Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 36225 

Dated: June 9, 2022. 

Samuel Roth, 

Attorney-Advisor, National Endowment for 

the Humanities. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12823 Filed 6–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7536–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0050; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BE15 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Marron Bacora and 

Designation of Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are listing 

marron bacora (Solanum conocarpum), 

a plant species from the U.S. and British 

Virgin Islands, as an endangered species 

and are designating critical habitat for 

the species under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

In total, approximately 2,548 acres 

(1,031 hectares) on St. John, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, fall within the boundaries of the 

critical habitat designation. This rule 

adds this species to the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants and 

extends the Act’s protections to the 

species and its designated critical 

habitat. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 18, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0050. Comments 

and materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection in the docket on 

https://www.regulations.gov. For the 

critical habitat designation, the 

coordinates or plot points or both from 

which the maps are generated are 

included in the decision file for the 

critical habitat designation and are 

available at the Caribbean Ecological 

Services Field Office’s website (https:// 

www.fws.gov/office/caribbeanecological-services/library) and at 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0050. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edwin Mun ̃iz, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean 

Ecological Services Field Office, P.O. 

Box 491, Road 301 Km 5.1, Boquero ́n, 

PR 00622; telephone 787–244–0081; 

email caribbean_es@fws.gov. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species warrants listing if it 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species (in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range) or a threatened species (likely 

to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range). We have 

determined that the marron bacora 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species; therefore, we are listing it as 

such. To the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, we must designate 

critical habitat for any species that we 

determine to be an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

Listing a species as an endangered or 

threatened species and designation of 

critical habitat can be completed only 

by issuing a rule. 

What this rule does. This rule lists 

marron bacora (Solanum conocarpum) 

as an endangered species under the Act 

and designates approximately 2,548 

acres (ac) (1,031 hectares (ha)) on St. 

John, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), as 

critical habitat for the species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that the primary 

threats acting on marron bacora are 

habitat destruction or modification by 

exotic mammal species (e.g., whitetailed deer, goats, pigs, and donkeys) 

and invasive plants and exotic plants 

(e.g., guinea grass) (Factor A); herbivory 

by nonnative, feral ungulates and insect 

pests (Factor C); and the lack of natural 

recruitment, absence of dispersers, 

fragmented distribution and small 

population size, lack of genetic 

diversity, and climate change (Factor E). 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 

designate critical habitat concurrent 

with listing to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. Section 

3(5)(A) of the Act 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 protections; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary must make the designation 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 impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. We are 

designating 2,548 ac (1,031 ha), 

consisting of two units on St. John, 

USVI, as critical habitat for marron 

bacora in this rule. We have excluded 

1.33 ac (0.54 ha) from the South Unit. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Please refer to the proposed rule to 

list and designate critical habitat for the 

marron bacora (85 FR 52516; August 26, 

2020) for a detailed description of 

previous Federal actions concerning this 

species. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

This final rule incorporates changes to 

our proposal (85 FR 52516; August 26, 

2020) based on the comments we 

received, as discussed below under 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations. Based on these 

comments, we also incorporated, as 

appropriate, new information into our 

SSA report. Minor, nonsubstantive 

changes and editorial corrections were 

made throughout both documents in 

response to comments. However, the 

information we received during the 

public comment period on the proposed 

rule did not change our determination 

that the marron bacora meets the 

definition of an endangered species. The 

information provided a better 

understanding of a finer scale of the 

proposed critical habitat units, and we 

applied changes accordingly. 

Specifically, based on new 

information received from a private 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36226 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

landowner in a letter dated October 26, 

2020, and after considering the benefits 

of exclusion versus the benefits of 

inclusion, we revised Unit 1 (South 

Unit) to exclude 1.33 acres (0.54 ha) 

from the critical habitat designation. 

This unit now consists of approximately 

1,704 ac (690 ha), which is a decrease 

of approximately 0.06 percent of the 

area proposed for Unit 1. Because of this 

exclusion, we revised the index and 

relevant unit maps, and we updated the 

coordinates or plot points from which 

those maps were generated. The 

information is available at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0050, and from the 

Caribbean Ecological Services Field 

Office website at https://www.fws.gov/ 

office/caribbean-ecological-services/ 

library. 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

marron bacora. The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species (Service 2020, 

entire). 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we sought the 

expert opinions of six appropriate 

specialists regarding the initial SSA 

report, version 1.0 (Service 2019, 

entire). We received comments from one 

of the six reviewers. The reviewer was 

generally supportive of our approach 

and made suggestions and comments 

that strengthened our analysis. We also 

considered all comments and 

information we received during the 

comment period. The SSA report, 

version 1.1 (Service 2020, entire), and 

other materials relating to this rule can 

be found at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019– 

0050. 

I. Final Listing Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the marron 

bacora is presented in the SSA report 

(Service 2020, entire). 

Marron bacora is a dry-forest, 

perennial shrub of the Solanaceae (or 

nightshade) family that is endemic to 

the Virgin Islands. It has small purple 

flowers and can grow to a height of 

around 9.8 feet (ft) (3 meters (m)). The 

plants produce a green fruit with white 

striations and golden yellow when ripe 

(Acevedo-Rodriguez 1996, p. 415). The 

species typically requires pollinators for 

reproductive success but may selfpollinate under certain conditions. 

The historical range of the species 

includes St. John and possibly St. 

Thomas, USVI; however, recent surveys 

found the species on the neighboring 

island, Tortola, British Virgin Islands 

(BVI). An additional, unconfirmed 

record from plant material was collected 

in 1969 at Gordon Peak on Virgin Gorda, 

BVI (Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez 1996, p. 415). 

Suitable habitat for the species occurs 

on Virgin Gorda; however, that is the 

only record of the species on that island, 

and there have been no other records 

since the single plant was found in 

1969. At least three populations on St. 

John have been extirpated. 

The species is currently found on St. 

John, USVI, and Tortola, BVI, with a 

fragmented distribution of seven 

populations on St. John (Nanny Point, 

Friis Bay, Johns Folly, Brown Bay Trail, 

Reef Bay Trail, Base Hill, Brown Bay 

Ridge, Sabbat Point, Reef Bay Valley, 

and Europa Ridge) and a single 

population on Tortola (Sabbath Hill). St. 

John has a history of land-use changes 

that resulted in habitat loss and 

degradation, further isolating suitable 

habitats in patches that were not readily 

connected. The flowers of marron 

bacora plants have both anthers and 

pistols with morphological 

characteristics to differentiate the male 

and female plants; the male plants have 

long anthers with shorter pistils while 

the female plants have short, recurved 

anthers with an elongated pistil. Even 

though the flowers are hermaphroditic, 

the species is functionally dioecious 

(separate male and female plants) 

obligate out-crosser and typically selfincompatible (Anderson et al. 2015, p. 

479), so the larger the population, the 

better for ensuring successful 

reproduction and maintaining genetic 

diversity within populations. 

Please refer to the proposed listing 

rule for the marron bacora (85 FR 52516; 

August 26, 2020) for more species 

information. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. The Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 36227 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Service can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent a decision by the 

Service on whether the species should 

be listed as an endangered or threatened 

species under the Act. It does, however, 

provide the scientific basis that informs 

our regulatory decisions, which involve 

the further application of standards 

within the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. The following 

is a summary of the key results and 

conclusions from the SSA report, 

version 1.1; the full SSA report (Service 

2020, entire) can be found at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0050 on https://

www.regulations.gov. 

To assess marron bacora’s viability, 

we used the three conservation biology 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (Shaffer and Stein 

2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency 

supports the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years), 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of a species to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time. We use this information to inform 

our regulatory decision. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

The stressors acting on the species as 

described in the SSA report include 

invasive species (plants and animals), 

predation, demographic and genetic 

consequences of small population size 

and density, human-induced fires, 

insect pests and pathogens, changes in 

phenology and breeding systems, 

climate change/hurricanes, and habitat 

loss/degradation. 

Species Needs 

In order to understand the species’ 

viability, we considered the best 

available information in describing the 

species’ needs, including habitat, 

reproduction, and other environmental 

influences such as precipitation. We 

provide an overview of the species’ 

suitable habitat description and 

conditions for successful reproduction. 

With marron bacora’s endemism on 

two islands, the habitat is primarily 

based on forest type, soil characteristics, 

and elevation. The species occurs in 

dry, deciduous forest with dry soils 

(Acevedo-Rodrı ́guez 1996, p. 415). 

Marron bacora plants are locally 

abundant in exposed sites that have 

been disturbed by erosion as well as in 

areas that have received moderate 

grazing, and around ridgelines as an 

understory component in diverse 

woodland communities (Carper and Ray 

2008, p. 1). A habitat suitability model 

suggests that the vast majority of marron 

bacora habitat is found in the lower 

elevation (<85 m, 278.87 ft) coastal 

scrub forest and that about 32 percent of 

the land area of the Virgin Islands 

National Park (VINP) harbors suitable 

habitat for the species (Vilella and 

Palumbo 2010, p. 10). 

The majority of the marron bacora 

habitat lies within the subtropical dry 

life zone, which is characterized by low 

annual rainfall and a high 

evapotranspiration ratio (Ewel and 

Whitmore 1973, p.10). In fact, more than 

80 percent of St. John is considered as 

subtropical dry forest (Stanford et al. 

2013, p. 173). The vegetation in the 

subtropical dry life zone tends to form 

a complete ground cover and is almost 

completely deciduous (Ewel and 

Whitmore 1973, p. 10). As an endemic 

to the Virgin Islands, marron bacora is 

adapted to these environmental 

conditions, and the species’ phenology 

is synchronized with the rainy season. 

Most of the yearly rainfall on St. John 

occurs between May and December with 

official hurricane season from June 1 

through November 30. 

In terms of successful reproduction 

for the species, the system of breeding 

in marron bacora is very likely to be that 

of an obligate outcrosser with selfincompatibility (Stanford et al. 2013, 

pp. 174; Anderson et al. 2015, pp. 479). 

Recent findings support the 

hermaphroditic and functionally 

dioecious biology of marron bacora 

(Anderson et al. 2015, p. 479). There has 

been fruit production recorded on 

isolated plants suggesting the species 

still has mechanisms for self-pollination 

(Gibney pers. comm.). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36228 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Stressors Acting on the Species 

The species is impacted by natural 

and anthropogenic influences that may 

affect individual plants, the habitat, or 

populations in varying degrees. The 

magnitude, timing, frequency, and 

severity of the threats are influenced by 

additional biological and physical 

factors associated with the species’ 

habitat. We provide a brief overview of 

those stressors and additional 

information can be found in the 

proposed listing rule (85 FR 52516) and 

in the SSA report (Service 2020, pp. 34– 

41). 

Nonnative/Invasive Species 

Marron bacora and its habitat are 

directly affected by nonnative animals 

and plants. White-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus) were 

introduced to St. John in the 1920s to 

provide hunting opportunities. Since 

then, the deer range freely across the 

island, foraging on the native vegetation, 

and according to local experts, 

populations of deer are increasing on 

the island (E. Gibney, pers comm. 2017). 

There are currently no estimates on the 

deer abundance on St. John, and with 

no native predators to control the deer 

population, they are naturalized and 

very abundant on the islands. The deer 

directly affect marron bacora by 

browsing on the plants (seedlings and 

saplings) and fruits, thus, precluding the 

species natural recruitment. 

Other nonnative species used as 

livestock, including cattle, hogs (Sus 

scrofa), goats (Capra aegagrus hircus), 

and donkeys (Equus africanus asinus), 

have also naturalized and have been 

recorded within the VINP. Depredation 

of marron bacora fruits and seedlings by 

feral ungulates has most likely caused 

the lack of natural recruitment. Deer and 

livestock not only forage on marron 

bacora plants, but they also trample 

plants and degrade the habitat 

conditions. 

Invasive plant species are also 

abundant on St. John and Tortola and 

outcompete native species for space, 

water, and light as they change the 

structure of the vegetative community 

and restrict available resources for 

native species. The marron bacora 

habitat at Nanny Point has been 

negatively affected by encroachment of 

invasive exotic grasses and vines 

following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 

2017 (IC Report 2018, pp. 3, 12). These 

exotic and invasive species outcompete 

marron bacora and further reduce the 

chances of natural recruitment by 

modifying the microhabitat conditions 

necessary for seedling establishment. 

The threat by invasive plant species is 

more severe at the biggest known 

populations of marron bacora, Nanny 

Point (USVI) and Sabbat Hill (BVI). 

Insect Pests and Pathogens 

Although the majority of known 

marron bacora populations are relatively 

protected because they are found on 

lands managed for conservation by NPS, 

the small size of populations coupled 

with the effects of insect pests or 

pathogens could contribute to local 

extirpation. For example, although the 

Reef Bay Valley population consisted of 

6 wild individuals and 60 introduced 

individuals in 2011, the population was 

considered extirpated by 2017, most 

likely due to a low survival rate for the 

introduced marron bacora individuals. 

However, an unknown pathogen was 

documented in that population 

(Stanford et al. 2013, p. 178), which also 

may have contributed to its loss. More 

recently, in 2018, 63 percent of the 

marron bacora individuals at Nanny 

Point showed some sort of stem dieback; 

however, it is not clear if this is due to 

some pest or disease (IC Report 2018, p. 

5). Nonetheless, recent observations 

indicate that dieback is clustered mainly 

to the eastern corner of the Nanny Point 

population and associated with edge 

vegetation (vines and shrub land 

vegetation exposed to salt spray). 

In addition, we recorded the presence 

of the Jacaranda bug (Insignorthezia 

insignis) at the Nanny Point population, 

and the scale insects, Praelongorthezia 

praelonga (Douglas) and Insignorthezia 

insignis, on plants at the gardens of the 

National Park Service (NPS) facilities 

(Service 2017a, p. 14). The Jacaranda 

bug is a sap-feeding insect in the 

Orthezidae family. The scale insect 

(Praelongorthezia praelonga) can also 

damage plants directly by sucking their 

sap, or indirectly by injecting toxic 

salivary secretions that may attract ants, 

transmit pathogens, and encourage 

growth of sooty molds (Ramos et al. 

2018, p. 273). Our assessment of the 

effects of these insects and pathogens on 

marron bacora is based on the 

information available regarding their 

effects on other species of plants that 

occur on St. John (e.g., Ramos et al. 

2018, p. 273), and on our observations 

in the field during marron bacora 

assessments (Monsegur and Yrigoyen 

2018, pers. comm.). No studies have 

been carried out to ascertain the extent 

of potential impacts by these pests 

specifically on marron bacora. However, 

the low number and small size of the 

known populations makes marron 

bacora vulnerable to insect pests, which 

may constrain the already reduced 

reproductive output and recruitment of 

the species. 

Effects of Small Population Sizes 

The consequences of small population 

sizes affect sessile species by limiting 

the ability to interact with others and 

maintain genetic diversity. Marron 

bacora currently shows overall low 

numbers of individuals, low numbers of 

populations, and low numbers of 

individuals at each population site, 

which is reflected in low resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation. While 

the genetic diversity at the species level 

of marron bacora is relatively high, the 

majority of its diversity is confined to 

the largest population at Nanny Point 

(Stanford 2013, p. 178). The current 

fragmented population distribution may 

result in Allee effects due to small 

population sizes, a lack of genetic 

exchange among populations, and 

eventual genetic drift. Allee effects 

influence the individual fitness of 

plants; with smaller, less dense 

populations, successful reproduction 

declines because there are fewer 

pollination opportunities between 

individual plants that have a greater 

distance between them. 

Habitat Loss/Degradation 

By 1717, the forested landscape of St. 

John was parceled into more than 100 

estates for agriculture (i.e., sugarcane 

and cotton), and the majority of this 

landscape was deforested. Under this 

land-use regime, marron bacora 

populations were decimated, as the 

species had no economic importance or 

use. The current fragmented distribution 

of marron bacora is most likely the 

result of that historical land clearing for 

agriculture and the subsequent 

development that has occurred since the 

1700s. Even though these land-use 

changes occurred centuries ago, longlasting effects continue to impact the 

condition of the habitat; the effects on 

the species are exacerbated by the 

species’ reproductive biology, the 

absence of seed dispersal, suspected 

fruit predation, and further habitat 

modification by feral ungulates. 

At present, the Friis Bay (St. John, 

USVI) and Sabbath Hill (Tortola, BVI) 

populations are located on private lands 

vulnerable to habitat modification due 

to urban development. In addition, the 

Nanny Point and Johns Folly 

populations are situated within VINP 

lands just at the park boundary, and 

there is potential for urban and tourism 

development in the future, resulting in 

possible direct impacts to the species 

and interrelated effects (lack of habitat 

connectivity and cross pollination, and 

further habitat encroachment by exotic 

plant species). While the land that 

harbors the Nanny Point population is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 36229 

located on VINP, the adjacent private 

land could be at risk of development, 

which may directly affect the species’ 

most resilient population. 

Climate Change and Hurricanes 

Hurricanes and tropical storms 

frequently affect the islands of the 

Caribbean; thus, native plants should be 

adapted to such disturbance. In fact, 

successional responses to hurricanes 

can influence the structure and 

composition of plant communities in 

the Caribbean islands (Van Bloem et al. 

2005, p. 576). However, climate change 

is predicted to increase tropical storm 

frequency and intensity and also cause 

severe droughts (Hopkinson et al. 2008, 

p. 255). Climate model simulations 

indicate an increase in global tropical 

cyclone intensity in a warmer world, as 

well as an increase in the number of 

very intense tropical cyclones, 

consistent with current scientific 

understanding of the physics of the 

climate system (USGCRP 2018, p. 2). 

The vulnerability of species to climate 

change is a function of sensitivity to 

changes and exposure to those changes, 

and the adaptive capacity of the species 

(Glick et al. 2011, p. 1). Within natural 

conditions, it is likely that marron 

bacora is well-adapted to these 

atmospheric events. However, the 

cumulative effects of severe tropical 

storms and associated increased 

sediment runoff (erosion), along with 

the species’ small population size and 

reduced natural recruitment, may 

jeopardize the future establishment of 

seedlings along drainage areas usually 

associated with suitable habitat for 

marron bacora (Ray and Stanford 2005, 

p. 2). There is evidence of direct 

impacts to the Nanny Point population 

due to a flash flood event associated 

with Hurricane Irma that hit St. John on 

September 6, 2017 (Service 2017b, p. 3). 

Additive climate change stressors 

projected for the future include: (a) 

increased number and intensity of 

strong storms, (b) increased 

temperatures, and (c) shifts in the 

timing and amounts of seasonal 

precipitation patterns. Despite projected 

increased storm intensity and frequency 

related to future hurricane seasons, 

climate change models for tropical 

islands predict that, for example, by the 

mid-21st century, Puerto Rico will be 

subject to a decrease in overall rainfall, 

along with an increase in annual 

drought intensity (Khalyani et al. 2016, 

pp. 274–275). Thus, due to the 

proximity of Puerto Rico to St. John, and 

that these islands belong to the same 

biogeographical unit (Puerto Rican 

Bank), these model predictions could 

also extend to the USVI (including St. 

John). Given the low number of known 

populations and individuals, and the 

lack of natural recruitment of marron 

bacora, the species may not have the 

genetic breadth to adapt to these 

predicted conditions. In addition, there 

is little knowledge of marron bacora’s 

life history (e.g., fruit/seed dispersers 

and germination requirements in the 

wild); the species has a restricted 

known range (e.g., mainly St. John); and 

its habitat is degraded due to freeranging populations of feral animals 

(e.g., deer and goats), which precludes 

recruitment of new individuals. 

Moreover, in 2017, the island of St. John 

was affected by two catastrophic 

hurricanes (Irma and Maria), resulting 

in direct adverse impacts to individuals 

of marron bacora and its habitat. Marron 

bacora habitat remains encroached by 

weedy plants that persist more than 2 

years after these atmospheric events and 

continue to affect the species. 

Synergistic Effects 

Synergistic interactions are possible 

between the effects of climate change 

and other potential threats such as 

nonnative species, pests, and 

development. The extent of impacts to 

the species due to synergistic threats is 

not well understood, as there is 

uncertainty in how nonnative species 

(plants and animals) may respond to 

climate variables such as increased 

drought and changes in hurricane 

frequency and intensity. We expect the 

synergistic effects of the current and 

future threats acting on the species will 

exacerbate the decline in the species’ 

viability by continued declines in 

reproductive success. Projecting the 

extent of synergistic effects of climate 

change on marron bacora is too 

speculative due to the complexity and 

uncertainty of the species’ response to 

the combination of dynamic factors that 

influence its viability. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we undertake 

an iterative analysis that encompasses 

and incorporates the threats 

individually and then accumulates and 

evaluates the effects of all the factors 

that may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms and 

Conservation Efforts 

The existing regulatory mechanisms 

for marron bacora include Federal and 

Territory protections of the species that 

include NPS Organic Act and U.S. 

Virgin Island’s Department of Planning 

and Natural Resources listing of the 

species. The NPS’ Organic Act (54 

U.S.C. 100101 et seq.) requires the NPS 

to manage the national parks, including 

the VINP on St. John, to conserve their 

scenery, natural and historic objects, 

and wildlife. In addition, the National 

Parks Omnibus Management Act of 

1998 (Pub. L. 105–391), Title II, 

‘‘National Park System Resource 

Inventory and Management,’’ mandates 

research in order to enhance 

management and protection of national 

park resources by providing clear 

authority and direction for the conduct 

of scientific study in the National Park 

System and to use the information 

gathered for management purposes. This 

law affects not only the NPS, but other 

Federal agencies, universities, and other 

entities that conduct research within the 

National Park system. Currently, the 

NPS has implemented its resource 

management responsibilities through its 

management policies, section 4.4.1, 

which state that NPS ‘‘will maintain as 

parts of the natural ecosystems of parks 

all plants and animals native to park 

ecosystems’’ (NPS 2006, p. 42). 

The Territory of the U.S. Virgin 

Islands currently considers marron 

bacora to be endangered under the 

Virgin Islands Indigenous and 

Endangered Species Act (V.I. Code, title 

12, chapter 2), and an existing 

regulation provides for protection of 

endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants by prohibiting the take, injury, or 

possession of indigenous plants. While 

these efforts and mechanisms provide 

some protections for the species, they 

have not substantively reduced the main 

factors affecting the species’ viability. 

Efforts to conserve the species have 

included a captive propagation and 

planting program. Marron bacora has 

successfully been propagated by a St. 

John horticulturist with cuttings and 

manually assisting pollination by 

dusting the flowers (B. Kojis and R. 

Boulon, pers comm., November 20, 

1996). Marron bacora specimens were 

then distributed to various places with 

suitable habitat in the Virgin Islands 

(Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 3). An 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36230 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

implementation plan was developed to 

conduct shade-house propagation of 

marron bacora using both seedlings and 

cuttings for reintroduction within VINP 

(Ray and Stanford 2003, p. 3). A Nanny 

Point landowner funded and 

implemented a conservation plan for 

marron bacora through germination and 

cloning of adult individuals to enhance 

natural populations of the species at 

Nanny Point, Brown Bay Trail, and 

Johns Folly (Ray and Carper 2009, p. 6; 

Ray 2005, p. 4). Under this conservation 

plan, all individuals of marron bacora at 

Nanny Point were flagged and tagged, 

had their basal diameter and height 

measured, and were georeferenced (Ray 

2005, p. 3). This plan resulted in the 

propagation of at least 300 cuttings and 

their latter planting to augment natural 

populations (Ray 2005, p. 6). Such 

efforts continued with the enhancement 

(augmentation) of the Brown Bay Trail, 

Johns Folly, and Nanny Point 

populations by planting cutting 

material; these efforts saw overall 

survival of 97 percent 2 months after 

planting, but the plants’ long-term 

survival proved to be low due to 

ongoing threats to the habitat (Ray and 

Carper 2009, p. 5). While the species has 

been successfully propagated, the 

reintroductions have yielded 

unsuccessful results with a very low 

long-term survival rate for propagated 

and reintroduced plants, and even lower 

for relocated adult plants. 

In 2017, funding was provided to 

Island Conservation through the 

Service’s Coastal Program to: (1) 

Propagate at least 100 marron bacora 

individuals to enhance the largest 

known population at Nanny Point, (2) 

introduce propagated materials to the 

Nanny Point population, (3) assess the 

extent of impacts of invasive mammal 

species to marron bacora and its habitat, 

(4) assess the extent of impacts by 

invasive mammal species to additional 

sites identified for marron bacora 

introduction, and (5) provide 

management recommendations for 

invasive mammals in order to 

significantly advance the recovery of 

marron bacora (IC Report 2018, p. 1). 

This project has been temporarily 

delayed in order to allow archaeological 

surveys to be completed prior to any 

out-planting. 

Current Conditions 

To determine the current condition of 

the species, we evaluated the resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of 

populations across the landscape 

considering past and current stressors 

acting on the species and its habitat. 

The description of the species’ current 

condition is described in more detail in 

the SSA report (Service 2020, pp. 19– 

28). 

Resiliency 

We generated resiliency scores using 

the best available information for 

marron bacora by combining scores for 

three habitat metrics (protection/ 

development risk, feral ungulates, and 

pest depredation), and one population 

metric (population size and/or trend, 

dependent on availability). The scores 

for each population across all metrics 

were summed, and final population 

resilience categories were assigned (see 

Table 2, below). 

TABLE 1—DESCRIPTION OF HOW HABITAT AND POPULATION FACTORS WERE SCORED TO DETERMINE MARRON BACORA

RESILIENCE

Score 

Habitat metrics Population Metric 

Habitat protection/development risk Feral ungulates Pest presence/ 

depredation Population size/trend 

¥1 .............. Habitat not protected, at risk of 

being developed.

High number of exotic 

mammals.

High number of pests 

present.

Relatively low population size and/or 

declining trend. 

0 ................. Some habitat protected, and some 

at risk of being developed.

Unknown or moderate 

number of exotic 

mammals.

Moderate number of 

pests present.

Relatively moderate population size 

and stable trend, or high degree 

of uncertainty in population size/ 

trends. 

1 ................. Habitat protected .............................. Exotic mammals absent Pests absent ................. Relatively high population size and/ 

or growth. 

TABLE 2—RESILIENCY SCORE CATEGORIES FOR MARRON BACORA USING HABITAT AND DEMOGRAPHIC METRICS

Resiliency Scores: 

Low Resilience ............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥4 to ¥2. 

Moderately Low Resilience .......................................................................................................................................................... ¥1. 

Moderate Resilience .................................................................................................................................................................... 0. 

Moderately High Resilience ......................................................................................................................................................... 1. 

High Resilience ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 to 4. 

The species is known from two 

islands with 11 known populations, of 

which 3 are extirpated. The resiliency of 

the extant populations varies according 

to the abundance of individuals and 

habitat conditions at each location. The 

remaining eight extant populations vary 

between a single individual to 201 

plants, and the habitat conditions vary 

according to the site location. 

Additional information regarding the 

details of the populations can be found 

in the proposed listing rule (85 FR 

52516). 

Nanny Point (St. John, USVI) 

The largest known population is on 

St. John at Nanny Point; in 2017, this 

population consisted of 75 mature adult 

individuals, 4 natural seedlings, and 44 

planted individuals from past 

population enhancement efforts (Service 

2017a, p. 7). This population has been 

negatively affected by herbivory, 

hurricanes, invasive plants, and the 

Jacaranda bug. The Nanny Point 

population has low resilience because, 

while the site is partially within VINP, 

it also overlaps with unprotected, 

private lands; the population has a high 

presence of feral ungulates, high insect 

predation, and a declining population 

size. 

Friis Bay (St. John, USVI) 

With the discovery of a new 

population in the BVI, this is now 

believed to be the third largest natural 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 36231 

population of marron bacora, with an 

estimated 33 individuals (Ray and 

Stanford 2005, p. 16). The current 

resilience of the Friis Bay population is 

low because the habitat is at risk of high 

impacts from feral ungulates. 

Johns Folly (St. John, USVI) 

This site is located upslope in a 

ravine about 700 m (2,296.6 ft) 

northwest of the Nanny Point 

population. A 2017 population 

assessment identified only 4 natural 

individuals and 1 natural seedling, and 

13 plants corresponding to planted 

material from a previous population 

enhancement with material from the 

Nanny Point population (Service 2017a, 

p. 7). The Johns Folly population has 

low resilience due to habitat loss and 

fragmentation by development, low 

density of pollinators, high presence of 

feral ungulates, and a declining 

population. 

Brown Bay Trail (St. John, USVI) 

The Brown Bay Trail site is located 

along the Brown’s Bay hiking trail 

within the VINP, an area of mature 

secondary dry forest located on the 

northeastern shore of St. John. The site 

is located on a slope approximately 60 

m (196.85 ft) from shore and the 

population is composed of a single 

natural individual and planted 

individuals that were part of a 2009 

population enhancement using material 

propagated from the Nanny Point 

population. The Brown Bay Trail 

population has low resilience due to 

high presence of feral ungulates, high 

insect predation, and a declining 

population trend. 

Reef Bay Trail (St. John, USVI) 

The Reef Bay Trail locality is a 

relatively new population located 

during a 2017 population assessment 

(Service 2017a, p. 11). A population 

assessment in 2017 discovered seven 

wild individuals, 85 percent in flower 

and some individuals producing fruits. 

The Reef Bay Trail population has 

moderately low resilience due to high 

presence of feral ungulates that are 

causing an overall decline across all 

populations (Roberts 2017, entire). 

Base Hill (St. John, USVI) 

The population at Base Hill consists 

of one natural individual (Ray and 

Stanford 2005, p. 16). There have been 

no subsequent visits to this population 

since 2005; thus, no further data on the 

status of this individual are known. The 

current condition of this population is 

unknown. 

Brown Bay Ridge (St. John, USVI) 

In 2017, one wild individual was 

discovered on top of a ridge 

approximately 0.25 miles (mi) (0.40 

kilometers (km)) from the Brown Bay 

Trail population (Cecilia Rogers 2017, 

pers. comm.). The Brown Bay Ridge 

population has moderately low 

resilience because, while there is a high 

presence of feral ungulates in the area, 

the area harbors suitable habitat and the 

single documented wild individual was 

a juvenile plant, which indicates 

recruitment has occurred at this 

location. 

Sabbat Point (St. John, USVI) 

This population was reported as a 

single natural individual in 2005 (Ray 

and Stanford 2005, p. 16). The 

individual was never relocated in a 

subsequent site visit, and the site 

showed evidence of disturbance based 

on the abundance of river tamarind 

(Leucaena leucocephala), roving prickly 

pear cactus (Opuntia repens), and wild 

pineapple (Bromelia pinguin) (Service 

2017a, p. 4). This population is 

considered extirpated. 

Reef Bay Valley (St. John, USVI) 

This population is on the southern 

coast of St. John, along the shore near 

White Cliffs. In 2005, 6 wild and 60 

introduced individuals were reported at 

the Reef Bay site (Ray and Stanford 

2005, p. 16). Further assessments of this 

area were unsuccessful in detecting any 

marron bacora (Service 2017a, p. 11). 

Thus, the best available information 

indicates this population is extirpated, 

and no individuals are known in its 

proximity. 

Europa Ridge (St. John, USVI) 

The Europa Ridge population was a 

single individual when documented in 

the early 1990s (Acevedo-Rodriguez, P. 

1996, p. 415). Based on the latest habitat 

assessments by the Service, this 

population is likely extirpated (Service 

2017a, p. 11). 

Sabbath Hill (Tortola, BVI) 

In 2018, surveys on Tortola identified 

a plant morphologically consistent with 

marron bacora, near Sabbath Hill. On a 

follow-up trip to confirm marron bacora 

in the area, a population of 

approximately 46 to 48 individuals was 

identified with most plants described as 

small and only about 7 as large. The 

Sabbath Hill population has low 

resilience due to a high presence of feral 

ungulates and the location of the 

population not being associated with 

any protected lands. 

There is little evidence of sustained 

natural recruitment in any of the known 

populations of marron bacora. The 

population structure at Nanny Point and 

Johns Folly is characterized by the 

absence of individuals smaller than 3.2 

ft (1 m) high, with little evidence of 

seedlings or juveniles (three for Nanny 

Point and one for Johns Folly) (Service 

2017a, p. 7). These populations consist 

primarily of reproductive individuals, 

as 92 percent and 75 percent of the 

plants, respectively, were recorded in 

flower during a recent survey (Service 

2017a, p. 7). The Johns Folly population 

was composed of 4 natural adult 

individuals (reproductive size 

individuals naturally occurring at this 

site) or 36 percent of the total (11 plants) 

(Service 2017a, p. 9). 

All eight extant populations are 

declining and have moderately low to 

low resiliency; many populations are on 

the brink of extirpation. The entire 

species consists of 324 known 

individuals, with 201 of those plants 

located within a single population 

(Nanny Point). 

Redundancy and Representation 

The species is showing very low to no 

natural recruitment across all 

populations. Only three populations 

have more than 18 individuals, two 

populations have 18 individuals, and 

the three remaining populations have 7 

or fewer individuals. Most of the 

populations are small and isolated with 

little to no connectivity. Marron bacora 

currently shows overall low numbers of 

individuals, low numbers of 

populations, and low numbers of 

individuals at each population site. The 

overall resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation of this species are low. 

Future Conditions 

As part of the SSA, we developed 

multiple future condition scenarios to 

capture the range of uncertainties 

regarding future threats and the 

projected responses by marron bacora. 

Our scenarios included a status quo 

scenario, which incorporated the 

current risk factors continuing on the 

same trajectory that they are on now. 

We also evaluated two additional future 

scenarios, one that considered 

increasing levels of risk factors resulting 

in elevated negative effects on marron 

bacora populations. The other scenario 

considered improved environmental 

and habitat conditions through 

conservation actions including land 

management and invasive plant and 

animal management. However, we 

determined that the current condition of 

marron bacora and the projections for 

all scenarios are consistent with an 

endangered species status (see 

Determination of Marron Bacora’s 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36232 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Status, below); we are not presenting the 

results of the future scenarios in this 

rule. Please refer to the SSA report 

(Service 2020, pp. 53–63) for the full 

analysis of future conditions and 

descriptions of the associated scenarios. 

Please refer to the proposed listing 

rule (85 FR 5216) and the SSA report 

(Service 2020, entire) for a more 

detailed information regarding the 

evaluation of the marron bacora’s 

biological status, the influences that 

may affect its continued existence, and 

the modeling efforts undertaken to 

further inform our analysis. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

August 26, 2020 (85 FR 52516), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by October 26, 2020. We 

received eight comments, of which four 

were substantive. We also contacted 

appropriate Federal (NPS) and State/ 

Territory (USVI Department of Planning 

and Natural Resources (DPNR)) 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. We did not receive any 

comments from NPS regarding the SSA 

report or the proposed rule. The DPNR 

comments are summarized below. A 

newspaper notice inviting general 

public comments was published in The 

Virgin Islands Daily News on August 28, 

2020. We did not receive any requests 

for a public hearing. All substantive 

information provided during the 

comment period has either been 

incorporated directly into the SSA 

report or this final rule or is addressed 

below. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinion 

from knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the marron bacora and 

its habitat, biological needs, and threats. 

During development of the SSA report, 

we reached out to six peer reviewers 

and received responses from one. We 

reviewed all comments received from 

the peer reviewer for substantive issues 

and new information regarding the 

marron bacora. All comments were 

incorporated into the SSA report prior 

to the proposed rule. The reviewer 

provided editorial and technical 

comments that were generally 

supportive of our approach; the 

commenter made suggestions and 

comments that strengthened our 

analysis and improved the SSA report. 

Peer reviewer comments are addressed 

in the following summary and were 

incorporated into the SSA report and, 

accordingly, in this final rule as 

appropriate. 

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer 

noted that the Service did not consider 

pollinator loss as a threat to the species. 

Most Solanum spp. require a specific 

type of bee for ‘‘buzz’’ pollination, 

where the motion of vibrating bees 

facilitates pollen exchange. The peer 

reviewer suggested pollinator limitation 

(or bee die-off) could be another cause 

of marron bacora’s rarity. The reviewer 

provided a reference regarding 

morphology of the genus that facilitated 

pollination (Falca ̃o et al. 2016, entire). 

Response: We acknowledge declines 

in pollinators across the globe due to a 

multitude of environmental stressors; 

however, fruit production has been 

observed in wild populations and 

cultivated plants indicative of 

successful pollination. The reference 

provided, Falca ̃o et al. 2016, describes 

the reproductive morphology and pollen 

release mechanisms in the congener, 

Solanum luridifuscescens. Some of the 

information in the paper provides 

descriptions for Solanum in general that 

support information in the SSA report, 

such as the lack of nectaries and pollen 

as the only reward (Service 2020, p. 31). 

The SSA report acknowledges 

observations by Service staff of 

abundant activity of the native carpenter 

bees (Xylocopa mordax) visiting the 

flowers of marron bacora consistent 

with a massive flowering and fruiting 

event (Service 2017a, p. 7). At present, 

the island of St. John no longer 

implements large-scale agriculture using 

pesticides, which may contribute to the 

loss of pollinators. In addition, the 

majority of the habitat on St. John is a 

forested landscape designated as a 

National Park and managed by NPS. 

Therefore, the best available science 

does not indicate pollinator loss is a 

current threat to the species. 

Territory Comments 

(2) Comment: The USVI DPNR 

supported our decision that marron 

bacora is in danger of extinction and 

highlighted the need to address the 

possible adverse effects on the species’ 

viability due to predation by feral 

animals. The agency also provided 

comments on the proposed critical 

habitat designation that acknowledge 

much of the proposed critical habitat is 

located within protected lands currently 

managed by NPS. However, the 

comment indicated that there are areas 

adjacent to NPS lands zoned for 

development that fall within the 

proposed designated critical habitat and 

recommended that the Service make 

every effort to avoid including in the 

critical habitat designation any 

developed areas where land is covered 

by buildings, pavement, or other 

structures. The area identified by the 

agency also includes areas that are not 

yet developed but are zoned for 

development under U.S. Virgin Islands 

Code, title 29 ‘‘Public Planning and 

Development,’’ chapter 3 ‘‘Virgin 

Islands Zoning and Subdivision Law’’ 

(see section 228 for all uses). 

Response: As described in the 

proposed critical habitat rule, critical 

habitat does not include human made 

structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, 

runways, roads, and other paved areas) 

or the land on which they are located, 

so these features within designated 

units are not considered critical habitat. 

Regarding the adjacent areas that are 

zoned but not yet developed, the DPNR 

did not provide specific information 

regarding how critical habitat may 

impact those areas or how the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion. Therefore, in the absence of 

supporting information about the 

benefits of exclusion, we determined 

that these areas meet the definition of 

critical habitat and have no basis to 

exclude those areas. 

Public Comments 

(3) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the proposed critical habitat 

designation improperly characterized 

‘‘unoccupied habitat’’ in Nanny Point as 

‘‘occupied habitat.’’ The commenter 

claimed the Service proposed to 

designate areas that are not currently 

occupied by the species without going 

through the analysis required by the Act 

and Service regulations regarding the 

designation of unoccupied habitat. The 

commenter further stated that the 

Service cannot designate these private 

parcels and easements as ‘‘unoccupied’’ 

critical habitat because they are not 

reasonably certain to contribute to the 

conservation of the species, given the 

best available science in the record 

regarding the plant’s reproduction, 

recruitment, and dispersion. 

Response: The best available science 

supports our conclusion that the Nanny 

Point unit is occupied. It contains the 

largest known population of marron 

bacora. Data from Nanny Point (2017, 

2018, and 2019) show that individuals 

of marron bacora occur on both sides of 

the access corridor (easements), and 

likely occur along the boundaries of 

adjacent private parcels. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the ‘‘geographical area occupied 

by the species’’ as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 36233 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). For marron 

bacora, we delineated the two units 

based on the species’ occurrences and 

contiguous suitable habitat that may 

support the species; the area within the 

units contain one or more of the 

physical and biological features that 

were identified as essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Additionally, consistent with the 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(d), when 

several habitats, each satisfying the 

requirements for designation as critical 

habitat, are located in proximity to one 

another, the Secretary may designate an 

inclusive area as critical habitat. The 

unit in question contains multiple 

occurrences of marron bacora that are in 

close proximity to one another and are 

connected by continuous forested 

habitat. Thus, we are designating an 

inclusive area as critical habitat. The 

species occurs within the boundaries of 

the entire unit; therefore, the unit is 

occupied by marron bacora at the time 

of listing. 

We are designating critical habitat 

based on the best available commercial 

and scientific information. As indicated 

in the proposed rule, we based this 

critical habitat designation on the 

species’ occurrence data and a habitat 

suitability model (Palumbo et al. 2016, 

p. 5; Service 2020, pp. 15–16, 28), 

which used elevation, slope, soil 

association, and vegetation types as 

variables defining the habitat of the 

species. The needs of the species and its 

habitat are described in more detail in 

the SSA report (Service 2020, pp. 12– 

16). We revised the boundaries of the 

critical habitat designation based on 

new elevation data from a recently 

discovered marron bacora population at 

Reef Bay Trail, and on the continuity of 

forested habitat. This approach is 

consistent with the definition of 

‘‘geographical area occupied by the 

species’’ at 50 CFR 424.02. 

(4) Comment: A landowner stated that 

a private parcel and an associated 

private easement should be excluded 

from the South Unit because the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion and the exclusion 

will not result in extinction of the 

species. The commenter explained that 

the conservation efforts already 

undertaken by the landowner, including 

‘‘captive propagation from seed and 

cutting, population enhancement, 

translocation of plants, and subsequent 

monitoring,’’ have demonstrably 

improved and enhanced the survival of 

the known marron bacora populations, 

particularly the Nanny Point 

population, included in a conservation 

agreement. The commenter indicated 

there is a reasonable expectation that 

the remaining conservation management 

strategies and actions in the agreement 

will be implemented and will continue 

to protect the Nanny Point population. 

Response: We have taken into 

consideration the conservation efforts 

by the landowner and conducted an 

exclusion analysis to determine if the 

area described warrants exclusion from 

the designated critical habitat. We found 

that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion, and we have 

excluded this parcel from the final 

critical habitat designation. Please see 

Private or Other Non-Federal 

Conservation Plans or Agreements and 

Partnerships, below, for the details and 

analysis. 

Determination of Marron Bacora’s 

Status 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

a species meets the definition of 

endangered species or threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

We have determined that the primary 

threats acting on marron bacora are 

habitat destruction or modification by 

exotic mammal species (e.g., whitetailed deer, goats, pigs, and donkeys) 

and invasive plants and exotic, plants 

(e.g., guinea grass) (Factor A); herbivory 

by nonnative, feral ungulates and insect 

pests (Factor C); and the lack of natural 

recruitment, absence of dispersers, 

fragmented distribution and small 

population size, lack of genetic 

diversity, and climate change (Factor E). 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats acting on the 

species and the species’ response to 

those threats, we found that the species 

is currently in danger of extinction 

throughout its range. 

Marron bacora is adapted for life in 

the dry forests of St. John, USVI, and 

Tortola, BVI. These islands have 

endured landscape changes over time 

and will continue to be affected by 

human visitation and development. The 

largest extant population on St. John is 

within the VINP boundaries and is 

protected from future development; 

however, neighboring areas are 

vulnerable to development as the 

human population increases. 

Depredation from ungulates, which 

occurs even in the VINP, is largely 

responsible for the low levels of 

seedling recruitment that have caused 

the lack of natural recruitment. The 

species is also affected by insect pests 

along with habitat degradation by 

nonnative plants and animals. 

There are currently 11 known 

historical and current populations. 

Three of these populations are 

considered extirpated, two are 

represented by only a single individual 

(possibly functionally extirpated), and 

five are represented by very low 

numbers of individuals. Only the single 

population at Nanny Point has more 

than 100 individuals, and between 2010 

and 2017, this population declined by 

over half. Seedlings were discovered at 

this site, likely assisted by release/ 

reproduction due to opening of canopy/ 

moist soil conditions from the 

hurricanes, but those seedlings were 

being affected by ungulate herbivory 

that was reducing survival. Despite 

having the greatest number of 

individuals, Nanny Point is in danger of 

extirpation due to little or no 

reproductive output, the continued 

presence of nonnative mammals, and 

habitat degradation from recent 

hurricanes and invasive plant species. 

Additionally, it has seen an almost 50 

percent reduction in the number of 

individuals over the last 10 years. 

Across the entire range, the lack of 

evidence of reproduction/recruitment is 

resulting in the continued decline of all 

populations. Reintroductions to date 

have resulted in limited survival (28 

percent) and have not yielded any 

increase in reproductive success (either 

have not achieved reproductive status or 

have not successfully reproduced). 

Resiliency for all extant populations is 

low as are redundancy and 

representation. There is very little 

evidence of natural recruitment, with 

recent seedling evidence from only two 

populations. Due to the lack of 

recruitment across all populations, the 

species is at risk of extinction. 

Further, the threats acting on the 

species are likely to continue at the 

existing rate or increase without 

management of marron bacora and the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36234 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

identified threats, such as nonnative, 

invasive species. The species is a 

narrow endemic and has suffered 

extirpation of populations across its 

limited range; most remaining 

populations have only a single or few 

individuals. The species has lost 

redundancy, and remaining populations 

have low resiliency. The impacts from 

herbivory by nonnative species have 

impaired the viability of marron bacora 

to the point of imminent decline across 

the species’ entire range. Despite efforts 

to propagate the species and re-establish 

it in the wild, plants are not 

reproducing offspring sufficiently to 

support adequately resilient 

populations. Thus, after assessing the 

best available information, we conclude 

that marron bacora is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. We have 

determined that marron bacora is in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range, and accordingly, did not 

undertake an analysis to determine 

whether there may be any significant 

portion of its range. Because marron 

bacora warrants listing as endangered 

throughout all of its range, our 

determination does not conflict with the 

decision in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 

(D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), because that 

decision related to significant portion of 

the range analyses for species that 

warrant listing as threatened, not 

endangered, throughout all of its range. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best scientific and 

commercial data information indicates 

that marron bacora meets the Act’s 

definition of an endangered species. 

Therefore, we are listing marron bacora 

as an endangered species in accordance 

with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies, private organizations, and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act calls for the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning consists of 

preparing draft and final recovery plans, 

beginning with the development of a 

recovery outline and making it available 

to the public. The recovery outline 

guides the immediate implementation of 

urgent recovery actions and describes 

the process to be used to develop a 

recovery plan. Revisions of the plan 

may be done to address continuing or 

new threats to the species, as new 

substantive information becomes 

available. The recovery plan also 

identifies recovery criteria for review of 

when a species may be ready for 

reclassification from endangered to 

threatened (‘‘downlisting’’) or removal 

from protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(composed of species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) are 

often established to develop recovery 

plans. When completed, the recovery 

outline, draft recovery plan, and the 

final recovery plan will be available on 

our website (https://www.fws.gov/ 

endangered), or from our Caribbean 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

Once this species is listed (see DATES, 

above), funding for recovery actions will 

be available from a variety of sources, 

including Federal budgets, State 

programs, and cost share grants for nonFederal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the Territory of the 

U.S. Virgin Islands will be eligible for 

Federal funds to implement 

management actions that promote the 

protection or recovery of marron bacora. 

Information on our grant programs that 

are available to aid species recovery can 

be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for this species. Additionally, we 

invite you to submit any new 

information on this species whenever it 

becomes available and any information 

you may have for recovery planning 

purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is listed as an endangered or threatened 

species and with respect to its critical 

habitat, if any is designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 

7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 

agencies to ensure that activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or destroy or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference, consultation, or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include management and any other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by NPS (Virgin 

Islands National Park) and privately 

owned lands that may require a Federal 

permit. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered plants. The prohibitions 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 36235 

of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 

50 CFR 17.61, make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to import or export; 

remove and reduce to possession from 

areas under Federal jurisdiction; 

maliciously damage or destroy on any 

such area; remove, cut, dig up, or 

damage or destroy on any other area in 

knowing violation of any law or 

regulation of a State or in the course of 

an violation of a State criminal trespass 

law; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or 

ship in interstate or foreign commerce, 

by any means whatsoever and in the 

course of commercial activity; or sell or 

offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce an endangered plant. Certain 

exceptions apply to employees of the 

Service, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, other Federal land management 

agencies, and State conservation 

agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered plants under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permit issuance are codified 

at 50 CFR 17.62. With regard to 

endangered plants, a permit may be 

issued for scientific purposes or for 

enhancing the propagation or survival of 

the species. There are also certain 

statutory exemptions from the 

prohibitions, which are found in section 

10 of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that will or will 

not constitute a violation of section 9 of 

the Act. The intent of this policy is to 

increase public awareness of the effect 

of a listing on proposed and ongoing 

activities within the range of the listed 

species. Based on the best available 

information, the following actions are 

unlikely to result in a violation of 

section 9, if these activities are carried 

out in accordance with existing Federal 

and Territorial regulations and permit 

requirements; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

• Recreational use of existing trails 

and pathways. 

• Routine maintenance of existing 

public roads, trails, and pathways. 

• Archeological activities that 

minimize impacts to native species. 

• Landscaping activities within 

residential areas that do not extend to 

native vegetation. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities 

may potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act if they are not 

authorized in accordance with 

applicable laws (this list is not 

comprehensive): 

• Modifying the habitat of the species 

on Federal lands without authorization 

(e.g., unauthorized opening of trails 

within NPS lands); and 

• Removing, cutting, digging up, or 

damaging or destroying of the species 

on any non-Federal lands in knowing 

violation of any law or regulation of the 

Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands or in 

the course of any violation of the 

Territory of U.S. Virgin Islands’ criminal 

trespass law. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Caribbean Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

II. Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species 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). 

Additionally, our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.02 define the word ‘‘habitat’’ as, for 

the purposes of designating critical 

habitat only, the abiotic and biotic 

setting that currently or periodically 

contains the resources and conditions 

necessary to support one or more life 

processes of a species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation also 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the Federal agency would be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 

Service were to conclude that the 

proposed activity would result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

the critical habitat, the Federal action 

agency and the landowner are not 

required to abandon the proposed 

activity, or to restore or recover the 

species; instead, they must implement 

‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ 

to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36236 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. The implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further delineate 

unoccupied critical habitat by setting 

out three specific parameters: (1) when 

designating critical habitat, the 

Secretary will first evaluate areas 

occupied by the species; (2) the 

Secretary will only consider unoccupied 

areas to be essential where a critical 

habitat designation limited to 

geographical areas occupied by the 

species would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species; and (3) 

for an unoccupied area to be considered 

essential, the Secretary must determine 

that there is a reasonable certainty both 

that the area will contribute to the 

conservation of the species and that the 

area contains one or more of those 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information from the SSA 

report and information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States (Territories) and counties; 

scientific status surveys and studies; 

biological assessments; other 

unpublished materials; or experts’ 

opinions or personal knowledge. 

As the regulatory definition of 

‘‘habitat’’ reflects (50 CFR 424.02), 

habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of this species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

Essential to the Conservation of the 

Species 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

we will designate as critical habitat from 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

consider the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, 

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic, or a more 

complex combination of habitat 

characteristics. Features may include 

habitat characteristics that support 

ephemeral or dynamic habitat 

conditions. Features may also be 

expressed in terms relating to principles 

of conservation biology, such as patch 

size, distribution distances, and 

connectivity. For example, physical 

features essential to the conservation of 

a species might include gravel of a 

particular size required for spawning, 

alkaline soil for seed germination, 

protective cover for migration, or 

susceptibility to flooding or fire that 

maintains necessary early-successional 

habitat characteristics. Biological 

features might include prey species, 

forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of 

trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic 

fungi, or a particular level of nonnative 

species consistent with conservation 

needs of the listed species. The features 

may also be combinations of habitat 

characteristics and may encompass the 

relationship between characteristics or 

the necessary amount of a characteristic 

essential to support the life history of 

the species. 

In considering whether features are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, we may consider an appropriate 

quality, quantity, and spatial and 

temporal arrangement of habitat 

characteristics in the context of the lifehistory needs, condition, and status of 

the species. These characteristics 

include, but are not limited to, space for 

individual and population growth and 

for normal behavior; food, water, air, 

light, minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

or rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and habitats that are protected from 

disturbance. 

The specific physical or biological 

features required for marron bacora 

were derived from available 

observations and current information on 

the species’ habitat, ecology, and life 

history as described below. To identify 

the physical and biological needs of the 

species, we have relied on current 

conditions at locations where marron 

bacora occurs. In addition, available 

literature on the species’ genetics, 

reproductive biology, and habitat 

modeling were used (Stanford et al. 

2013; Anderson et al. 2015; Palumbo et 

al. 2016). 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the marron bacora from 

studies of the species’ habitat, ecology, 

and life history as described below. 

Additional information can be found in 

the SSA report (Service 2020, entire), 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 36237 

which is available on https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0050. We have 

determined that the following physical 

or biological features are essential to the 

conservation of marron bacora: 

(i) Native forest within the subtropical 

dry forest life zone in St. John. 

(ii) Dry scrubland, deciduous forest, 

and semi-deciduous forest vegetation at 

elevations lower than 150 m (492 ft). 

(iii) Continuous native forest cover 

with low abundance of exotic plant 

species (e.g., Leucaena leucocephala 

and Megathyrsus maximus) and that 

provides the availability of pollinators 

to secure cross-pollination between 

populations. 

(iv) Habitat quality evidenced by the 

presence of regional endemic plant 

species, including Zanthoxylum 

thomasianum, Peperomia wheeleri, 

Eugenia earhartii, Eugenia sessiliflora, 

Cordia rickseckeri, Croton fishlockii, 

Malpighia woodburyana, Bastardiopsis 

eggersii, Machaonia woodburyana, and 

Agave missionum. 

(v) Open understory with appropriate 

microhabitat conditions, including 

shaded conditions and moisture 

availability, to support seed germination 

and seedling recruitment. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. All the 

designated units are occupied by the 

species at the time of listing (i.e., are 

currently occupied) and have mixed 

ownership of predominantly Federal 

lands (97 percent) and private lands (3 

percent) (see Table 4, below). 

The features essential to the 

conservation of marron bacora may 

require special management 

considerations or protection to 

ameliorate the following stressors: 

habitat modification and fragmentation 

(development); erosion (from storm 

water runoff); feral ungulates 

(predation); and invasive, exotic plants 

(habitat intrusion). Special management 

considerations or protection may be 

required within critical habitat areas to 

ameliorate these stressors, and include, 

but are not limited to: (1) Protect and 

restore native forests to provide 

connectivity between known 

populations and secure availability of 

pollinators and dispersers; (2) reduce 

density of feral ungulates; (3) remove 

and control invasive plants; and (4) 

avoid physical alterations of habitat to 

secure microhabitat conditions. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. We are not 

designating any areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species because we have not identified 

any unoccupied areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat. The critical 

habitat designation includes all 

currently occupied areas within the 

historical range that have retained the 

necessary physical or biological features 

to allow for the maintenance and 

expansion of these existing populations. 

The occupied areas are sufficient for the 

conservation of the species. 

For areas within the geographic area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing (i.e., areas that are currently 

occupied), we delineated critical habitat 

unit boundaries as described below. The 

primary sources of data used to define 

marron bacora critical habitat include a 

habitat suitability model (by selecting 

areas identified as containing moderateand high-quality habitat for the species) 

(Palumbo et al. 2016, entire), and 

validated by recent habitat assessments 

throughout the species’ range. The 

habitat suitability model included 

elevation, slope, soil association, and 

vegetation types and identified 

approximately 1,717.23 ac (694.94 ha) of 

high-quality habitat, 3,150.45 ac 

(1,274.94 ha) of moderate-quality 

habitat, 3,875.92 ac (1,568.53 ha) of lowquality habitat, 3,319.16 ac (1,343.16 ha) 

of poor-quality habitat, and 461.79 ac 

(186.88 ha) of unsuitable habitat 

(Palumbo et al. 2016, p. 5) on St. John. 

When adding all hectares of high- and 

moderate-quality habitat, approximately 

32 percent of the land area of VINP may 

be suitable habitat for marron bacora 

(Palumbo et al. 2016, p. 5). However, the 

latest discovered population of marron 

bacora on St. John at Reef Bay Trail 

(Service 2017a, p. 11) occurs at 

elevations higher than what was 

provided by the model results; thus, the 

amount of suitable habitat for marron 

bacora at St. John may include areas 

higher in elevation, indicating more 

suitable habitat than previously 

reported (Palumbo et el. 2016, p. 5). 

Therefore, the boundaries were slightly 

expanded to include habitat at higher 

elevations consistent with the recently 

discovered population (Reef Bay Trail). 

We analyzed recent satellite images to 

identify areas dominated by native 

forest vegetation associated with known 

localities for the species within St. John. 

Finally, we adjusted the elevation to 492 

ft (150 m), as the latest discovered 

population of marron bacora was at an 

elevation higher than the records 

available to Palumbo et al. (2016). We 

further cropped the units using the 

contour of the coastline, excluding 

wetland areas (e.g., ponds) and 

developed areas. Critical habitat units 

were then mapped using ArcGIS 

Desktop version 10.6.1, a geographic 

information system (GIS) program. We 

identified two units, North and South, 

falling within these parameters. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries, we made every effort to 

avoid including developed areas such as 

lands covered by buildings, pavement, 

and other structures because such lands 

lack physical or biological features 

necessary for marron bacora. The scale 

of the maps we prepared under the 

parameters for publication within the 

Code of Federal Regulations may not 

reflect the exclusion of such developed 

lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 

inside critical habitat boundaries shown 

on the maps of this rule have been 

excluded by text in the rule and are not 

designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 

a Federal action involving these lands 

will not trigger section 7 consultation 

with respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action will affect the 

physical or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

We are designating as critical habitat 

areas that we have determined are 

occupied at the time of listing (i.e., are 

currently occupied), that contain one or 

more of the physical or biological 

features that are essential to support 

life-history processes of the species, and 

that may require special management 

considerations or protections. The two 

units, South and North, each contain the 

physical or biological features that 

support multiple life-history processes 

for marron bacora. 

Units are designated based on one or 

more of the physical or biological 

features being present to support marron 

bacora’s life-history processes. All units 

contain all of the identified physical or 

biological features and support multiple 

life-history processes. 

The critical habitat designation is 

defined by the map or maps, as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36238 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document under Regulation 

Promulgation. We include more detailed 

information on the boundaries of the 

critical habitat designation in the 

preamble of this document. We will 

make the coordinates or plot points or 

both on which each map is based 

available to the public on https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0050, or on our 

website, https://www.fws.gov/office/ 

caribbean-ecological-services/library. 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating two units as 

critical habitat for marron bacora. The 

critical habitat areas we describe below 

constitute our current best assessment of 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for marron bacora. The two units 

we are designating as critical habitat are: 

(1) South and (2) North. Table 4 shows 

the critical habitat units, the land 

ownership, and the approximate area of 

each unit. Both units are occupied at the 

time of listing. 

TABLE 4—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR MARRON BACORA WITH OWNERSHIP, AREA, AND OCCUPIED STATUS

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.] 

Critical 

habitat unit Land ownership by type Size of unit in acres (hectares) * Occupied? 

1. South ................... Federal (NPS) Private ............................. 1,634 ac (661 ha), 70 ac (28 ha), Unit total: 1,704 ac (690 

ha).

Yes. 

2. North ................... Federal (NPS) .......................................... 844 ac (341 ha) ......................................................................... Yes. 

Total ................. .................................................................. 2,548 ac (1,031 ha).

Note: Area sizes may not sum exactly due to rounding. 

We present brief descriptions of both 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for marron 

bacora, below. 

Unit 1: South 

Unit 1 consists of 1,704 ac (690 ha). 

Approximately 1,634 ac (661 ha) are 

managed by NPS within the VINP, and 

approximately 70 ac (28 ha) are in 

private ownership adjacent to the east 

corner of VINP. This unit is within the 

geographical area occupied by marron 

bacora at the time of the listing. This 

unit harbors the largest population and 

core of known individuals of marron 

bacora in St. John, USVI. It contains all 

of the identified physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

marron bacora. We have excluded 1.33 

ac (0.54 ha) acres from this unit (see 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts, below). 

Ongoing and potential threats or 

activities that occur in this unit are 

urban development, trampling and 

predation by feral ungulates, and forest 

management actions (e.g., conservation/ 

restoration, recreation, trail 

maintenance, roads, control of feral 

mammals, and fire management 

control). Special management 

considerations or protection measures to 

reduce or alleviate the threats may 

include minimizing or avoiding habitat 

modification or fragmentation from 

urban and recreational development, 

protecting and restoring native forests to 

provide connectivity between known 

populations and to secure availability of 

pollinators and dispersers, reducing the 

density of feral ungulates, and removing 

and controlling invasive plants. 

Unit 2: North 

Unit 2 consists of 844 ac (341 ha) of 

federally owned land managed by NPS 

within the VINP. This unit is within the 

geographical area occupied by marron 

bacora at the time of listing and harbors 

the habitat structure that supports 

marron bacora’s viability. This unit 

contains all of the identified physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of marron bacora. 

Ongoing and potential threats or 

activities that occur in this unit are 

roaming feral mammals and forest 

management actions (e.g., conservation/ 

restoration, recreation, trails, roads, 

control of feral mammals, and fire 

management control). Special 

management considerations or 

protection measures to reduce or 

alleviate the threats may include 

protecting and restoring native forests to 

provide connectivity between known 

populations and to secure availability of 

pollinators and dispersers, reducing 

density of feral ungulates, removing and 

controlling invasive plants, and 

avoiding physical modification of 

habitat to secure microhabitat 

conditions. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

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

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. 

Destruction or adverse modification 

means a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of a listed species. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must consult with us. Examples 

of actions that are subject to the section 

7 consultation process are actions on 

State, Tribal, local, or private lands that 

require a Federal permit (such as a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

or a permit from the Service under 

section 10 of the Act) or that involve 

some other Federal action (such as 

funding from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. 

Compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2), is documented through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 36239 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Service Director’s 

opinion, avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the listed species and/or avoid the 

likelihood of destroying or adversely 

modifying critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

reinitiate formal consultation on 

previously reviewed actions. These 

requirements apply when the Federal 

agency has retained discretionary 

involvement or control over the action 

(or the agency’s discretionary 

involvement or control is authorized by 

law) and, subsequent to the previous 

consultation: (1) if the amount or extent 

of taking specified in the incidental take 

statement is exceeded; (2) if new 

information reveals effects of the action 

that may affect listed species or critical 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not 

previously considered; (3) if the 

identified action is subsequently 

modified in a manner that causes an 

effect to the listed species or critical 

habitat that was not considered in the 

biological opinion; or (4) if a new 

species is listed or critical habitat 

designated that may be affected by the 

identified action. 

In such situations, Federal agencies 

may need to request reinitiation of 

consultation with us, but the regulations 

also specify some exceptions to the 

requirement to reinitiate consultation on 

specific land management plans after 

subsequently listing a new species or 

designating new critical habitat. See the 

regulations for a description of those 

exceptions. 

Application of the ‘‘Destruction or 

Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of the listed species. As 

discussed above, the role of critical 

habitat is to support physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of a listed species and 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

violate 7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying 

or adversely modifying such habitat, or 

that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that the Service may, 

during a consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would significantly 

alter the structure of the native forest. 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to, habitat fragmentation and 

development (e.g., from recreational 

facilities and activities like trails, 

hiking, bicycling, using all-terrain 

vehicles (ATVs); herbicide and pesticide 

use on private lands; and urban and 

tourist developments). In addition, 

habitat modification may promote 

habitat encroachment by invasive plant 

species, thus promoting favorable 

conditions for human-induced fires. 

These activities could degrade the 

habitat necessary for marron bacora 

populations to expand. 

(2) Actions that would increase 

habitat modification. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, 

predation and erosion caused by feral 

animals, and risk of human-induced 

fires. These activities could significantly 

reduce the species’ recruitment and 

could exacerbate the vulnerability of the 

species to stochastic events (e.g., 

hurricanes). 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the 

Secretary shall not designate as critical 

habitat any lands or other geographical 

areas owned or controlled by the 

Department of Defense (DoD), or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation. 

There are no DoD lands with a 

completed INRMP within the final 

critical habitat designation. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if she determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless she 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making the determination to 

exclude a particular area, the statute on 

its face, as well as the legislative history, 

are clear that the Secretary has broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give to any 

factor. 

On December 18, 2020, we published 

a final rule in the Federal Register (85 

FR 82376) revising portions of our 

regulations pertaining to exclusions of 

critical habitat. The final regulations 

became effective on January 19, 2021, 

and apply to critical habitat rules for 

which a proposed rule was published 

after January 19, 2021. Consequently, 

these new regulations do not apply to 

this final rule. 

We describe below the process that 

we undertook for taking into 

consideration each category of impacts 

and our analyses of the relevant 

impacts. 

When identifying the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive due to the protection 

from destruction of adverse 

modification as a result of actions with 

a Federal nexus; the educational 

benefits of mapping essential habitat for 

recovery of the listed species; and any 

benefits that may result from a 

designation due to State or Federal laws 

that may apply to critical habitat. 

When identifying the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation or 

in the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships. In the 

case of marron bacora, the benefits of 

critical habitat include public awareness 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36240 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

of the presence of the species and the 

importance of habitat protection, and, 

where a Federal nexus exists, increased 

habitat protection for marron bacora due 

to the protection from destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

Additionally, continued 

implementation of an ongoing 

management plan that provides equal to 

or more conservation than a critical 

habitat designation would reduce the 

benefits of including that specific area 

in the critical habitat designation. 

We evaluate the existence of a 

conservation plan when considering the 

benefits of inclusion. We consider a 

variety of factors, including but not 

limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 

how it provides for the conservation of 

the essential physical or biological 

features; whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions 

contained in a management plan will be 

implemented into the future; whether 

the conservation strategies in the plan 

are likely to be effective; and whether 

the plan contains a monitoring program 

or adaptive management to ensure that 

the conservation measures are effective 

and can be adapted in the future in 

response to new information. 

After identifying the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

evaluate whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If our analysis indicates that the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, we then determine whether 

exclusion would result in extinction of 

the species. If exclusion of an area from 

critical habitat will result in extinction, 

we will not exclude it from the 

designation. 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we prepared an incremental 

effects memorandum (IEM) and 

screening analysis which, together with 

our narrative and interpretation of 

effects, we consider our economic 

analysis of the critical habitat 

designation and related factors (IEc 

2019, entire). The analysis, dated 

October 15, 2019 (IEc 2019, entire), was 

made available for public review from 

August 26, 2020, through October 26, 

2020 (85 FR 52516; August 26, 2020). 

The economic analysis addressed 

probable economic impacts of critical 

habitat designation for marron bacora. 

We did not receive any additional 

information on economic impacts 

during the public comment period to 

inform whether any specific areas 

should be excluded from the final 

critical habitat designation under 

authority of section 4(b)(2) and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19. The IEM and economic 

screening analysis with supporting 

documents may be found on https://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0050. 

We considered the economic impacts 

of the critical habitat designation. The 

Secretary is not exercising her 

discretion to exclude any areas from this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

marron bacora based on economic 

impacts. 

Exclusions Based on Impacts to 

National Security and Homeland 

Security 

In preparing this final rule, we have 

determined that there are no lands 

within the critical habitat designation 

for marron bacora that are owned or 

managed by the DoD or Department of 

Homeland Security; therefore, we 

anticipate no impact on national 

security. Additionally, we did not 

receive any information through the 

public comment period on the impacts 

of the proposed designation on national 

security or homeland security that 

would support excluding any specific 

areas from this final critical habitat 

designation under authority of section 

4(b)(2) and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security. We 

consider a number of factors, including 

whether there are permitted 

conservation plans covering the species 

in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor 

agreements, or candidate conservation 

agreements with assurances (CCAAs), or 

whether there are non-permitted 

conservation agreements and 

partnerships that would be encouraged 

by designation of, or exclusion from, 

critical habitat. In addition, we look at 

the existence of Tribal conservation 

plans and partnerships and consider the 

government-to-government relationship 

of the United States with Tribal entities. 

We also consider any social impacts that 

might occur because of the designation. 

When identifying the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive due to the protection 

from destruction or adverse 

modification as a result of actions with 

a Federal nexus, the educational 

benefits of mapping essential habitat for 

recovery of the listed species, and any 

benefits that may result from a 

designation due to State or Federal laws 

that may apply to critical habitat. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation, 

or in the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships. In 

preparing this final rule, we determined 

that there are currently no HCPs or other 

management plans for the marron 

bacora and the final designation does 

not include any Tribal lands or trust 

resources. Therefore, we anticipate no 

impacts on Tribal lands, partnerships, 

or HCPs from this final critical habitat 

designation. 

In the paragraphs below, we provide 

a detailed balancing analysis of the 

areas we evaluated for exclusion from 

critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. 

Private or Other Non-Federal 

Conservation Plans or Agreements and 

Partnerships 

During the development of this final 

designation, we considered additional 

information we received through the 

public comment period regarding other 

relevant impacts to determine whether 

any specific areas should be excluded 

from this final critical habitat 

designation under authority of section 

4(b)(2) and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. As 

described above in Summary of 

Comments and Recommendations, we 

received one request to exclude an area 

from the final critical habitat 

designation that provided sufficient 

information to conduct an exclusion 

analysis of the area. 

Based on the information provided by 

entities seeking exclusion, as well as 

additional public comments we 

received, and the best scientific data 

available, we evaluated whether certain 

lands in the proposed critical habitat 

(South Unit) are appropriate for 

exclusion from this final designation 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If the 

analysis indicates that the benefits of 

excluding lands from the final 

designation outweigh the benefits of 

designating those lands as critical 

habitat, then the Secretary may exercise 

her discretion to exclude the lands from 

the final designation. In the paragraphs 

below, we provide a detailed analysis of 

whether the benefits of excluding this 

area outweigh the benefits of including 

it under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 36241 

South Unit 

The subject area is a 1.33-ac (0.54-ha) 

private parcel and easement extending 

onto NPS lands at Nanny Point for 

access, parking, fencing, and utilities 

corridors. The parcel of land includes 

use restrictions, which ensure that 79 

percent of the land will remain forested 

with native vegetation. The landowner 

has implemented conservation efforts, 

including captive propagation from seed 

and cutting, population enhancement, 

translocation of plants, and subsequent 

monitoring, and has demonstrably 

improved and enhanced the survival of 

the Nanny Point population. As part of 

the acquisition of this parcel, the 

landowner also negotiated a separate 

purchase and donation of an additional 

parcel to NPS of approximately 5.36 ac 

(2.17 ha) and the above referenced 

easements. Additionally, further land 

use covenants and restrictions were 

imposed on adjacent private parcels, 

covering approximately 15 ac (6.1 ha) of 

land surrounding the marron bacora 

population at Nanny Point. The 

restrictions limit the development of 

these parcels and ensure the habitat will 

remain at least 75 percent forested. 

Through the years, the private 

landowner has demonstrated 

commitment to the conservation of 

marron bacora through efforts such as 

propagating the species, providing us 

with information about the species, and 

ongoing conservation efforts such as 

fencing to exclude feral mammals from 

the Nanny Point population. 

Benefits of Inclusion—1.33-ac (0.54- 

ha) parcel: The principal benefit of 

including an area in critical habitat 

designation is the requirement of 

Federal agencies to ensure that actions 

that they fund, authorize, or carry out 

are not likely to result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of any 

designated critical habitat, which is the 

regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act under which consultation is 

completed.Federal agencies must 

consult with the Service on actions that 

may affect a listed species and refrain 

from actions that are likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of such 

species.The analysis of effects to critical 

habitat is a separate and different 

analysis from that of the effects to the 

species.Thus, critical habitat 

designation may provide greater benefits 

to the recovery of a species than listing 

would alone. 

Accordingly, a critical habitat 

designation may provide a regulatory 

benefit for marron bacoraon the 1.33-ac 

(0.54-ha) private parcel when there is a 

Federal nexus present for a project that 

might adversely modify critical habitat. 

However, as stated above, adverse 

modification considers whether 

implementation of a proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat as a whole. Given the 

small size of the area and existing land 

use restrictions, which ensure 79 

percent of the area will remain suitable 

habitat for marron bacora, even if an 

action were proposed that had a Federal 

nexus, it is highly unlikely that such an 

action could affect the area in a way that 

would adversely modify it. Accordingly, 

the benefit of inclusion of this parcel is 

limited. 

As mentioned previously, the 

landowner has a proven track record of 

implementing conservation actions for 

marron bacora, which further reduces 

the benefits of inclusion of this parcel 

in critical habitat. These conservation 

actions provide a greater benefit to the 

species than a designation of critical 

habitat because the landowner’s actions 

include implementing affirmative 

conservation actions, including 

propagation, planting, and monitoring 

activities, as well as exclusion of feral 

animals. Therefore, the existing 

conservation activities on this parcel 

will provide greater benefit than the 

regulatory designation of critical habitat, 

which requires only the avoidance of 

adverse modification and does not 

require implementation of the types of 

conservation activities that are currently 

being conducted at this site. 

Another potential benefit of including 

lands in a critical habitat designation is 

that doing so raises the awareness of 

landowners, State and local 

governments, and the public regarding 

the potential conservation value of an 

area. This increased public awareness of 

the importance of areas to marron 

bacora can help to focus attention of 

those areas that are of high conservation 

value. However, we find that the 

landowner’s track record of 

implemented conservation actions for 

marron bacora demonstrate awareness 

of the conservation value of the area, 

and the benefits of inclusion of this 

parcel in critical habitat are significantly 

reduced. Additionally, the inclusion of 

the larger amount of adjacent NPS lands 

within critical habitat will provide 

sufficient opportunity for us to raise 

public awareness of the imperiled status 

of the marron bacora for this area 

generally. 

Benefits of Exclusion—1.33-ac (0.54- 

ha) parcel: The benefits of excluding the 

1.33 ac (0.54 ha) of land from the 

designation of critical habitat are 

substantial. The parcel will continue to 

provide conservation to the species by 

contributing to educational benefits and 

public awareness through the following 

ways: (1) Continuing and strengthening 

of our effective working relationship 

with private landowners within the 

Nanny Point population to promote 

voluntary, proactive conservation and 

recovery of the marron bacora and its 

habitat; and (2) fostering future 

collaboration with private parties for 

other federally listed and sensitive 

species. 

In the case here, the substantial 

benefits of excluding the 1.33-ac (0.54- 

ha) private parcel include the 

recognition of the important role of 

voluntary conservation actions in the 

conservation of marron bacora, 

facilitating cooperation with 

neighboring landowners, and 

acknowledging the good faith efforts on 

their part to date in conserving marron 

bacora. The landowner of the 1.33-ac 

(0.54-ha) parcel has implemented and 

collaborated on conservation efforts, 

including captive propagation from seed 

and cutting, population enhancement, 

translocation of plants, and subsequent 

monitoring. These efforts have 

demonstrably improved and enhanced 

the survival of the Nanny Point 

population. Although the landowner is 

likely to continue to collaborate with us 

even if we do not exclude the private 

parcel and associated easements from 

designation, recognizing the 

collaborative relationship with the 

private landowner can create a 

substantial incentive for other 

landowners interested in voluntarily 

conserving marron bacora and other 

listed or unlisted species in need of 

conservation but might be concerned 

that their efforts might result in 

additional future regulation. Because we 

value the voluntary and collaborative 

conservation efforts that have occurred 

to date and that likely will continue, we 

place great weight on the maintenance 

of this conservation partnership. Thus, 

excluding this area from the critical 

habitat designation will maintain the 

valuable collaborative relationship with 

the landowner of the parcel and foster 

partnerships with other landowners 

within the range of marron bacora. 

Additionally, the exclusion of this 

parcel from critical habitat designation 

may also serve as a model for the 

advantages of voluntary and proactive 

conservation efforts, thereby fostering 

future cooperative relationships with 

non-Federal parties for the benefit of 

other endangered or threatened species. 

For these reasons, we consider the 

positive effect of excluding the 1.33-ac 

(0.54-ha) parcel from critical habitat to 

be a significant benefit. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36242 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion—1.33-ac (0.54-ha) 

parcel: The primary benefit of including 

this parcel as critical habitat for marron 

bacora is the regulatory requirement for 

Federal agencies to consult with us 

under section 7 of the Act to ensure 

actions they carry out, authorize, or 

fund do not adversely modify 

designated critical habitat. The 

additional regulatory benefits of 

including these lands as critical habitat 

are limited due to the small size of the 

parcel and long-term protection of the 

parcel conferred by existing land use 

restrictions and covenants. Furthermore, 

these lands are occupied by marron 

bacora, and we anticipate that if a 

Federal nexus exists and triggers the 

need for section 7 consultation, there 

will be no difference between 

conservation recommendations to avoid 

jeopardy and conservation 

recommendations to avoid adverse 

modification in occupied areas of 

critical habitat. The benefits of 

including this parcel in critical habitat 

are reduced due to the prior and 

ongoing conservation actions on this 

parcel, which provide a greater benefit 

than the regulatory designation of 

critical habitat. 

Another benefit of including this 

parcel in critical habitat is the 

opportunity to educate the landowner 

and the public regarding potential 

conservation value of the area. However, 

we have determined that the 

educational benefits of a designation of 

critical habitat are minimal due to the 

prior and ongoing conservation 

activities on this parcel and the greater 

relative contribution that adjacent NPS 

lands provide for educational 

opportunities. 

In contrast, the benefits of excluding 

this parcel are significant and greater 

than inclusion for the following reasons. 

Because voluntary conservation efforts 

for the benefit of listed species on nonFederal lands are so valuable, we 

consider the maintenance and 

encouragement of conservation 

partnerships to reduce or mitigate 

negative effects on the species caused by 

activities on or adjacent to the area 

covered by a plan. Including the parcel 

could undermine the collaborative and 

valuable partnership with the private 

landowner, as the landowner has 

worked with us in good faith to further 

the conservation of the species. Given 

concerns from the landowner about 

added regulation imposed by critical 

habitat designation, inclusion of the 

parcel may be perceived as lack of good 

faith on the part of the Service and a 

lack of appreciation for the landowner’s 

efforts towards conservation. Excluding 

the area from critical habitat, on the 

other hand, recognizes and will 

strengthen the collaborative partnership 

and aid in fostering future cooperative 

relationships with other parties for the 

benefit of marron bacora. Furthermore, 

excluding the 1.33-ac (0.54-ha) parcel 

will demonstrate the significant 

advantages of proactive, voluntary 

efforts for other imperiled species by 

providing positive incentives and 

removing real or perceived 

disincentives for landowners who might 

be considering implementing 

conservation activities. Thus, we find 

the partnership benefits are significant 

and outweigh the small potential 

regulatory benefits of including the land 

in the final critical habitat designation. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated 

above, the Secretary has determined that 

the benefits of excluding the 1.33-ac 

(0.54-ha) parcel outweigh the benefits of 

including this area in a designation of 

critical habitat. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species—1.33-ac (0.54- 

ha) parcel: We determined that the 

exclusion of 1.33 ac (0.54 ha) of land 

within the boundaries of the South Unit 

will not result in extinction of the taxon. 

The small size of the parcel and the 

long-term protection conferred by the 

land use restrictions and covenants 

provide assurances that marron bacora 

will not go extinct as a result of 

excluding the area from the critical 

habitat designation. Furthermore, for 

any projects having a Federal nexus and 

potentially affecting the marron bacora, 

the jeopardy standard of the Act will 

provide a level of assurance that this 

species will not go extinct as a result of 

excluding this parcel from the critical 

habitat designation. 

Summary of Exclusions 

As discussed above, based on the 

information provided by a landowner 

seeking exclusion, we evaluated 

whether certain lands in the proposed 

critical habitat were appropriate for 

exclusion from this final designation 

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. As 

displayed below in Table 5, we are 

excluding the following area from the 

critical habitat designation for the 

marron bacora: 1.33 ac (0.54 ha) of land 

within the boundaries of Unit 1 (South 

Unit). The excluded area falls within 

State Concordia in southeastern St. 

John, in an area known as Nanny Point 

and located in the proximity of the 

biggest know population of marron 

bacora in lands recently donated to 

NPS. 

TABLE 5—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT

Unit Specific area 

Areas meeting the definition of critical 

habitat, in acres 

(hectares) 

Area excluded 

from critical 

habitat, in acres 

(hectares) 

Unit 1 ..................... South Unit, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands .......................... 1,704 ac (690 ha) ............................... 1.33 ac (0.54 ha). 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs in the Office of Management and 

Budget will review all significant rules. 

The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has determined that 

this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. 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. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

by the Small Business Regulatory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 36243 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and as 

understood in light of recent court 

decisions, Federal agencies are required 

to evaluate the potential incremental 

impacts of rulemaking on those entities 

directly regulated by the rulemaking 

itself; in other words, the RFA does not 

require agencies to evaluate the 

potential impacts to indirectly regulated 

entities. The regulatory mechanism 

through which critical habitat 

protections are realized is section 7 of 

the Act, which requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under section 7, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, it is 

our position that only Federal action 

agencies will be directly regulated by 

this critical habitat designation. There is 

no requirement under the RFA to 

evaluate the potential impacts to entities 

not directly regulated. Moreover, 

Federal agencies are not small entities. 

Therefore, because no small entities will 

be directly regulated by this rulemaking, 

we certify that this critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether this designation will result in 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. For 

the above reasons and based on 

currently available information, we 

certify that this critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. In 

our economic analysis, we did not find 

that this designation of critical habitat 

will significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use due to the absence 

of any energy supply or distribution 

lines in the critical habitat designation. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action, and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following finding: 

(1) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private 

sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because the lands 

designated as critical habitat are 

primarily Federal lands (97 percent), 

with a small amount of private land (3 

percent). Small governments will be 

affected only to the extent that any 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36244 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

programs involving Federal funds, 

permits, or other authorized activities 

must ensure that their actions would not 

adversely affect the designated critical 

habitat. Therefore, a Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for marron 

bacora in a takings implications 

assessment. The Act does not authorize 

the Service to regulate private actions 

on private lands or confiscate private 

property as a result of critical habitat 

designation. Designation of critical 

habitat does not affect land ownership, 

or establish any closures, or restrictions 

on use of or access to the designated 

areas. Furthermore, the designation of 

critical habitat does not affect 

landowner actions that do not require 

Federal funding or permits, nor does it 

preclude development of habitat 

conservation programs or issuance of 

incidental take permits to permit actions 

that do require Federal funding or 

permits to go forward. However, Federal 

agencies are prohibited from carrying 

out, funding, or authorizing actions that 

would destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed for the 

designation of critical habitat for marron 

bacora, and it concludes that this 

designation of critical habitat does not 

pose significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the 

designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this final rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 

federalism summary impact statement is 

not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of this critical 

habitat designation with, appropriate 

Territorial resource agencies. From a 

federalism perspective, the designation 

of critical habitat directly affects only 

the responsibilities of Federal agencies. 

The Act imposes no other duties with 

respect to critical habitat, either for 

States and local governments, or for 

anyone else. As a result, this rule does 

not have substantial direct effects either 

on the States or Territory, or on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Territory, or on the 

distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The designation 

may have some benefit to these 

governments because the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist Territory 

and local governments in long-range 

planning because they no longer have to 

wait for case-by-case section 7 

consultations to occur. 

Where Territory and local 

governments require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

actions that may affect critical habitat, 

consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act will be required. While non-Federal 

entities that receive Federal funding, 

assistance, or permits, or that otherwise 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for an action, may be 

indirectly impacted by the designation 

of critical habitat, the legally binding 

duty to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We are designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. To assist the 

public in understanding the habitat 

needs of the species, this rule identifies 

the elements of physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. The areas of designated 

critical habitat are presented on maps, 

and the rule provides several options for 

the interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. 

We may not conduct or sponsor and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with regulations 

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), 

cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that no Tribal 

lands fall within the range of the marron 

bacora or the boundaries of the 

designated critical habitat, so no Tribal 

lands will be affected by the listing or 

critical habitat designation. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0050 

and upon mailed request to the 

Caribbean Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

the staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Caribbean Ecological 

Services Field Office and Species 

Assessment Team. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 36245 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 STAT. 3500; unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12, in paragraph (h), by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Solanum 

conocarpum’’ to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants in alphabetical 

order under FLOWERING PLANTS to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

Flowering Plants 

* * * * * * * 

Solanum conocarpum Marron bacora ......... Wherever found ....... E 87 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins], 6/16/2022; 50 CFR 17.96(a).CH

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.96, in paragraph (a), by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Family Solanaceae: 

Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora)’’ 

in alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) * * * 

Family Solanaceae: Solanum 

conocarpum (marron bacora) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, on the 

maps in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of marron bacora consist of 

the following components: 

(i) Native forest within the subtropical 

dry forest life zone in St. John. 

(ii) Dry scrubland, deciduous forest, 

and semi-deciduous forest vegetation at 

elevations lower than 150 meters (492 

feet). 

(iii) Continuous native forest cover 

with low abundance of exotic plant 

species (e.g., Leucaena leucocephala 

and Megathyrsus maximus) and that 

provides the availability of pollinators 

to secure cross-pollination between 

populations. 

(iv) Habitat quality evidenced by the 

presence of regional endemic plant 

species, including Zanthoxylum 

thomasianum, Peperomia wheeleri, 

Eugenia earhartii, Eugenia sessiliflora, 

Cordia rickseckeri, Croton fishlockii, 

Malpighia woodburyana, Bastardiopsis 

eggersii, Machaonia woodburyana, and 

Agave missionum. 

(v) Open understory with appropriate 

microhabitat conditions, including 

shaded conditions and moisture 

availability, to support seed germination 

and seedling recruitment. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

human-made structures (such as 

buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, 

and other paved areas) and the land on 

which they are located existing within 

the legal boundaries on July 18, 2022. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using ArcMap version 

10.6.1 (Environmental Systems Research 

Institute, Inc.), a Geographic 

Information Systems program on a base 

of USA Topo Map and the program 

world imagery. Critical habitat units 

were then mapped using NAD 1983, 

State Plane Puerto Rico and Virgin 

Islands FIPS 5200 coordinates. The 

maps in this entry, as modified by any 

accompanying regulatory text, establish 

the boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The coordinates or plot 

points or both on which each map is 

based are available to the public at the 

Service’s internet site at https://

www.fws.gov/office/caribbeanecological-services/library, at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2019–0050, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Note: Index map follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
36246 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Unit 1: South Unit, St. John, U.S. 

Virgin Islands. 

(i) Unit 1 consists of 1,704 acres (ac) 

(690 hectares (ha)) in estates Rustenberg 

& Adventure, Sieben, Mollendal & Little 

Reef Bay, Hope, Reef Bay, Lameshur 

Complex, Mandal, Concordia A, 

Concordia B, St. Quaco & Zimmerman, 

Hard Labor, Johns Folly and Friis. Lands 

are composed of 1,634 ac (661 ha) of 

Federal lands managed by the U.S. 

National Park Service and 70 ac (28 ha) 

of privately owned lands. 

(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULESER16JN22.000</GPH>

Figure 1 to Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora) paragraph (5) 

Index Map, Critical Habitat for Sofanum conocarpum (marron bacora}, 

St John, U.S. Virgin Islands 

U.S. Vllgin Islands 

.. • -6 ;~t~I 

St Thomas .., ~ John 

CZ 0 0.5 1 2 Mil&.s 

4t<ilomet.ef.s 

- Critical Habitat 

C3 Coastline 

N 

A 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 36247 

(7) Unit 2: North Unit, St. John, U.S. 

Virgin Islands. 

(i) Unit 2 consists of 844 ac (341 ha) 

in estates Leinster Bay, Browns Bay, 

Zootenvaal, Hermitage, Mt. Pleasant and 

Retreat, Haulover, and Turner Point. 

The unit is composed entirely of Federal 

lands managed by the U.S. National 

Park Service. 

(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULESER16JN22.001</GPH> ER16JN22.002</GPH>

Figure 2 to Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora) paragraph (6)(ii) 

Unit1: South Unit, Critical Habitat for Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora), 

St John, U.S. Virgin Islands 

•' • '($ 

-~ 

. -.il;J..-$. .. 

if' ' . • 

s'.~homasft -~ 

~ &. .. Croix 

0 0.4 0.8 1.6Miles 

0 0.5 

0 

--Trails 

M Crttical Habitat 

(::3 Coasltine 

N 

A 

Figure 3 to Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora) paragraph (7)(ii) 

Unit 2: North Unit, Critical Habitat for Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora), 

St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands 

U.S. Vltfl}n Islands 

•. • '\'!, 

~-~~- St. Thomas "" St. John 

0 0.25 0.5 

0 0.4 0.8 

1Mies 

1.6 Kikmelers 

--Trails 

M Critical Habitat 

C3 Coastltne 

N 

A 
36248 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 116 / Thursday, June 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12944 Filed 6–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No.: 211217–0262] 

RTID 0648–XC090 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Summer Flounder Fishery; 

Quota Transfer From NC to VA 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of quota transfer. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

State of North Carolina is transferring a 

portion of its 2022 commercial summer 

flounder quota to the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. This adjustment to the 2022 

fishing year quota is necessary to 

comply with the Summer Flounder, 

Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery 

Management Plan quota transfer 

provisions. This announcement informs 

the public of the revised 2022 

commercial quotas for North Carolina 

and Virginia. 

DATES: Effective June 15, 2022, through 

December 31, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Deighan, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9184. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations governing the summer 

flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 

648.100 through 648.110. These 

regulations require annual specification 

of a commercial quota that is 

apportioned among the coastal states 

from Maine through North Carolina. The 

process to set the annual commercial 

quota and the percent allocated to each 

state is described in § 648.102 and final 

2022 allocations were published on 

December 23, 2021 (86 FR 72859). 

The final rule implementing 

Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP), as 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), 

provided a mechanism for transferring 

summer flounder commercial quota 

from one state to another. Two or more 

states, under mutual agreement and 

with the concurrence of the NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, 

can transfer or combine summer 

flounder commercial quota under 

§ 648.102(c)(2). The Regional 

Administrator is required to consider 

three criteria in the evaluation of 

requests for quota transfers or 

combinations: The transfer or 

combinations would not preclude the 

overall annual quota from being fully 

harvested; the transfer addresses an 

unforeseen variation or contingency in 

the fishery; and the transfer is consistent 

with the objectives of the FMP and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. The 

Regional Administrator has determined 

these three criteria have been met for 

the transfer approved in this 

notification. 

North Carolina is transferring 7,196 lb 

(3,264 kg) to Virginia through mutual 

agreement of the states. This transfer 

was requested to repay landings made 

by an out-of-state permitted vessel 

under a safe harbor agreement. The 

revised summer flounder quotas for 

2022 are: North Carolina, 3,342,114 lb 

(1,515,957 kg) and Virginia, 2,788,816 lb 

(1,264,985 kg). 

Classification 

NMFS issues this action pursuant to 

section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 

648.162(e)(1)(i) through (iii), which was 

issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is 

exempted from review under Executive 

Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: June 10, 2022. 

Jennifer M. Wallace, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13026 Filed 6–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES