126 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 226 

[Docket No. 231219–0312] 

RIN 0648–BL53 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

Nassau Grouper 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, designate critical 

habitat for the threatened Nassau 

grouper (Epinephelus striatus) pursuant 

to section 4 of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). Specific areas designated as 

critical habitat contain approximately 

2,384.67 sq. kilometers (km) (920.73 sq. 

miles) of aquatic habitat located in 

waters off the coasts of southeastern 

Florida, Puerto Rico, Navassa, and the 

United States Virgin Islands (USVI). We 

have considered positive and negative 

economic, national security, and other 

relevant impacts of the critical habitat 

designation, as well as all public 

comments that were received. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

February 1, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The final rule, maps, Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and 

Critical Habitat Report used in 

preparation of this final rule are 

available on the NMFS website at 

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

national/endangered-speciesconservation/critical-habitat. All 

comments and information received are 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

All documentation is also available 

upon request. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Orian Tzadik, NMFS Southeast Region, 

Orian.Tzadik@noaa.gov, 813–906–0353. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

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

ESA and our implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), this final rule is based 

on the best scientific data available 

concerning the range, biology, habitat, 

threats to the habitat, and conservation 

objectives for the Nassau grouper 

(Epinephelus striatus). We have 

reviewed the available data and public 

comments received on the proposed 

rule. We used the best data available to 

identify: (1) features essential to the 

conservation of the species; (2) the 

specific areas within the occupied 

geographical areas that contain the 

physical essential feature that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; (3) the 

Federal activities that may impact the 

critical habitat; and (4) the potential 

impacts of designating critical habitat 

for the species. This final rule is based 

on the biological information and the 

economic, national security, and other 

relevant impacts described in the 

Critical Habitat Report. This supporting 

document is available online (see 

ADDRESSES) or upon request (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

On June 29, 2016, we published a 

final rule that listed Nassau grouper as 

a threatened species (81 FR 42268). The 

listing rule identified fishing at 

spawning aggregations and inadequate 

law enforcement as the most serious 

threats to this species. No critical 

habitat was designated for the Nassau 

grouper at that time. 

On October 17, 2022, NMFS proposed 

to designate critical habitat for Nassau 

grouper within U.S. jurisdictions 

throughout the range of the species. We 

requested public comment on the 

proposed designation and supporting 

reports during a 60-day comment 

period, which closed on December 15, 

2022 (87 FR 62930). The essential 

features of the proposed Nassau grouper 

critical habitat consisted of (1) 

nearshore to offshore areas necessary for 

recruitment, development, and growth 

of Nassau grouper containing a variety 

of benthic types that provide cover from 

predators and habitat for prey, and (2) 

marine sites used for spawning and 

adjacent waters that support movement 

and staging associated with spawning. 

The final rule does not modify the 

definitions of these essential features 

but does identify several new areas 

containing these features. The proposed 

rule identified 19 specific areas, or units 

of critical habitat, in waters off the 

coasts of southeastern Florida, Puerto 

Rico, Navassa, and the USVI that 

contain the essential features. The area 

covered by the Naval Air Station Key 

West (NASKW) Integrated Natural 

Resource Management Plan (INRMP) 

was found to be ineligible for 

designation pursuant to section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA due to the 

conservation benefits the INRMP affords 

the Nassau grouper. Pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the ESA, no areas were 

proposed for exclusion from the 

designation on the basis of economic, 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts. We did not propose to 

designate any unoccupied critical 

habitat. 

This final rule relies on the ESA 

section 4 implementing regulations that 

are currently in effect, which include 

provisions that were revised or added in 

2019. As explained in the proposed 

critical habitat rule, on July 5, 2022, the 

United States 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, which included changes made to 

the definition of physical or biological 

feature and the criteria for designating 

unoccupied critical habitat (‘‘2019 

regulations’’; 84 FR 45020, August 27, 

2019). In the proposed rule, we 

determined that the critical habitat 

determination and designation would be 

the same under the 50 CFR part 424 

regulations as they existed before 2019 

and under the regulations as revised by 

the 2019 rule. 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, and 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. As a result, the 2019 

regulations are once again in effect, and 

we are applying the 2019 regulations 

here. Following the remand of the 2019 

regulations, on June 22, 2023, NMFS 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

published a proposed rule to revise the 

ESA section 4 implementing regulations 

(88 FR 40764). Thus, for purposes of 

this final rule, we also considered 

whether our analyses or conclusions 

would be any different under the 

regulations in effect prior to 2019 or 

under the recently proposed regulations 

(87 FR 62930). We have determined that 

while our analysis would differ in some 

respects, the conclusions ultimately 

reached and presented here would be 

the same under either set of regulations. 

This final rule describes the critical 

habitat for Nassau grouper in waters off 

the coasts of Florida, and the U.S. 

Caribbean (i.e., waters off the coasts of 

Navassa Island, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands) and the basis for its 

designation. It summarizes relevant 

information regarding the biology and 

habitat use of Nassau grouper; the 

methods used to develop the critical 

habitat designation; a summary of, and 

responses to, public comments received; 

and the final critical habitat 

determination. The more detailed 

analyses that contributed to the 

conclusions presented in this final rule, 

including the analysis of areas eligible 

for designation, can be found in the 

Critical Habitat Report (NMFS, 2022) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 127 

and the Nassau Grouper Biological 

Report (Hill and Sadovy de Mitcheson, 

2013). These supporting documents are 

referenced throughout this final rule 

and are available for review (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Statutory and Regulatory Background 

for Critical Habitat Designations 

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

critical habitat as (i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species, at the time it is listed, 

on which are found those physical or 

biological features (I) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (II) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

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 

section 3(3) of the ESA as the use of all 

methods and procedures which are 

necessary to bring any endangered 

species or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to this 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. Our 

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 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 the 

Secretary to designate critical habitat for 

threatened and endangered species 

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary 

on the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. This 

section also grants the Secretary 

discretion to exclude any area from 

critical habitat if the Secretary 

determines the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat. However, the Secretary 

may not exclude areas if such exclusion 

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 authorize, fund, 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 area 

identified as 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. See 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1). The ESA 

section 7 consultation requirements do 

not apply to citizens engaged in actions 

on private land that do not involve a 

Federal agency, for example if a private 

landowner is undertaking an action that 

does not require a Federal permit or is 

not federally funded. However, 

designating critical habitat can help 

focus the efforts of other, non-federal, 

conservation partners (e.g., state and 

local governments, individuals, and 

non-governmental organizations). 

Species Description 

Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus 

(Bloch 1792), are long-lived, moderatesized fish (family Epinephelidae) with 

large eyes and a robust body. Their 

coloration is generally buff, with 

distinguishing markings of five dark 

brown vertical bars, a large black saddle 

blotch on the caudal peduncle (i.e., the 

tapered region behind the dorsal and 

anal fins where the caudal fin attaches 

to the body), and a row of black spots 

below and behind each eye. Juveniles 

exhibit a color pattern similar to adults 

(e.g., Silva Lee, 1977). Individuals reach 

sexual maturity between 4 and 8 years 

(Sadovy and Colin, 1995; Sadovy and 

Eklund, 1999). Nassau grouper undergo 

shifts in habitat utilization as they 

mature: larvae settle in nearshore 

habitats and then as juveniles move to 

nearshore patch reefs (Eggleston, 1995), 

and eventually recruit to deeper waters 

and reef habitats (Sadovy and Eklund, 

1999). As adults, individuals are 

sedentary except for when they 

aggregate to spawn—the timing of 

which appears to be linked to both lunar 

cycles and water temperature (Kobara et 

al., 2013). Maximum age has been 

estimated as 29 years, based on an 

ageing study using sagittal otoliths 

(Bush et al., 2006). Maximum size is 

about 122 cm total length (TL) and 

maximum weight is about 25 kg 

(Heemstra and Randall, 1993). 

Natural History and Habitat Use 

The Nassau grouper, like most large 

marine reef fishes, demonstrates a twopart life cycle with pelagic eggs and 

larvae but demersal juveniles and 

adults. It undergoes a series of shifts of 

both habitat and diet as it matures from 

larval to adult stage. Adults maintain 

resident home ranges (Randall, 1962 

1963; Carter et al., 1994), but may 

undergo long migrations to spawning 

aggregation sites (Bolden, 2000). 

Reproduction is known to occur only 

during annual aggregations, in which 

large numbers of Nassau grouper, 

ranging from dozens to tens of 

thousands, collectively gather to spawn 

at predictable times and locations. 

In the following sections, we describe 

the natural history of the Nassau 

grouper as it relates to habitat needs 

from the egg and larval stage to 

settlement into nearshore habitats 

followed by a progressive offshore 

movement with increasing size and 

maturation. 

Egg and Larval Planktonic Stage 

Fertilized eggs are pelagic, measure 

about 1 mm in diameter, and have a 

single oil droplet about 0.22 mm in 

diameter (Guitart-Manday and Jua ́rezFernandez, 1966). Data from eggs 

produced in an aquarium (GuitartManday and Juarez-Fernandez, 1966) 

and artificially fertilized in the 

laboratory (Powell and Tucker, 1992; 

Colin, 1992) indicate that spherical, 

buoyant eggs hatch 23–40 hours 

following fertilization. Eggs of groupers 

that spawn at sea require a salinity of 

about 30 parts per thousand (ppt) or 

higher for maximum survivorship and 

for them to float (Tucker, 1999). Both 

buoyancy and survivorship decrease as 

salinity declines below optimum levels, 

resulting in less than 50% hatching 

rates at salinities of 24 ppt (Ellis et al., 

1997). 

The pelagic larvae begin feeding on 

zooplankton approximately 2–4 days 

after hatching (Tucker and Woodward, 

1994). Newly hatched larvae in the 

laboratory measured 1.8 mm notochord 

length and were slightly curved around 

the yolk sac (Powell and Tucker, 1992). 

Nassau grouper larvae are rarely 

reported from offshore waters (Leis, 

1987) and little is known of their 

movements or distribution. The pelagic 

larval period has been reported to range 

from 37 to 45 days based on otolith 

analysis of newly settled juveniles in 

the Bahamas (Colin et al., 1997) with a 

mean of 41.6 days calculated from netVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:05 Dec 29, 2023 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02JAR2.SGM 02JAR2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
128 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

caught samples (Colin, 1992; Colin et 

al., 1997). Collections of pelagic larvae 

were made 0.8 to 16 km off Lee Stocking 

Island, Bahamas, at 2 to 50 m depths 

and from tidal channels leading onto the 

Exuma Bank (Greenwood, 1991). Larvae 

were widely dispersed or distributed in 

patches of various sizes (Greenwood, 

1991). Larvae collected 10 days after 

back-calculated probable spawning date 

measure 6–10 mm standard length (SL) 

and attain a maximum size of 30 mm SL 

(Shenker et al., 1993). 

Larval Settlement 

After spending about 40 days in the 

plankton, in the Bahamas Nassau 

grouper larvae have been found to 

recruit from the oceanic environment 

into demersal, bank habitats through 

tidal channels (Colin, 1992). This 

recruitment process can be brief and 

intense, occurring in short pulses during 

highly limited periods (often several 

days) each year, and has been found to 

be associated with prevailing winds, 

currents, and lunar phase (Shenker et 

al., 1993). These late larvae/early 

juvenile Nassau grouper (18–30 mm 

total length (TL)) moved inshore from 

pelagic environments to shallower 

nursery habitats (Shenker et al., 1993). 

Most of what is known about the 

earliest cryptic life stages is known from 

research in the Bahamas where recently 

settled Nassau grouper were found to be 

on average 32 mm TL when they recruit 

into the nearshore habitat and settle out 

of the plankton (Eggleston, 1995). Newly 

settled or post-settlement fish found by 

Eggleston (1995) ranged in size from 25– 

35 mm TL and were patchily distributed 

at 2–3 m depth in substrates 

characterized by numerous sponges and 

stony corals with some holes and ledges 

residing exclusively within coral 

clumps (e.g., Porites spp.) covered by 

masses of macroalgae (primarily the red 

alga Laurencia spp.). Stony corals 

provided attachment sites for red algae 

since direct holdfast attachment was 

probably inhibited by heavy layers of 

coarse calcareous sand. This algal and 

coral matrix also supported high 

densities and a diverse group of xanthid 

crabs, hippolytid shrimp, bivalve, 

gastropods and other small potential 

prey items. In the USVI, Beets and 

Hixon (1994) observed groupers on a 

series of nearshore artificial reefs 

constructed of cement blocks with small 

and large openings and found the 

smallest Nassau groupers (30–80 mm 

TL) were closely associated with the 

substrate, usually in small burrows 

under the concrete blocks. Growth 

during this period was about 10 mm/ 

month (Eggleston, 1995). 

Juveniles 

After settlement, Nassau grouper grow 

through three juvenile stages, defined by 

size, as they progressively move from 

nearshore areas adjacent to the coastline 

to shallow hardbottom areas and 

seagrass habitat. The size ranges for the 

three juvenile stages, which we discuss 

in more detail below, are 

approximations and are not always 

collected the same way between studies. 

Juvenile Nassau grouper reside within 

nearshore areas for about 1 to 2 years, 

where they are found associated with 

structure in both seagrass (Eggleston, 

1995; Camp et al., 2013; Claydon and 

Kroetz, 2008; Claydon et al., 2009, 2010; 

Green, 2017) and hardbottom areas 

(Bardach, 1958; Beets and Hixon, 1994; 

Eggleston, 1995; Camp et al., 2013; 

Green, 2017). Juvenile Nassau grouper 

leave these refuges to forage and when 

they transition to new habitats 

(Eggleston, 1995; Eggleston et al., 1998). 

Newly Settled (Post-Settlement) 

Juveniles (∼2.5–5 cm TL) 

Most of what is known about the 

earliest demersal life stages of Nassau 

grouper comes from a series of studies 

conducted from 1987–1994 near Lee 

Stocking Island in the Exuma Cays, 

Bahamas as reported by Eggleston 

(1995). These surveys and experiments 

in mangrove-lined lagoons and tidal 

creeks (1–4 m deep), seagrass beds, and 

sand or patch reef habitats helped 

identify the Nassau grouper’s early life 

ontogenetic (i.e., developmental) habitat 

changes. Benthic habitat of newly 

settled Nassau grouper (31.7 ± 2.9 mm 

TL (mean ± standard deviation), n=31) 

was described as exclusively within 

coral clumps (e.g., Porites spp.) covered 

by masses of macroalgae (primarily the 

red alga Laurencia spp.). These 

macroalgal clumps were patchily 

distributed at 2 to 3 m depths in 

substrate characterized by numerous 

sponges and stony corals, with some 

holes and ledges. The stony corals 

(primarily Porites spp.) provided 

attachment sites for red algae; direct 

holdfast attachment to the coral by the 

red algae was probably inhibited by 

heavy layers of coarse calcareous sand 

and minor amounts of silt and detritus. 

The open lattice of the algal-covered 

coral clumps provided cover and prey 

and facilitated the movement of 

individuals within the interstices of the 

clumps (Eggleston 1995). Postsettlement Nassau grouper were either 

solitary or aggregated within isolated 

coral clumps. Density of the postsettlement fish was greatest in areas 

with both algal cover and physical 

structure (Eggleston, 1995). A 

concurrent survey of the adjacent 

seagrass beds found abundance of 

nearly settled Nassau grouper was 

substantially higher in Laurencia spp. 

Habitats than in neighboring seagrass 

(Eggleston, 1995). 

Eggleston (1995) found the functional 

relationship between percent algal cover 

and post-settlement density of Nassau 

grouper was linear and positive 

compared to other habitat 

characteristics such as algal 

displacement volume, and the numbers 

of holes, ledges, and corals. Recentlysettled Nassau grouper have also been 

collected from tilefish (Malacanthus 

plumieri) rubble mounds, with as many 

as three fish together (Colin et al., 1997). 

They have been reported as associated 

with discarded queen conch (Strombus 

gigas) shells and other debris within 

Thalassia beds (Claydon et al., 2009, 

2010) in the Turks and Caicos Islands, 

although the exact fish sizes observed 

are not clear. Post-settlement survival in 

macroalgal habitats is higher than in 

seagrass beds, showing a likely adaptive 

advantage for the demonstrated habitat 

selection (Dahlgren and Eggleston, 

2000). Nassau grouper remain in the 

shallow nearshore habitat for about 3 to 

5 months following settlement and grow 

at about 10 mm/month (Randall, 1983; 

Eggleston, 1995). 

Early Juveniles (∼4.5–15 cm TL) 

Band transects performed near Lee 

Stocking Island, Bahamas, 4–5 months 

after the settlement period (June 1991– 

93) showed that early juveniles (8.5 ± 

11.7 cm TL, n=65) demonstrated a 

subtle change in microhabitat; 88 

percent were solitary within or adjacent 

to algal-covered coral clumps 

(Eggleston, 1991). As the early juveniles 

grew, reef habitats, including solution 

holes and ledges, took on comparatively 

greater importance as habitats 

(Eggleston, 1991). Low habitat 

complexity was associated with 

increased predation rates and lowered 

the survival of recruits (Dahlgren and 

Eggleston, 2000). 

Early juveniles in the Bahamas have 

a disproportionately high association 

with the macroalgae Laurencia spp.; 

whereas other microhabitats (e.g., 

seagrass, corals) are used in proportion 

to their availability (Dahlgren and 

Eggleston, 2001). Reports from Mona 

Island, Puerto Rico (Aguilar-Perera et 

al., 2006) indicate that early juveniles 

(60–120 mm TL) were found at the edge 

of a seagrass patch, under rocks 

surrounded by seagrass, in a tire, and in 

a dissolution hole in shallow bedrock. 

A conspicuous change in habitat 

occurs about 4–5 months postsettlement when Nassau grouper move 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 129 

from nearshore macroalgae habitat to 

adjacent patch reefs located within 

either seagrass or hardbottom areas, 

between the nearshore environment and 

the offshore reefs. In the Bahamas, early 

juvenile Nassau grouper (12–15 cm TL) 

exhibited an ontogenetic movement 

from macroalgal clumps to patch reef 

habitats in the late summer and early 

fall after settlement in the winter as 

demonstrated by a significant decrease 

in juvenile density within the 

macroalgal habitat and concomitant 

increase in the seagrass meadows 

(Eggleston, 1995). Similarly in the Turks 

and Caicos, 87 percent of early juvenile 

Nassau grouper (identified as less than 

12 cm TL, n=181) were found in 

seagrass and 10 percent were found in 

rock or rubble habitat (Claydon and 

Kroetz, 2008). Within the Turks and 

Caicos seagrass habitat, 44 percent of 

the early juveniles were found in 

discarded conch shells and 33 percent 

were found along blowout ledges 

(Claydon and Kroetz, 2008). Individuals 

were rarely seen in open areas; instead 

they were usually seen in close 

proximity to a structure or sheltering 

within structure (i.e., discarded conch 

shell or blowout ledge). Density of 

Nassau grouper (>12 cm TL) was found 

to increase when discarded conch shells 

were placed in seagrass habitat (Claydon 

et al., 2009), perhaps due to reduced 

mortality as the structure limited access 

of larger predators (Claydon et al,. 

2010). On shallow constructed block 

reefs in the USVI, newly settled and 

early juveniles (3–8 cm TL) occupied 

small separate burrows beneath the reef 

while larger juveniles occupied holes in 

the reefs (Beets and Hixon, 1994). 

Juvenile fish are vulnerable to 

predation (large fish, eels, other 

groupers and sharks) and utilize refuges 

to protect themselves (Beets and Hixon, 

1994; Eggleston 1995; Claydon and 

Kroetz, 2008) and to forage for 

crustaceans using ambush predation 

techniques (Eggleston et al., 1998; 

Claydon and Kroetz, 2008). Juveniles 

often associate with refuges 

proportional to their body size (Beets 

and Hixon, 1994) and seek new shelter 

as they grow (Eggleston, 1995). Suitable 

refuges provide some protection from 

predation; however, juveniles may leave 

their refuges to forage for food and 

during ontogenetic shifts in habitat 

(Eggleston, 1995). 

Late Juveniles (∼15–50cm TL) 

Camp et al. (2013) conducted a broadscale survey in the shallow nearshore 

lagoons of Little Cayman and found 

Nassau grouper (12–26 cm TL) on 

hardbottom areas more frequently than 

other more available habitats (sand, 

seagrass and algae). Eighty-two percent 

of juvenile Nassau grouper (18.4 ± 3.4 

cm TL, n=142) were found at depths 

from 1.0–2.3 m in hardbottom habitat 

that provided crevices, holes, ledges and 

other shelter, with 10–66 percent of the 

holes with grouper also containing one 

or more cleaning organisms (i.e., banded 

coral shrimp; Elacatinus gobies; or 

bluehead wrasse, Thalasoma 

bifasciatum). A small percentage of 

Nassau grouper (3 percent) were found 

in other habitat sheltered in holes (i.e., 

concrete blocks or conch shells). 

Overall, the vast majority of juvenile 

Nassau grouper were associated with 

some form of shelter, suggesting that 

shelter represents a primary 

determinant of microhabitat use (Camp 

et al., 2013). 

As late juveniles, Nassau grouper may 

occupy seagrass habitats for food and 

protection from predators (Claydon and 

Kroetz, 2008); they forage for 

crustaceans in seagrass beds (Eggleston 

et al., 1998). In a survey of seagrass bays 

in the USVI, Green (2017) found that 

juvenile Nassau grouper (n=46, 6–30 cm 

TL) were more abundant in areas with 

taller canopy and less dense native 

seagrasses compared to higher density 

of the same seagrasses and low canopy 

height. Differences in abundance were 

attributed to the taller canopy providing 

better cover from predators (Beets and 

Hixon, 1994). Tall seagrass also 

increases hiding places for their prey 

(Eggleston, 1995), and the less dense 

seagrass habitats permit better 

movement by Nassau grouper to forage 

(Green, 2017). 

Juvenile Nassau grouper also rely on 

hardbottom structure for refuge from 

predation and ambush of potential prey. 

Nassau grouper residing on patch reefs 

use short bursts of speed that allow 

them to ambush crabs located up to 7 

m away from a patch reef and return to 

a reef within 5 seconds (D. Eggleston 

pers. comm. as cited in Eggleston et al., 

1999). Suitable refuges provide cover for 

juvenile Nassau grouper with crevices, 

holes, and ledges proportionate to their 

body size (Beets and Hixon, 1994). 

As juveniles grow, they move 

progressively to deeper banks and 

offshore reefs (Tucker et al., 1993; Colin 

et al. 1997). In Bermuda, Bardach (1958) 

noted that few small Nassau grouper 

(less than 4 inches or 10 cm TL) were 

found on outer reefs, and few mature 

fish were found on inshore reefs. The 

weights of mature individuals trapped 

in deep areas were about double that of 

Nassau grouper captured in the shallow 

areas. While there can be an overlap of 

adults and juveniles in hardbottom 

habitat areas, size segregation generally 

occurs by depth, with smaller fish 

typically occurring in shallow inshore 

waters (3 to 17 m), and larger 

individuals more commonly occurring 

on deeper (18 to 55 m), offshore banks 

(Bardach et al., 1958; Cervigo ́n, 1966; 

Silva Lee, 1974; Radakov et al., 1975; 

Thompson and Munro, 1978). 

Adults 

Both male and female Nassau grouper 

typically mature between 40 and 45 cm 

SL (44 and 50 cm TL), with most 

individuals attaining sexual maturity by 

about 50 cm SL (55 cm TL) and about 

4–5 years of age (see Table 1 and 

additional details in Hill and Sadovy de 

Mitcheson, 2013) and with most fish 

spawning by age 7+ years (Bush et al., 

2006). 

Adults are found near shallow, highrelief coral reefs and rocky bottoms to a 

depth of at least 90 m (Bannerot, 1984; 

Heemstra and Randall, 1993). Reports 

from fishing activities in the Leeward 

Islands show that although Nassau 

grouper were fished to 130 m, the 

greatest trap catches were from 52–60 m 

(Brownell and Rainey, 1971). In 

Venezuela, Nassau grouper were cited 

as common to 40 m in the Archipelago 

Los Roques (Cervigo ́n, 1966). Nassau 

groupers tagged with depth sensors in 

Belize exhibited marked changes in 

depth at specific times throughout the 

year: 15–34 m from May through 

December, followed by movement to 

very deep areas averaging 72 m with a 

maximum of 255 m for a few months 

during spawning periods, then returning 

to depths of about 20 m in April (Starr 

et al., 2007). 

Adults lead solitary lives outside of 

spawning periods and tend to be 

secretive, often seeking shelter in reef 

crevices, ledges, and caves; rarely 

venturing far from cover (Bardach, 1958; 

Starck and Davis, 1966; Bohlke and 

Chaplin, 1968; Smith, 1961, 1971; 

Carter, 1988, 1989). Although they tend 

to be solitary, individuals will crowd 

peacefully in caves or fish traps with 

some proclivity to re-enter fish traps 

resulting in multiple recaptures 

(Randall, 1962; Sadovy and Eklund, 

1999; Bolden, 2001). Nassau grouper 

have the ability to home (Bardach et al., 

1958; Bolden, 2000) and remain within 

a highly circumscribed area for 

extended periods (Randall, 1962 1963; 

Carter et al., 1994; Bolden, 2001). In the 

Florida Keys, adult Nassau grouper 

(n=12) were found more often in highand moderate-relief habitats compared 

to low-relief reefs (Sluka et al., 1998). 

Habitat complexity has been found to 

influence home range size of adult 

Nassau grouper, with larger home 

ranges at less structurally-complex reefs 

(Bolden, 2001). Nassau grouper are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
130 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

diurnal or crepuscular in their 

movements (Collette and Talbot, 1972). 

Bolden (2001) investigated diel activity 

patterns via continuous acoustic 

telemetry and found Nassau groupers 

are more active diurnally and less active 

nocturnally, with activity peaks at 1000 

and 2000 hours. 

Importance of Shelter 

For many reef fishes, access to 

multiple, high-quality habitats and 

microhabitats represents a critical factor 

determining settlement rates, postsettlement abundances, mortality rates, 

and growth rates, because suitably sized 

refuges provide protection from 

predators and access to appropriate food 

(Shulman, 1984; Hixon and Beets, 1989; 

Eggleston et al., 1997, 1998; Grover et 

al., 1998; Lindeman et al., 2000; 

Dahlgren and Eggleston, 2000, 2001; 

Dahlgren and Marr, 2004; Eggleston et 

al., 2004). Many reef fish and 

invertebrates use hardbottom areas 

located between the nearshore 

environment and the outer reefs as 

juveniles. 

As Nassau grouper move from their 

nearshore settlement habitat, through 

hardbottom and seagrass mosaic 

habitats, to the offshore reefs they 

occupy as adults, shelter provides an 

essential life history function by 

reducing risk of predation and 

promoting successful ambush hunting. 

Availability of suitably sized shelters 

may be a key factor limiting successful 

settlement and survival for juvenile 

Nassau grouper and related species that 

settle and recruit to shallow, off-reef 

habitats (Hixon and Beets, 1989; 

Eggleston, 1995; Lindeman et al., 2000; 

Dahlgren and Eggleston, 2001). In 

addition, shelters of different sizes may 

govern the timing and success of 

ontogenetic movements to adult habitats 

(Caddy, 1986; Moran and Reaka, 1988; 

Eggleston, 1995). Camp et al. (2013) 

found juvenile Nassau grouper use 

shelters of varying sizes and degrees of 

complexity. Suitably-sized refuge from 

predators is expected to be a key 

characteristic supporting the survival 

and growth of juvenile Nassau grouper 

and other species, with access to food 

resources likely representing another 

key, and sometimes opposing, 

characteristic (Shulman, 1984; Hixon 

and Beets, 1989; Eggleston et al., 1997, 

1998; Grover et al., 1998; Dahlgren and 

Eggleston, 2001). The transition to these 

new habitats, however, heightens 

predation risk if habitats are far apart 

(Sogard, 1997; Tupper and Boutilier, 

1997; Almany and Webster, 2006) and 

there is minimal cover between them 

(Dahlgren and Eggleston, 2000; Caddy, 

2008). Nassau grouper rely on shelter to 

safely move between these 

interconnected habitats. Benthic 

juvenile fish rely on complex structure 

to protect themselves from predation 

and the simplification of habitats can 

lead to declines in recruitment (Caddy, 

2008). Stock replenishment is 

threatened by degradation of the 

habitats of successive life stages. Nassau 

grouper must often risk predation by 

crossing seascapes where cover 

connectivity is limited. Loss of cover 

therefore increases mortality, reduces 

foraging success, and affects other lifehistory activities. 

Diet 

In the planktonic stage, the yolk and 

oil in the egg sac nourish the early yolksac larva as it develops prior to 

hatching. The pelagic larvae begin 

feeding on zooplankton approximately 

2–4 days after hatching when a small 

mouth develops (Tucker and 

Woodward, 1994). In the laboratory, 

grouper larvae eat small rotifers, 

copepods, and other zooplankton, 

including brine shrimp (Tucker and 

Woodward, 1994). Diet information for 

newly settled Nassau grouper is based 

on visual observations indicating that 

young fish (20.2–27.2 mm SL) feed on 

a variety of plankton, including 

pteropods, ostracods, amphipods, and 

copepods (Greenwood, 1991; Grover et 

al., 1998). Similarly, in the Bahamas, 

recently settled and post-settlement 

stage (25–35 mm TL) Nassau grouper 

living within the macroalgae and 

seagrass blades have a primarily 

invertebrate diet of xanthid crabs, 

hippolytid shrimp, bivalves, and 

gastropods (Eggleston, 1995). 

More detailed diet information is 

available for juveniles and adults. 

Stomach contents of juvenile Nassau 

grouper (5–19 cm TL) collected from 

seagrass beds near Panama contained 

primarily porcellanid and xanthid crabs 

with minor amounts of fish (Heck and 

Weinstein, 1989). Four dominant prey 

were ingested by small (< 20 cm TL) 

Nassau grouper in the Bahamas: 

stomatopods, palaemonid shrimp, and 

spider and portunid crabs (Eggleston et 

al., 1998). Fish and spider crabs made 

up the bulk of the diet for both mid-size 

(20.0–29.9 cm TL) and large (>30 cm 

TL) Nassau grouper in opposite 

proportion: spider crabs dominated the 

diet of the mid-size fish, while fish were 

the most important prey for large 

Nassau grouper (Eggleston et al., 1998). 

Juveniles generally engulfed their prey 

whole (Eggleston et al. 1998). Smaller 

juveniles ate greater numbers of prey 

than larger grouper, but the individual 

prey items ingested by larger grouper 

weighed more (Eggleston et al., 1998). 

Similar ontogenetic changes in the 

Nassau grouper diet were reported by 

Randall (1965) and Eggleston et al. 

(1998) who analyzed stomach contents 

and determined that juveniles fed 

mostly on crustaceans, while adults 

foraged mainly on fishes. 

As adults, Nassau grouper are 

unspecialized-ambush-suction predators 

(Randall, 1965; Thompson and Munro, 

1978) that lie under shelter, wait for 

prey, and then quickly expand their gill 

covers to create a current to engulf prey 

by suction (Thompson and Munro, 

1978; Carter, 1986) and swallow their 

prey whole (Werner, 1974, 1977). 

Numerous studies describe adult Nassau 

groupers as piscivores, with their diet 

dominated by reef fishes: parrotfish 

(Scaridae), wrasses (Labridae), 

damselfishes (Pomacentridae), 

squirrelfishes (Holocentridae), snappers 

(Lutjanidae), groupers (Epinephelidae) 

and grunts (Haemulidae) (Randall and 

Brock, 1960; Randall, 1965, 1967; 

Parrish, 1987; Carter et al, 1994; 

Eggleston et al., 1998). The propensity 

for adult Nassau grouper to consume 

primarily fish (Randall, 1965; Eggleston 

et al., 1998) may be due to increased 

visual perception and swimming-burst 

speed with increasing body size (e.g., 

Kao et al., 1985; Ryer, 1988). Large 

Nassau grouper are probably foraging on 

reef-fish prey that are either associated 

with a reef (Eggleston et al., 1997) or 

adjacent seagrass meadows. In general, 

groupers have been characterized from 

gut content studies as generalist 

opportunistic carnivores that forage 

throughout the day (Randall, 1965, 

1967; Goldman and Talbot, 1976; 

Parrish, 1987), and perhaps being more 

active near dawn and dusk (Parrish, 

1987; Carter et al., 1994). Comparison of 

Nassau grouper stomach contents from 

natural and artificial reefs were found to 

be generally similar (Eggleston et al., 

1999). While Smith and Tyler (1972) 

classified Nassau grouper as nocturnally 

active residents, Randall (1967) 

investigated Nassau grouper gut 

contents and determined that although 

feeding can take place around the clock, 

most fresh food is found in stomachs 

collected in the early morning and at 

dusk. Silva Lee (1974) reported Nassau 

grouper with empty stomachs 

throughout daylight hours. 

Spawning 

The most recognized Nassau grouper 

habitats are the sites where adult males 

and females assemble briefly at 

predictable times during winter full 

moons for the sole purpose of 

reproduction. These spawning 

aggregation sites are occupied by Nassau 

grouper during winter full moon 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 131 

periods, from about November and 

extending to May (USVI) (Nemeth et al., 

2006). Aggregations consist of hundreds, 

thousands, or, historically, tens of 

thousands of individuals. Some 

aggregations have consistently formed at 

the same locations for 90 years or more 

(see references in Hill and Sadovy de 

Mitcheson 2013). All known 

reproductive activity for Nassau grouper 

occurs in aggregations; pair spawning 

has not been observed. About 50 

spawning aggregation sites have been 

recorded, mostly from insular areas in 

the Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, British 

Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cuba, 

Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Puerto 

Rico, Turks and Caicos, and the USVI; 

however, Nassau grouper may no longer 

form spawning aggregations at many of 

these sites (Figure 10 in Hill and Sadovy 

de Mitcheson, 2013). While both the 

size and number of spawning 

aggregations has diminished, spawning 

is still occurring in some locations 

(NMFS, 2013). 

Spawning aggregation sites typically 

occur near the edge of insular platforms 

in a wide (6–50 m) depth range, as close 

as 350 m to the shore, and close to a 

drop-off into deep water. These sites are 

characteristically small, highly 

circumscribed areas, measuring several 

hundred meters in diameter, with a 

diversity of bottom types, including soft 

corals, sponges, stony coral outcrops, 

and sandy depressions (Craig, 1966; 

Smith 1990; Beets and Friedlander, 

1992; Colin, 1992; Aguilar-Perera, 1994). 

Adults are known to travel hundreds of 

kilometers (Bolden, 2000) to gather at 

specific spawning aggregation sites. 

While aggregated, the Nassau grouper 

are extremely vulnerable to overfishing 

(Sadovy de Mitcheson et al., 2008). 

It is not known how Nassau grouper 

select and locate aggregation sites or 

why they aggregate to spawn. Variables 

that are considered to influence 

spawning site suitability include 

geomorphological characteristics of the 

seabed, hydrodynamics including 

current speed and prevailing direction 

of flow to disperse eggs and larvae, 

seawater temperature, and proximity to 

suitable benthic habitats for settlement 

(Kobara and Heyman, 2008). The link 

between spawning sites and settlement 

sites is not well understood. The 

geomorphology of spawning sites has 

led researchers to assume that offshore 

transport was a desirable property of 

selected sites. However, currents in the 

vicinity of aggregation sites do not 

necessarily favor offshore egg transport, 

leaving open the possibility that some 

stocks are at least partially selfrecruiting. Additional research is 

needed to understand these spatial 

dynamics. 

The biological cues known to be 

associated with Nassau grouper 

spawning include photoperiod (i.e., 

length of day), water temperature, and 

lunar phase (Colin, 1992). The timing 

and synchronization of spawning may 

be to accommodate immigration of 

widely dispersed adults, facilitate egg 

dispersal, or reduce predation on adults 

or eggs. 

Movement 

‘‘Spawning runs,’’ or movements of 

adult Nassau grouper from coral reefs to 

spawning aggregation sites, were first 

described in Cuba in 1884 by Vilaro 

Diaz, and later by Guitart-Manday and 

Juarez-Fernandez (1966). Nassau 

grouper migrate to aggregation sites in 

groups numbering between 25 and 500, 

moving parallel to the coast or along 

shelf edges or inshore reefs (Colin, 1992; 

Carter et al., 1994; Aguilar-Perera and 

Aguilar-Davila, 1996; Nemeth et al., 

2009). Distance traveled by Nassau 

grouper to aggregation sites is highly 

variable; some fish move only a few 

kilometers, while others move up to 

several hundred kilometers (Colin, 

1992; Carter et al., 1994; Bolden, 2000). 

Observations suggest that individuals 

may return to their original home reef 

following spawning (Semmens et al., 

2007). 

Larger fish are more likely to return to 

aggregation sites and spawn in 

successive months than smaller fish 

(Semmens et al., 2007). Nassau grouper 

have been shown to have high site 

fidelity to an aggregation site, with 80 

percent of tagged Nassau grouper 

returning to the same aggregation site, 

Bajo de Sico, each year over the 2014– 

2016 tracking period in Puerto Rico 

(Tuohy et al., 2016). The area occupied 

during spawning by Nassau grouper is 

smaller at Bajo de Sico compared to 

Grammanik Bank off St. Thomas. 

Acoustic detections of tagged Nassau 

grouper revealed a southwesterly 

movement from the Puerto Rican shelf 

to the Bajo de Sico in a narrow corridor 

(Tuohy et al., 2017). 

Spawning Activity and Behavior 

Spawning occurs for up to 1.5 hours 

around sunset for several days (Whaylen 

et al., 2007). All spawning events have 

been recorded within 20 minutes of 

sunset, with most within 10 minutes of 

sunset (Colin, 1992). At spawning 

aggregation sites, Nassau grouper tend 

to mill around for a day or two in a 

‘‘staging area’’ adjacent to the core area 

where spawning activity later occurs 

(Colin, 1992; Kadison et al., 2010; 

Nemeth, 2012). Courtship is indicated 

by two behaviors that occur late in the 

afternoon: ‘‘following’’ and ‘‘circling’’ 

(Colin, 1992). The aggregation then 

moves into deeper water shortly before 

spawning (Colin, 1992; Tucker et al., 

1993; Carter et al., 1994). Progression 

from courtship to spawning may depend 

on aggregation size, but generally fish 

move up in the water column, with an 

increasing number of the fish exhibiting 

the bicolor phase (i.e. when spawning 

animals change to solid dark and white 

colors, temporarily losing their 

characteristic stripes) (Colin, 1992; 

Carter et al., 1994). Following the 

release of sperm and eggs, there is a 

rapid return of the spawning 

individuals to the bottom. 

Repeated spawning occurs at the same 

site for up to three consecutive months 

generally around the full moon or 

between the full and new moons (Smith, 

1971; Colin, 1992; Tucker et al., 1993; 

Aguilar-Perera, 1994; Carter et al., 1994; 

Tucker and Woodward, 1994). 

Examination of female reproductive 

tissue suggests multiple spawning 

events across several days at a single 

aggregation (Smith, 1972). A video 

recording shows a single female in 

repeated spawning rushes during a 

single night, repeatedly releasing eggs 

(Colin, 1992). 

Spawning Aggregations in U.S. Waters 

The best available information 

suggests that spawning in U.S. waters 

occurs at three sites: Bajo de Sico in 

waters off the coast of Puerto Rico 

(Scharer et al., 2012), Grammanik Bank 

in waters off the coast of the USVI 

(Nemeth et al., 2006), and Riley’s Hump 

within the Tortugas South Ecological 

Reserve in Florida (Locascio and Burton 

2015; J. McCawley, Pers. comm., 

December 9, 2022). These three sites are 

all at least partially protected under 

existing fishery regulations, as 

discussed below. For all three sites, it is 

unclear whether they are reconstituted 

(i.e., reestablished after depletion) or 

novel spawning sites. Nassau grouper 

spawning has been positively confirmed 

at Bajo de Sico (Scharer et al. 2012; 

Scharer et al. 2017; Tuohy et al. 2017) 

and Grammanik Bank (Nemeth et al. 

2006; Nemeth et al. 2009; Nemeth et al. 

2023). At Riley’s Hump, visual and 

acoustic evidence suggests that 

spawning is occurring there (Locascio 

and Burton 2015; J. McCawley, Pers. 

comm., December 9, 2022). A spawning 

aggregation site historically existed on 

the eastern tip of Lang Bank, USVI that 

was extirpated in the early 1980s; 

however, we have insufficient 

information regarding its continued 

existence or its current value to Nassau 

grouper spawning. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
132 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Bajo de Sico 

Bajo de Sico, in waters off the coast 

of Puerto Rico, is a submerged offshore 

seamount located in the Mona Passage 

off the insular platform of western 

Puerto Rico approximately 29 km west 

of Mayaguez (Scharer-Umpierre et al., 

2014). Reef bathymetry is characterized 

by a ridge of highly rugose rock 

promontories ranging in depths from 25 

to 45 m, which rise from a mostly flat, 

gradually sloping shelf that extends to 

100 m deep. Below this depth, the shelf 

ends in a vertical wall that reaches 

depths of 200–300 m to the southeast 

and over 1,000 m to the north (Tuohy 

et al., 2015). Most of the shallow (<180 

m depth) areas of this 11 km2 seamount 

are located in the U.S. exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ). Bajo de Sico is 

considered a mesophotic coral 

ecosystem due to the range of depths 

and coral/algae development. Where 

water depths are less than 50 m, this 

area is characterized by a reef top, 

vertical reef wall and rock 

promontories, colonized hardbottom 

with sand channels, uncolonized gravel, 

and substantial areas of rhodolith reef 

habitat (Garcia-Sais et al., 2007). 

In 1996, NMFS approved a 3-month 

seasonal fishing closure (December 1 

through February 28) in Federal waters 

at Bajo de Sico to protect spawning 

aggregations of red hind (61 FR 64485, 

December 5, 1996); the closure also 

partially protects Nassau grouper 

spawning aggregations (Scharer et al., 

2012). During the closure period, all 

fishing was prohibited (61 FR 64485). A 

later rule prohibited the use of bottomtending gear, including traps, pots, 

gillnets, trammel nets, and bottom 

longlines, in Bajo de Sico year-round 

(70 FR 62073, October 28, 2005). In 

2010, NMFS approved a modification to 

the Bajo de Sico seasonal closure, 

extending the closure period to 6- 

months (October 1 through March 31), 

altering the restriction to prohibit 

fishing for and possessing Caribbean 

reef fish in or from Federal waters at 

Bajo de Sico during the closure period, 

and prohibiting anchoring by fishing 

vessels year-round in the area (75 FR 

67247, November 2, 2010). The 2010 

rule is still in place. 

In February 2012, a Nassau grouper 

spawning aggregation was identified at 

Bajo de Sico when at least 60 

individuals were observed via video and 

audio recordings exhibiting 

reproductive behaviors (Scharer et al., 

2012). While actual spawning was not 

observed on the 2012 video recordings, 

all four Nassau grouper spawning 

coloration patterns and phases (Smith, 

1972; Colin, 1992; Archer et al., 2012) 

were observed, including the bi-color 

phase associated with peak spawning 

activity (Scharer et al., 2012). 

Subsequent diver surveys conducted 

from January 25 to April 5, 2016, 

indicated between 5–107 individuals at 

the site, with the greatest number 

occurring in February (Scharer et al., 

2017). The highest detection rate of 

tagged Nassau grouper (n=29) occurred 

in February and March, with other 

detections in January and April, all 

peaking following the full moon 

(Scharer et al., 2017). The depth range 

(40 to 155 m) being used by Nassau 

grouper at the Bajo de Sico exceeds 

other locations (Scharer et al., 2017). 

Grammanik Bank, USVI 

Grammanik Bank, USVI is located 

approximately 4 km east of the Hind 

Bank Marine Conservation District 

(MCD), on the southern edge of the 

Puerto Rican Shelf. Grammanik Bank is 

a narrow deep coral reef bank (35–40 m) 

about 1.69 km long and 100 m wide at 

the widest point located on the shelf 

edge about 14 miles south of St. 

Thomas. It is bordered to the north by 

extensive mesophotic reef and to the 

south by a steep drop-off and a deep 

Agaricea reef at 200–220 ft (60–70 m) 

(Nemeth et al., 2006; Scharer et al., 

2012). The benthic habitat is primarily 

composed of a mesophotic reef at 

depths between 30–60 m, which 

includes a combination of Montastrea 

and Orbicella coral and hardbottom 

interspersed with gorgonians and 

sponges (Smith et al., 2008). Corals are 

present on Grammanik Bank at depths 

between 35 and 40 m and the coral bank 

is bordered to the east and west by 

shallower (25 to 30 m) hardbottom 

ridges along the shelf edge, which is 

sparsely colonized by corals, 

gorgonians, and sponges (Nemeth et al., 

2006). When Hind Bank MCD was 

established in 1999 as the first no-take 

fishery reserve in the USVI to protect 

coral reef resources, reef fish stocks, 

including red hind (E. guttatus), and 

their habitats (64 FR 60132, November 

4, 1999), fishing pressure is thought to 

have moved to the adjacent Grammanik 

Bank (Nemeth et al., 2006). Fishing is 

prohibited for all species at Hind Bank 

MCD year-round. At Grammanik Bank, 

all fishing for species other than highly 

migratory species is prohibited from 

February 1 to April 30 of each year. The 

initial intent of the spatial closure was 

to protect yellowfin grouper 

(Mycteroperca venenosa) when they 

aggregate to spawn (70 FR 62073, 

October 28, 2005; Scharer et al., 2012), 

but this closure has also proven 

beneficial for the protection of spawning 

aggregations of tiger grouper (M. 

venenosa), yellowmouth grouper (M. 

interstitialis), cubera snapper (Lutjanus 

cyanopterus) and Nassau grouper 

(Nemeth et al. 2006). 

Approximately 100 Nassau grouper 

were observed aggregating at the 

Grammanik Bank in 2004 between 

January and March (Nemeth et al., 

2006). This discovery marked the first 

documented appearance of a Nassau 

grouper spawning aggregation site 

within U.S. waters since the mid-1970s 

(Kadison et al., 2009); however, 

commercial fishers were quick to target 

this new aggregation site and began to 

harvest both yellowfin (Mycteroperca 

venenosa) and Nassau groupers (Nemeth 

et al., 2006). In 2005, NMFS approved 

a measure developed by the Caribbean 

Fisheries Management Council (70 FR 

62073, October 10, 2005) that closed the 

Grammanik Bank to fishing for all 

species, with an exception for highly 

migratory species, from February 1 

through April 30 each year. Diver 

surveys and collection of fish in traps 

recorded 668 Nassau grouper at 

Grammanik Bank between 2004 and 

2009 (Kadison et al., 2010). The fish 

were of reproductive size and condition 

and arrived on and around the full 

moon in February, March, and April 

and then departed 10 to 12 days after 

the full moon. The number of Nassau 

grouper observed in diver visual surveys 

suggests that Nassau grouper spawning 

biomass has increased at the aggregation 

site from a maximum abundance of 30 

individuals sighted per day in 2005, to 

100 per day in 2009 (Kadison et al., 

2009). By 2013, a maximum abundance 

of 214 individuals was recorded per day 

(Scharer-Umpierre et al., 2014). Since 

then the maximum number of Nassau 

grouper counted per day during 

spawning periods has continued to 

increase, reaching over 500 in 2020, 750 

in February 2021, and at least 800 in 

January 2022 (R. S. Nemeth, 

unpublished data). 

The behavior of Nassau grouper in the 

aggregation has also changed 

dramatically in the past few years. From 

2004 to 2019, Nassau grouper were 

found aggregating in small groups of 10, 

20, or maybe as high as 40 individuals, 

resting close to the bottom among the 

coral heads. Nassau grouper were also 

observed to swim down the slope to 60 

to 80 m, presumably to spawn, to an 

extensive Agaricia larmarki reef that 

Nassau grouper also use for shelter (R. 

S. Nemeth, unpublished data). These 

deep movements were later verified 

with acoustic telemetry data, and 

Nassau grouper were suspected of 

spawning near this deep reef area. Since 

2020, Nassau grouper have been 

observed in groups of 100 to 300 fish 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 133 

aggregated 5 to 10 m above the bottom. 

On January 24, 2022 (7 days after full 

moon), researchers captured the first 

ever observation of Nassau grouper 

spawning at the Grammanik Bank at 

17:40 and a second spawning rush at 

18:10 (R.S. Nemeth, pers. comm., 

February 13, 2022). Spawning occurred 

well above the bottom in 30 to 40 m 

depth. Vocalization by Nassau grouper 

has suggested that abundance and 

spawning of Nassau grouper peaked at 

Grammanik Bank after the full moons in 

January through May (Rowell et al., 

2013). 

Nemeth et al. (2009) first reported 

synchronous movement of Nassau 

grouper during the spawning period 

between Hind Bank MCD and 

Grammanik Bank using acoustic 

telemetry. Both Nassau and yellowfin 

groupers primarily used two of three 

deep (50 m) parallel linear reefs that 

link Grammanik Bank with the Hind 

Bank MCD and lie in an east-west 

orientation parallel to the shelf edge. 

The linear reef about 300 to 500 m north 

of the shelf edge was used mostly by 

Nassau grouper. Acoustic telemetry and 

bioacoustic recordings were later 

integrated by Rowell et al. (2015) to 

identify a synchronized pathway taken 

by pre- and post -spawning Nassau 

grouper to the Grammanik Bank 

spawning site from the nearby Hind 

Bank MCD. While not every Nassau 

grouper was found to use this spawning 

route, the majority (64 percent) of the 

tagged fish followed this specific route 

on a regular or often daily basis during 

the week when spawning was occurring 

at Grammanik Bank. Because 56 percent 

of the tagged Nassau grouper (n=10) 

traversed between Hind Bank MCD and 

Grammanik Bank during spawning, it 

was suggested by Nemeth et al. (2009) 

and by Nemeth et al. (2023), that the 

boundary of the Grammanik Bank 

fishing closure area be expanded to the 

south, north, and west to protect the 

moving fish. 

It remains unknown whether the 

increasing abundance at the Nassau 

grouper aggregation at Grammanik Bank 

is a result of: (1) Remnant adults from 

the nearby overfished aggregation site 

(the historical Grouper Bank, now 

located within the Hind Bank Marine 

Conservation District) shifting spawning 

locations to the Grammanik Bank, a 

distance of about 5 km; (2) Larvae 

dispersed from distant spawning 

aggregations elsewhere in the Eastern 

Caribbean that have settled on the St. 

Thomas/St. John shelf, matured, and 

migrated to the Grammanik Bank 

spawning site; or (3) Self-recruitment by 

local reproduction from the remnant 

population. Each of these recovery 

scenarios is supported by various 

researchers who have observed these 

same phenomena in separate locations. 

The first scenario is supported by 

Heppel et al. (2013), who found that 

Nassau grouper visit multiple 

aggregation sites during the spawning 

season, yet all fish aggregate and spawn 

at a single location. The second scenario 

is supported by Jackson et al. (2014), 

who found strong genetic mixing of 

Nassau grouper populations among the 

Lesser and Greater Antilles, including 

Turks and Caicos. Bernard et al. (2015) 

also found that external recruitment is 

an important driver of the Grammanik 

Bank spawning aggregation recovery. 

The third scenario relies on selfrecruitment, a popular strategy of 

recruitment among marine species. 

Riley’s Hump, Florida 

Riley’s Hump, Florida, is located 

approximately 16 km to the southwest 

of the Dry Tortugas National Park and 

is within the boundaries of the Tortugas 

South Ecological Reserve. The larger 

area of the Dry Tortugas—which 

encompasses the Dry Tortugas National 

Park, the Tortugas Bank, the Tortugas 

South Ecological Reserve, and the 

Tortugas North Ecological Reserve— 

includes a series of carbonate banks and 

sand shoals located southwest of the 

Florida continental margin. Riley’s 

Hump is one of these carbonate banks, 

separated from the Tortugas Bank to the 

north by a deep trough, which is filled 

with thick sedimentary deposits. The 

bank crests at about 30 m, and has a 20 

m escarpment at the shelf break on the 

south side of the bank (Mallinson et al., 

2003). While coral cover on Riley’s 

Hump is relatively low, fish diversity is 

high and is characterized by species that 

are rare in other locations (Dahlgreen et 

al., 2001). 

Riley’s Hump is located within the 

boundaries of the Tortugas South 

Ecological Reserve, which has been 

closed to fishing since 2001, when both 

the North and South Ecological Reserves 

were established, adjacent to the Dry 

Tortugas National Park. The Tortugas 

South Ecological Reserve hosts several 

known annual spawning aggregations, 

including aggregations of mutton 

snapper, and likely black grouper, red 

grouper, red hind, and Nassau grouper 

(Locascio and Burton, 2015). The 

location and depth of Riley’s Hump 

make it particularly difficult to conduct 

annual monitoring projects. However, 

visual surveys have documented higher 

densities of Nassau groupers at Riley’s 

Hump than anywhere in Florida, and 

are estimated at roughly 1 adult per 0.04 

acres (D. Morley, Pers. comm., 

September 6, 2023). Some observations 

have included individuals displaying 

colorations and producing sounds 

associated with spawning (Locascio and 

Burton, 2015, J. Locascio, Pers. comm., 

September 6, 2023). 

The mechanism behind the spawning 

aggregation at Riley’s Hump remains 

unclear. The southern Florida reef tract 

is near the northern extent of the range 

of Nassau grouper, and the species is 

extremely rare in this location. 

However, historical accounts suggest 

that the species was once more common 

in the area; this aggregation could be a 

remnant of a depleted historical 

aggregation, or a new aggregation that is 

being formed by individuals which have 

settled and matured in the area. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We evaluated the comments and new 

information received from the public 

during the public comment period. 

Based on our consideration of these 

comments and the best scientific 

information available (as noted below in 

the Summary of Comments and 

Responses section), we made the 

following substantive changes to the 

final rule: 

1. Based on new information received 

during the public comment period, 

coupled with additional local ecological 

knowledge and baseline ecological 

studies we obtained following 

publication of the proposed rule, and as 

described above (see Natural History 

and Habitat Use), Riley’s Hump, 

Florida, is considered a third spawning 

aggregation area in U.S. waters, and we 

are including this area in the critical 

habitat designation. To reflect this 

change in the critical habitat 

designation, we added the following 

textual description of the Riley’s Hump 

spawning unit to read as follows: 

Spawning Site Unit 3—Riley’s Hump— 

All waters encompassing Riley’s Hump 

located southwest of the Dry Tortugas 

out to the 35 m isobath on the north, 

west, and east side of the hump and out 

to the 50 m isobath on the south side of 

the hump. See comment 10 and our 

response to the comment for further 

explanation of this change. 

2. We extended the offshore boundary 

of Puerto Rico Unit 1 out to the 50 m 

isobaths off the islands of Mona and 

Monito and modified the associated 

description to read as follows: Puerto 

Rico Unit 1—Isla de Mona and 

Monito—All waters surrounding the 

islands of Mona and Monito from the 

shoreline to the 50 m isobaths. This 

change was driven by years of 

monitoring data and scientific 

observations we received during the 

public comment period from an 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
134 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

internationally-recognized researcher, 

whose work includes in-depth studies 

of habitat use by Nassau grouper at 

these locations. Comment 8 and our 

response to the comment provides 

further explanation of this change. 

3. We extended the offshore boundary 

for Puerto Rico Unit 2 out to the 50 m 

isobaths off the island of Desecheo and 

revised the associated textual 

description to read as follows: Puerto 

Rico Unit 2—Desecheo Island—All 

waters surrounding the island of 

Desecheo from the shoreline to the 50 m 

isobath. This change was driven by 

years of monitoring data and scientific 

observations we received from the same 

researcher regarding this specific habitat 

unit. See comment 8 and our response 

to the comment for a more detailed 

explanation of this change. 

We updated the maps of Puerto Rico 

Units 1 and 2 to reflect the extension of 

these units’ boundaries and have 

included a new map of Spawning Site 

Unit 3—Riley’s Hump. As a result of 

these changes, the total area 

encompassed by this final designation 

has increased by 32.4 sq. km (12.51 sq. 

miles), compared to the proposed 

designation. 

Other Changes 

In addition to substantive changes in 

the final rule described above, we also 

made clarifying changes to the final 

rule, and to the Critical Habitat Report, 

in response to public comments and 

new information. Specifically, the 

economic values are updated and 

detailed in both the final rule and the 

Critical Habitat Report. We considered 

whether the extended boundaries for 

Puerto Rico Units 1 and 2 and the 

addition of Spawning Site Unit 3— 

Riley’s Hump would alter the number 

and nature of ESA section 7 

consultations included in the analysis 

and whether any additional economic, 

national security, other relevant impacts 

that were not previously considered 

could be identified. We confirmed that 

no additional section 7 consultations 

relevant to the expansion of Puerto Rico 

Units 1 and 2 or the addition of 

Spawning Site Unit 3—Riley’s Hump 

are expected or should be incorporated 

into the economic analysis, and we 

received no additional information 

regarding future planned or expected 

federal activities within these areas. 

Therefore, we project no additional 

economic impacts as a result of these 

changes. Further, the added areas are 

already located within reserve areas and 

are not used for military purposes. For 

this reason, the newly added areas pose 

no impacts to national security. No 

other relevant impacts were identified 

as a result of these changes in the 

specific areas of the critical habitat. 

Therefore, while the specific areas 

under consideration changed slightly to 

include an additional 32.4 sq. km (12.51 

sq. miles), no changes were made to the 

conclusions of our ESA section 4(b)(2) 

analysis. 

Summary of Public Comments and 

Responses 

We solicited comments on the 

proposed rule and the supporting 

Critical Habitat Report during a 60-day 

comment period (87 FR 62930, October 

17, 2022). To facilitate public 

participation, the proposed rule was 

made available on our website and 

comments were accepted via both 

standard mail and through the Federal 

eRulemaking portal, https://

www.regulations.gov. 

We received 18 comments; of these, 

16 comments were generally supportive 

of the proposed rule. One comment 

opposed the proposed designation, but 

it provided no rationale or additional 

information to controvert our analysis or 

conclusions. Another comment was not 

relevant to the subject of Nassau grouper 

critical habitat and was likely submitted 

to the wrong comment docket. All 

public comments are posted on the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (docket 

number: NOAA–NMFS–2022–0073). We 

reviewed and fully considered all 

relevant public comments and 

significant new information received in 

developing the final critical habitat 

designation. Where appropriate, we 

have combined similar comments from 

multiple commenters and addressed 

them together. 

General Comments in Support of the 

Proposed Rule 

Comment 1: The majority (89 percent) 

of the comments we received were 

supportive of the proposed rule and did 

not include substantive content or 

suggest any changes to the proposed 

critical habitat designations. Many of 

these comments noted that critical 

habitat designation is a crucial aspect of 

population recovery while also noting 

benefits to the surrounding ecosystem. 

Other comments pointed to the decline 

in habitat quality throughout the range 

of the Nassau grouper and the 

consequent need to preserve and protect 

habitat that is deemed critical to the 

species. Many of the comments also 

acknowledged human-induced 

reduction of the species via overfishing, 

specifically at spawning aggregation 

sites. 

Response: We appreciate these 

comments. We look forward to working 

with stakeholders throughout the range 

of the Nassau grouper to promote the 

recovery of the species, and 

acknowledge that the critical habitat 

designation is one step in that process. 

As described in the final listing 

determination (81 FR42268), we concur 

that overfishing, particularly at 

spawning aggregations, is the primary 

threat to the species. 

Comments on Need for Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection 

Comment 2: One commenter 

requested that we expand the Need for 

special management considerations or 

protection section. 

Response: The commenter did not 

provide any additional detail as to what 

aspect of the section needed further 

expansion or explain why the 

commenter thought our analysis was 

insufficient. In response to this 

comment, we reviewed our discussion 

and explanation of how the identified 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of Nassau 

grouper meet the ‘‘may require special 

management considerations or 

protections’’ aspect of the statutory 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ As 

described in the proposed rule (87 FR 

62930), we found that the essential 

feature components that support 

settlement, development, refuge, and 

foraging (essential feature 1, 

components a through d) are 

particularly susceptible to impacts from 

human activity because of the relatively 

shallow water depth range where these 

features occur as well as their proximity 

to the coast. As a result, these features 

may be directly and indirectly impacted 

by activities such as coastal and inwater construction, dredging and 

disposal activities, beach nourishment, 

stormwater run-off, wastewater and 

sewage outflow discharges, point and 

non-point source pollutant discharges, 

fishing activities, and 

anthropogenically-induced climate 

change. The spawning aggregation sites 

essential feature (essential feature 2) is 

affected by activities that may make the 

sites unsuitable for reproductive 

activity, such as activities that inhibit 

fish movement to and from the sites or 

within the sites during the period the 

fish are expected to spawn, or create 

conditions that deter the fish from 

selecting the site for reproduction. 

Further, because the spawning 

aggregation sites are so discrete and rare 

and the species’ reproduction depends 

on their use of aggregation sites, the 

species is highly vulnerable at these 

locations and loss of an aggregation site 

could lead to significant population 

impacts. By identifying and discussing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 135 

these various sources and types of 

impacts on the essential features of the 

critical habitat we provide sufficient 

demonstration that the essential features 

meet the ‘‘may require special 

management or protections’’ prong of 

the definition of critical habitat. We 

note that we are not obligated to identify 

all possible management concerns or 

protections that may be relevant, nor 

does the ESA require that we do so. 

However, in response to this comment, 

we note that activities that inhibit fish 

movement to and from spawning sites 

or create conditions that deter the fish 

from selecting the site for reproduction 

by altering the essential features 

described in this rule, might include the 

placement of in-water barriers, direct 

physical destruction of benthic habitats 

both at the site and within migratory 

corridors, and pollution (e.g., chemical 

or noise) that renders the site less 

biologically suitable. 

Comments on Economic Analysis 

Comment 3: One commenter asked 

whether private landowners were 

contacted regarding the economic 

impact of the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

Response: Private landowners as well 

as all other stakeholders were given an 

opportunity to provide comments 

during the 60-day public comment 

period on the proposed rule. In 

addition, a thorough economic analysis 

was conducted as an integral part of the 

critical habitat proposed rule (81 FR 

42268, October 17, 2022). All publicly 

available resources were used to 

identify economic impacts that would 

result from the designation of critical 

habitat. As explained in the economic 

analysis, the only types of activities for 

which private landowners might incur 

costs stemming from the critical habitat 

are those related to in-water and coastal 

construction (e.g., docks, boat ramps, 

marina). Further, the economic analysis 

concludes that the designation would 

not result in the need for changes to 

such projects beyond those already 

required due to existing (‘‘baseline’’) 

regulations, such as the presence of the 

ESA-listed Nassau grouper and corals 

and existing designated critical habitat 

for seven species of listed corals. The 

only incremental costs potentially 

incurred by private landowners are the 

administrative costs of addressing 

effects to Nassau grouper critical habitat 

through informal and formal section 7 

consultations, and most of these costs 

would be borne by the responsible 

federal action agency (e.g., U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers). Due to the presence 

of ESA-listed species and designated 

critical habitat for other species, these 

section 7 consultations would occur 

absent the designation of critical habitat 

for Nassau grouper. The analysis 

projects that fewer than two section 7 

formal consultations and fewer than 80 

informal consultations on constructionrelated projects would consider effects 

to Nassau grouper critical habitat over 

the next 10 years. This equates to less 

than 0.2 formal consultations and fewer 

than eight informal consultations per 

year. Based on the best available 

information, third party administrative 

section 7 costs directly attributable to 

Nassau grouper critical habitat would be 

approximately $510 per informal 

consultation (2022 dollars). It is highly 

unlikely that these costs would deter a 

private landowner from completing a 

construction project. As there would be 

no incremental costs to or restrictions 

placed on private landowners 

conducting activities that do not involve 

a federal agency, there is no basis for 

concluding there would be any loss in 

property values or impact on the scope 

or volume of non-federally regulated 

activities. 

Comments on Exclusion of Managed 

Areas 

Comment 4: One commenter asked 

why managed areas, as defined in the 

proposed rule, are not considered for 

critical habitat designation. A separate 

commenter referred to the proposed 

treatment of navigation channels as 

managed areas and requested that 

NMFS include navigation channels and 

their immediate surroundings within 

the critical habitat designation. This 

commenter also stated that federal 

activities that adversely affect critical 

habitat should be mitigated under ESA 

section 7 and not excluded from critical 

habitat designation. 

Response: The proposed rule 

specified that an area would not be 

included in critical habitat if it is a 

managed area where the substrate is 

continually disturbed by planned 

management activities authorized by 

local, state, or Federal governmental 

entities at the time of critical habitat 

designation and will continue to be 

disturbed by such management. 

Examples of managed areas included 

dredged navigation channels, shipping 

basins, vessel berths, and active 

anchorages. Due to the ongoing use and 

maintenance of these managed areas 

and the persistent disturbance of the 

bottom, the areas are poor habitat with 

little to no ability to support the longterm conservation of Nassau grouper. 

Therefore, we did not include managed 

areas within the proposed critical 

habitat designation. We also explained 

in the proposed rule that channel 

dredging may result in sedimentation 

impacts beyond the actual channel edge, 

and to the extent these impacts are 

persistent, they are expected to recur 

whenever the channel is dredged and 

are of such a level that the areas in 

question are currently unsuitable to 

support the essential features of critical 

habitat. As a result, we consider such 

areas as part of the managed areas that 

are not included in the final 

designation. We note that ESA section 7 

consultations on actions that propose 

new or modified navigation channels 

will consider impacts to the essential 

features of Nassau grouper critical 

habitat outside of pre-existing managed 

areas. 

Comments on Predation Threats to the 

Species 

Comment 5: One commenter 

questioned why impacts from invasive 

lionfish were not included in the critical 

habitat proposed rule and provided a 

reference that observed Nassau grouper 

in direct competition with the red 

lionfish in high quality habitats, as well 

as predation by lionfish on juvenile 

Nassau grouper. 

Response: The final listing 

determination for Nassau grouper (81 

FR42268; June 29, 2016) considered the 

factors for listing as outlined in section 

4(a)(1). One of these factors (factor C) 

identifies predation as a potential basis 

for listing a species. Based on the 

extinction risk analysis and supporting 

documentation in the biological report, 

it was determined that Nassau grouper 

is at a ‘‘very low risk’’ of extinction due 

to predation. Any additional threats 

from invasive species could be 

considered under risk factor E (i.e., 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence), 

however, competition with invasive 

lionfish was not considered as a threat 

to the existence of the species, nor were 

any other invasive species considered as 

direct threats to the existence of Nassau 

grouper. Nassau grouper occupy a niche 

as a large-bodied predator within coral 

reef fish communities throughout its 

range. As an integral part of the fish 

community, they are subjected to 

competition with a variety of other 

species, including the red lionfish 

(Pterois volitans), but we have no 

information to undermine our previous 

conclusion that Nassau grouper is at low 

risk of extinction due to predation. 

Additionally, there is no indication that 

red lionfish alter the essential features 

of the critical habitat designation. We 

reviewed and considered the comment, 

as well as the referenced paper, and did 

not find a basis to alter the areas 

designated as critical habitat, nor the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
136 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

essential features of critical habitat, as a 

result. The referenced paper specifically 

mentions that red lionfish do not prey 

on Nassau grouper, and therefore that 

effect was considered negligible. 

Comments on the Essential Features 

Comment 6: One commenter 

requested that the phrase ‘‘close 

proximity’’ in the description of the 

recruitment and developmental habitat 

essential feature be expanded upon in 

the final rule to increase public and 

federal agency awareness. The 

commenter also provided a copy of a 

peer-reviewed publication (Blincow et 

al., 2020) that could be used to inform 

movement and range estimates. 

Response: In our description of the 

essential features, we proposed to 

describe the intermediate hardbottom 

and seagrass areas in ‘‘close proximity’’ 

to the nearshore shallow subtidal 

marine nursery areas, and the offshore 

linear and patch reefs in ‘‘close 

proximity’’ to intermediate hardbottom 

and seagrass areas. We use the term 

‘‘close proximity’’ to account for the 

high variability in habitat 

configurations, oceanographic 

conditions, and the movement patterns 

of individual Nassau grouper, which 

also vary across developmental stages, 

rather than prescribe a particular 

distance. We find that this term allows 

us to appropriately describe and include 

habitat components that are needed and 

accessible to maturing individual 

groupers as they recruit and progress to 

successive developmental stages and the 

bottom types that support each stage of 

development and to exclude areas that 

may have the prescribed bottom 

characteristics, but which are isolated 

from areas that support other 

developmental stages. As per the 

regulations for designating critical 

habitat (50 CFR 424.12) the description 

outlined above is the appropriate level 

of specificity for the essential feature 

based on the available information for 

this species. 

The peer-reviewed publication 

(Blincow et al., 2020) referenced by the 

commenter demonstrates a clear 

variability in depth use by Nassau 

grouper depending on the condition of 

the individual (i.e., the relative health of 

the individual), but does not attempt to 

quantify the extent of daily movements. 

In addition, the referenced publication 

discusses movement patterns of Nassau 

grouper adults and does not include the 

juveniles that were discussed in the 

recruitment and developmental habitat 

essential feature. We therefore have 

retained the term ‘‘close proximity’’ in 

the description of the recruitment and 

development habitat essential feature as 

appropriate to prioritize the proximity 

of progressive ontogenetic habitats 

rather than the range movements of 

individual adults. 

Comments on Critical Habitat Units 

Comment 7: One commenter 

suggested that Florida Unit 1 be 

expanded farther north, while Florida 

Units 3 and 4 be expanded to include 

areas off of Boca Chica and Key West. 

Response: The commenter did not 

provide any new supporting evidence as 

to why the Florida units should be 

expanded beyond a slightly different 

interpretation of the same maps that we 

considered. The areas identified as 

critical habitat include the benthic types 

listed in the recruitment and 

developmental habitat essential feature, 

as determined by an analysis of the best 

available benthic maps, and the areas 

suggested by the commenter do not 

include the necessary features. 

Specifically, the areas included in 

Florida Units 1, 3, and 4 comprise hard 

bottom habitat with a mosaic of benthic 

habitats including pavement, seagrass, 

and carbonate sand and rubble. The 

areas adjacent to these units that are 

suggested by the commenter do not 

include the benthic types we specified 

for this essential feature, as the sites had 

clear breaks of contiguous habitats (e.g., 

seagrass, colonized hardbottom) that 

were discontinued at the specified 

critical habitat boundaries and are 

therefore not designated as critical 

habitat. 

Comment 8: One commenter 

requested the expansion of the critical 

habitat designations around the oceanic 

islands of Desecheo, Mona, and Monito, 

off the west coast of Puerto Rico, to 

include all platform areas up to the 50 

m (164 ft) depth contour. They provided 

peer-reviewed scientific literature to 

support the assertion that the unique 

characteristics of these islands require 

special consideration with regards to 

habitat use by Nassau grouper. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that these habitats should be 

included in the critical habitat 

designation and as mentioned above in 

the summary of changes, we have 

incorporated the suggestions into the 

final rule, specifically in Puerto Rico 

Units 1 and 2. The commenter provided 

ample scientific data, including years of 

monitoring data as well as scientific 

observation, to indicate that Nassau 

grouper use the platforms of these 

isolated islands differently than other 

insular shelf areas. Oceanographic 

conditions in the Mona Passage cause a 

biogeographic barrier that limits genetic 

connectivity on either side of the barrier 

(Baums et al., 2006, Beltran et al., 2017, 

Taylor and Hellberg, 2003), while 

promoting self-recruiting populations 

on the islands within the channel 

(Olson et al., 2019). Due to the unique 

nature of these oceanic islands (i.e., 

Mona, Monito, and Desecheo), 

including the extreme bathymetric slope 

and limited availability of shallow and 

nearshore habitats, the essential 

physical and biological features 

associated with recruitment and 

developmental habitat are found and 

used by all Nassau grouper life stages in 

benthic habitats from the shoreline up 

to depths of 50 m (Aguilar-Perera et al., 

2006, Scharer, 2009, Garcia-Sais et al., 

2017). We therefore determined that the 

recruitment and developmental habitat 

essential feature was present throughout 

these oceanic island shelf areas from the 

shoreline out to depths of 50 m. 

Comment 9: One commenter 

suggested that information was missing 

from the Florida data analyses in that 

data from NOAA’s National Coral Reef 

Monitoring Program (NCRMP) diver 

surveys regarding the density of Nassau 

grouper and their habitat use was not 

evaluated. 

Response: The NCRMP dataset on fish 

communities, which is a subset of the 

Coral Reef Information System, is a 

stationary point count method to 

quantify fish diversity and abundance in 

coral reef environments under U.S. 

jurisdictions. The dataset is extremely 

useful to determine the presence or 

absence of a species, and therefore can 

be extrapolated to answer questions 

about the range of a species and habitat 

use. Evaluations of 23 years of NCRMP 

data (1999–2022) indicated Nassau 

grouper utilize the following habitat 

types: contiguous hardbottom, isolated 

patch reefs, spur and groove reef and 

rubble. Nassau grouper densities were 

extremely low throughout their range; 

however, the NCRMP data is consistent 

with the known range of the species, 

and is therefore consistent with the 

critical habitat designation. The dataset 

was therefore considered, but not 

incorporated into the rule nor the 

supporting documentation, due to the 

limitations of the data for the specific 

application of designating critical 

habitat for an extremely rare species. 

Comment 10: One commenter 

requested expanding the critical habitat 

designation near the Dry Tortugas in 

Florida to include a feature known as 

‘‘Riley’s Hump’’ as a potential spawning 

aggregation site, citing the 

geomorphological features of the 

seamount as well as years of continuous 

monitoring at the site where individuals 

were observed to exhibit courting 

behavior, spawning color patterns, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 137 

sounds associated with spawning 

activity. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter regarding the inclusion of 

Riley’s Hump into the final ruling and 

have done so in the form of a new unit 

in the final rule, titled ‘‘Spawning Site 

Unit 3—Riley’s Hump.’’ As the 

commenter points out, Riley’s Hump is 

an extremely productive multi-species 

spawning aggregation site. The Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute has 

documented several grouper and 

snapper species aggregating and 

spawning at Riley’s Hump. Nassau 

grouper have been observed among the 

fishes at these aggregation sites, and 

these individuals have displayed 

spawning coloration, behaviors, and 

sound production (Locascio and Burton, 

2015). In addition, limited surveys at 

Riley’s Hump have documented 

substantially higher Nassau grouper 

encounter rates (>66 percent of sample 

sites) as compared to the rest of the 

Florida reef tract (<1 percent of sample 

sites). We have concluded that Riley’s 

Hump contains the spawning habitat 

essential feature and consequently 

warrants inclusion in the critical habitat 

designation due to the relatively higher 

density of Nassau grouper at the site, 

multiple observations of individuals 

exhibiting spawning behavior 

(including courtship coloration and 

sound production associated with 

spawning activity), the presence of these 

individuals at known spawning times, 

and the yearly reoccurrence of their 

presence. 

Critical Habitat Identification and 

Designation 

In the following sections, we describe 

the application of relevant definitions 

and requirements in the ESA and 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 

424 and the key information and criteria 

used to prepare this critical habitat 

designation. In accordance with section 

4(b)(2) of the ESA, this critical habitat 

designation is based on the best 

scientific data available and takes into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Scientific data used to identify critical 

habitat includes the information 

contained in the Biological Report for 

the Nassau grouper (Hill and Sadovy de 

Mitcheson, 2013), the proposed and 

final rules to list the Nassau grouper 

under the ESA (79 FR 51929, September 

2, 2014; 81 FR 42268, June 29, 2016), 

articles in peer-reviewed journals, other 

scientific reports and fishery 

management plans, and relevant 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

data (e.g., shoreline data, U.S. maritime 

limits and boundaries data) for 

geographic area calculations and 

mapping. To identify specific areas that 

may qualify as critical habitat for 

Nassau grouper, in accordance with 50 

CFR 424.12(b), we undertook the 

following steps: Identified the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing; identified 

physical or biological habitat features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species; identified the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species that contain one or more 

of the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species; determined which of these 

essential features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and evaluated whether any 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species are 

essential for the species’ conservation. 

Our evaluations and conclusions are 

described in detail in the following 

sections. 

Geographical Area Occupied by the 

Species 

The phrase ‘‘geographical areas 

occupied by the species,’’ which 

appears in the statutory definition of 

critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)), 

is defined by regulation as ‘‘an area that 

may generally be delineated around 

species’ occurrences, as determined by 

the Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas 

may include those areas used 

throughout all or part of the species’ life 

cycle, even if not used on a regular basis 

(e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal 

habitats, and habitats used periodically, 

but not solely by vagrant individuals) 

(50 CFR 424.02). 

Nassau groupers are found in tropical 

and subtropical waters of the western 

North Atlantic. The 2016 listing rule 

identified the distribution or range of 

the Nassau grouper as ‘‘Bermuda and 

Florida (USA), throughout the Bahamas 

and Caribbean Sea’’ (81 FR 42268, 

42271; June 29, 2016) based on existing 

literature (e.g., Heemstra and Randall, 

1993). They generally live among 

shallow reefs but can be found in depths 

to 130 m (426 feet). Many earlier reports 

of Nassau grouper up the Atlantic coast 

of Florida to North Carolina have not 

been confirmed (Hill and Sadovy de 

Mitcheson, 2013). 

We investigated the distribution of 

Nassau grouper in the Gulf of Mexico. 

As summarized in the 2016 listing rule, 

Nassau grouper is generally replaced 

ecologically in the eastern Gulf of 

Mexico, in areas north of Key West or 

the Tortugas, by red grouper (E. morio) 

(Smith, 1971). Nassau grouper are 

considered a rare or transient species off 

Texas in the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico (Gunter and Knapp, 1951 in 

Hoese and Moore, 1998). The only 

confirmed sighting of Nassau grouper in 

the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS), which is 

located in the northwest Gulf of Mexico 

approximately 180 km southeast of 

Galveston, Texas, was reported by Foley 

et al. (2007). Since then, no additional 

Nassau grouper have been reported in 

the FGBNMS despite an extensive 

survey by remote operated vehicles (E. 

Hickerson, FGBNMS, personal 

communication, 2021). There are two 

records (1996 and 2006) of Nassau 

grouper in the Gulf of Mexico from the 

NMFS Southeast Area Monitoring and 

Assessment Program (SEAMAP) reef 

fish video (RFV) survey. This RFV 

survey of hardbottom habitats in the 

Gulf of Mexico has been conducted 

annually since 1992 (with the exception 

of 1998–2000 and 2020) at 

approximately 300 sites and targets 

snappers and groupers at mesophotic 

reefs out to the 200 m depth contour 

between the Florida Keys and Texas. 

Both sightings were presumed adult 

Nassau grouper and both occurred off 

the Florida west coast: one off the 

panhandle and one west of the Dry 

Tortugas (K. Rademacher, NMFS, 

personal communication, 2021). We 

conclude from the paucity of these 

reports that the Nassau grouper does not 

regularly occur in the United States 

portion of the Gulf of Mexico. 

The range of the Nassau grouper 

spans the wider Caribbean, and 

specifically the east coast of Florida 

including the Florida Keys, Puerto Rico, 

and USVI in the United States (Hill and 

Sadovy de Mitcheson, 2013). Because 

we cannot designate critical habitat 

areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction (50 

CFR 424.12(g)), the geographical area 

under consideration for this designation 

is limited to areas under the jurisdiction 

of the United States. 

Physical and Biological Features 

Essential to Conservation 

Within the geographical area 

occupied by the species, critical habitat 

consists of specific areas on which are 

found physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection (16 U.S.C. 1532(3). Features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are defined as features that are 

essential to support the life-history 

needs of the species, including but not 

limited to, water characteristics, soil 

type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
138 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

To assess habitat features that are 

‘‘essential to the conservation’’ of 

Nassau grouper, we considered the 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to support the life history 

needs and are essential to the 

conservation of Nassau grouper within 

the areas they occupy within U.S. 

waters. As noted previously, section 3 of 

the ESA defines the terms ‘‘conserve,’’ 

‘‘conserving,’’ and ‘‘conservation’’ to 

mean: ‘‘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)). 

Because the reduction in the number 

of Nassau grouper through historical 

harvest and fishing at spawning 

aggregations was a major factor in the 

listing determination (81 FR 42286, June 

26, 2016), Nassau grouper conservation 

necessitates increasing the number of 

individuals, particularly the spawning 

population. Therefore, we have 

identified physical and biological 

features that support reproduction, 

recruitment, and growth as essential to 

the species’ conservation. For the 

Nassau grouper, critical habitat includes 

physical and biological features to 

support adult reproduction at the 

spawning aggregations, settlement of 

larvae, and subsequent growth to 

maturity. These features are essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

long-term population recovery relies on 

successful recruitment and the existence 

of individuals across a broad size range. 

Nassau grouper populations are 

dependent on settlement of pelagic 

larvae to coastal locations and rely on a 

contiguous reef system to accommodate 

habitat shifts from inshore locations to 

nearshore patch reefs and hardbottom 

areas and subsequent movement into 

offshore reef habitats as the individuals 

mature. Both natural and artificial reefs 

are used. While in nursery habitats, 

juvenile grouper associate with a variety 

of microhabitats, including macroalgae, 

seagrass, empty conch shells, coral 

patches, sponges, rubble mounds 

produced by sand tilefish (Malcanthus 

plumieri) (Bloch, 1786), artificial 

structures, and debris (Eggleston, 1995; 

Colin et al., 1997; Eggleston et al., 1998; 

Aguilar-Perera et al., 2006; Claydon and 

Kroetz, 2008; Claydon et al., 2009, 

2011). Nassau grouper conservation 

requires habitat to support growth from 

larval settlement in the nearshore to 

maturity, with appropriate inter-habitat 

connectivity to support movement from 

nearshore habitat used for larval 

settlement, to intermediate areas used 

by juveniles, and finally to offshore 

areas used by adults. Observations at 

documented spawning sites indicate 

that spawning aggregation sites are 

typically located near the edge of an 

insular platform, often in areas that are 

close to shore, yet also close to a deepwater drop-off. These sites are generally 

small, some measuring several hundred 

meters in diameter, and can contain a 

wide diversity of bottom types (Craig, 

1966; Smith, 1990; Beets and 

Friedlander, 1992; Colin, 1992; AguilarPerera, 1994). The spawning habitat 

designated as critical habitat include the 

specific sites used for spawning (i.e., 

where the fish aggregate and release 

gametes into the water column) as well 

as any documented staging areas (i.e., 

the areas used by adult Nassau grouper 

in between spawning events) and 

known migration corridors between 

neighboring spawning locations. 

Within the habitats used by Nassau 

grouper as they progress through their 

life history stages, we have identified 

the following essential features, which 

remain unchanged from the proposed 

rule (87 FR 62930): 

1. Recruitment and developmental 

habitat. Areas from nearshore to 

offshore necessary for recruitment, 

development, and growth of Nassau 

grouper containing a variety of benthic 

types that provide cover from predators 

and habitat for prey, consisting of the 

following: 

a. Nearshore shallow subtidal marine 

nursery areas with substrate that 

consists of unconsolidated calcareous 

medium to very coarse sediments (>= 

0.5 mm grain size, as per Wentworth 

1922) and shell and coral fragments and 

may also include cobble, boulders, 

whole corals and shells, or rubble 

mounds, to support larval settlement 

and provide shelter from predators 

during growth and habitat for prey. 

b. Intermediate hardbottom and 

seagrass areas in close proximity to the 

nearshore shallow subtidal marine 

nursery areas that provide refuge and 

prey resources for juvenile fish. The 

areas include seagrass interspersed with 

areas of rubble, boulders, shell 

fragments, or other forms of cover; 

inshore patch and fore reefs that provide 

crevices and holes; or substrates 

interspersed with scattered sponges, 

octocorals, rock and macroalgal patches, 

or stony corals. 

c. Offshore linear and patch reefs in 

close proximity to intermediate 

hardbottom and seagrass areas that 

contain multiple benthic types; for 

example: coral reef, colonized 

hardbottom, sponge habitat, coral 

rubble, rocky outcrops, or ledges, to 

provide shelter from predation during 

maturation and habitat for prey. 

d. Structures between the subtidal 

nearshore area and the intermediate 

hardbottom and seagrass area and the 

offshore reef area including overhangs, 

crevices, depressions, blowout ledges, 

holes, and other types of formations of 

varying sizes and complexity to support 

juveniles and adults as movement 

corridors that include temporary refuge 

that reduces predation risk as Nassau 

grouper move from nearshore to 

offshore habitats. 

2. Spawning Habitat. Marine sites 

used for spawning and adjacent waters 

that support movement and staging 

associated with spawning. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

Specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by a species at the time 

of listing may be designated as critical 

habitat only if they contain essential 

features that ‘‘may require special 

management considerations or 

protection’’ (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)(II)). 

Special management considerations or 

protection are defined as any ‘‘methods 

or procedures useful in protecting the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of listed species’’ (50 

CFR 424.02). 

The essential feature components that 

support settlement, development, 

refuge, and foraging (essential feature 1, 

components a through d) are 

particularly susceptible to impacts from 

human activity because of the relatively 

shallow water depth range where these 

features occur as well as their proximity 

to the coast. As a result, these features 

may be impacted by activities such as 

coastal and in-water construction, 

dredging and disposal activities, beach 

nourishment, stormwater run-off, 

wastewater and sewage outflow 

discharges, point and non-point source 

pollutant discharges, and fishing 

activities. Coastal and in-water 

construction, dredging and disposal, 

and beach nourishment activities can 

directly remove the essential feature 

that supports settlement, development, 

refuge, and foraging by dredging or by 

depositing sediments, making habitat 

unavailable. These same activities can 

impact the essential feature by creating 

turbidity during operations. Stormwater 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 139 

run-off, wastewater and sewage outflow 

discharges, and point and non-point 

source pollutant discharges can 

adversely impact the essential feature by 

allowing nutrients and sediments from 

point and non-point sources to alter the 

natural levels of nutrients or sediments 

in the water column, which could 

negatively impact the substrate 

characteristics or health (e.g., seagrass 

and corals). In addition to the direct 

removal of individuals from their 

preferred habitats, fishing activities can 

be destructive in nature and alter the 

essential features of the habitat by 

physical impacts of weights, nets, lead 

lines, and other gear types. Further, the 

global oceans are being impacted by 

climate change from greenhouse gas 

emissions. The impacts from all these 

activities, combined with those from 

natural factors (e.g., major storm events) 

affect the habitat, including the 

components described for this essential 

feature. We conclude that this essential 

feature is currently and will likely 

continue to be negatively impacted by 

some or all of these factors. 

The spawning habitat essential feature 

(essential feature 2) is affected by 

activities that may make the sites 

unsuitable for reproductive activity, 

such as activities that inhibit fish 

movement to and from the sites or 

within the sites during the period the 

fish are expected to spawn or create 

conditions that deter the fish from 

selecting the site for reproduction. 

Pollution leading to significant declines 

in water quality may render spawning 

locations unusable or reduce adult or 

egg survival. Acoustic disturbances may 

also inhibit spawning activity due to the 

acoustic cues used by the animal during 

courtship and spawning behaviors. 

Further, because the spawning 

aggregation sites are so discrete and 

rare, and the species’ reproduction 

depends on their use of these sites, the 

species is highly vulnerable at these 

locations and loss of an aggregation site 

could lead to significant population 

impacts. 

Based on the above, we determined 

that the essential features may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. 

Specific Areas Within the Geographic 

Area Occupied by the Species 

Containing the Essential Features 

To determine what areas qualify as 

critical habitat within the geographical 

area occupied by the species, we are 

required to identify ‘‘specific areas’’ 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species that contain the physical 

or biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species (50 CFR 

424.12(b)(1)(iii)). Delineation of the 

specific areas is done ‘‘at a scale 

determined by the Secretary [of 

Commerce] to be appropriate’’ (50 CFR 

424.12(b)(1)). Our regulations also 

require that each critical habitat area be 

shown on a map with more-detailed 

information discussed in the preamble 

of the rulemaking documents in the 

Federal Register, which will reference 

each area by the State, county, or other 

local governmental unit in which it is 

located (50 CFR 424.12(c)). In 

determining the appropriate boundaries 

and mapping the specific areas of 

critical habitat, we relied on the best 

available data as further described 

below and including the Critical Habitat 

Report. A main goal in determining and 

mapping the boundaries of the specific 

areas is to provide a clear description 

and documentation of the areas 

containing the identified essential 

features. This is ultimately crucial to 

ensuring that Federal action agencies 

are able to determine whether their 

particular actions may affect the critical 

habitat. 

Available habitat and bathymetric 

data layers were examined with the help 

of databases from Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission 

(FWC) Unified Florida Reef Tract, the 

Nature Conservancy, and NOAA to 

determine the contiguous areas of 

appropriate habitat complexity that 

contain a combination of habitat 

characteristics relevant to the essential 

features supporting Nassau grouper 

development, refuge, and foraging. For 

example, we used information from the 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean 

Science Benthic Habitat Mapping 

program that provides data and maps at 

http://products.coastalscience.

noaa.gov/collections/benthic/ 

default.aspx and the Unified Florida 

Reef Tract Map found at https://

myfwc.com/research/gis/regionalprojects/unified-reef-map/. 

These resources provide maps and 

information on the location of habitat 

features important to Nassau grouper 

such as seagrass; unconsolidated 

calcareous sediment of medium to very 

coarse sediments (not fine sand) 

including shell and coral fragments 

interspersed with cobble, boulders, 

corals, and rubble mounds; continuous 

and discontinuous areas of seagrass and 

inshore patch and fore reefs; coral reef; 

and colonized hardbottom. Areas of 

these habitat types that were not 

sufficiently close to satisfy the need for 

contiguous habitat that could support 

nearshore to offshore movement of the 

species from larva to adult were 

excluded. Species presence or absence 

was also used to inform the decision 

making. Expert opinion was important 

to identifying areas that contain the 

feature. These experts included a NMFS 

regional GIS lead, a NMFS Nassau 

Grouper Recovery Coordinator with 30 

years of protected species and Nassau 

grouper conservation research 

experience, and other Nassau grouper 

researchers. NMFS staff jointly reviewed 

all data prior to delineating proposed 

units, consulting with these experts. 

To map these specific areas we 

reviewed available species occurrence, 

bathymetric, substrate, and water 

quality data. The highest resolution 

bathymetric data available were used for 

each geographic location. For areas in 

Florida and the FGBNMS, we used 

contours created from National Ocean 

Service Hydrographic Survey Data, 

NOAA ENCDirect bathymetric point 

data, National Park Service (NPS) data, 

and NOAA’s Coastal Relief Model. For 

areas in Puerto Rico, we used contours 

derived from the National Geophysical 

Data Center’s (NGDC) 2005 U.S. Coastal 

Relief Model. For areas in USVI, we 

used contours derived from NOAA’s 

2004–2015 Bathymetric Compilation. 

For areas in Navassa, we used contours 

derived from NOAA’s NGDC 2006 

bathymetric data. These bathymetric 

data were used with other geographic or 

management boundaries to draw the 

boundaries of each specific area on the 

maps in the critical habitat designation. 

Twenty specific areas, or units, were 

delineated based on these data, and are 

described later in this document (see 

Occupied Critical Habitat Unit 

Descriptions). 

Within the geographical and depth 

ranges of the species, certain areas 

contain the appropriate substrates but, 

due to their consistently disturbed 

nature, do not provide the quality of 

substrate, structure, and often water 

quality, essential for the conservation of 

the threatened Nassau grouper. These 

disturbances are caused by human 

activities, such as dredging. While these 

areas may provide substrate for 

recruitment and growth, the periodic 

nature of direct human disturbance 

renders them unsuitable habitat to 

promote recruitment and growth. In 

some of these areas, the substrate has 

been persistently disturbed by planned 

management activities authorized by 

local, state, or Federal governmental 

entities at the time of critical habitat 

designation. For the purpose of this 

rule, we refer to the areas disturbed by 

planned management activities as 

‘‘managed areas.’’ We expect that these 

areas will continue to be periodically 

disturbed by such planned management 

activities. Examples include dredged 

navigation channels, vessel berths, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
140 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

active anchorages. These managed areas 

are not designated as critical habitat. 

NMFS is aware that dredging may 

result in sedimentation impacts beyond 

the actual dredge channel. To the extent 

that these impacts are persistent, are 

expected to recur whenever the channel 

is dredged, and are of such a level that 

the areas in question have already been 

made unsuitable, we consider such 

areas to be included as part of the 

managed area and therefore are not 

designated as critical habitat. 

GIS data of the locations of some 

managed areas were available and 

extracted from the maps of the specific 

areas considered for critical habitat 

designation. These data were not 

available for every managed area. 

Regardless of whether the managed area 

is extracted from the maps depicting the 

specific areas designated as critical 

habitat, no managed areas as defined 

above are part of the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species that contain the essential 

feature related to recruitment and 

development habitat (essential feature 

1). 

Spawning site locations were 

identified and mapped based on a 

review of relevant literature, including 

existing maps used in Caribbean Fishery 

Management Council management 

measures, codified in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), and 

confirmation with species experts to 

determine the areas relevant to the 

Nassau grouper spawning habitat 

essential feature (essential feature 2). 

The identified marine sites used for 

spawning and adjacent waters that 

support movement and staging 

associated with spawning are: Bajo de 

Sico (waters encompassed by 100 m 

isobath bounded in the Bajo de Sico 

spawning area off the west coast of 

Puerto Rico); Grammanik Bank and 

Hind Bank (waters which make up the 

Grammanik Bank and the Hind Bank, 

interconnecting waters between these 

banks, and waters extending out to 366 

m directly south from Grammanik Bank, 

located south of St. Croix); and Riley’s 

Hump (waters encompassing Riley’s 

Hump located southwest of the Dry 

Tortugas out to the 35 m isobath on the 

north, west, and east side of the hump 

and out to the 50 m isobath on the south 

side of the hump). The species has been 

known to spawn in the waters of the 

Grammanik Bank and to use the nearby 

Hind Bank for staging and movement to 

and from the spawning area. In 

addition, continuous monitoring at 

Riley’s Hump, Florida by FWC indicates 

that Nassau grouper aggregate at the site 

during winter months and display 

typical spawning behaviors. 

Areas Outside of the Geographical 

Areas Occupied by the Species at the 

Time of Listing That Are Essential for 

Conservation 

ESA section 3(5)(A)(ii) defines critical 

habitat to include specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing if the areas 

are determined by the Secretary to be 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. An area must logically be 

‘‘habitat’’ in order for that area to meet 

the narrower category of ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ as defined in the ESA. 

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. FWS, 139 S. 

Ct. 361, 368 (2018) (explaining that an 

area cannot be designated as critical 

habitat unless it is also habitat for the 

species). Our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b)(2) further explain that the 

Secretary will identify, at a scale 

determined by the Secretary to be 

appropriate, specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species only upon a determination that 

such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. As noted 

previously, we considered these current 

regulatory requirements, as well as 

those in effect prior to 2019 and the 

recently proposed revisions to 50 CFR 

424.12(b)(2) (see 88 FR 40764, June 22, 

2023). Although our analyses would 

differ with regard to considering 

whether any unoccupied areas qualify 

as critical habitat for Nassau grouper, 

our conclusions would be the same. 

While the most serious threats to 

Nassau grouper are historical 

overutilization, fishing at spawning 

aggregations, and inadequate law 

enforcement (81 FR 42268, 42280–81, 

June 29, 2016), loss of the habitats used 

by groupers during various life stages 

can influence their distribution, 

abundance, and survival. For example, 

alterations or destruction of nearshore 

nursery areas and degradation of 

hardbottom habitat can affect Nassau 

grouper’s ability to grow and survive. 

The designated critical habitat will help 

conservation of spawning areas within 

U.S. jurisdiction. The critical habitat 

identified in this final rule identifies 

key habitat necessary for promoting the 

recruitment, refuge, forage, and 

spawning habitat necessary for the 

conservation of the species. Based on 

our current understanding of the 

species’ life history, status, and 

conservation needs, we have not 

identified any specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species that are essential for its 

conservation. The protection of the 

specific areas identified in this final rule 

from destruction and adverse 

modification stemming from federal 

actions will help support the species’ 

habitat-based conservation needs. 

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

(Military Lands) 

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

prohibits designating as critical habitat 

any lands or other geographical areas 

owned or controlled by the Department 

of Defense (DoD), or designated for its 

use, that are subject to an Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plan 

(INRMP) prepared under section 101 of 

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

Secretary determines in writing that 

such plan provides a benefit to the 

species for which critical habitat is 

designated. Pursuant to our regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12(h), we consider the 

following when determining whether 

such a benefit is provided: 

(1) The extent of the area and features 

present; 

(2) The type and frequency of use of 

the area by the species; 

(3) The relevant elements of the 

INRMP in terms of management 

objectives, activities covered, and best 

management practices, and the certainty 

that the relevant elements will be 

implemented; and 

(4) The degree to which the relevant 

elements of the INRMP will protect the 

habitat from the types of effects that 

would be addressed through a 

destruction-or-adverse-modification 

analysis. 

NASKW is the only installation 

controlled by the DoD, specifically the 

Department of the Navy (Navy) that 

coincides with any of the areas under 

consideration for critical habitat. On 

July 14, 2022, the Navy requested in 

writing that the areas covered by the 

2020 INRMP for NASKW not be 

designated as critical habitat, pursuant 

to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B)(i). 

The NASKW INRMP covers the lands 

and waters (generally out to 50 yards 

(45.7 m)) adjacent to NASKW, including 

several designated restricted areas. The 

total area of the waters covered by the 

INRMP that overlaps with areas 

identified as critical habitat is 

approximately 800 acres (3.2 sq km). 

Within this area, the species and the 

recruitment and developmental habitat 

essential feature are present, specifically 

young juvenile fish and nearshore 

shallow subtidal marine nursery and 

intermediate hardbottom and seagrass 

areas in close proximity to the nearshore 

shallow subtidal marine nursery areas. 

As detailed in the INRMP, the plan 

provides benefits to the threatened 

Nassau grouper and areas included in 

the designated critical habitat through 

the following NASKW broad programs 

and activities: wetlands management, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 141 

floodplains management, soil 

conservation and erosion control, 

stormwater and water quality control, 

coastal and marine management, 

threatened species and natural 

communities management, wetlands 

protection and shoreline enhancement, 

federally listed species assessments, 

community outreach and awareness, 

fish and wildlife conservation signage, 

and marine resources surveys. These 

types of best management practices have 

been ongoing at NASKW since 1983; 

thus, they are likely to continue into the 

future. Further, the plan specifically 

provides assurances that all NASKW 

staff have the authority and funding 

(subject to appropriations) to implement 

the plan. The plan also provides 

assurances that the conservation efforts 

will be effective through annual reviews 

conducted by state and Federal natural 

resource agencies. These activities 

address some of the particular 

conservation and protection needs that 

critical habitat would afford. These 

activities are similar to those that we 

describe for avoiding or reducing effects 

to the critical habitat. Further, the 

INRMP includes provisions for 

monitoring and evaluating conservation 

effectiveness, which will ensure 

continued benefits to the species. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA, we determined 

that the INRMP provides a benefit to 

Nassau grouper, and areas within the 

boundaries covered by the INRMP 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 exclude any area from 

critical habitat if the Secretary 

determines the benefits of exclusion 

(that is, avoiding some or all of the 

impacts that would result from 

designation) outweigh the benefits of 

designation. The Secretary may not 

exclude an area from designation if the 

Secretary determines, based upon the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, exclusion will result in the 

extinction of the species. Because the 

authority to exclude is discretionary, 

exclusion is not required for any 

particular area under any 

circumstances. 

The ESA provides the Secretary broad 

discretion in how to consider impacts. 

(See H.R. Rep. No. 95–1625, at 17, 

reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 9453, 

9467 (1978)). Regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19(b) specify that the Secretary will 

consider the probable impacts of the 

designation at a scale that the Secretary 

determines to be appropriate and that 

such impacts may be qualitatively or 

quantitatively described. The Secretary 

is also required to compare impacts 

with and without the designation (50 

CFR 424.19(b)). In other words, we are 

required to assess the incremental 

impacts attributable to the critical 

habitat designation relative to a baseline 

that reflects existing regulatory impacts 

in the absence of the critical habitat. 

The consideration and weight given to 

any particular impact is determined by 

the Secretary, and the ESA does not 

contain requirements for any particular 

methods or approaches. See, e.g., Bldg. 

Indus. Ass’n of the Bay Area et al. v U.S. 

Dept. of Commerce et al., 792 F.3d 1027, 

1032 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that the 

ESA does not require the agency to 

follow a specific methodology when 

designating critical habitat under 

section 4(b)(2)). NMFS and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service have adopted a 

joint policy setting out non-binding 

guidance explaining generally how we 

exercise our discretion under section 

4(b)(2) of the ESA (see Policy Regarding 

Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Endangered Species Act (‘‘4(b)(2) 

Policy,’’ 81 FR 7226, February 11, 

2016)). For this final rule, we followed 

the same basic approach to describing 

and evaluating impacts as we have for 

several recent critical habitat 

rulemakings, as informed by our 4(b)(2) 

Policy. 

The following discussion of impacts 

is summarized from our Critical Habitat 

Report, which identifies the economic, 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts that we project would result 

from designating each of the specific 

areas as critical habitat. We considered 

these impacts when deciding whether to 

exercise our discretion to exclude 

particular areas from 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 to 

particular impacts. 

The primary impacts of a critical 

habitat designation result from the ESA 

section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal 

agencies ensure their actions are not 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

and that they consult with NMFS in 

fulfilling this requirement. Determining 

these impacts is complicated by the fact 

that section 7(a)(2) also requires that 

Federal agencies ensure their actions are 

not likely to jeopardize the species’ 

continued existence. One incremental 

impact of designation is the extent to 

which Federal agencies modify their 

proposed actions to ensure they are not 

likely to destroy or adversely modify the 

critical habitat beyond any 

modifications the agencies would make 

because of listing and the requirement 

to avoid jeopardy to the listed Nassau 

grouper. When the same modification 

would be required due to impacts to 

both the species and critical habitat, 

there would be no additional or 

incremental impact attributable to the 

critical habitat designation beyond the 

administrative impact associated with 

conducting the critical habitat analysis. 

Relevant, existing regulatory 

protections are referred to as the 

‘‘baseline’’ for the analysis and are 

discussed in the Critical Habitat Report. 

In this case, notable baseline protections 

include the ESA listing of the species 

(81 FR 42268, June 29, 2016), and other 

species listings and critical habitat 

designations (e.g., Elkhorn and staghorn 

coral, 73 FR 72209, November 26, 2008). 

The Critical Habitat Report describes 

the projected future Federal activities 

that would trigger ESA section 7 

consultation requirements if they are 

implemented in the future because the 

activities may affect the essential 

features. These activities and the ESA 

consultation consequently may result in 

economic costs or negative impacts. The 

report also identifies the potential 

national security and other relevant 

impacts that may arise due to the 

critical habitat designation, such as 

positive impacts that may arise from 

conservation of the species and its 

habitat, state and local protections that 

may be triggered as a result of 

designation, and educating the public 

about the importance of an area for 

species conservation. 

Economic Impacts 

Economic impacts of the critical 

habitat designations primarily occur 

through implementation of section 7 of 

the ESA in consultations with Federal 

agencies to ensure their proposed 

actions are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. The 

economic impacts of consultation may 

include both administrative and project 

modification costs; economic impacts 

that may be associated with the 

conservation benefits resulting from 

designation are described later. 

To identify the types and geographic 

distribution of activities that may trigger 

section 7 consultation on Nassau 

grouper critical habitat, we first 

reviewed the NMFS Southeast Region’s 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
142 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

* The exceptions are the Bajo de Sico spawning 

site unit and a portion of the Grammanik Bank/ 

Hind Bank spawning site in the U.S. Caribbean, and 

Biscayne Bay in Florida. 

section 7 consultation history from 2011 

to 2021 for: 

• Activities consulted on in the areas 

being designated as critical habitat for 

the Nassau grouper and 

• Activities that take place outside of 

the designated critical habitat but whose 

effects extend into the critical habitat 

and are therefore subject to 

consultation. 

In addition, we conducted outreach to 

relevant agencies to identify future 

activities that may affect Nassau grouper 

critical habitat that may not have been 

captured by relying on the section 7 

consultation history. Through this 

outreach, we did not identify any 

additional activities that may affect 

Nassau grouper critical habitat. 

Agencies included the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Air 

Force, the Department of the Navy, and 

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). We 

reviewed the USACE’s Jacksonville 

District permit application database to 

identify all permit applications for 

projects located within the designated 

critical habitat area, including more 

recent consultation information 

provided by these or other agencies 

prior to the publication of this final rule. 

We determined all categories of the 

activities identified have potential 

routes of effects to both the threatened 

Nassau grouper and the designated 

Nassau grouper critical habitat, or to 

other species or designated critical 

habitat. We did not identify and we do 

not anticipate Federal actions that have 

the potential to affect only the Nassau 

grouper critical habitat. 

We identified the following eight 

categories of activities implemented by 

seven different Federal entities as 

having the potential to affect the 

essential features of the Nassau grouper 

critical habitat: 

• Coastal and in-water construction 

(e.g., docks, seawalls, piers, marinas, 

port expansions, anchorages, pipelines/ 

cables, bridge repairs, aids to 

navigation, etc.) conducted or 

authorized by USACE or USCG; 

• Derelict Vessel and Marine Debris 

Removal (USCG, NOAA); 

• Scientific Research and Monitoring 

(NOAA); 

• Water quality management (revision 

of state water quality standards, 

issuance of National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits 

and Total Maximum daily load (TMDL) 

standards under the Clean Water Act 

and ecological risk assessments 

associated with pesticide registrations 

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 

and Rodenticide Act) authorized by the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA); 

• Protected area management 

(development of management plans for 

national parks, marine sanctuaries, 

wildlife refuges, etc.) conducted by the 

National Park Service (NPS) and NOAA 

National Ocean Service (NOS); 

• Fishery management (development 

of fishery management plans under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act) 

conducted or approved by NMFS; 

• Aquaculture (development of 

aquaculture facilities) authorized by 

EPA and USACE, and funded by NMFS; 

and 

• Military activities (e.g., training 

exercises) conducted by DoD. 

Additionally, we considered the 

potential for oil and gas and renewable 

energy development activities to 

damage the critical habitat through 

various pathways in the Critical Habitat 

Report. These pathways include, but are 

not limited to, physical damage to coral 

reefs and colonized hardbottom by oil 

and gas platforms and ships and 

reduced water quality resulting from 

increased sedimentation and turbidity 

generated by oil and gas and renewable 

energy exploration and development 

activities. We considered potential 

effects of oil spills and USCG-led 

cleanup activities on the critical habitat 

in the section more broadly discussing 

derelict vessel and marine debris 

removal. 

There are no active oil and gas leases 

within the Straits of Florida Planning 

Area, where the Florida units are 

located, and the area is excluded from 

consideration for leasing for purposes of 

exploration, development, or 

production through June 30, 2032. In 

addition, neither Puerto Rico nor the 

USVI has any crude oil production, 

refining, or proved reserves. 

BOEM currently has no active 

offshore renewable energy leases in 

Florida, and the section 7 consultation 

record revealed no historical 

consultations related to renewable 

energy projects in Puerto Rico or the 

USVI. While the current Administration 

has announced a goal to deploy 17 

gigawatts of offshore wind in the U.S. 

OCS by 2030, no potential lease sites are 

located offshore of Florida’s Atlantic 

coast. A 2022 study published by the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

found that wind has the potential to 

lower the cost of energy in Puerto Rico. 

However, the study excluded from 

consideration offshore wind energy 

development in potential use conflict 

areas, including the majority of waters 

comprising Nassau grouper critical 

habitat units around Puerto Rico. In 

addition, the timing of development of 

offshore wind energy projects in state 

and federal waters off of Puerto Rico is 

uncertain, and no specific offshore wind 

energy projects or sites have been 

identified for development. We 

therefore determined that no oil and gas 

or renewable energy activity within or 

affecting Nassau grouper critical habitat 

is anticipated over the next ten years. 

Also, given the nearly complete 

overlap between Nassau grouper critical 

habitat and existing critical habitat for 

acropora and 5 Caribbean corals,* other 

than the intracoastal zone of Biscayne 

Bay (much of which is included in 

Biscayne National Park), any project 

modifications required to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

Nassau grouper critical habitat by 

activities including, but not limited to, 

those associated with oil and gas and 

renewable energy development would 

likely already be required due to 

jeopardy/destruction or adverse 

modification (DAM) determinations for 

listed species and/or existing critical 

habitat. Thus, we would expect that any 

potential incremental costs to oil and 

gas or renewable energy activities 

attributable to Nassau grouper critical 

habitat would be limited to the 

administrative costs of considering 

effects to the critical habitat in 

consultations that would occur absent 

the designation, and that Nassau 

grouper critical habitat would have 

negligible effect on BOEM activities. 

Future consultations were projected 

based on the frequency and distribution 

of section 7 consultations conducted 

from 2011 to 2021, review of USACE 

permit applications over the same time 

frame, and outreach to Federal 

stakeholders. In the absence of other 

relevant information regarding future 

federal activities, we consider it a 

reasonable assumption that the 

breakdown of past consultations by type 

(into informal, formal, and 

programmatic consultations) and 

activity category (e.g., in-water and 

coastal construction, water quality 

management) from the previous 10 years 

coupled with information provided by 

federal stakeholders likely reflects the 

breakdown of future consultations. We 

accordingly assume that the number and 

type of activities occurring within or 

affecting Nassau grouper critical habitat 

will not change in the future. 

As discussed in more detail in section 

10 of the Critical Habitat Report, all 

categories of activities identified as 

having the potential to affect the 

essential features also have the potential 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 143 

to affect Nassau grouper, which is listed 

as a threatened species, or other listed 

species or critical habitat. To estimate 

the economic impacts of critical habitat 

designation, our analysis compares the 

state of the world with and without the 

designation of critical habitat. The 

‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario 

represents the baseline for the analysis, 

considering protections already afforded 

the critical habitat as a result of the 

listing of Nassau grouper as threatened 

and as a result of other Federal, state, 

and local regulations or protections, 

including other species listings and 

critical habitat determinations. The 

‘‘with critical habitat’’ scenario 

describes the state of the world with the 

critical habitat designation. The 

incremental impacts that will be 

associated specifically with the critical 

habitat designation are the difference 

between the two scenarios. Baseline 

protections exist in large areas of the 

designation. In particular, areas of 

Nassau grouper critical habitat overlap 

to varying degrees with the presence of 

other threatened or endangered species, 

including Nassau grouper, green sea 

turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, hawksbill 

sea turtle, corals, and smalltooth 

sawfish; and critical habitat designated 

for green, loggerhead, and hawksbill sea 

turtles and coral species. These areas 

already receive significant protections 

related to these listings and 

designations, and these protections may 

also protect the essential features of the 

Nassau grouper critical habitat (please 

refer to Critical Habitat Report, section 

10). Therefore, we do not expect 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Nassau grouper to result in project 

modifications for any of the activities 

that may affect the critical habitat. 

Administrative Section 7 Costs 

The effort required to address adverse 

effects to the proposed critical habitat is 

assumed to be the same, on average, 

across categories of activities. Informal 

consultations are expected to require 

comparatively low levels of 

administrative effort, while formal and 

programmatic consultations are 

expected to require comparatively 

higher levels of administrative effort. 

For all formal and informal 

consultations, we anticipate that 

incremental administrative costs will be 

incurred by NMFS, the consulting 

Federal action agencies, and, 

potentially, third parties. For 

programmatic consultations, we 

anticipate that costs will be incurred by 

NMFS and the consulting Federal action 

agencies. Incremental administrative 

costs per consultation effort are 

expected on average to be $13,000 for 

programmatic, $6,400 for formal 

consultations, and $3,100 for informal 

consultations (NMFS, 2023). 

We estimate the incremental 

administrative costs of section 7 

consultation by applying these per 

consultation costs to the forecasted 

number of consultations. We anticipate 

that there will be approximately 11 

programmatic consultations, 11 formal 

consultations, and 114 informal 

consultations that will require 

incremental administrative effort. 

Incremental costs are expected to total 

approximately $440,000 over the next 

10 years (discounted at 7 percent), at an 

annualized cost of $62,000. We 

conservatively assume that there will be 

approximately eight re-initiations of 

existing consultations to address effects 

to Nassau grouper critical habitat. We 

anticipate the re-initiations to be on 

consultations related to fishery 

management, military, construction, and 

scientific research and monitoring 

activities. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

ER02JA24.002</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

Projected Incremental Costs of Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat Designation by Activity Type and Unit, 

percent Discount Rate)1 

Shipwreck 

and 

Unit Coastal and Water Protected Marine 

In-Water Quality Area Fishery Debris 

Construction Management Management Management Aquaculture Military Removal 

Biscayne/ $43,000 $900 $27,000 $1,800 $0 $2,100 $2,700 

Key Largo 

Marathon $30,000 $900 $0 $1,800 $0 $2,100 $2,700 

Big Pine $77,000 $900 $0 $1,800 $0 $2,100 $2,700 

Key 

Key West $1,500 $900 $0 $1,800 $1,800 $7,500 $2,700 

New $1,500 $900 $0 $1,800 $0 $2,100 $2,700 

Ground 

Shoal 

ER02JA24.003</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

Shipwreck 

and 

Unit Coastal and Water Protected Marine 

In-Water Quality Area Fishery Debris 

Construction Management Management Management Aquaculture Military Removal 

Halfmoon $1,500 $900 $0 $1,800 $0 $2,100 $2,700 

Shoal 

Dry $1,500 $900 $0 $1,800 $0 $2,100 $2,700 

Tortugas 

Florida, All $160,000 $6,300 $27,000 $13,000 $1,800 $20,000 $19,000 

Mona $1,500 $3,600 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $1,400 

Island 

Desecheo $1,500 $3,600 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $1,400 

Southwest $6,800 $3,600 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $6,800 

Northeast $14,000 $5,400 $0 $2,500 $0 $5,400 $1,400 

Vieques $1,500 $3,600 $0 $2,500 $0 $22,000 $1,400 

ER02JA24.004</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

Shipwreck 

and 

Unit Coastal and Water Protected Marine 

In-Water Quality Area Fishery Debris 

Construction Management Management Management Aquaculture Military Removal 

Isla de $1,500 $3,600 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $1,400 

Culebra/ Culebrita 

Puerto $27,000 $24,000 $0 $15,000 $0 $27,000 $14,000 

Rico, All 

Navassa $1,500 $980 $0 $770 $0 $0 $1,400 

USVI- $15,000 $6,100 $0 $2,200 $0 $0 $3,000 

STT 

USVI- $2,700 $6,100 $0 $2,200 $0 $0 $3,000 

STJ 

USVI- $8,100 $7,900 $0 $2,200 $0 $0 $3,000 

STX 

USVI, All $26,000 $20,000 $0 $6,500 $0 $0 $9,100 
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C In summary, significant baseline 

protections exist in the areas proposed The incremental impacts for the 

for the Nassau grouper critical habitat. 


ER02JA24.005</GPH>khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

Shipwreck 

and 

Unit Coastal and Water Protected Marine 

In-Water Quality Area Fishery Debris 

Construction Management Management Management Aquaculture Military Removal 

Bajo de $1,500 $980 $0 $770 $0 $0 $1,400 

Sico2 

Grammanik $1,500 $370 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,300 

Bank/Hind Bank2 

Riley's $1,500 $980 $0 $770 $0 $0 $1,400 

Hump 

Total $210,000 $53,000 $27,000 $37,000 $1,800 $47,000 $46,000 

1 The estimates may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

2 We analyzed the incremental costs of consultation on effects to the Bajo de Sico, Grammanik Bank/Hind Ban

spawning site feature separately from costs of consultation on effects to the essential feature related to settleme

and foraging. 
148 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed designation are projected to 

reflect the incremental administrative 

effort required for section 7 

consultations to consider effects to the 

critical habitat. Taking into 

consideration several assumptions and 

uncertainties, total projected 

incremental costs are approximately 

$440,000 over the next ten years 

($62,000 annualized), applying a 

discount rate of 7 percent. 

Notwithstanding the uncertainty 

underlying the projection of incremental 

costs, the results provide an indication 

of the potential activities that may be 

affected and a reasonable projection of 

future costs. 

National Security Impacts 

Impacts to national security could 

occur if a designation triggers future 

ESA section 7 consultations because a 

proposed military activity ‘‘may affect’’ 

the physical or biological feature(s) 

essential to the listed species’ 

conservation. Interference with missionessential training or testing or unit 

readiness could result if the DoD or 

USCG were required to modify or delay 

their actions to prevent adverse 

modification of critical habitat or 

implement Reasonable and Prudent 

Alternatives. Whether national security 

impacts result from the designation also 

depends on whether future 

consultations and associated project 

modifications and/or implementation of 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures and 

Terms and Conditions would otherwise 

be required due to potential effects to 

Nassau grouper or other ESA-listed 

species or designated critical habitat, 

regardless of the Nassau grouper critical 

habitat designation. 

As described previously, we 

identified DoD military operations as a 

category of activity that has the 

potential to affect the essential features 

of the designated critical habitat. 

However, for the actions that may affect 

Nassau grouper critical habitat, 

designating critical habitat for Nassau 

grouper would not result in incremental 

impacts beyond administrative costs 

because the consultations would 

otherwise be required to address effects 

to either the Nassau grouper or other 

listed species or the substrate feature of 

designated critical habitat for corals. In 

2022, we requested descriptions and 

locations of any geographical areas 

owned or controlled by the DoD or the 

USCG that may overlap with the areas 

under consideration for critical habitat 

that they would like considered for 

exclusion due to impacts to national 

security. The USCG responded that 

maintenance and replacement of fixed 

Aids to Navigation (AToNs) may affect 

the proposed habitat by generating 

sedimentation of the seafloor 

surrounding piling or other foundations. 

USCG further indicated that use of 

floating AToNs may result in removal of 

the essential feature related to 

development, refuge, and foraging 

through chain scouring and placement 

of the sinker. However, USCG already 

implements measures to mitigate the 

impacts of AToN operations to corals, 

hardbottom, and seagrass, per the 

programmatic biological opinion on 

USCG’s AToN program (NMFS, 2023). 

NMFS developed a conference opinion 

for USCG’s ATON program (NMFS, 

2023) that considered proposed Nassau 

grouper critical habitat. NMFS 

anticipates adopting that conference 

opinion as the biological opinion once 

this rule is finalized. As part of that 

process, NMFS will consider whether 

and how changes in the final rule affect 

the determination in the conference 

opinion; however, NMFS does not 

anticipate USCG ATON actions in the 

additional areas designated in this final 

rule will result in destruction or adverse 

modification of Nassau grouper critical 

habitat in the action areas. 

The Navy requested that NMFS 

exclude areas around Naval Air Station 

Key West from the critical habitat 

designation under ESA section 4(b)(2). 

However, the Navy’s concerns have 

been addressed through the previously 

described INRMP exclusion. No areas 

managed by other DoD branches were 

identified as potentially of concern. 

Other Relevant Impacts 

We identified three broad categories 

of other relevant impacts of this critical 

habitat designation: Conservation 

benefits, both to the species and to the 

ecosystem; impacts on governmental or 

private entities that are implementing 

existing management plans that provide 

benefits to the listed species; and 

educational and awareness benefits. Our 

Impacts Analysis discusses conservation 

benefits of designating the areas, and the 

benefits of conserving the species to 

society. 

Conservation Benefits 

The primary benefit of critical habitat 

designation is the contribution to 

conservation and recovery. That is, in 

protecting the features essential to the 

conservation of the species, critical 

habitat directly contributes to the 

conservation and recovery of the 

species. This analysis contemplates two 

broad categories of conservation benefits 

of critical habitat designation: 

(1) Increased probability of 

conservation and recovery of the 

species, and 

(2) Ecosystem service benefits. 

The most direct benefits of the critical 

habitat designations stem from the 

enhanced probability of conservation 

and recovery of the species. From an 

economic perspective, the appropriate 

measure of the value of this benefit is 

people’s ‘‘willingness-to-pay’’ for the 

incremental change. While the existing 

economics literature is insufficient to 

provide a quantitative estimate of the 

extent to which people value 

incremental changes in recovery 

potential, the literature does provide 

evidence that people have a positive 

preference for listed species 

conservation, even beyond any direct 

(e.g., recreation, such as viewing the 

species while snorkeling or diving) or 

indirect (e.g., fishing that is supported 

by the presence of healthy ecosystems) 

use for the species. 

In addition, designating critical 

habitat can benefit the ecosystem. 

Overall, coral reef and benthic 

ecosystems, including those comprising 

Nassau grouper critical habitat, 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. Critical habitat most 

directly influences the recovery 

potential of the species and protects 

ecosystem services through its 

implementation under section 7 of the 

ESA. Our analysis finds that the final 

rule is not anticipated to result in 

incremental project modifications. 

However, the inclusion of reefs and 

seagrasses as subcomponents of an 

essential feature of Nassau grouper 

critical habitat could increase awareness 

of the importance of these habitat 

features, which in turn could lead to 

additional conservation efforts. 

In addition, critical habitat 

designation may generate ancillary 

environmental improvements and 

associated ecosystem service benefits 

(i.e., to commercial fishing and 

recreational activities). While neither 

benefit can be directly monetized, 

existing information on the value of 

coral reefs provides an indication of the 

value placed on those ecosystems. For 

example, it is estimated that the top 1 

meter of U.S. coral reefs prevents $2.6 

billion in indirect economic effects 

(Reguero et al., 2021) per year, while the 

total value of direct economic effects 

has been estimated at roughly $1.7 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 149 

billion per year for reefs across Florida, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

(Brander and Van Beukering, 2013). 

Impacts to Governmental and Private 

Entities With Existing Management 

Plans Benefitting the Listed Species 

Among other relevant impacts of the 

critical habitat designations that we 

considered under section 4(b)(2) of the 

ESA are impacts on the efforts of private 

and public entities involved in 

management or conservation efforts 

benefiting listed species. In cases where 

there is a federal nexus (e.g., a federal 

grant or permit), critical habitat 

designation could necessitate 

consultation with NMFS to 

incrementally address the effects of the 

management or conservation activities 

on critical habitat. In such cases, these 

entities may have to allocate resources 

to fulfill their section 7 consultation 

obligations as third parties to the 

consultation—including the 

administrative effort of consultation 

and, potentially, modification of 

projects or conservation measures to 

avoid adverse modification to the 

critical habitat—that, absent critical 

habitat designation, would be applied to 

management or conservation efforts 

benefiting listed species. Thus, the 

potential for reallocation of these 

private and public entities’ resources 

would be limited to the incremental 

administrative costs of section 7 

consultations that would occur absent 

Nassau grouper critical habitat. 

Therefore, we do not expect that 

designating critical habitat for the 

Nassau grouper would diminish private 

and public entities’ ability to provide for 

the conservation of the Nassau grouper. 

Education and Awareness Benefits 

The critical habitat designation could 

potentially have benefits associated 

with education and awareness. The 

potential for such benefits stems from 

three sources: (1) entities that engage in 

section 7 consultation, including 

Federal action agencies and, in some 

cases, third party applicants; (2) 

members of the general public 

interested in conservation; and (3) state 

and local governments that take action 

to complement the critical habitat 

designation. Certain entities, such as 

applicants for particular permits, may 

alter their activities to benefit the 

essential features of the critical habitat 

because they were made aware of the 

critical habitat designation through the 

section 7 consultation process. 

Similarly, Federal action agencies that 

undertake activities that affect the 

critical habitat may alter their activities 

to benefit the critical habitat. Members 

of the public interested in conservation 

also may adjust their behavior to benefit 

critical habitat because they learned of 

the critical habitat designation through 

outreach materials or the regulatory 

process. In our experience, designation 

raises the public’s awareness that there 

are special considerations to be taken 

within the area identified as critical 

habitat. Similarly, state and local 

governments may be prompted to enact 

laws or rules to complement the critical 

habitat designations and benefit the 

listed species. Those laws would likely 

result in additional impacts of the 

designations. However, it is not possible 

to quantify the beneficial effects of the 

awareness gained through, or the 

impacts from state and local regulations 

resulting from, the critical habitat 

designation. 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) 

We are not exercising our discretion 

to exclude any particular areas from 

designation based on economic, 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts. There are significant baseline 

protections that exist in the areas we are 

designating as the Nassau grouper 

critical habitat, and as a result, the 

incremental impacts of the designation 

are low and reflect the incremental 

administrative effort required for section 

7 consultations to consider the critical 

habitat. Taking into consideration 

several assumptions and uncertainties, 

the total projected incremental costs are 

approximately $440,000 over the next 

10 years ($62,000 annualized), applying 

a discount rate of 7 percent. Further, the 

analysis indicates that there is no 

particular area within the designated 

critical habitat units where these costs 

would be highly concentrated. 

Moreover, we anticipate that no 

particular industry would be 

disproportionately impacted. We are not 

excluding any areas on the basis of 

national security impacts as no national 

security concerns exist related to the 

critical habitat designation. We are not 

excluding any particular area based on 

other relevant impacts. Other relevant 

impacts include conservation benefits of 

the designation, both to the species and 

to the ecosystem. We expect that 

designation of critical habitat will 

support conservation and recovery of 

the species. Future section 7 

consultations on some of the activities 

that may affect Nassau grouper will also 

consider effects to the critical habitat. 

While we do not expect these 

consultations to result in additional 

conservation measures, the additional 

consideration of effects to the critical 

habitat will increase overall awareness 

of the importance of Nassau grouper and 

its habitat. For these reasons, we are not 

excluding any areas as a result of these 

other relevant impacts. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

Our critical habitat regulations state 

that we will show critical habitat on a 

map with more detailed information 

discussed in the preamble of the critical 

habitat rulemaking and made available 

from NMFS (50 CFR 424.12(c)). When 

several habitats, each satisfying the 

requirements for designation as critical 

habitat, are located in proximity to one 

another, an inclusive area may be 

designated as critical habitat (50 CFR 

424.12(d)). The habitat containing the 

essential features and that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection is marine habitat of particular 

benthic composition and structure in 

the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea. 

The boundaries of each specific area 

were determined by the presence of the 

essential features and Nassau grouper, 

as described earlier within this 

document. Because the quality of the 

available GIS data varies based on 

collection method, resolution, and 

processing, the critical habitat 

boundaries are defined by the maps in 

combination with the textual 

information included in the regulation. 

This textual information clarifies and 

refines the location and boundaries of 

each specific area. 

Occupied Critical Habitat Unit 

Descriptions 

Based on the available data, we 

identified specific areas that contain the 

essential features. The specific areas or 

‘‘units’’ can generally be grouped as the: 

Navassa Island unit, Puerto Rico units, 

USVI units, Florida units, and spawning 

units. The units and their general 

location are listed here (refer to the 

maps and regulation text for more 

details). 

Navassa Island Unit. Waters 

surrounding Navassa Island. Area = 

2.468 sq. km. 

Puerto Rico Unit 1—Mona Island and 

Monito. Waters between the shoreline 

out to the 50 m isobaths around Mona 

and Monito Islands. Area = 30.65 sq. 

km. 

Puerto Rico Unit 2—Desecheo Island. 

All waters between the shoreline out to 

the 50 m isobaths around Desecheo 

Island. Area = 4.28 sq. km. 

Puerto Rico Unit 3—Southwest. 

Waters off the southwest coast of the 

Puerto Rico main island. Area = 112.39 

sq. km. 

Puerto Rico Unit 4—Northeast. Waters 

off the northeast coast of the Puerto Rico 

main island. Area = 48.75 sq. km. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
150 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Puerto Rico Unit 5—Vieques Island. 

Waters off the west and northeast, east, 

and southeast coasts of the island. Area 

= 9.49 sq. km. 

Puerto Rico Unit 6—Culebra/ 

Culebrita Islands. The Culebra area 

consists of waters off the southeastern 

Culebra coastline. The Culebrita area 

consists of waters off the western and 

southern coasts of Culebrita Island. Area 

= 4.15 sq. km. 

United States Virgin Island Unit 1— 

St Thomas. Waters off the east coast of 

St. Thomas Island and waters off the 

southwest, south, and southeast coasts 

of Water Island. Area = 9.18 sq. km. 

United States Virgin Island Unit 2— 

St. John. Waters off the east coast of St. 

John Island. Area = 6.55 sq. km. 

United States Virgin Island Unit 3— 

St. Croix. Waters off the east end of St. 

Croix Island and waters off the north 

coast of Buck Island. Area = 50.35 sq. 

km. 

Florida Unit 1—Biscayne Bay/Key 

Largo. Waters south of Rickenbacker 

Causeway, including portions of waters 

from the coastline into Biscayne Bay, 

and waters off the eastern coastline to 

80°29′21′′ W, 25°01′59′′ N. Area = 1279.7 

sq. km. 

Florida Unit 2—Marathon. Waters off 

the southern shoreline approximately 

between Knights Key to 80°55′51′′W, 

24°46′26′′ N. Area = 172.38 sq. km. 

Florida Unit 3—Big Pine Key to Geiger 

Key. Waters off the south side of 

coastline and US 1 from approximately 

Geiger Key to Big Pine Key. Area = 

372.37 sq. km. 

Florida Unit 4—Key West. Shoal 

waters south of Woman Key. Area = 

127.09 sq. km. 

Florida Unit 5—New Ground Shoal. 

New Ground Shoal waters. Area = 31.04 

sq. km. 

Florida Unit 6—Halfmoon Shoal. 

Halfmoon Shoal waters. Area = 33.62 

sq. km. 

Florida Unit 7—Dry Tortugas. Waters 

encompassing Loggerhead Key and 

waters surrounding Garden Key and 

Bush Key. Area = 4.43 sq. km. 

Spawning Site Unit 1—Bajo de Sico 

(Puerto Rico). All waters encompassed 

by the 100 m isobath within the Bajo de 

Sico spawning area, which we define 

here as being bounded by the following 

coordinates: A) 67°26′13′′ W, 18°15′26′′ 

N, B) 67°23′08′′ W, 18°15′26′′ N, C) 

67°23′08′′ W, 18°12′56′′ N, and D) 

67°26′13′′ W, 18°12′56′′ N. Area = 10.74 

sq. km. 

Spawning Site Unit 2—Grammanik 

Bank and Hind Bank (St. Thomas, 

USVI). All waters which make up the 

Hind Bank and the Grammanik Bank, 

interconnecting waters between these 

banks, and waters extending out to the 

200 fathom line directly south from 

Grammanik Bank. Area = 59.69 sq. km. 

Spawning Site Unit 3—Riley’s Hump 

(Dry Tortugas, Florida). All waters 

encompassing Riley’s Hump at 83°6′31′′ 

W, 24°29′42′′ N out to the 35 m isobath 

on the north, west, and east side of the 

hump, extending out to the 50 m isobath 

on the south side of the hump to 

include the escarpment on the southern 

face of the bank. Area = 15.35 sq. km. 

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 is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any threatened or 

endangered species or destroy or 

adversely modify designated critical 

habitat. Federal agencies are also 

required to confer with NMFS regarding 

any actions likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any species for 

listing under the ESA, or likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat, pursuant to section 7(a)(4). 

A conference involves informal 

discussions in which NMFS may 

recommend conservation measures to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects (50 

CFR 402.02). The discussions and 

conservation recommendations are 

documented in a conference report 

provided to the Federal agency (50 CFR 

402.10(e)). If requested by the Federal 

agency and deemed appropriate by 

NMFS, the conference may be 

conducted following the procedures for 

formal consultation in 50 CFR 402.14, 

and NMFS may issue an opinion at the 

conclusion of the conference. This 

opinion may be adopted as the 

biological opinion when the species is 

listed or critical habitat designated if no 

significant new information or changes 

to the action alter the content of the 

opinion (50 CFR 402.10(d)). 

When a species is listed or critical 

habitat is designated, Federal agencies 

must consult with NMFS on any agency 

actions that may affect a listed species 

or its critical habitat. During the 

consultation, we evaluate the agency 

action to determine whether the action 

may adversely affect listed species or 

critical habitat and issue our findings in 

a letter of concurrence or in a biological 

opinion. If we conclude in the biological 

opinion that the action would likely 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat, we 

would also identify any reasonable and 

prudent alternatives to the action. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives are 

defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative 

actions identified during formal 

consultation that can be implemented in 

a manner consistent with the intended 

purpose of the action, that can be 

implemented consistent with the scope 

of the Federal agency’s legal authority 

and jurisdiction, that are economically 

and technologically feasible, and that 

we believe would avoid the likelihood 

of destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies that have retained 

discretionary involvement or control 

over an action, or where such 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law, to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where: 

(1) Critical habitat is subsequently 

designated that may be affected by the 

identified action; or 

(2) New information or changes to the 

action may result in effects to critical 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not 

previously considered. 

Consequently, some Federal agencies 

may request re-initiation of consultation 

or conference with NMFS on actions for 

which formal consultation has been 

completed, if those actions may affect 

designated critical habitat or adversely 

modify or destroy proposed critical 

habitat. 

Activities subject to the ESA section 

7 consultation process are those 

activities authorized, funded, or carried 

out by Federal action agencies, whether 

on Federal, state, or private lands or 

waters. ESA section 7 consultation 

would not be required for Federal 

actions that do not affect listed species 

or critical habitat and for actions that 

are not federally funded, authorized, or 

carried out. 

Activities That May Be Affected 

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

that we describe briefly and evaluate in 

any proposed or final regulation to 

designate critical habitat those 

activities, whether public or private, 

that may adversely modify such habitat 

or that may be affected by such 

designation. As described in our Critical 

Habitat Report, a wide variety of Federal 

activities may require ESA section 7 

consultation because they may affect the 

essential features of Nassau grouper 

critical habitat. Specific future activities 

will need to be evaluated with respect 

to their potential to destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, in addition to 

their potential to affect and jeopardize 

the continued existence of listed 

species. For example, activities may 

adversely modify the substrate portion 

of the development essential feature by 

removing or altering the substrate. 

These activities, whether public or 

private, would require ESA section 7 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 151 

consultation when they are authorized, 

funded, or carried out by a Federal 

agency. A private entity may also be 

affected by these critical habitat 

designations if it is a proponent of a 

project that requires a Federal permit or 

receives Federal funding. Categories of 

activities that may be affected through 

section 7 consultation by designating 

Nassau grouper critical habitat include 

coastal and in-water construction, 

protected area management, fishery 

management, scientific research and 

monitoring, derelict vessel and marine 

debris removal, aquaculture, water 

quality management, and military 

activities. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities may constitute destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

should be directed to us (see ADDRESSES

and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Identifying the extent or severity of an 

impact on the essential features at 

which the conservation value of habitat 

for the listed species may be affected is 

inherently complex. Consequently, the 

actual responses of the critical habitat to 

effects to the essential features resulting 

from future Federal actions will be case 

and site-specific, and predicting such 

responses will require case and sitespecific data and analyses. 

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 all of the 

requirements were effective by 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 assessments’’ prior 

to public dissemination. ‘‘Influential 

scientific information’’ is defined as 

information that 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 of influential 

scientific information. 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 for which the dissemination is 

novel, controversial, or precedentsetting, or has significant interagency 

interest. 

The information in the Critical 

Habitat Report supporting this final 

critical habitat rule is considered 

influential scientific information and 

subject to peer review. To satisfy our 

requirements under the OMB Bulletin, 

we obtained independent peer review of 

the information used to draft this report 

and incorporated the peer review 

comments into the draft Critical Habitat 

Report prior to dissemination of the 

Final Critical Habitat Report and 

completion of this rule. Comments 

received from peer reviewers are 

available on our website at http://

www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/ 

prplans/ID346.html. 

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 final 

rule would not have significant takings 

implications. A takings implication 

assessment is not required. These 

designations would affect only Federal 

agency actions (i.e., those actions 

authorized, funded, or carried out by 

Federal agencies). Therefore, the critical 

habitat designations do not affect 

landowner actions that do not require 

Federal funding or permits. We 

anticipate that the designation of critical 

habitat for the Nassau grouper will 

result in no section 7 consultations and 

no restrictions on federally permitted 

landowner actions beyond those that 

would already be required due to preexisting protections to ESA-listed 

species and designated critical habitat. 

The only incremental costs incurred by 

landowners would be minor 

administrative costs associated with 

considering effects of the action on 

Nassau grouper critical habitat in 

section 7 consultations that would be 

required absent the designation. Thus, 

Nassau grouper critical habitat is not 

expected to affect land values or use. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

This rule 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 rule in a manner consistent with 

these requirements. 

Based on the economic impacts 

evaluation in the Critical Habitat Report, 

total incremental costs resulting from 

the critical habitat are approximately 

$440,000 over the next 10 years 

($62,000 annualized), applying a 

discount rate of 7 percent. These total 

impacts include the additional 

administrative efforts necessary to 

consider critical habitat in section 7 

consultations. Overall, economic 

impacts are expected to be small and to 

be largely associated with the 

administrative costs borne by Federal 

agencies. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

Pursuant to the Executive Order on 

Federalism, E.O. 13132, we determined 

that this final rule does not have 

significant federalism effects and that a 

federalism assessment is not required. 

The designation of critical habitat 

directly affects only the responsibilities 

of Federal agencies. As a result, this rule 

does not have substantial direct effects 

on the States or territories, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

E.O. 13132. State or local governments 

may be indirectly affected by this 

critical habitat designation if they 

require Federal funds or formal 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency as a prerequisite to conducting 

an action. In these cases, the State or 

local government agency may 

participate in the ESA section 7 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
152 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

consultation as a third party. One of the 

key conclusions of the economic impact 

analysis is that the incremental impacts 

of the critical habitat designation will 

likely be limited to additional 

administrative costs to NMFS and 

Federal agencies stemming from the 

need to consider impacts to critical 

habitat as part of the forecasted section 

7 consultations. The designation of 

critical habitat is not expected to have 

substantial indirect impacts on State or 

local governments. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use 

(Executive Order 13211) 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking an 

action expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation that is a significant regulatory 

action under E.O. 12866 and is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

OMB Guidance on Implementing E.O. 

13211 (July 13, 2001) states that 

significant adverse effects could include 

any of the following outcomes 

compared to a world without the 

regulatory action under consideration: 

(1) reductions in crude oil supply in 

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

reductions in fuel production in excess 

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

in coal production in excess of 5 million 

tons per year; (4) reductions in natural 

gas production in excess of 25 million 

cubic feet per year; (5) reductions in 

electricity production in excess of 1 

billion kilowatt-hours per year or in 

excess of 500 megawatts of installed 

capacity; (6) increases in energy use 

required by the regulatory action that 

exceed any of the thresholds above; (7) 

increases in the cost of energy 

production in excess of 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. 

As discussed above and in the Critical 

Habitat Report, the critical habitat 

designations are not expected to affect 

oil and gas or renewable energy 

production. Therefore, this rule 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 a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) pursuant to 

section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as 

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) of 1996. The FRFA analyzes 

the impacts to small entities that may be 

affected by the critical habitat 

designations, and is included as 

Appendix B of the Critical Habitat 

Report (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

s3/2023-12/Nassau-grouper-criticalhabitat-final-report.pdf). We received no 

comments on our initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA). Results of the 

FRFA are summarized below. 

Our FRFA uses the best available 

information to identify the potential 

impacts of designating critical habitat 

on small entities. However, a number of 

uncertainties complicate quantification 

of these impacts. These include (1) the 

fact that the manner in which these 

potential impacts will be allocated 

between large and small entities is 

unknown; and (2) uncertainty regarding 

the potential effects of critical habitat 

designation, which requires some 

categories of potential impacts be 

described qualitatively. Absent specific 

knowledge regarding which small 

entities may be involved in 

consultations with NMFS over the next 

10 years, this analysis relies on 

industry- and location-specific 

information on small businesses with 

North American Industry Classification 

System 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 

critical habitat. Activities considered in 

the economic analysis and the FRFA 

include in-water and coastal 

construction, water quality 

management, protected area 

management, fishery management, 

aquaculture, military, scientific research 

and monitoring, and derelict vessel and 

marine debris removal. Based on the 

relevant consultation history and 

forecast of future activities that may 

affect the determined critical habitat, 

only in-water and coastal construction 

activities are anticipated to involve 

third parties that qualify as small 

entities. Given the uncertainty regarding 

the proportion of consultations on 

construction activities that will involve 

third parties, the analysis conservatively 

assumes that all future consultations on 

these activities will involve third parties 

and that all of these third parties will be 

small entities. All of the counties and 

territories that share a coastline with the 

designated critical habitat have 

populations of more than 50,000, so no 

impacts to small governmental 

jurisdictions are expected as a result of 

the critical habitat designation. 

The maximum total annualized 

impacts to small entities are estimated 

to be $4,221, which represents 

approximately 7 percent of the total 

quantified incremental impacts 

forecasted to result from the final rule. 

This estimate reflects incremental 

administrative costs, such as written 

and verbal communication with NMFS 

and other Federal action agencies, at a 

rate of $100/hour and ranging from 

approximately 1.5 hours providing 

technical assistance to approximately 

10.25 hours engaging in formal 

consultation (see Exhibit C.1 and 

accompanying text, Summary of 

Estimated Impacts to Small Entities by 

Activity Type, in Appendix C of the 

Critical Habitat Report, https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023-12/ 

Nassau-grouper-critical-habitat-finalreport.pdf). These impacts are 

anticipated to be borne by the small 

entities in the construction industry that 

obtain funds or permits from Federal 

agencies that will consult with NMFS 

regarding Nassau grouper critical habitat 

in the next 10 years. 

Given the uncertainty regarding 

which small entities in a given industry 

will need to consult with NMFS, the 

analysis estimates impacts to small 

entities under two different scenarios. 

These scenarios are intended to reflect 

the range of uncertainty regarding the 

number of small entities that may be 

affected by the designation and the 

potential impacts of critical habitat 

designation on their annual revenues. 

Under both scenarios, the FRFA 

assumes that entities conducting inwater and coastal construction activities 

in the Florida units are limited to those 

entities located in Miami-Dade and 

Monroe Counties, entities conducting 

in-water and coastal construction 

activities in the Puerto Rico units are 

limited to those entities located in 

Puerto Rico, and entities conducting inwater and coastal construction activities 

in the USVI units are limited to those 

entities located in the USVI. Estimated 

annualized impacts for both scenarios 

are calculated by multiplying the 

forecasted number of annual 

consultations involving third parties by 

the administrative costs per 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 153 

consultation estimated to be borne by 

small entities. Absent specific 

knowledge regarding the timing of 

future consultations involving third 

parties, the FRFA further assumes under 

both scenarios that an equal number of 

such consultations will occur each year 

over the next ten years. 

Under Scenario 1, the analysis 

assumes that all third parties involved 

in future consultations are small and 

that incremental impacts are distributed 

evenly across all of these entities. For 

the Florida units, where we estimate 

approximately 400 small entities 

participate in the in-water and coastal 

construction industry (see Exhibit B–1 

in Appendix B of the Critical Habitat 

Report, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

s3/2023-12/Nassau-grouper-criticalhabitat-final-report.pdf), Scenario 1 

accordingly reflects a high estimate of 

the number of potentially affected small 

entities (6.4) and a low estimate of the 

potential effect in terms of percent of 

revenue. The assumption under 

Scenario 1 that 6.4 small entities will be 

subject to consultation annually reflects 

the forecast that 6.4 consultations will 

occur annually on in-water and coastal 

construction activities involving third 

parties. This assumes that each 

consultation within the in-water and 

coastal construction industry involves a 

unique small entity. This scenario, 

therefore, may overstate the number of 

small entities based in Miami-Dade and 

Monroe counties that are likely to be 

affected by the rule and understate the 

revenue effect. Scenario 1 also assumes 

that each consultation within the inwater and coastal construction industry 

in the Puerto Rico and USVI units 

involves a unique small entity. For the 

Puerto Rico units, because section 7 

consultation on construction activities 

is anticipated to occur at a rate of 0.8 

per year, or eight consultations over 10 

years, we assume that 0.8 small entities 

will be impacted per year. Similarly, 

because section 7 consultation on 

construction activities affecting the 

USVI units is anticipated to occur at a 

rate of 0.8 per year, or eight 

consultations over 10 years, we assume 

that 0.8 USVI-based small entities will 

be impacted per year. Therefore, 

Scenario 1 does not yield the same 

overstatement of the number of small 

entities likely to be affected (unless the 

third party entities involved in the 

consultations on the construction 

activities in Puerto Rico and USVI are 

not small entities) or the same 

understatement of the revenue effect for 

these jurisdictions. The analysis 

anticipates that, across the three 

jurisdictions where there are small 

entities that are assumed to conduct inwater and coastal construction, 

approximately eight small entities will 

incur $4,221 in annualized costs under 

Scenario 1, including $527 in costs to 

Florida-based small entities, $513 in 

costs to Puerto Rico-based small 

entities, and $549 in costs to USVIbased small entities. Annualized 

impacts of the rule are estimated to 

make up less than 1 percent of average 

annual revenues of approximately $1.31 

million for each affected small entity 

(see Exhibit B–1 in Appendix B of the 

Critical Habitat Report, https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023-12/ 

Nassau-grouper-critical-habitat-finalreport.pdf). This percentage would be 

higher for a small entity with annual 

revenues lower than the average of 

annual revenues of all potentially 

impacted small entities, and lower for a 

small entity with annual revenues 

higher than the average of annual 

revenues of all potentially impacted 

small entities. 

Under Scenario 2, the 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 an 

industry. This method likely 

understates the number of small entities 

affected and overstates the likely 

impacts on an entity for the Florida 

units. As such, this method arrives at a 

low estimate of potentially affected 

entities in Florida units and a high 

estimate of potential effects on revenue, 

assuming that quantified costs represent 

a complete accounting of the costs likely 

to be borne by private entities. Under 

Scenario 2, $3,379 in annualized 

impacts would be borne by a single 

small entity in Florida. We maintain the 

assumption in Scenario 1 that 0.8 small 

entities per year bear the third party 

costs of consultation in Puerto Rico and 

0.8 small entities per year bear the third 

party costs of consultation in USVI. This 

assumption reflects our forecast of eight 

consultations on construction projects 

over 10 years in both Puerto Rico and 

USVI. This scenario forecasts that 

annualized impacts to single entities in 

both Puerto Rico and USVI would be 

$513 and $549, respectively. Though 

this scenario almost certainly overstates 

the costs borne by a single small entity 

in Florida, the impact is nonetheless 

expected to represent less than 1 

percent of the average annual revenues 

for the single entity. Impacts to single 

small entities in Puerto Rico and USVI 

are also anticipated to be less than 1 

percent of average annual revenues. As 

with Scenario 1, this percentage would 

be higher for a small entity with annual 

revenues lower than the average of 

annual revenues of all potentially 

impacted small entities, and lower for a 

small entity with annual revenues 

higher than the average of annual 

revenues of all potentially impacted 

small entities. 

While these scenarios present a range 

of potentially affected entities and the 

associated revenue effects in Florida, 

our analysis demonstrates that the 

greatest potential revenue effect is less 

than 1 percent across scenarios and 

jurisdictions. Moreover, although we 

cannot definitively determine the 

numbers of small and large entities that 

may be affected by this final rule, there 

is no indication that affected project 

applicants would be only small entities 

or mostly small entities. It is unclear 

whether small entities would be placed 

at a competitive disadvantage compared 

to large entities. 

No Federal laws or regulations 

duplicate or conflict with this final rule. 

However, other aspects of the ESA may 

overlap with the critical habitat 

designations. For instance, listing of the 

Nassau grouper under the ESA requires 

Federal agencies to consult with NMFS 

to ensure against jeopardy to the 

species. Overlap of the presence of other 

ESA-listed species, including listed 

corals, and coral critical habitat with the 

areas designated as critical habitat 

protects the essential features of the 

critical habitat to the extent that projects 

or activities that may adversely affect 

the critical habitat also pose a threat to 

the listed species or to coral critical 

habitat. Several fishery management 

plans, developed under the authority of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

serve to prevent overfishing of Nassau 

grouper prey and promote the 

spawning, breeding, feeding, and 

growth to maturity of reef fish such as 

the Nassau grouper. Overlap of the final 

Nassau grouper critical habitat with 

several Federal protected areas affords 

the critical habitat extensive protections 

against potentially damaging activities. 

Some of these consultations on 

activities associated with these 

protections will need to be reviewed to 

consider potential effects to Nassau 

grouper critical habitat. 

The RFA requires consideration of 

alternatives to the final rule that would 

minimize significant economic impacts 

to small entities. We considered the 

following alternatives when developing 

the final critical habitat rule. 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 

Under this status quo alternative, we 

would not designate critical habitat for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
154 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the Nassau grouper. Conservation and 

recovery of the listed species would 

depend exclusively upon the protection 

provided under the ‘‘jeopardy’’ 

provisions of section 7 of the ESA. 

Under the status quo, there would be no 

increase in the number of ESA 

consultations in the future that would 

not otherwise be required due to the 

listing of the Nassau grouper. However, 

we have determined that the physical 

and biological features forming the basis 

for our critical habitat designation are 

essential to the Nassau grouper’s 

conservation, and conservation of the 

species will not succeed without these 

features being available. Thus, the lack 

of protection of the critical habitat 

features from adverse modification 

could result in continued declines in 

abundance of Nassau grouper, and loss 

of associated economic and other values 

the species provides to society, such as 

commercial diving services. Small 

entities engaged in industries that 

depend on the presence of Nassau 

grouper or elements of the species’ 

critical habitat, particularly coral reefs, 

would be adversely affected by 

continued declines in the Nassau 

grouper. Thus, the no action alternative 

is not necessarily a ‘‘no cost’’ alternative 

for small entities. Moreover, because the 

ESA requires designation of critical 

habitat to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, and in this case 

critical habitat is both prudent and 

determinable, this option would not be 

legally viable under the ESA. 

Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative 

Under this alternative, the areas 

designated are waters from the shoreline 

to depths ranging from 2 m to 30 m in 

seven units in Florida, six units in 

Puerto Rico, three units in USVI, and 

one unit at Navassa Island; and in 

deeper, offshore waters up to 200 

fathoms (366 m) deep off the Riley’s 

Hump, Bajo de Sico, Grammanik, and 

Hind Banks spawning sites. An analysis 

of the costs and benefits of the preferred 

alternative designation is presented in 

Section 10.1 of the Critical Habitat 

Report. Relative to the no action 

alternative, this alternative will likely 

result in an increase in administrative 

costs of section 7 consultations that 

would already occur absent designation. 

We have determined that no categories 

of activities would require consultation, 

and no project modifications would be 

required, in the future solely due to this 

rule and the need to prevent adverse 

modification of the designated critical 

habitat. However, due to the protections 

afforded the essential features of the 

designated critical habitat under this 

alternative, it is likely that consultations 

on future Federal actions within those 

categories of activities will require 

additional administrative effort to 

address specific impacts to Nassau 

grouper critical habitat. This additional 

administrative effort would be an 

incremental impact of this rule. 

Consultation costs associated with those 

projects with larger or more diffuse 

action areas, i.e., projects that may affect 

a wider range of listed species or critical 

habitats, would likely be largely 

coextensive with listings or other 

regulatory requirements. 

The preferred alternative was selected 

because it best implements the critical 

habitat provisions of the ESA by 

including the well-defined 

environmental features that we can 

clearly state are essential to the species’ 

conservation, and because this 

alternative would reduce the economic 

impacts on entities relative to an 

alternative that encompasses a larger 

geographical area (see Alternative 3). 

Also, as noted above, Alternative 1, 

would fail to meet statutory 

requirements for designation of critical 

habitat; and, as described below, 

Alternative 3, would not adequately 

reflect the best available science and our 

consideration of economic impacts. 

Alternative 3: Different Geographic 

Boundaries 

We considered a third alternative that 

would have delineated the designation 

for all nearshore units containing the 

development, refuge, and foraging 

essential feature based a single depth 

contour of 30 m. We evaluated this 

alternative based on our experience 

with the 2008 Acropora critical habitat 

designation, which created a single 

designation for both acroporid corals 

species from 0 to 30 m depth, generally, 

and to ensure inclusion across units of 

areas where the growth and 

development essential feature is 

abundant. However, the areas in which 

the development, refuge, and foraging 

essential feature is sufficiently abundant 

and contiguously located to appreciably 

promote conservation of the species 

comprise variable depth swaths across 

units. Under Alternative 3, a larger 

number of future Federal activities 

could affect the Nassau grouper critical 

habitat and trigger the need for ESA 

section 7 consultation, resulting in 

higher incremental administrative costs 

compared to the preferred alternative. 

Thus, we rejected this alternative 

because, relative to the preferred 

alternative, it would likely increase 

incremental costs of the final rule to 

small entities without incrementally 

promoting conservation of the species. 

In the final rule, we selected 

Alternative 2 because it provides for the 

conservation of the species while 

reducing the economic, national 

security, and other relevant impacts on 

affected entities. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

We have determined that this action 

will have no reasonably foreseeable 

effects on the enforceable policies of 

approved coastal zone management 

plans in Florida, Puerto Rico, and USVI. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new or 

revised collection of information 

requirements. This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. Therefore, the Paperwork 

Reduction Act does not apply. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

This rule will not produce a Federal 

mandate. The designation of critical 

habitat does not impose a legallybinding duty on non-Federal 

government entities or private parties. 

The only regulatory effect is that Federal 

agencies must ensure that their actions 

are not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat under section 7 

of the ESA. Non-Federal entities that 

receive Federal funding, assistance, 

permits or otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly impacted by 

the designation of critical habitat, but 

the Federal agency has the legally 

binding duty to avoid destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

We do not anticipate that this rule will 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, a Small 

Government Action Plan is not required. 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments (Executive 

Order 13175) 

The longstanding and distinctive 

relationship between the Federal and 

tribal governments is defined by 

treaties, statutes, executive orders, 

judicial decisions, and agreements, 

which differentiate tribal governments 

from the other entities that deal with, or 

are affected by, the Federal government. 

This relationship has given rise to a 

special Federal trust responsibility 

involving the legal responsibilities and 

obligations of the United States toward 

Indian Tribes and with respect to Indian 

lands, tribal trust resources, and the 

exercise of tribal rights. Pursuant to 

these authorities, lands have been 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 155 

retained by Indian Tribes or have been 

set aside for tribal use. These lands are 

managed by Indian Tribes in accordance 

with tribal goals and objectives within 

the framework of applicable treaties and 

laws. Executive Order 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, outlines the 

responsibilities of the Federal 

government in matters affecting tribal 

interests. 

In developing this rule, we reviewed 

maps and did not identify any areas 

designated as critical habitat that 

overlap with tribal lands, nor do we 

anticipate impacts on tribal fisheries as 

a result of these critical habitat 

designations. Based on this, we found 

the critical habitat designations for 

Nassau grouper do not have tribal 

implications. 

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 rule 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. The 

proposed rule was widely distrusted, 

including to the affected States and 

territorial governments. We did not 

receive any public comment suggesting 

the designation would result in effects 

these communities. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking can be found on our 

Website at https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/species/nassau-grouper#

conservation-management and is 

available upon request from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects 

50 CFR Part 223 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Transportation. 

50 CFR Part 226 

Endangered and threatened species. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NOAA amends 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, amend the table in 

paragraph (e) by revising the entry 

under the ‘‘Fishes’’ subheading for 

‘‘Grouper, Nassau’’ 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 

*******

Fishes 

*******

Grouper, Nassau ......... Epinephelus striatus .... Entire species .............. 81 FR 42268, June 29, 

2016.

[Insert 226.231] ........... 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 the Nassau 

grouper. 

Critical habitat is designated in the 

following state and territories as 

depicted in the maps below and 

described in paragraphs (a) through (d) 

of this section. The maps as clarified by 

the textual descriptions in this section 

are the definitive sources for 

determining the critical habitat 

boundaries. 

(a) Critical habitat boundaries. Except 

as noted in paragraph (c) of this section, 

critical habitat is defined as: 

(1) Navassa Island—All waters 

surrounding Navassa Island, from the 

shoreline to the 30 m isobath. 

(2) Puerto Rico Unit 1—Isla de Mona 

and Monito—All waters surrounding 

the islands of Mona and Monito from 

the shoreline to the 50 m isobath. 

(3) Puerto Rico Unit 2—Desecheo 

Island—All waters surrounding the 

island of Desecheo from the shoreline to 

the 50 m isobath. 

(4) Puerto Rico Unit 3—Southwest— 

All waters from the southwestern 

shoreline of Puerto Rico, between Playa 

Tres Tubos just south Mayaguez and 

Punta Ballena in Guanica, extending 

offshore to depths of about 10 m and, 

near La Parguera, to depths of about 15 

m. 

(5) Puerto Rico Unit 4—Northeast— 

All waters from the northeastern 

shoreline of Puerto Rico out to depths 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
156 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

of about 10 m between Cabeza Chiquita 

and Punta Lima. 

(6) Puerto Rico Unit 5—Vieques 

Island—There are two areas that make 

up this unit. First, all waters from the 

southwestern shoreline out to the inner 

reef in depths of about 2 m between 

Punta Boca Quebrada and Punta Vaca. 

Second, all waters from the southeastern 

and northeastern shorelines out to the 

inner reef in depths of about 2 m 

between Punta Mulas and Ensenada 

Honda near Cayo Jalovita. 

(7) Puerto Rico Unit 6—Isla de 

Culebra—There are two areas that make 

up this unit. First, all waters from the 

southeastern shoreline of Isla de Culebra 

out to the reef ledge in depths of about 

15 m between Punta del Soldado and 

Cabeza de Perro, excluding the bays of 

Puerto del Manglar and Ensenada 

Honda. Second, all waters from the 

southern shoreline of Isla Culebrita out 

to the nearshore reef in depths of about 

5 m between the western point of the 

island and Punta del Este. 

(8) United State Virgin Islands Unit 

1—St. Thomas—There are two areas 

that make up this unit. First, all waters 

off the southeast end of St. Thomas 

between Stalley Bay and Cabrita Point 

out to the reef ledge in depths of about 

15 m and surrounding Great St. James, 

Little St. James, and Dog Islands. 

Second, all waters on the south side of 

Water Island from the shoreline out to 

the coral reef in depths of about 5 m 

between Druif Point and the south end 

of Sand Bay. 

(9) United States Virgin Islands Unit 

2—St. John—All waters on the east end 

of St. John from the shoreline out to the 

inner coral reef in depths of about 2 m 

between White Point on the south coast 

and Leinster Point on the north coast. 

(10) United States Virgin Islands Unit 

3—St. Croix—There are two areas that 

make up this unit. First, all waters on 

the east end of St. Croix from the 

shoreline to the outer coral reef edge in 

depths of about 10 m on the north coast 

and 15 m on the eastern point and south 

coast between Batiste Point and Pelican 

Cove Beach, excluding the Christiansted 

navigation channel. Second, all waters 

on the north side of Buck Island 

between the shoreline and the coral reef 

in depths of about 5 m. 

(11) Florida Unit 1—Biscayne Bay/ 

Key Largo—All waters of Biscayne Bay 

(bounded on the north by the 

Rickenbacker Causeway), Card Sound 

(bounded on the south by Card Sound 

Road), and the Atlantic Ocean out to the 

coral reef and hardbottom in depths of 

about 20 m between Stiltsville, south of 

Cape Florida, and Harry Harris Beach 

Park near the south end of Key Largo, 

excluding the Intracoastal Waterway; 

unit overlaps areas of Miami-Dade and 

Monroe County. 

(12) Florida Unit 2—Marathon—All 

waters from the southern shoreline of 

the City of Marathon in Monroe County 

out to the 15 m isobath between Knights 

Key and Grassy Key, excluding the Boot 

Key navigation channel. 

(13) Florida Unit 3—Big Pine Key to 

Geiger Key—All waters south of U.S. 

Highway 1 out to the 15 m isobath 

between the eastern point of Big Pine 

Key and Geiger Key in Monroe County. 

(14) Florida Unit 4—Key West—All 

shoal waters south of Woman Key 

between 5 and 30 m depth that contain 

coral reef and hardbottom and seagrass 

habitat in Monroe County. 

(15) Florida Unit 5—New Ground 

Shoal—All New Ground Shoal waters 

shown in the map below for this unit in 

Monroe County. 

(16) Florida Unit 6—Halfmoon 

Shoal—All Halfmoon Shoal Waters 

shown in the map below for this unit in 

Monroe County. 

(17) Florida Unit 7—Dry Tortugas— 

There are three areas which make up 

this unit located in Monroe County. 

First, all waters surrounding Loggerhead 

Key to depths of about 2 m. Second, all 

waters surrounding Garden Key to 

depths out to about 3.5 m. Third, all 

waters surrounding Bush Key to depths 

out to about 5.5 m. 

(18) Spawning Site Unit 1—Bajo de 

Sico—All waters encompassed by the 

100 m isobath in the Bajo de Sico area. 

(19) Spawning Site Unit 2— 

Grammanik Bank/Hind Bank—All 

waters which make up the Hind Bank 

and the Grammanik Bank, 

interconnecting waters between these 

banks, and waters extending out to the 

200 fathom line directly south from 

Grammanik Bank. 

(20) Spawning Site Unit 3—Riley’s 

Hump—All waters encompassing 

Riley’s Hump located southwest of the 

Dry Tortugas out to the 35 m isobath on 

the north, west, and east side of the 

hump and out to the 50 m isobath on 

the south side of the hump. 

(b) Essential features. The features 

essential to the conservation of Nassau 

grouper are: 

(1) Recruitment and developmental 

habitat. Areas from nearshore to 

offshore necessary for recruitment, 

development, and growth of Nassau 

grouper containing a variety of benthic 

types that provide cover from predators 

and habitat for prey, consisting of the 

following: 

(i) Nearshore shallow subtidal marine 

nursery areas with substrate that 

consists of unconsolidated calcareous 

medium to very coarse sediments (not 

fine sand) and shell and coral fragments 

and may also include cobble, boulders, 

whole corals and shells, or rubble 

mounds, to support larval settlement 

and provide shelter from predators 

during growth and habitat for prey. 

(ii) Intermediate hardbottom and 

seagrass areas in close proximity to the 

nearshore shallow subtidal marine 

nursery areas that protect growing fish 

from predation as they move from 

nearshore nursery areas into deeper 

waters and provide habitat for prey. The 

areas include seagrass interspersed with 

areas of rubble, boulders, shell 

fragments, or other forms of cover; 

inshore patch and fore reefs that provide 

crevices and holes; or substrates 

interspersed with scattered sponges, 

octocorals, rock and macroalgal patches, 

or stony corals. 

(iii) Offshore linear and patch reefs in 

close proximity to intermediate 

hardbottom and seagrass areas that 

contain multiple benthic types, for 

example, coral reef, colonized 

hardbottom, sponge habitat, coral 

rubble, rocky outcrops, or ledges, to 

provide shelter from predation during 

maturation and habitat for prey. 

(iv) Structures between the subtidal 

nearshore area and the intermediate 

hardbottom and seagrass area and the 

offshore reef area including overhangs, 

crevices, depressions, blowout ledges, 

holes, and other types of formations of 

varying sizes and complexity to support 

juveniles and adults as movement 

corridors that include temporary refuge 

that reduce predation risk as Nassau 

grouper move from nearshore to 

offshore habitats. 

(2) Spawning habitat. Marine sites 

used for spawning and adjacent waters 

that support movement and staging 

associated with spawning. 

(c) Areas not included in critical 

habitat. Critical habitat does not 

include: 

(1) Managed areas where the substrate 

is continually disturbed by planned 

management activities authorized by 

local, state, or Federal governmental 

entities at the time of critical habitat 

designation, and that will continue to be 

disturbed by such management. 

Examples include, but are not 

necessarily limited to, dredged 

navigation channels, shipping basins, 

vessel berths, and active anchorages. 

(2) Pursuant to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B), 

all area subject to the Naval Air Station 

Key West Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan. 

(d) Maps of Nassau grouper critical 

habitat. (1) Spatial data for these critical 

habitats and mapping tools are 

maintained on our website and are 

available for public use 

(www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 157 

endangered-species-conservation/ 

critical-habitat). 

(2) Overview maps of each final 

critical habitat unit follow. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.006</GPH>

Map 1. Navassa Island Unit 

75"ZW 

18"25'N 

18"24'N 

30m 

0 D.5 

Miles 

18"23'N o 1⁄2 1 

75'2'W 

Legend 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat 

75•1·w 75"0'W 

Caribbean Sea 

1s·2s'N 

Navassa 1.sland 

2 

Kilometers 

75°1'W 

N 

+ 

18'24'N 

1a•23•N 

75'0'W 

c:::J 

~ 

Jamaica 

• 

Navassa Island 

OvervfewMa 
158 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.007</GPH>

Map 2. Puerto Rico Unit 1 - Isla de Mona and Manito 

s1·ssw 18"10'N 

Manito 

50m 

18"8'N 

18"6'N 

18'4'N 

Caribbean Sea 

67"5BW 

Legend 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat 

0 0.75 1.5 

0 1.5 

3 

Kilotne1ers Miles 

3 

67"54W 67"52'W srsow 

1S•tO'N 

Atlantic Ocean 

Isla de Mona 

67'54W 

N 

+ 

l8"8'N 

18°6'N 

18"4'N 

67"52W 67"50W 

Dominican 

Republic 

Atlantic Ocean 

Puerto 

}!J R~o 

/ Caribbean S<1a 

Isla de Mona 

Overview Ma 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 159 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.008</GPH>

Map 3. Puerto Rico Unit 2 -Desecheo Island 

er 'IO"W 18"24'N 

8'23'40"N 

18"23'N 

1S'22'4<!"N 

18'22'2il"N 

67' ~O'W 

Legend 

Desecheo Island 

50m 

Caribbean Sea 

67'29'20"W 6 r,w 67'2 'IO'W 

N 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat + 0.3 0.6 

0.3 

Mil,_ 

0.6 

1.2 

Kilometers' 

Atlantic Ocean 

sr ·20-w 

13"23'40"N 

18'23 

18"23'N 

!8'22'40"N 

18'22'20"N 

67' 

AtlantiC' Ocean 

DOmlnJoao 

Republic 

. 

/ Puerto Ri 

Desecheo Island 

Caribbean Sea 

Overview Ma 
160 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.009</GPH>

Map 4. Puerto Rico Unit 3 - Southwest 

67' SW 

1s·1o'N 

1s·s'N 

18'0'N 

17"55'N 

0 5 10 

Kilometers 

Miles 

0 0.81.5 3 4.5 

17'50'N 

67' 5W 

Legend 

67' OW 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat 

67 W 

67' 

67° 'W 66" W 

Points 

A 67"11'10"W, 18"08'12."N 

8 67'12'04"W, 18"08'1:Z"N 

C 67"02'51 "W, 17°57'51"111 18'10'N 

D 67'02'54"W, 17'57'12 'ill 

E 66"58'18"W, 17°56'33"N 

f 66"58'09"W, 17°56'33"111 

G 66"51'49"W, 17°56'21"N 

H 66'51'49"W, 17"56'45"111 

18"5'N 

Puerto Rico 

18'0'N 

17"55'N 

Caribbean Sea 

67' 'W 

17"50'N 

N 

+ 

Atla.ntic Ocean 

Caribbean Sea 

Overview Ma 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 161 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.010</GPH>

Map 5. Puerto Rico Unit 4 - Northeast 

65" 4W 65" O'W 65" 

18'20'N 

Puerto Rico 

18"16'N 

18"12'N 

65' O'W as· e·w 

N 

Legend 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat + 

A 

B 

C 

D 

0. 1 

v 

Points 

65" 2W 2 4 Kilometers MIies 

2 

18"20'N 

65"38'40"W, l8"22'Sl"N 

65'38'4S"W, 18"23'06"N 

65"41'31"W, 18"11'02"N 

65'41'28"W, 18"10'4S"N 

18"16'N 

f8"12'N 

Caribbean Sea 

65' 2'W 

Atlantic Ocean 

Puerto Rico 

Caribbean Sea 

Overview Ma 
162 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.011</GPH>

Map 6. Puerto Rico Unit 5 ~ Vieques Island 

65' 2W 

18'16'N 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

18'12'N 

18'8'N 

/ 

Punta Boca Quebrada 

18'4'N C 

18'0'N o 2.5 5 

0 2 4 

65' 

Legend 

es· sw 65° 4W 65" O'W 

Points 

65"34'40"W, 18'06'09"N F 65'21'17"W, 18"07'02"N 

65'34'40"W, 18'06'08''N G 65'21'24"W, 18"06'43"N 

65'31'55"W, 18"04'46"N H 65'20'56"W, 18"06'43"N 

65"31'55"W, 18"04'50"N I 65'26'44"W, 18"09'20"N 

65'21'06"W, 18'06'SO"N J 65'26'39"W, 18"09'16"N 

2m 

Punta Mulas 

Vieques Island 

10 

Kilometers 

Mill!$ 

6 

65'28'W 

Caribbean Sea 

65 'W 65' OW 

N 

65° 6'W 

18"16'N 

18"12'N 

18'4'N 

18'0'N 

65°16 

Atlantic Or;ean 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat + 

Caribbean Sea 

Overview Ma 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 163 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.012</GPH>

Map 7. Puerto Rico Unit 6 - Isla De Culebra/ Culebrita 

as•1aw 65'17'W 

18'19'N 

Isla De Culebra 

18'17'N 

Poil'ltS 

C A 65'14'4:l"W, 18'18'32"N I 

B 65'14'34"W, 18"18'27"N J 

C 65'17'06"W, 18'16'37"N K 

18'16'N D 65'17'09"W, 18"16'38"N L 

E 65'16'56"W, 18"17'38"N M 

F 65"16'28"W, 18'17 43' N N 

G 65'15'19"W, 18"17'58"N 

H 65'14'59"W, 18"18'17"N 

65'18'W 65"17'W 65"16'W 65'15'W 

N 

Legend 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat + 

65'14'W 65"13'W 

~~ 

1B"20'N 

K L 

18"18'N 

O 0.5 1.5 2Kilometers 18"1TN 

0 

- MileS 

1 

65'14'18"W, 18"19'14"N 

65"14'21"W, 18"19'12."N 

65"13'49"W, 18°18'23"N 

65'13'31"W, 18"18'23"N 8"16'N 

65"13'10"W, 18'18'46"N 

65'13'18"W, 18'18'45"N 

65'14'W 65°13W 

Atlantic Ocean 

Oaribbean Sea 

overview Ma 
164 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.013</GPH>

Map 8. United States Virgin Islands Unit 1.-St. Thomas 

St. Thomas 

8'18'0"N 

Points 

A 64'52'45"W, 18'18'2l"N 

B 64'52'48"W, 18"18'09"N 

C 64"49'55"W, 18'19'38"N 

D 64'50'00"W, 18.'19'35"N 

E 64'57'36"W, l8"18'56"N 

F 64°57'38"W, 18'18'58"N 

18"16'0"N G 64"56'26"W, 18"19'20"N 

H 64'56'29"W, 18"19'19"N 

64"5 ·o·w 64' 'O"W 

54•5 'O"W 64° 'O"W 

0 0.5 1 2 3. :::~;~=--•Kilometers Mil°" 0 O;S 1 

18°24'0" 

1a·22'0-

I 

18'20'0" 

Dog Island 

Caribbean Sea 18"16'.0" 

84"5 'O"W 64" 'fYW 

N 

Legend 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat + 

overview Map 

Atlantic ocean 

~ St ThOmas 

Caribbean Sea 

~ 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 165 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.014</GPH>

Map 9. United States Virgin Islands Unit 2- St. John 

8'21'N 

8'18'N 

64" 'W 

64" '!!W 

\Leinster 

Point 

St. John 

64' 3'W 

54• 2'W 

64" 2'W 

Legend 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat 

A 

B 

C 

D 

N 

54• 1'W 

0 

64° O'W 

2 

. Kilometers 18'22' Mtlea 

0 0.25 0.5 1 

18'21' 

Caribbean Sea 

18'19' 

Points 

64'43'56"W, 18'18'S0"N 

64'43'56"W, 18'18'49"N 

64'43'14''W, 18"22'06"N 

54•43'14"W, 18'22'04"N 

18'18' 

64• 1'W 64" O'W 

+ 

overview Map 

Atlantic Ocean 

.c:;:;:,, SL John 

Caribbean Sea 
166 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.015</GPH>

Map 10. United States Virgin Islands Unit 3- St. Croix 

64° 4'W 

7°48'N 

7'40'N 

64' 4'W 

Legend 

navigation 

Channel 

H 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

K 

64' 'W 

Buck 

Island 

Caribbean Sea 

15m 

Points 

64°36'40"w; 17°47'14"N G 

64"'36•39•~ 17"47t18" N H 

64°37'35''W, 17°47'51 "fll I 

64'38'03''W, 17°47'30"fll J 

64°37'54"W, l7°47'18"N K 

64°37'39''W, 17°47'18"N L 

M 

N 

64°42'12"W, 17°42'11"N 

64°42'12"W, 17°41'20"N 

64°35'03"W, 17"46'18"N 

64°36'2S"W, 17°4S'S8"N 

64°39'07"W, 17°47'04"N 

64°43'53"W, 17"46'13"N 

64'44'07"W, 17"45'58"N 

54• 'W 

Overview Map 

Atlantic Ocean 

17°48' 

17'44' 

17"40' 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat + 

,e:;:::;,, St Croix 

Caribbean Sea ~ 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 167 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.016</GPH>

Map 11. Florida Unit 1 - Biscayne Bay/Key Largo 

!WOW 

26°0'N 

25°50'N 

roe 

25"40'N 

\ 

25'0'N 

24'50'N 

81'0W 

80"50W 80'40'W 80'30W 

Points 

A 80'09'22"W, 25"40'00"N 

B 80"09'29"W, 25"37'55"N 

C 80'05'31"W, 25"35'14"N 

0 80'24'51"W, 24'58'55"N 

E 80'29'21"W, 25'01'59"N 

Miam1-Dade 

I) 

/' 

80::;f/i ✓ 80'40W 80°30W 

Legend 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat 

80"20'W 

~keribacker 

Causeway 

80'0W 79'50'W 

26'0'N 

25'50'N 

25'40'N 

25"30'N 

25'20'N 

25'10'N 

Atlantic Ocean 

25'O'N 

0 S 10 20 30 40 a:a:=---==:::::11--Kilometers 

-=--=-----====Miles 

0 5 10 20 30 

24'50'N 80-20'W 80"10W 80'0W 79"50'W 

N 

+ 

Ocean 

Overview Ma 
168 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.017</GPH>

Map 12. Florida Unit 2 - Marathon 

81"8'W a,·sw a1•4w s1·2w a,·ow 80"58W 80"56'W 80"54"W 

0 1 2 4 a 

Kilometers 

MIies ,14•48•N 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 

Gulf of Mexico 

24"46'N 24'46'N 

24'44'N 

24'42'N 

24'40'N 24"40'N 

Points 

A 80°55'51"W, 24"46'26"N 

B 80"55'52"W, 24'46'1S"N 

24'38'N C 80"56'07"W, 24'45'47"N 24'38'N 

D 80'54'2S"W, 24"41'28"N 

E I: 81"07'28"W, 24'37'l2"N 

F 81"07'29"W, 24.'42'24"N 

24'36'N G 81 °06'SS"W, 24"42'28"N 

H 81'06'51"W, 24'42'08"N 24'38'N 

Atlantic Ocean I 81 '06'52"W, 24'42'05"N 

lWS'W 81'6W a1•4w a1·2w 81'0W 80"58W 80"56'W 80'54W 

N 

Legend 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat + FL 

Gulf of 

Mexico 

.,.;._.....er 

Atlantic Ocean 

Overview Ma 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 169 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.018</GPH>

Map 13. Florida Unit 3 • Big Pine Key to Geiger Key 

81"40W 81"35W 81"30W 81'25W a1·2ow 

Points 

24'50'N 

A 81°19'41"W, 24'38'43"N 

B 81"18'00"W, 24°34'11"N 

Gulf of Mexico 

C 81°35':IO"W, 24°30'18"N 

D s1•39•1s"w, 24•34•3s"N 

24"30'N C 

Atlantic Ocean 

0 5 10 20 

Klli>rnetel'!l 

Mfles 24'25'N 0 2.5 5 10 

81'40'W 81'35'W s1•30w 81'25W IW20'W 

N 

Nassau Grouper Qitical Habitat + 

81"15W 

24'50'N 

24"30'N 

24'25'N 

s1·1sw 

Atlantic 

Ocean 
170 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.019</GPH>

Map 14. Florida Unit 4 - Key West 

a2·sw 82"0W 81"55W 

24'40'N 

Gulf of Mexico 

[l 

"351N 

Boca Granda Kay 6 Woman Key C). 

1, ~ B 

24'30'N 

C 

30m D 

81"50W 81"45'W 

"' 

• 0 

F 

E 

l'Oints 

A 81'59'54"W, 24'30'51"N 

24'40' <I 

.. 

24'30'N 

24"25'N 24"25'N 8 82'01 '26"W, 24"30'5l"N 

Atlantic Ocean 

0 3.75 7.5 15 

Kdom&ters 

Miles 

0 2 4 & 

24"20'N 

&2·sw a2~ow 81-SSW 

N 

Legend 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat + 

C 82'01 '26"W, 24'26'26"N 

D 81'56'25"W, 24'26'13"N 

E 81'48'11"W, 24'27'50"N 

F 81"48'11"W, 24"28'46"N 

G 81'50'36"W, 24'29'3S"N 

H 81 '56'2S"W, 24"29'07"N 

I 81'56'2S"W, 24'30'32"N 

24'20'N 

81'50'W 81"45'W 

Gulf c;f 

Mexico 

FL 

rr·" 

Atlantic 

Ocaan 

Overview Ma 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 171 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.020</GPH>

Map 15. Florida Unit 5 - New Ground Shoal 

24'30'N 

82"36W 82"36'W 82'34W 

0 1.25 2.5 5 

KHometets 

Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3 

24'28'N B 

D 

24'26'N 

24'24'N 

Points 

24'22'N A 82°31 '45"W, 24 °26'30"N 

B 82°34'00"W, 24°271

5111N 

C 82°35'45"W, 24°27'45"N 

D 82°37'15"W, 24°26'45"N 

E s2•35•0011w, 24•2s154"N 

F 82°3210011W, 24°24'48"N 

24"20'N 

82'38"W 82'36'W 82'34W 

N 

Legend 

1111 Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat + 

82'32W 82'30W 

Gulf of Mexico 

A 

Marquesas Keys 

Gulf of Mexico ' 

~ 

New Ground Shoal 

~ Index Map 

82"32W 82"30W 

Gulf of 

Mextco 

New Ground Shoal .. 

24'30'N 

24':!B'N 

24'26'N 

24'24'N 

24'22'N 

24"20'N 

"'; .. _,..,,..-' 

□ Atlantic 

Ocean 

Overview Ma 
172 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.021</GPH>

Map 16. Florida Unit 6- Halfmoon Shoal 

82'24W 82'18'W s2·1:2w 82"8'W 

Gulf of Mexico 

24'42'N 

24•311•N 

24"30'N 

24•z4'N 

F 

H 

Points 

A s2·2o·oo"w, 24•3s•1s"N 

B 82°22'30"W, 24°38'21"N 

C 82°25'45"W, 24°39'24"N 

D 82°20'15"W, 24°40'00"N 

E 82"20'15"W, 24°40'18"N 

F 82°24 00"W, 24°40'48"N 

G 82"27'15"W, 24°40'00"N 

H 82°23'42"W, 24°37'30"N 

I 82"20'00"W, 24°37'30"N 

0 2.5 5 10 15 

KIiometers 

0 1 2 4 

82'24W 

Miles 

6 

82"18'W 

Legend 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat 

24"42'N 

Marquesas Keys 

~-

' cJ 

24'30'N 

24"24'N 

s2·12w 82"8W 

N 

+ □.,_,,,,. . .-,•' 

Atll!lntic Oc&an 

overview Ma 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 173 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.022</GPH>

Ma 17. Florida Unit 7 - D 

82"56'W 82"55W a2•54w 

24"41'N 

A 82'55'36"W, 24'37'38"N 

s 82°55'39"W, 24'37'53"N 

C 82'52'24"W, 24"37'31"N 

D 82'52'31"W, 24'37'31"N 

E 82'52' 36"W,24'37'31" N 

F 82"52'29"W, 24'38'09"N 

24"40'N G 82°52'21"W, 24'38'00"N 

H 82'52'16"W, 24'37'50"N 

24'39'N 

24'38'N 

B 

Loggerhead Key 

82'55W 82'54'W 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat 

a2·s3'W 82"52'W S2"51'W 

P-oints 

I 

K 

L 

M 

N 

0 

p 

Garden 

Key 

24'41'N 

82"52'12"W, 24'37'51 "N 

82'52'14"W, 24'37'57"N 

82'52'17"W, 24"38'02"N 

82'52'21"W, 24"38'07"N 

82"51'40"W, 24'38'19"N 

82'52'02"W, 24'37'22"N 

82'52'23"W, 24'37'28"111 24'40'M 

82'52'18"W, 24"37'29"N 

Gulf of Mexico 

Bush 

Key 

24'39'N 

S.Sm 24'38'N 

24'37'N 

82"53W 82'52'W 82'51 

N 

+ FL 

DryTorlugas 

< / •' .,_,_,.,. .... 

Atlantic 

Ocean 

Overview Ma 
174 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.023</GPH>

67" 4W 

Atlantic Ocean 

8°15'N 

18°t4'N 

a•13'N 0 0.33 0.65 

0 0.15 0.3 

67° 6W 

Legend 

Miles 

0'.6 

1.3 

Kliometem 

6 5W 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat 

N 

+ 

1a•14• 

Caribbean Sea 

1a•13• 

67° 4'W 

Atlantic Ocean 

Blljo de Sico r---------~.J 

\ Puerto 

Rico 

Caribbean Sea 

Overview Map 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 175 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.024</GPH>

Map 19. Spawning Site Unit 2 - Grammanik Bank and Hind Bank 

65 W 65 W 

~ 

s•20'N 

Points 

A 65'06'00"W, 18'13 13"N 

B 64'59'00"W, 18'13'13"N 

C 64°56'20"W, 18'11'55"N 

D 64'56'13"W, 18'11'39"N 

E 64 '56'13"W, 18"11'06"N 

18°16'N F 64°59'01"W, 18'10'53"N 

G 64°59'00 ·w, 18'11'48"N 

H 65"06'01"W, 18'10'43"N 

A B 

8"12'N 

Caribbean Sea 

Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 

65° W 65"4W 

Legend 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat 

-- 200 Fathom Line 

es· ·w 

N 

+ 

64" 'ZW 

18°1 

200 Fathom Line 

64" W 64' 'ZW 

Atfantlc Ocean 

~.---. .:~ ·,;~ 

°' Grammanlk Bank 

and Hind Bank 

Caribbaan Sea 

Overview Ma 

18"8 
176 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2023–28483 Filed 12–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER02JA24.025</GPH>

Map 20. Spawning Site Unit 3 - Riley's Hump 

83" 'W 93• W 83' 'W 

Atlantic Ocean 

24"32'N 

24'31'N 

24°30'N 

24°29'N 

Caribbean Sea 

83" 'W 83° 'W 83' 'W 

N 

Legend 

Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat + 0.7 

0 0.7 

1.4 

MHas 

1.4 

2.8 

Kilometers 

83° 

24°32'N 

24'31'N 

24"30"N 

24'29'N 

83' 'W 

Gulf Of 

Mexico 

Riley's Hump 

r ... ,_,A· _,.., 

" 

Caribbean Sea 

Overview Ma