 

shoreline protection. 

Information presented in section 4.0 

of the Economic Impact Analysis Report 

demonstrates the lack of third-party 

involvement in consultations on the 

effects of Federal fishery management, 

protected area management, shipwreck 

removal, scientific research and 

monitoring, and military activities on 

ESA-listed marine species within the 

island units considered for proposed 

coral critical habitat in the five 

jurisdictions. Unlike consultations on 

in-water and coastal construction and 

dredging projects, these consultations 

are conducted directly between NMFS 

and the Federal action agency with no 

third-party involvement. Each of these 

five categories of consultation is 

represented in the consultations 

completed in 2005–2020 that were 

reviewed for the economic impact 

analysis, and third parties were not 

involved in any of them. As discussed 

in the IRFA and section 6 Economic 

Impact Analysis Report, consultations 

on water quality management include 

inter-agency consultations on regional 

water quality standards, which do not 

involve third parties, and projectspecific consultations regarding point 

source water pollution, such as National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits issued to third parties 

in American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI. 

The third parties issued NPDES permits 

are either businesses or territorial or 

commonwealth governments that do not 

qualify as small entities. In addition, 

because no section 7 consultations on 

beach nourishment and shoreline 

protection projects occurred within the 

historical time frame selected for the 

economic impact analysis, no section 7 

consultations on such projects were 

projected over the next ten years. As a 

result, no incremental costs are assigned 

to small entities for these activities. 

While consultations on aquaculture 

projects have the potential to involve 

third parties, the potential economic 

impacts to third parties are considered 

de minimis. Moreover, all of the 

historical aquaculture projects that 

resulted in consultations considered in 

the economic impact analysis were 

sponsored by public entities, none of 

which qualify as small entities. 

Consultations on in-water and coastal 

construction and dredging and disposal 

(as determined by the 4(b)(2) Economic 

Impact Analysis Report, which is 

appendix C of the Information Report 

(NMFS, 2023)), all have the potential to 

involve third parties, such as recipients 

of Clean Water Act section 404 permits. 

These activities were combined into one 

broad industry category that may 

experience impacts to small entities: InWater and Coastal Construction and 

Dredging. NAICS industries that are 

relevant to in-water and coastal 

construction and dredging activities 

include: 

• Water and Sewer Line and Related 

Structures Construction (NAICS 

237110). 

• Highway, Street, and Bridge 

Construction (NAICS 237310). 

• Other Heavy and Civil Engineering 

Construction (237990). 

• Dredging and Surface Cleanup 

(NAICS 237990). 

The IRFA relies on the estimated 

incremental impacts resulting from the 

proposed critical habitat designation, as 

described in section 6.0 of the Economic 

Impact Analysis Report. To be 

consistent with this analysis, the IRFA 

provides low-end and high-end 

estimates of the impacts to small 

entities. The IRFA estimates the impacts 

of the proposed coral critical habitat in 

terms of the percentage of revenues per 

small entity, which ranged from 0.20 

percent under the low-end (IRFA, table 

1) to 36.9 percent under the high-end 

(IRFA, table 2). These impacts are 

anticipated to be borne by the small 

entities engaged in in-water and coastal 

construction and dredging that consult 

with NMFS regarding the listed IndoPacific coral species critical habitat in 

the next 10 years. Impacts are presented 

in the IRFA for each of the three U.S. 

Pacific jurisdictional areas where one or 

more of the listed coral species occur 

and where small businesses engaged in 

the relevant activities have been 

identified—American Samoa, Guam, 

and CNMI. According to section 6.0 of 

the Economic Impact Analysis Report, 

two or fewer consultations on in-water 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83664 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1Average annual revenues were calculated based 

on company-specific revenue data sourced from the 

Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers database. 

and coastal construction projects are 

forecasted to occur in both the NWHI 

and the PRIA. However, because no 

businesses are located in either the 

NWHI or the PRIA, it is not possible to 

determine what small entities, if any, 

would be affected. In any case, given 

that few consultations are expected to 

occur and that these consultations are 

likely to be informal, the potential costs 

to small entities associated with inwater and coastal construction projects 

in the NWHI and the PRIA are 

anticipated to be negligible. 

The low-end estimate assumes no 

incremental project modifications occur 

because baseline permit conditions/ 

regulations would provide sufficient 

protection to avoid adverse modification 

of critical habitat. Impacts to small 

entities are thus assumed to be due 

solely to the additional administrative 

costs of considering the potential for 

adverse effects to critical habitat during 

section 7 consultations. In addition, the 

low-end estimate assumes that trends in 

the frequency of informal consultations 

over the next 10 years will resemble 

those of the past 10 years (section 6.0 of 

the Economic Impact Analysis Report). 

The low-end estimate of total 

annualized impacts to small entities is 

$4,675 (IRFA, table 1). 

The high-end estimate of the impacts 

to small entities assumes that all future 

projects related to in-water and coastal 

construction and dredging will require 

formal consultations and that there will 

be incremental project modification 

costs for all these future projects 

(section 6.0 of the Economic Impact 

Analysis Report). In order to present a 

conservative estimate of the impacts to 

small entities (i.e., an estimate more 

likely to overstate impacts than 

understate them), the IRFA assumes that 

all project modification costs are borne 

by third parties. The high-end estimate 

of total annualized impacts to small 

entities is $872,331 (IRFA, table 1). 

Given the uncertainty regarding 

which small entities in a given industry 

will need to consult with NMFS, this 

analysis estimates impacts to small 

entities under two different scenarios 

for both the low-end and high-end 

estimates. These scenarios are intended 

to reflect the range of uncertainty 

regarding the number of small entities 

that may be affected by the designation 

and the potential impacts of critical 

habitat designation on their annual 

revenues. 

Under Scenario 1, the IRFA assumes 

that all third parties involved in future 

consultations are small entities and that 

incremental impacts for each territory or 

commonwealth (American Samoa, 

Guam, and CNMI) are distributed evenly 

across all of the entities in the 

respective territory or commonwealth. 

Scenario 1 accordingly reflects a high 

estimate of the number of potentially 

affected small entities (14 for both the 

low-end and high-end estimates) and a 

low estimate of the potential effect in 

terms of percent of revenue, except for 

American Samoa, where it is estimated 

that only one entity is conducting 

construction activities in the areas 

considered for critical habitat. The 

assumption under Scenario 1 is that 14 

small entities will be involved in 

consultation annually reflects the 

forecast that approximately 14 

consultations will occur annually on 

construction activities involving third 

parties. This assumes that each 

consultation on construction activities 

involves a unique small entity, 

including 1 small entity in American 

Samoa, 10 small entities in Guam, and 

3 small entities in CNMI. For the lowend estimate, this analysis anticipates 

that approximately 14 small entities will 

incur $4,675 in annualized costs under 

Scenario 1, including $1,244 in costs to 

the America Samoa-based small entity, 

$281 in costs per Guam-based small 

entity, and $235 in costs per CNMIbased small entity. Annualized impacts 

of the rulemaking are estimated to make 

up less than 1 percent of average annual 

revenues of approximately $2.36 million 

for each affected small entity.1 For the 

high-end estimate, this analysis 

anticipates that 14 small entities will 

incur $872,331 in annualized costs 

under Scenario 1, including $254,356 in 

costs to the America Samoa-based small 

entity, $48,953 in costs per Guam-based 

small entity, and $47,751 in costs per 

CNMI-based small entity. Annualized 

impacts of the rulemaking are estimated 

to make up 17.0 percent of average 

annual revenues of $1.5 million for the 

American Samoa-based entity, 2.1 

percent of average annual revenues of 

approximately $2.37 million for Guambased small entities, and 1.9 percent of 

average annual revenues of $2.47 

million for CNMI-based small entities. 

Under Scenario 2, this analysis 

assumes that all third parties 

participating in future consultations are 

small and that costs associated with 

each consultation action are borne each 

year by a single small entity within the 

potentially impacted construction 

industries. This method likely 

understates the number of small entities 

affected and overstates the likely 

impacts on the impacted small entity. 

For the low-end estimate, this analysis 

anticipates that a single small entity will 

bear $4,675 in annualized costs. These 

annualized impacts make up less than 1 

percent of estimated average annual 

revenues of $2.36 million for the 

impacted small entity. For the high-end 

estimate, this analysis anticipates that a 

single small entity will bear $872,331 in 

annualized costs. These impacts 

represent approximately 37 percent of 

estimated average annual revenues for 

the impacted small entity. 

As explained under 4(b)(2) Economic 

Impact Analysis, we conclude that the 

actual economic impacts are likely to be 

much closer to the low-end scenario’s 

projections than the high-end scenario’s 

projections. In addition, economic 

benefits would be relatively high in the 

high-end scenario (because project 

modifications would provide better 

protection of coral reef ecosystems, 

which produce economic benefits), but 

non-existent in the low-end scenario 

(because there would be no project 

modifications, and thus no increased 

protection of coral reef ecosystems). 

Moreover, while Scenario 1 and 

Scenario 2 present a range of potentially 

affected entities and the associated 

revenue effects, we expect the actual 

number of small entities affected and 

revenue effects will be somewhere in 

the middle. In other words, some subset 

of the small entities in American Samoa, 

Guam, and CNMI greater than 2 and up 

to 14 will participate in section 7 

consultations on Indo-Pacific coral 

critical habitat and bear associated 

impacts annually. We conclude that the 

economic impacts of the proposed coral 

critical habitat are likely to be much 

closer to those projected by the low-end 

scenario than the high-end scenario, and 

also that there would be low economic 

benefits. That is, we find that the 

economic analysis and IRFA support the 

conclusion that the proposed coral 

critical habitat would have low 

economic effects on small entities. 

There are no record-keeping 

requirements associated with the 

rulemaking. Similarly, there are no 

reporting requirements. 

No Federal laws or regulations 

duplicate or conflict with this proposed 

rule. However, the protection of listed 

species and habitat under critical 

habitat may overlap other sections of the 

ESA. For instance, listing of the 

threatened Indo-Pacific corals under the 

ESA already requires Federal agencies 

to consult with NMFS to avoid jeopardy 

to the species. However, this analysis 

only examines the incremental impacts 

to small entities from the proposed 

critical habitat rule. 

The RFA requires consideration of 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83665 

would minimize significant economic 

impacts to small entities. We considered 

the following alternatives when 

developing the proposed critical habitat 

rule. 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, we 

would not designate critical habitat for 

the listed corals. The alternative of not 

designating critical habitat was 

considered in this IRFA but rejected 

because, in this case, it would violate 

the legal requirements of the ESA. 

Moreover, we have determined that the 

physical feature forming the basis for 

critical habitat designation is essential 

to the corals’ conservation, and 

conservation for these species will not 

succeed without this feature being 

available. Thus, the lack of protection of 

the critical habitat feature from adverse 

modification could result in continued 

declines in abundance of the listed 

corals, and loss of associated economic 

and other values these corals provide to 

society, such as recreational and 

commercial fishing and diving services, 

and shoreline protection services. Small 

entities engaged in some coral reefdependent industries would be 

adversely affected by the continued 

declines in the listed corals. Thus, the 

no action alternative is not necessarily 

a ‘‘no cost’’ alternative for small entities. 

Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 

Under this alternative, the areas 

designated are waters ranging from 0 to 

10 m deep to 0 to 50 m deep in the 15 

units located in American Samoa, 

Guam, CNMI, the NWHI, and the PRIA. 

As noted in the Critical Habitat 

Information Report, the following areas 

are ineligible for proposed critical 

habitat: parts of Guam, parts of Tinian 

all of Farallon de Medinilla, and all of 

Wake Atoll. An analysis of the costs and 

benefits of the preferred alternative 

designation is presented in appendix C 

of the Information Report. Relative to 

the no action alternative, this alternative 

will likely involve an increase in 

administrative and project modification 

costs for those section 7 consultations 

required to avoid adverse impacts to 

critical habitat, above and beyond those 

required due to the corals’ listing alone. 

We have determined that no categories 

of activities would require consultation, 

and no categories of project 

modifications would be required, in the 

future solely due to this rulemaking and 

the need to prevent adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Similarly, all categories of activities 

have similar potential to adversely 

impact corals and critical habitat, and 

the same project modifications would 

remedy both sets of adverse effects. 

However, in some areas of proposed 

coral critical habitat, there may be 

locations with no colonies of listed 

corals, especially after a natural 

disturbance event (e.g., coral bleaching 

or crown-of-thorns starfish outbreak). 

For future Federal actions that have 

small action areas within such 

locations, costs to small entities could 

occur, and would represent an 

incremental impact of this rulemaking. 

On the other hand, because projects 

with larger or more diffuse action areas 

are more likely to impact both the listed 

corals and their critical habitat, 

consultation and project modification 

costs associated with those projects 

would more likely be coextensive with 

the coral listings or another regulatory 

requirement. The preferred alternative 

was selected because it best implements 

the critical habitat provisions of the ESA 

by including the well-defined 

environmental features essential to the 

species’ conservation, and due to the 

important conservation benefits that 

will result from this alternative relative 

to the no action alternative. 

Alternative 3: Designating a Subset of 

Areas 

A third alternative was considered 

that would have excluded from 

designation those areas in which, on 

economic or national security bases, the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. No areas, other 

than those excluded in the Preferred 

Alternative on the basis of national 

security impacts, were identified where 

it was determined that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the conservation 

value of designation to the species. In 

addition, the public did not submit 

comments on the benefits of exclusion 

and inclusion in general, nor were 

comments submitted on those benefits 

as they relate to specific areas. Thus, we 

rejected this alternative because it 

would lessen the conservation value to 

the species. 

Coastal Zone Management Act (16 

U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) 

Under section 307(c)(1)(A) of the 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

and its implementing regulations (15 

CFR part 923), each Federal activity 

within or near coastal zones that has 

reasonably foreseeable effects on any 

land or water use or natural resource of 

the coastal zone shall be carried out in 

a manner which is consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the 

enforceable policies of approved State 

coastal management programs. Upon 

publication of the proposed rule (85 FR 

76262, November 27, 2020), we 

determined that the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

listed corals would have no reasonably 

foreseeable effects on the enforceable 

policies of Guam’s, CNMI’s, and 

American Samoa’s approved Coastal 

Zone Management Programs, and 

submitted our determinations to each of 

the responsible Territorial agencies. 

CNMI and Guam formally objected to 

our determinations on February 12, 

2021, and March 26, 2021, respectively. 

Both Territories stated that there were 

reasonably foreseeable coastal effects of 

coral critical habitat for several reasons, 

including administrative burdens, 

economic impacts, and third-party 

impacts. CNMI requested a consistency 

determination and identified specific 

enforceable policies to be addressed. 

Guam interpreted our determination as 

a consistency determination, and 

requested a new consistency 

determination that addressed specific 

enforceable policies. In response to 

these objections and concerns expressed 

informally by American Samoa, we held 

a meeting with the three Territorial 

CZM Programs (American Samoa, 

Guam, and CNMI) on July 27, 2021. We 

explained the basis for our 

determinations at the July meeting and 

scheduled follow-up meetings with 

representatives of CNMI and Guam CZM 

Programs to review their objections in 

detail. 

On September 2, 2021, and September 

7, 2021, we held meetings with CNMI’s 

and Guam’s CZM Programs, 

respectively, and the NOAA Office of 

Coastal Management, to review the 

Territories’ objections to our 

determinations. The Territories 

explained why they find that coral 

critical habitat, as proposed in 2020, 

would result in administrative burdens, 

economic impacts, and third-party 

impacts. The Territorial representatives 

stated that they believe incomplete 

biological and economic data were used 

in the 2020 proposed rule, resulting in 

the habitat needs of the listed corals 

being overstated, and the extent of 

economic impacts of critical habitat 

being understated in the proposed rule. 

Subsequently, the Territories requested 

that NMFS work with their experts to 

obtain more thorough and recent 

biological and economic data to inform 

the proposed coral critical habitat rule. 

On September 30, 2021, and October 28, 

2021, NMFS held meetings with 

biologists based in American Samoa, 

CNMI, Guam, and Honolulu to review 

records of listed corals in the 

Territories, which contributed to the 

development of appendix A in the 

Information Report (NMFS, 2023). On 

September 23, 2021, and September 25, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83666 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

2021, Guam and CNMI submitted letters 

to NMFS with updated economic data, 

which was used in section 5.1.7 of the 

Information Report (NMFS, 2023). 

In making revisions to the 2020 

proposed critical habitat, in addition to 

considering other public comments 

received, we considered the comments 

submitted by each of the Territories 

regarding their respective concerns 

about the proposed critical habitat. With 

the withdrawal of the 2020 proposed 

rule, we also withdraw the November 

27, 2020, CZMA determinations for the 

American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI 

CZM Programs. Consistent with the 

CZMA, we will determine how to 

proceed for the critical habitat now 

being proposed and coordinate 

accordingly with the responsible 

agencies in American Samoa, Guam, 

CNMI, and Hawaii. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) 

This proposed rule does not contain 

any new or revised collection of 

information, defined by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. Notwithstanding 

any other provision of the law, no 

person is required to respond to, nor 

shall any person be subject to a penalty 

for failure to comply with, a collection 

of information subject to the 

requirements of the PRA, unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

This proposed rule will not produce 

a Federal mandate. The designation of 

critical habitat does not impose a 

legally-binding duty on non-Federal 

government entities or private parties. 

The only regulatory effect is that Federal 

agencies must ensure that their actions 

do not destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat under section 7 of the 

ESA. Non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, permits, or 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly affected by 

the designation of critical habitat, but 

the Federal agency has the legally 

binding duty to avoid destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

We do not anticipate that this 

proposed rule will significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, a Small Government Action 

Plan is not required. 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175) 

The longstanding and distinctive 

relationship between the Federal and 

tribal governments is defined by 

treaties, statutes, Executive orders, 

judicial decisions, and agreements, 

which differentiate tribal governments 

from the other entities that deal with, or 

are affected by, the Federal Government. 

This relationship has given rise to a 

special Federal trust responsibility 

involving the legal responsibilities and 

obligations of the United States towards 

Indian Tribes and with respect to Indian 

lands, tribal trust resources, and the 

exercise of tribal rights. Pursuant to 

these authorities, lands have been 

retained by Indian Tribes or have been 

set aside for tribal use. These lands are 

managed by Indian Tribes in accordance 

with tribal goals and objectives within 

the framework of applicable treaties and 

laws. Executive Order 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, outlines the 

responsibilities of the Federal 

Government in matters affecting tribal 

interests. The proposed critical habitat 

designations for threatened Indo-Pacific 

corals are located in U.S. Pacific Islands 

and therefore do not have tribal 

implications in accordance with 

Executive Order 13175. 

Environmental Justice and Racial Equity 

(E.O.s 12898, 14096, 14019, 13985) 

The designation of critical habitat is 

not expected to have a 

disproportionately high effect on 

minority populations or low-income 

populations. The purpose of this 

rulemaking is to protect and conserve 

ESA-listed species through the 

designation of critical habitat and is 

expected to help promote a healthy 

environment; thus, we do not anticipate 

minority populations or low-income 

populations to experience 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health or environmental burdens. The 

designation of critical habitat is not 

expected to disproportionately affect 

minority populations, low-income 

populations, or populations otherwise 

adversely affected by persistent poverty 

or inequality. Further, it is not expected 

to create any barriers to opportunity for 

underserved communities. 

List of Subjects and Maps 

50 CFR Part 223 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Transportation. 

50 CFR Part 226 

Endangered and threatened species. 

Dated: November 21, 2023. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR 

parts 223 and 226 as follows: 

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, 

§ 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 

§ 223.206(d)(9). 

■ 2. In § 223.102(e), in the table, under 

the heading ‘‘Corals’’ revise the entries 

for ‘‘Acropora globiceps,’’ ‘‘Acropora 

retusa,’’ ‘‘Acropora speciosa,’’ 

‘‘Euphyllia paradivisa,’’ and ‘‘Isopora 

crateriformis’’ to read as follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Species 1

Citation(s) for 

listing determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA rules 

Common name Scientific name 

Description of 

listed 

entity 

*******

Corals 

Coral, [no common name] ............ Acropora globiceps ...................... Entire species ........ 79 FR 53852, Sept. 10, 2014 ...... 226.230 NA. 

* * * * * * * 

Coral, [no common name] ............ Acropora retusa ........................... Entire species ........ 79 FR 53852, Sept. 10, 2014 ...... 226.230 NA. 

* * * * * * * 

Coral, [no common name] ............ Acropora speciosa ....................... Entire species ........ 79 FR 53852, Sept. 10, 2014 ...... 226.230 NA. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83667 

Species 1

Citation(s) for 

listing determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA rules 

Common name Scientific name 

Description of 

listed 

entity 

*******

Coral, [no common name] ............ Euphyllia paradivisa ..................... Entire species ........ 79 FR 53852, Sept. 10, 2014 ...... 226.230 NA. 

*******

Coral, [no common name] ............ Isopora crateriformis .................... Entire species ........ 79 FR 53852, Sept. 10, 2014 ...... 226.230 NA. 

*******

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and 

evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 

PART 226—DESIGNATED CRITICAL 

HABITAT 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 226 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533. 

■ 4. Add § 226.231 to read as follows: 

§ 226.231 Critical habitat for Acropora 

globiceps, Acropora retusa, Acropora 

speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa, and Isopora 

crateriformis. 

Critical habitat is designated in the 

following jurisdictions for the following 

species as depicted in the maps below 

and described in paragraphs (a) through 

(e) of this section. The maps can be 

viewed or obtained with greater 

resolution (available at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

proposed-rule-designate-critical-habitatthreatened-indo-pacific-corals) to 

enable a more precise inspection of the 

proposed critical habitat for A. 

globiceps, A. retusa, A. speciosa, E. 

paradivisa, and I. crateriformis. 

(a) Critical habitat locations. Critical 

habitat is designated for the following 

species in the following jurisdictions: 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a) 

Species State—counties 

(or other jurisdiction) 

Acropora globiceps ...... American Samoa (AS), Guam (Gu), Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Pacific Remote Island 

Areas (PRIA), Hawaii (HI). 

Acropora retusa ............ AS, PRIA. 

Acropora speciosa ....... AS. 

Euphyllia paradivisa ..... AS. 

Isopora crateriformis .... AS. 

(b) Critical habitat boundaries. Except 

as noted in paragraph (d) of this section, 

critical habitat for the five species 

includes all specific areas depicted in 

the maps below. 

(c) Essential feature. The feature 

essential to the conservation of A. 

globiceps, A. retusa, A. speciosa, E. 

paradivisa and I. crateriformis is: Sites 

that support the normal function of all 

life stages of the corals, including 

reproduction, recruitment, and 

maturation. These sites are natural, 

consolidated hard substrate or dead 

coral skeleton, which is free of algae and 

sediment at the appropriate scale at the 

point of larval settlement or fragment 

reattachment, and the associated water 

column. Several attributes of these sites 

determine the quality of the area and 

influence the value of the associated 

feature to the conservation of the 

species: 

(1) Substrate with presence of crevices 

and holes that provide cryptic habitat, 

the presence of microbial biofilms, or 

presence of crustose coralline algae; 

(2) Reefscape with no more than a 

thin veneer of sediment and low 

occupancy by fleshy and turf 

macroalgae; 

(3) Marine water with levels of 

temperature, aragonite saturation, 

nutrients, and water clarity that have 

been observed to support any 

demographic function; and 

(4) Marine water with levels of 

anthropogenically-introduced (from 

humans) chemical contaminants that do 

not preclude or inhibit any demographic 

function. 

(d) Areas not included in critical 

habitat. Critical habitat does not include 

the following particular areas where 

they overlap with the areas described in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 

section: 

(1) Pursuant to ESA section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i), all areas subject to the 2017 

Wake Island and 2019 Joint Region 

Marianas Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plans; 

(2) Managed areas that do not provide 

the quality of substrate essential for the 

conservation of the five Indo-Pacific 

corals are defined as particular areas 

whose consistently disturbed nature 

renders them poor habitat for coral 

growth and survival over time. These 

managed areas include specific areas 

where the substrate has been disturbed 

by planned management authorized by 

local, territorial, State, or Federal 

governmental entities at the time of 

critical habitat designation, and will 

continue to be periodically disturbed by 

such management. Examples include, 

but are not necessarily limited to, 

dredged navigation channels, shipping 

basins, vessel berths, and active 

anchorages. A comprehensive list of 

managed areas is provided in appendix 

B of the Information Report (NMFS, 

2023); 

(3) Existing artificial substrates 

including but not limited to: fixed and 

floating structures, such as aids-tonavigation (AToNs), seawalls, wharves, 

boat ramps, fishpond walls, pipes, 

submarine cables, wrecks, mooring 

balls, docks, aquaculture cages. A 

comprehensive list of artificial 

substrates is provided in appendix B of 

the Information Report (NMFS, 2023). 

(e) Critical habitat maps. The specific 

areas of critical habitat within the 16 

island units for the 5 listed coral species 

are shown on the following 24 maps. 

These black and white maps are based 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
83668 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

on the maps in the Information Report 

(NMFS, 2023) that are color-coded for 

the listed coral species. Multiple 

substrate data sources were used for the 

maps, as cited in the island sub-sections 

in section 3.4 of the Information Report 

(NMFS, 2023). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.000</GPH>

Figure 1 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Tutuila 

and Offshore Banks. 

110• rw 

0 2.S S 10 Miles 

I I I I ,, I \ I I I ' I I 

0 2.5 5 10 Kilometers 

Legend 

Critical habitat for Acropora 

- globiceps0-20m(0-66ft) 

depth 

110· 

+ 

American Samoa 

El 

Tutulla 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83669 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.001</GPH>

Figure 2 to paragraph ( e ). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora retusa, Tutuila and 

Offshore Banks. 

0 2.5 

I I,, .. I 11 

0 2.5 5 

legend 

11 

5 fOMiles 

L I I I I I 

10.KIIOmeters 

170" 

Critical habitat fQr 

- Acropora ret®a 0-20 in 

(0- 66 ft) depth 

f10°AO'W 

170"40W 

American Samoa 

El 

Tutuila 

110• 

N 

+ 

170 

(/J 

b 

~ ... 

'If 

.... 
83670 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.002</GPH>

Figure 3 to paragraph ( e ). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora speciosa, Tutuila 

and Offshore Banks. 

170° 

.. -•.}t 

0 2.5 

I I I I ,, I ~ 

0 2.5 5 

Legend 

5 

I I I f 

10 Kilometers 

170° 'W 

Critical Habitat for Acopora 

- speciosa, 20- 50 m (66-164 fl)deplh 

... 

t""°t\ " 

10Mlle$ 

t 

17<>440'W 110· W 

+ 

110· W 

AmerlcanS8moa 

El .. _ 

Tutuila 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83671 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.003</GPH>

Figure 4 to paragraph ( e ). Proposed critical habitat for Euphyllia paradivisa, Tutuila 

and Offshore Banks. 

!'I.I 

' i-.•' 

M .... 

0 2.5 5 10Mites 

I I I I ,, ' \ I I I I 

o 2,.5 5 10 Kilometers 

170° W 

Legend 

Crlllcal Habitat for Euphytr,a 

- paradivisa, 20- 50 m (66- 164 

ft)depth 

110•M>w 110• 

},I ~ 

+ ~ .... 

AmericenSamoa 

El 

Tutulla 
83672 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.004</GPH>

Figure 5 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Isopora crateriformis, 

Tutuila and Offshore Banks. 

17a' 

o 2:$ 5 I l 1 r 1 1 I 1i I I I 

0 2;5 5 10 KilometeJs. 

170" 

1otJliles 

I 

170" 

170"40'W 

.Ameriean samoa 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83673 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.005</GPH>

Figure 6 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, OfuOlosega. 

~ 

::.. 

... 

169"41W 169"40W 

0 0.5 1 

I I I I I I I I I I I I ' 0 0.5 1 2 Kilometers 

159•41w 159•40W 

Legend 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora globicep$, 0 - 20 

m (0- 66 ft) depth 

169"39W 169"38W 

N 

+ 

2 Miles 

159• 169"38W 169"37W 

American Samoa 

,p 

... ... 

~ ... 

fl) 

~ ... ,. 

..,. 

-
83674 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.006</GPH>

Figure 7 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora retusa, OfuOlosega. 

fl) 

('l 

~ 

i 

169°41W 169°40'W 

0 0.5 1 

I I t I I I 

I I ! I I I I 

-0 0.5 1 2 Kilometers 

159°41w 169°40W 

legend 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora retusa. 0- 20 m 

{0 - 66 ft) depth 

169"38W 169"37'W 

+ 

2MileS 

169°39'W 169"38'W 

Amencan Samoa 

fP 

" "' ... 

0 

N 

" "' ... 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83675 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.007</GPH>

Figure 8 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Isopora crateriformis, OfuOlosega. 

~ 

~ .... 

~· 

• 

~ 

169"41'W 1&9•40'W 

0 0~5 1. 

I I I I I t I 

I I I I I I 

0 0,5 1 2 l<ilOmef.ef'S 

169°41'W 169"40'W 

Legend 

CriticafHabitatfor·lsopora 

• craterfformis, o -- 20 m (0-

66 ft) depth 

169"37'W 

+ 

2Mifes 

I 

t~ 

AmerlcanSamoa 

Oft.t.Otosega 

{I') 

0 

~ .... 

(I) 

..... 

... 

'It 

..... 
83676 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.008</GPH>

Figure 9 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Ta'u. 

... 

~ 

169°· W 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles I , ,, l 1 11 ,, 1 f 1 1 I 

0 0.5 1 2 Kilometers 

169". 

Legend 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora globiceps, 0-20 

m (0 - 66 ft) depth 

169" 8W 

N 

+ 

169° 169°26'W 

AmwtcanSamoa 

.,. ;El 

Ta'u 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83677 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.009</GPH>

Figure 10 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Isopora crateriformis, Ta'u. 

o 0.5 1 2Mfles 

I l ', 1

11 'r 111 / i ' I 

0 0.5 1 2 Kilometers 

Legend 

Critical Habitat for lsopom 

- crateriformis, 0 -20 m (0-

66 ft) <fepth 

N 

St 

Amei1can Samoa 
83678 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.010</GPH>

Figure 11 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Rose 

Atoll. 

l.t 

.... 

168°10W 

0 0.25 0.5 1 MIies I I I J I 1 I I I i i I f I 

0 0.25 0.5 

168"10W 

Legend 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora globiceps, 0-10 

m (O - 33 ft) depth. 

168-g'W 168•sw 

N 

+ 

168 168°8W 

American Samoa 

.. .. 

RoseAtoll 

fl) 

"" ... 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83679 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.011</GPH>

Figure 12 to paragraph ( e ). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora retusa, Rose 

Atoll. 

168-0 1ow 

o 0.25 o,5 1 KIiometers 

Legend 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora retusa; 0-20 m 

(0- 66 ft) depth. 

168-°S'W 

+ 

1 9W 'I 6W 

American samoa 
83680 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.012</GPH>

Figure 13 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Guam. 

144•4o•E 

144•4o•e 

Legend 

Areas Ineligible for ~ Designation as Coral 

Critical Habitat 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora globiceps, 0 - 12 

m (0 - 39 ft) depth 

144•oo·e 145•E 

0 5 10Mlles 

I ! I It I ' I ' I ,I I I l t I 

0 5 10 Kl!ometel'S 

144•50'E 14 •e 

.I 

Guam'@ ... 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83681 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.013</GPH>

Figure 14 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Rota. 

0 0.75 1.5 

I r I , I I ' I I I i 

0 1 2 

Legend 

145"10'E 

3Mlles 

I I I I I 

4 Kilometers 

145°10'E 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora globiceps, 0- 12 

m (0 - 39 ft) depth 

145°15'E 

145 15'E 

Nor1hem 

Marlana 

Islands 

N 

+ 

l Rota 

8 
83682 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.014</GPH>

Figure 15 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, 

Aguijan. 

145°31'E 145"32'E 145°33'E 145"34'E 

... 

.. 

0.5 1 2Miles 

I t I f I I I I 

0.5 1 

I f I I I i O 2 Kilometers Z 

~ 1,-..,..------....--------'f"--------.------.,....---~ . ;:. 145°31'E 145 32'E 145 145°34'6 145o:35'E ~ 

Legend 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora globlceps, 0-

12 m (0 - 39 ft) depth 

Northern JI 

Marlana 

Islands 

~Aguijan 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83683 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.015</GPH>

Figure 16 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Tinian. 

1.W30'E 145°40'E 1.W45'E 

z 

() f 2 4Mlfes 

l1 11I1ii11, / i 1 

'i' 0 1 2 41<llometer$ z 

'-'-----------------------------------' .,.. 145°311E 145 ·. 1.W40'E 1 <ffi'E :t 

Legend 

Areas Ineligible fol" 

~ Designation as Coral 

Crffical Habitat 

Critical Habitat for 

• Acropora globiceps, o- 12 

m (0- 39 ft) depth 

NoJthem 

Marlana 

Islands 
83684 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.016</GPH>

Figure 17 to paragraph ( e ). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Saipan. 

145°40'E 

0 1.25 2.5 

I ii I 1 • jl I I I I ' I I : 

0 1.25 2.5 5 Kllomelers 

145"40'E 

Legend 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora glob/ceps,0-12 

m (0 - 39 ft) depth 

145°50'E 

145"50'E 

Northern 

Marlana 

Islands 

N 

+ 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83685 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.017</GPH>

Figure 18 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, 

Alamagan. 

It.. ,.... 

0 0.25 0.5 1 MIies I I I , I ' I I I I i i I i I t 

0 0.250.5 1 Kilornetef$ 

145°48'E 

Legend 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora globiceps, 0 -12 

m (0 - 39 ft) depth 

145"50'E 

Northern 

Mariana 

Islands 

,.. 

, 

°' 

l 

N 

+ 

Alamagan 

,.. 

... 
83686 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.018</GPH>

Figure 19 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Pagan. 

145°40'E 

0 1.25 2.5 

I I I I 11 I \ I I I 

0 1.25 2.5 5 Kilometers 

Legend 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora globiceps, 0 - 12 

m (0 - 39 ft) depth 

145°45'E 

Northern 

Mariana 

Island$ 

145°50'E 

N 

+ ~ .... 

1o 

.... 

145°50'E 

~ Pagan 

l 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83687 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.019</GPH>

Figure 20 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Maug 

Islands. 

0 0.25 0.5 I I I I I I i I I I i I 

0 0.25 0.5 

Legend 

1 Kilometers 

145°13'E 

CrltlcaJ Habitat for 

- Acropora globiceps, 0 -12 

m (0 - 39 ft) depth 

145"14'E 

N 

+ 

145"14'E 

Nolthem n 

Marlana 

Islands 

~ Maug Islands 

.I 

'j!. 

... 

~ 
83688 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.020</GPH>

Figure 21 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Uracas. 

144"53'E 

0 0.13 0.25 

I I I I I Ii I 1 1 l I ' j I 

0 0.130.25 0.5 Kilometers 

Legend 

Critical habitat for 

- Acropora globiceps, 0-12 m (0-39 ft} 

depth 

144"53'30"E 

144°53'30"E 144°54•e 

Northern 

Mariana 

Islands 

I 

, 

144°54'30"E 

N 

+ ~ 

144°54'30"E 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83689 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.021</GPH>

Figure 22 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, 

Palmyra Atoll. 

162°10W 162"5'W 

Palmyra Atoll 

0 1 2 4Miles 

I i i I sf I \ I l I J 

0 1 2 4 Kilometers 

162°10'W 

Legend 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora globiceps, 0-10 

m (0 - 33 ft) depth 

162"5'W 

162°0'W 

N 

+ 

162°0'W 

Hawaiian Islands 
83690 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.022</GPH>

Figure 23 to paragraph (e).Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, 

Johnston Atoll. 

169635'W 1es030'W 

Johnston Atoll 

0 1.25 2.5 5 MIies 

I I ', ,, I ' I I I I I I I 

o 1.25 2.5 5 Kltometers 

169° 'W 

Legend 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora globiceps. O - 10 

m (0 - 33 ft) depth 

169'°30'W 

1es• 5'W 

N 

+ 

169 5'W 

p Hawai1an Island$ 

Johnston Atoll 

z 

a, 

... 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83691 

[FR Doc. 2023–26051 Filed 11–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30NO23.023</GPH>

Figure 24 to paragraph (e). Proposed critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, French 

Frigate Shoals. 

1ee020W 166"10W 1 "W 

N 

French Frigate Shoals + 

0 2.5 5 10 Mile& I ' 1 I I I f I I , r 1 • , 1 

0 2.5 5 10Kilometenl 

166"20W 

Legend 

Critical Habitat for 

- Acropora globiceps, 0-

10 m (0 - 33 ft) depth 

, .. 

. :··, .. 

ll: _.-

tiif{)\ 

,·" . _'!I , .,A'I 

1ee•1ow 166"W 

dFrench Frigate Shoals