Rule2025-13238
Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Five Species of Threatened Indo-Pacific Corals
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 15, 2025
Effective
August 14, 2025
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
We, NMFS, designate critical habitat for five threatened Indo- Pacific coral species, Acropora globiceps, A. retusa, A. speciosa, Fimbriaphyllia paradivisa (formerly Euphyllia paradivisa), and Isopora crateriformis, pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Final critical habitat includes 18 specific areas encompassing approximately 237 square kilometers (km\2\; 92 square miles, mi\2\) of marine habitat in American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Pacific Remote Island Areas, and Hawai[revaps]i. We have considered economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of the designations, but are not excluding any areas from the critical habitat designations due to anticipated impacts.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 133 (Tuesday, July 15, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 15, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31800-31851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13238]
[[Page 31799]]
Vol. 90
Tuesday,
No. 133
July 15, 2025
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 223 and 226
Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for
Five Species of Threatened Indo-Pacific Corals; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 133 / Tuesday, July 15, 2025 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 31800]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 226
[Docket No: 250709-0123]
RIN 0648-BJ52
Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Five Species of Threatened Indo-Pacific Corals
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, designate critical habitat for five threatened Indo-
Pacific coral species, Acropora globiceps, A. retusa, A. speciosa,
Fimbriaphyllia paradivisa (formerly Euphyllia paradivisa), and Isopora
crateriformis, pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Final critical habitat includes 18 specific areas encompassing
approximately 237 square kilometers (km\2\; 92 square miles, mi\2\) of
marine habitat in American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Pacific Remote Island Areas, and
Hawai[revaps]i. We have considered economic, national security, and
other relevant impacts of the designations, but are not excluding any
areas from the critical habitat designations due to anticipated
impacts.
DATES: This rule is effective August 14, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The final rule, maps, and Final Information Report and
appendices can be found on the NMFS website: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/critical-habitat#critical-habitat-designations-maps-and-gis-data">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/critical-habitat#critical-habitat-designations-maps-and-gis-data</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lance Smith, NMFS, Pacific Islands
Regional Office, 808-725-5131, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ace0cdc2cfc982ffc1c5d8c4ec90cd8cc4dec9ca91" http: noaa.gov">noaa.gov</a>">Lance.Smith@<a href="http://noaa.gov">noaa.gov</a></a>; John Rippe, NMFS,
Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8467, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2f8dddadc9ce0dbc2c2d7f28ed392dac0d7d48f" http: noaa.gov">noaa.gov</a>">John.Rippe@<a href="http://noaa.gov">noaa.gov</a></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We listed 20 reef coral species as threatened under the ESA on
September 10, 2014 (79 FR 53851), 15 of which occur in the Indo-
Pacific. The remaining five species occur in the Caribbean. On November
27, 2020, we proposed critical habitat for the seven listed Indo-
Pacific species that were then considered to occur within U.S.
jurisdiction (85 FR 76262) and the five listed Caribbean species (85 FR
76302). All 20 of these listed coral species have undergone some level
of population decline and are susceptible to multiple threats,
including ocean warming, diseases, ocean acidification, ecological
effects of fishing, and land-based sources of pollution. We determined
that these species are likely to become endangered throughout their
ranges within the foreseeable future as a result of a combination of
threats, the most severe of which are ocean warming and acidification.
On August 9, 2023, NMFS finalized critical habitat for the five
Caribbean coral species (88 FR 54026).
On November 27, 2020, NMFS proposed to designate critical habitat
for the seven listed Indo-Pacific corals that were then considered to
occur within U.S. jurisdiction (Acropora globiceps, Acropora
jacquelineae, Acropora retusa, Acropora speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa
(renamed Fimbriaphyllia paradivisa, see 89 FR 81867, October 9, 2024),
Isopora crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata; 85 FR 76262), opened
an initial 60-day public comment period that was extended three times
to a total of 180 days, held two virtual public hearings, and received
approximately 80 public comments. The 2020 proposed rule included
specific areas with substrate and water column habitat characteristics
essential for the reproduction, recruitment, growth, and maturation of
the seven listed coral species. A total of 17 specific areas or
``critical habitat units'' were proposed to be designated as critical
habitat, including 4 units in American Samoa (Tutuila and Offshore
Banks, Ofu-Olosega, Ta'u, Rose Atoll), 1 unit in Guam, 7 units in the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI; Rota, Aguijan,
Tinian, Saipan, Anatahan, Pagan, Maug), and 5 units in the Pacific
Remote Island Areas (PRIA; Howland, Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef,
Johnston Atoll, Jarvis). Based on the best available information at
that time, between 1 and 6 listed coral species were thought to occur
within each of these 17 critical habitat units. Several other areas
were also found to be either ineligible for designation as coral
critical habitat, or were proposed to be excluded from the designation
due to national security impacts, including the Ritidian Point Surface
Danger Zone complex on Guam, the Navy's Submerged Lands around parts of
Guam, the Navy's Marine Lease Areas around most of Tinian in CNMI, a
group of six Navy anchorage berths on Garapan Bank in Saipan in CNMI,
all of Farallon de Medinilla (FDM) in CNMI, and all of Wake Atoll in
PRIA.
Based on our evaluation of new information provided in the public
comments on the 2020 proposed rule as well as other new information
that had become available, we concluded that a substantial revision of
the proposed rule was needed. Hence, the 2020 proposed rule was
withdrawn and a new proposed rule was published on November 30, 2023
(88 FR 83644). The major changes in the 2023 proposed rule from the
2020 proposed rule were: (1) Development of a methodology for using
records of listed coral species to determine the occupied areas for
critical habitat, the implementation of which led to three additional
changes (listed here as numbers 2-4); (2) removal of the units for A.
jacquelineae and Seriatopora aculeata from the proposed critical
habitat (because current records indicate that the ranges of both
species are entirely outside of U.S. waters), thereby reducing the
number of species for which critical habitat was being proposed from 7
to 5 species (Acropora globiceps, A. retusa, A. speciosa,
Fimbriaphyllia paradivisa and Isopora crateriformis); (3) reduction in
the number of proposed critical habitat units from 17 to 16, including
the elimination of 4 units from the 2020 proposed rule and addition of
3 new units, including 2 in CNMI, and 1 in Hawai[revaps]i; (4)
reductions in the depth ranges of all Guam and CNMI units (thereby
eliminating Garapan Bank on Saipan from consideration for coral
critical habitat); (5) more precise delineation of proposed critical
habitat within each unit; and (6) denial of the Navy's request for
exclusion from coral critical habitat of the Ritidian Point Surface
Danger Zone complex on Guam.
During the development of the proposed rule, we applied the joint
NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12) when evaluating the appropriateness of designating
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the listed species as
``unoccupied'' critical habitat. Among other requirements, those
regulations stated that we will only consider unoccupied areas to be
essential where a critical habitat designation limited to occupied
geographical areas would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of
the species (50 CFR 424.12(b)(2)). However, on April 5, 2024, NMFS and
the USFWS published a final rule revising those implementing
regulations (89 FR 24300). Because those revised regulations became
effective on May 6, 2024, we applied them during the development of
this final rule. Although our analysis necessarily differed under
[[Page 31801]]
the 2019 and 2024 regulations, our determination with respect to
unoccupied areas did not. This is because regardless of whether we
apply the 2019 regulations or current, 2024 regulations, designating an
area outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing as critical habitat requires a determination that the areas
themselves are ``essential for the conservation of the species'' (16
U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(ii)). Based on the best scientific data available, we
have concluded that unoccupied areas are not essential for the
conservation of any of the five coral species. This conclusion is
consistent with our determination in the 2023 proposed rule, in which
we also considered whether our analysis or its conclusion would be any
different under the pre-2019 criteria for designating unoccupied areas.
Statutory and Regulatory Background for Critical Habitat Designations
The ESA defines critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) as the (1)
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species (hereafter also
referred to as ``PBFs'' or ``essential features'') and which may
require special management considerations or protection; and (2)
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) that such areas are essential for the conservation
of the species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). Conservation is defined in
section 3(3) of the ESA as to use, and the use of, all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to this Act are no longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). Section
3(5)(C) of the ESA provides that, except in those circumstances
determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the
entire geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or
endangered species. Our regulations provide that critical habitat shall
not be designated within foreign countries or in other areas outside
U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(g)).
Throughout this document, we use the term ``critical habitat unit''
to refer to the cumulative specific areas for one or more coral species
around the particular island or offshore bank around, or on which, the
coral habitat is located. For example, overlapping occupied areas for
five listed coral species occur around Tutuila Island and its offshore
banks, which is thus named the Tutuila and Offshore Banks Unit of coral
critical habitat.
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA prohibits designating as critical
habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by
the Department of Defense (DOD) or designated for its use, that are
subject to an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP)
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to
the species for which critical habitat is designated. Section 4(b)(2)
of the ESA requires us to designate critical habitat for threatened and
endangered species on the basis of the best scientific data available
and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on
national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. Pursuant to this section, the
Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat upon determining
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat. However, the Secretary may
not exclude areas if this will result in the extinction of the species.
Once critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA
requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they fund, authorize,
or carry out are not likely to destroy or adversely modify that habitat
(16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). This requirement is in addition to the section
7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies ensure their actions are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species.
Specifying the geographic location of critical habitat also facilitates
implementation of section 7(a)(1) of the ESA by identifying areas where
Federal agencies can focus their conservation programs and use their
authorities to further the purposes of the ESA. Critical habitat
requirements do not apply to citizens engaged in actions on private
land that do not involve a Federal agency. However, designating
critical habitat can help focus the efforts of other conservation
partners (e.g., state and local governments, individuals, and non-
governmental organizations).
Changes From the 2023 Proposed Rule
We evaluated the comments and information received from the public
during the public comment period, as well as other new information that
has become available since publication of the 2023 proposed rule. Based
on our consideration of the comments and information (as noted below in
the Summary of Comments and Responses section), we made two substantive
changes to the critical habitat in this final rule: (1) the addition of
two new units (Swains Island in American Samoa and Asuncion Island in
CNMI), based on new records of listed coral species in those locations;
and (2) the removal of two types of areas because they are unsuitable
for the listed corals. Together, these changes resulted in the overall
reduction in the total area of coral critical habitat from
approximately 251 km\2\ (97 mi\2\) in the proposed rule to
approximately 237 km\2\ (92 mi\2\) in this final rule. These changes
are described in the Final Information Report and its appendices (NMFS
2025) and summarized below.
Addition of Two New Units
When the proposed rule was published in 2023, we were not aware of
records of any listed corals from Swains Island in American Samoa or
from Asuncion Island in CNMI, as described in appendix A (i.e., the
draft Records Document) of the Draft Information Report (NMFS 2023,
appendix A), the primary supporting document for the proposed rule.
Nevertheless, we still had identified these two areas as potential
critical habitat, noting that these areas had recently been surveyed by
experts and listed corals had been reported from nearby islands. After
the publication of the proposed rule, the NOAA Fisheries Pacific
Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) provided the following
records: (1) four records of A. retusa collected from Swains Island in
2023; and (2) one record of A. globiceps collected from Asuncion in
2022.
As described in the draft Records Document (NMFS 2023, appendix A),
a decision process was used to determine if the available coral records
provided adequate evidence that any given island was within a listed
coral species' occupied area at the time of the listing in 2014. In
seeking public comment from the public, government agencies, scientific
communities, among others, we anticipated that records identifying
other areas of the listed species, including Swains and Asuncion, would
be provided to us, which is what occurred here. During the public
comment period in early 2024, records collected in 2023 (Swains) and
2022 (Asuncion) by PIFSC came to our attention. Based on these
additional records, and following the decision process described in the
draft Records Document that was used for the proposed rule, we now have
an adequate level of confidence that Swains was within the occupied
area for
[[Page 31802]]
A. retusa at the time of listing and that Asuncion was within the
occupied area for A. globiceps at the time of listing, as described in
appendix A (i.e., the final Records Document) of the Final Information
Report (NMFS 2025). Moreover, since we had identified these areas as
possible critical habitat at the time of the proposed rule, both
provide high quality coral habitat, and the nearest islands to both are
occupied by listed coral species, the addition of these areas to the
final designation was a foreseeable potential outcome. In addition, in
the 2023 proposed rule, we specifically requested public comment on the
development of the methodology for using records of listed coral
species to determine their occupied areas for critical habitat; changes
to the occupied areas for the listed coral species; changes to the
depth ranges for the listed coral species; and other changes including
refinement of critical habitat boundaries. Based on these additional
considerations, we conclude that Swains and Asuncion were both within
the occupied areas of these listed corals at the time of listing, and
therefore critical habitat for A. retusa at Swains and for A. globiceps
at Asuncion are added to this final coral critical habitat rule,
increasing the total number of critical habitat units from 16 in the
proposed rule to 18 in the final rule.
Removal of Unsuitable Areas
Based on information received in the public comments, two types of
areas were removed from the final coral critical habitat because they
are unsuitable for the listed corals. The first type of areas was found
to have unsuitable substrates. The proposed rule included specific
areas with suitable substrates, including all substrates categorized as
``rock/boulder'' within the occupied areas and depth ranges of the
listed coral species. However, these rock/boulder substrates are found
in both intertidal and subtidal areas. While subtidal rock/boulder
provides suitable substrate for the listed coral species, intertidal
rock/boulder does not provide suitable substrate, because the substrate
is exposed to air at low tide, as described further in the Final
Information Report (NMFS 2025). Thus, all specific areas containing
intertidal rock/boulder substrates have been removed from final coral
critical habitat.
In addition, public comments provided information showing that
certain areas that had been included in proposed critical habitat on
Rota, Tinian, and Saipan do not have suitable water quality. These
include small areas designated as class A degraded waters by the CNMI
government near the West Harbor and East Harbor of Rota, near the
Tinian Harbor, and near the outfall of the Agingan Wastewater Treatment
Plant on Saipan. Because these areas are likely to have unsuitable
water quality and there is no evidence of listed corals occupying these
areas (NMFS 2025), they have been removed from final coral critical
habitat.
Other Changes
In addition to these two substantive changes in the final rule, we
also made some minor, clarifying changes. These changes are described
in the Final Information Report and its appendices (NMFS 2025) and
summarized here: (1) based on information received in the public
comments, the description of the water quality component of the
essential feature was revised such that the nutrients section was
updated to reflect recent literature on the effects of excessive
dissolved inorganic nitrogen and dissolved inorganic phosphorus on
reef-building corals, and a plastics sub-section was added to the
contaminant section to summarize the recent impacts of plastics on
coral reefs; (2) the map of the areas on Guam covered by the Navy's
Joint Region Marianas (JRM) INRMP was corrected by the Navy in October
2024, causing less area to be ineligible for coral critical habitat,
which in turn resulted in an increase of approximately 1.5 km\2\ (0.6
mi\2\) of coral critical habitat around Guam between the outside of the
northern edge of Apra Harbor to the north shore of the island; (3) the
name of the listed coral Euphyllia paradivisa was changed to
Fimbriaphyllia paradivisa (89 FR 81867, October 9, 2024) to reflect the
change in the scientifically accepted name of this species; and (4) the
final Economic Impact Analysis report (appendix C of the Final
Information Report, NMFS 2025) was updated with current economic data
and ESA section 7 consultation history, assumptions, and methods;
however, these did not lead to any substantial changes to the results
of the analysis (i.e., still very low economic impacts) or the
application of the results to this final rule (i.e., still no economic
exclusions).
Summary of Changes
The changes from the 2023 proposed rule to this final rule are
summarized in table 1 below.
Table 1--Summary of Changes From 2023 Proposed Rule to Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Proposed rule Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied areas.............. 18 islands: Tutuila 20 islands: Tutuila
& Offshore Banks, & Offshore Banks,
Ofu-Olosega, Ta'u, Ofu-Olosega, Ta'u,
Rose Atoll, Guam, Rose Atoll, Swains,
Rota, Aguijan, Guam, Rota,
Tinian, Saipan, Aguijan, Tinian,
FDM, Alamagan, Saipan, FDM,
Pagan, Maug Alamagan, Pagan,
Islands, Uracas, Asuncion, Maug
Palmyra Atoll, Islands, Uracas,
Johnston Atoll, Palmyra Atoll,
Wake Atoll, FFS/ Johnston Atoll,
Lalo. Wake Atoll, FFS/
Lalo.
Depth Ranges of critical 0-10 m (3 units).... 0-10 m (3 units).
habitat units *. 0-12 m (10 units)... 0-12 m (11 units).
0-20 m (4 units).... 0-20 m (5 units).
0-50 m (1 unit)..... 0-50 m (1 unit).
Critical Habitat Units...... 16 critical habitat 18 critical habitat
units: Tutuila & units: Tutuila &
Offshore Banks, Ofu- Offshore Banks, Ofu-
Olosega, Ta'u, Rose Olosega, Ta'u, Rose
Atoll, Guam, Rota, Atoll, Swains,
Aguijan, Tinian, Guam, Rota,
Saipan, Alamagan, Aguijan, Tinian,
Pagan, Maug Saipan, Alamagan,
Islands, Uracas, Pagan, Asuncion,
Palmyra Atoll, Maug Islands,
Johnston Atoll, FFS/ Uracas, Palmyra
Lalo. Atoll, Johnston
Atoll, FFS/Lalo.
Total area **............... 251 km\2\ (97 mi\2\) 237 km\2\ (92
mi\2\).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These are the depth ranges around a given island for all of the listed
species found on that island. The depth ranges of each listed species
on each island are shown in table 2.
** Although two critical habitat units were added to the final rule, the
total area decreased because of the removal of areas with unsuitable
substrate from all units, and unsuitable water quality from three
units, as described in the Removal of Unsuitable Areas section.
[[Page 31803]]
Summary of Comments and Responses
We solicited comments on the proposed rule and its supporting
documents during a 90-day public comment period (88 FR 83644, November
30, 2023). We held a total of seven public hearings during the public
comment period, including six in-person (one each on Guam, Saipan,
Tinian, and Rota, and two on Tutuila) and one virtual hearing. We
received public comments at the hearings, as well as via both standard
mail and through the Federal eRulemaking portal, <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. We received a total of 17,225 public comments on
the proposed rule, including 49 at the hearings, 17,174 via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, and 2 by standard mail. Approximately 99 percent
of the public comments on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> were from a
campaign by the Center for Biological Diversity urging prompt
finalization of the rule. In contrast, nearly all of the public
comments from the public hearings expressed concern or opposition to
the proposed rule. Approximately 50 of the public comments received on
the proposed rule provided new information relative to the final rule.
We received comments from a range of sources including global and local
environmental non-profit groups, territory Governors, Federal and
Territory Government agencies, student groups, and concerned citizens.
We considered all public comments, and below we provide responses to
all substantive issues raised by commenters that are relevant to this
final rule. We do not respond to comments or concerns that we received
that are outside the scope of this rule, such as comments on the
reasons for listing the coral species under the ESA in the first place.
As described above in the Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule
section, we incorporated information provided by commenters into the
Final Information Report and its appendices (NMFS 2025) and this final
rule.
Comments on Application of Coral Records to Critical Habitat
Comment 1: Two commenters opposed the removal of Tutuila and
Offshore Banks from the occupied area for A. jacquelineae (which
resulted in no proposed critical habitat for this species), arguing
that the record of one colony of this species from Tutuila in 2008
should be an adequate basis for designating critical habitat for the
species. That is, these commenters disagreed with our conclusion that
the single record was likely of a waif colony outside the occupied area
of A. jacquelineae, stating that the single record indicates that
Tutuila was within the occupied area for the species at the time of
listing in 2014 and therefore should be included in critical habitat.
Response: The single record of A. jacquelineae from Tutuila in 2008
remains the only record of this coral within U.S. waters despite
hundreds of surveys around Tutuila by coral experts from the time the
species was listed in 2014 through early 2024. Therefore, this record
is considered a waif colony. Under our ESA section 4 implementing
regulations, areas occupied by the species ``. . .may include those
areas used throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if
not used on a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal
habitats, and habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant
individuals)'' (50 CFR 424.02). Therefore, and as we also discuss in
appendix A of NMFS (2024a), the occupied area of a listed coral species
does not include the area used solely by such ``vagrant individuals,''
(i.e., waif colonies). In addition, the commenters did not provide any
information to support their arguments that the single 2008 record
demonstrates that Tutuila was within the occupied area of A.
jacquelineae at the time of listing in 2014. Thus, there is no basis
for including A. jacquelineae in this final rule.
Comment 2: Two commenters claimed that using existing records as
the basis for determining the depth ranges of the specific areas of
critical habitat is inadequate because it does not account for the
potential increase in depth ranges of the listed species in response to
future ocean warming as a result of climate change. One commenter
requested that new coral surveys be conducted to ensure that records
are current before finalizing critical habitat. One commenter stated
that the uncertainties of coral species identification had not been
accounted for in the application of the records to proposed critical
habitat.
Response: While it is possible that the depth ranges of listed
coral species could become deeper in response to ocean warming, deeper
habitat may or may not provide refugia from this threat, and range
expansion by a given species to deeper waters depends on many
unpredictable physical and ecological factors (Bongaerts et al. 2017,
Venegas et al. 2019). Thus, we cannot assume that the depth
distributions of listed coral species will increase in the future.
Therefore, there is no basis for extending the depths of coral critical
habitat in this final rule. That is, the depths of critical habitat for
each species in this final rule is based solely on the records of each
species on each island, as shown in table 2 in section 3.1 of the Final
Information Report (NMFS 2025), which are based on the records in
appendix A (the Final Records Document) of that document. With regard
to the request that new coral surveys be conducted to inform final
coral critical habitat, we are required to publish a final rule within
1 year of publication of the proposed rule and use the best available
information at that time (i.e., the updated records in appendix A) to
formulate our rules. There is no requirement to conduct new surveys to
inform new rules.
The comment regarding coral species identification uncertainties
not being accounted for in the application of the records to proposed
critical habitat is incorrect. Sections 2 and 3 of appendix A of the
Information Report (NMFS 2025) include both general and species-
specific ``Species Identification Uncertainty'' sections that describe
thoroughly how we accounted for this.
Comments on the Occupied Areas, Unoccupied Areas, and Specific Areas
Comment 3: Several commenters addressed the way we used coral
records to determine the occupied areas and specific areas of critical
habitat in the proposed rule. These included comments opposing the wide
breadth of proposed critical habitat: One commenter indicated that
existing coral species distribution data in American Samoa indicate
that the distributions of listed corals are limited to relatively small
areas rather than broadly around each island, thus critical habitat
should be restricted to those areas where data show the species
currently occur. Another commenter made a similar assertion, stating
that the maps of proposed coral critical habitat are substrate maps
rather than coral distribution maps, and thus inappropriately broad.
Both commenters urged that coral critical habitat be restricted to just
those areas where current data show that colonies of listed corals
occur.
Response: We agree that both the occupied areas and the specific
areas of the proposed and final coral critical habitat are broader than
the distribution of the listed corals at any one point in time.
However, as indicated in our implementing regulations, the geographical
area occupied by the species is an area that is generally delineated
around the species occurrences and 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,
[[Page 31804]]
seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, but not solely by
vagrant individuals) (50 CFR 424.02). Within any given area, colonies
of the listed species may die off in response to natural disturbances
and not reappear for a few years (NMFS 2025). Such mortality and
recovery and associated disappearance and reappearance of coral
populations at any given site is a normal response to natural
disturbance. Therefore, when determining the occupied areas of the
listed corals at the time of listing, we used the best available data
regarding species occurrences to identify the range within which these
corals were known or likely to occur given their life history.
In addition, the ESA's definition of ``critical habitat'' specifies
that critical habitat occupied at the time of listing must contain
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)). Given the nature of these coral
species and the available data, we cannot delineate specific areas of
critical habitat at the precision of each coral colony, nor does the
ESA require such a level of precision. Instead, the ESA requires only
that we, using the best available scientific information, determine
what areas contain the features that are essential to the conservation
of the species and provide a reasoned basis for our conclusions (See
Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Jewell, 815 F.3d 544 (9th Cir. 2016). As
described in the Specific Areas Containing the Essential Feature Within
the Geographical Areas Occupied by the Species section of this rule, we
relied on the best available information on substrate and water quality
within each critical habitat unit to determine where the essential
feature occurred within the occupied areas.
Comment 4: One commenter requested that the breadth of the occupied
areas for A. retusa and A. speciosa be expanded, which just included
four critical habitat units for A. retusa and one critical habitat unit
for A. speciosa in the proposed rule. This request was based on the
claim that the pelagic larval dispersal and large ranges of these
species indicates that U.S. islands that were not included in the
proposed rule such as Palmyra Atoll, Howland Island, and Baker Island
are most likely within the occupied areas of these two species.
Response: As explained in the Critical Habitat Identification and
Designation sections of this rule and the Final Information Report
(NMFS 2025), our methodology for determining the occupied areas for
each listed coral species is based on the existing coral records in
appendix A of the Final Information Report, which was updated in 2024
for this final rule. Islands without adequate evidence of being
occupied by a given listed coral species at the time of listing in 2014
do not qualify for critical habitat for that species, such as Palmyra
Atoll, Howland Island, and Baker Island for A. retusa and A. speciosa.
While it is possible that these islands were or are within the occupied
areas for these listed species based on pelagic larval dispersal and
large ranges, it is equally possible that they were not because of the
isolated locations and small sizes of these islands. However, two
additional critical habitat units (Ta'u and Swains in American Samoa)
were included in the final coral critical habitat for A. retusa based
on the discovery of additional records for that species; both areas had
been identified as possible critical habitat at the time of the
proposed rule, and the nearest islands to both are occupied by listed
coral species. Likewise, an additional critical habitat unit (Asuncion
in CNMI) identified as possible critical habitat at the time of the
proposed rule was included in final coral critical habitat for A.
globiceps based on the discovery of additional records for that
species. These additional records are provided in appendix A of the
Final Information Report (NMFS 2025).
Comment 5: Two commenters objected to not including unoccupied
areas in proposed critical habitat. Both commenters asserted that
climate change is likely to cause shifts in the occupied areas in the
near future such that currently unoccupied areas will become occupied
areas for these species. One commenter also contended that unoccupied
areas are likely to become occupied by listed corals in the near future
because of their pelagic life history.
Response: Ocean warming is resulting in shifting ranges of reef-
building corals, thus it is possible that the ranges of listed corals
will eventually expand into the currently unoccupied areas within U.S.
waters. However, such range shifts are a complex response to the
interaction of different global threats such as ocean warming, ocean
acidification, and sea-level rise, as well as localized threats (Dove
et al. 2020, Guan et al. 2020), and vary by coral species, location,
and other factors. With regard to unoccupied areas being likely to
become occupied due to the pelagic life history of the listed corals,
we do not agree that that is necessarily true because of the small size
and isolation of these unoccupied areas. Thus, it is not possible to
predict whether the currently unoccupied areas in U.S. waters will be
occupied by listed corals in the foreseeable future, whether due to
changing environmental conditions or due to their pelagic life history.
Even if they were to become occupied, these areas are very small
islands that collectively make up much less than 1 percent of the
listed species' ranges, thus the unoccupied areas may not be essential
for the conservation of these species.
Comment 6: One commenter suggested that the specific areas of
critical habitat within each occupied area be expanded as follows: (1)
addition of buffer zones to mitigate for future climate change impacts;
(2) addition of current shoreline areas that are projected to be
underwater due to sea level rise in the foreseeable future; and (3)
addition of abyssal plains because of future potential mining and
drilling.
Response: For areas that are occupied by the species at the time it
is listed under the ESA, critical habitat is defined as those specific
areas containing the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the listed species and that may require special
management considerations or protection. That is, specific areas within
the occupied range of the species that do not contain the essential
features cannot be included in critical habitat, such as buffer zones
between specific areas and other areas or shorelines that are projected
to be eventually inundated by sea-level rise. Likewise, abyssal plains
are thousands of meters deep, far outside the depth ranges of any reef-
building corals, and do not provide any of the essential features of
coral critical habitat, thus cannot be included in critical habitat for
the listed coral species.
Comment 7: Two commenters requested the following areas be removed
from the specific areas of critical habitat within CNMI critical
habitat units, due to compromised water quality that disqualify them
from critical habitat, including: (1) On Saipan, class A waters within
1,000 feet (305 meters) of Agingan Outfall; (2) on Tinian, class A
waters of San Jose Harbor; and (3) on Rota, class A waters of East and
West Harbor. These two commenters also requested that an area on Pagan
be removed from the specific areas of critical habitat due to planned
future harbor developments. Finally, one commenter requested that the
artificial substrates and managed areas be better described to clarify
the distinction between the specific areas included in critical habitat
vs. the
[[Page 31805]]
artificial substrates and managed areas not included in critical
habitat.
Response: All four areas that were requested to be removed from the
specific areas of critical habitat on Saipan (one area), Tinian (one
area), and Rota (two areas), are designated by the CNMI Government as
class A waters (CNMI Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality [BECQ]
2020) because of compromised water quality. We agree that these four
areas do not qualify as specific areas for coral critical habitat
because they do not contain the water quality component of the
essential feature and cannot support occupancy of the areas by the
listed corals, as explained further in the Final Information Report
(NMFS 2025), thus they have been removed from final coral critical
habitat. With regard to the area that was requested to be removed from
the specific areas of critical habitat on Pagan, that area contains the
essential feature of coral critical habitat. Since no areas on Pagan
are covered by an INRMP, none can be exempted from critical habitat
under 4(a)(3). Likewise, since there are no areas on Pagan where
critical habitat would have national security, economic impacts, or
other relevant impacts, none can be excluded from critical habitat
under 4(b)(2). As there is no basis to exclude this area, we are
including it in final coral critical habitat.
With regard to better describing the artificial substrates and
managed areas, additional details have been provided in appendix B of
the Final Information Report (NMFS 2025). Some critical habitat units,
such as Tutuila and Offshore Banks, Guam, and Saipan, each have at
least dozens of artificial substrates and managed areas that are not
included in critical habitat. For each critical habitat unit, appendix
B of the Final Information Report (NMFS 2025) lists the categories of
artificial substrates (e.g., Aids-to-Navigation or AToNs, seawalls,
etc.) and managed areas (e.g., harbors and navigation channels, areas
around AToNs, etc.).
Comments on the Essential Feature
Comment 8: One commenter requested that we add the following
quantitative thresholds for the water quality attribute of the
essential feature: (1) Seawater temperatures not to exceed 1.0[deg] C
of location-specific warming; (2) aragonite saturation states not to
exceed 4.0; and (3) water clarity (turbidity) not to exceed 7
nephelometric turbidity units.
Response: As explained in detail in the Water Quality section of
the Final Information Report (NMFS 2025), identifying quantitative
thresholds for water quality parameters such as seawater temperature,
aragonite saturation state, and water clarity (turbidity) is inherently
complex and influenced by taxa, exposure duration, and other factors.
Even for a single species and a set exposure duration, such thresholds
are variable across both time (e.g., tidal cycle, season, etc.) and
space (e.g., habitat type, inshore vs. offshore, etc.) and may be
nonlinear. The values presented in the Seawater Temperature, Aragonite
Saturation State, and Water Clarity/Turbidity sub-sections of the Final
Information Report (NMFS 2025) constitute the best available
information at the time of this rulemaking. It is possible that future
scientific research will identify more species-specific values for some
of these parameters that become more applicable to the five listed
coral species, though it is also possible that future species-specific
research will document that conducive or tolerance ranges for the five
corals fall within these ranges. Because the ESA requires us to use the
best scientific information available in conducting consultations under
section 7, we will incorporate any such new scientific information into
consultations when evaluating potential impacts to the critical
habitat. For these reasons, we are not including quantitative
thresholds in this final rule.
Comment 9: One commenter provided new publications on the impacts
of nutrients on corals, and suggested that nutrient impacts be re-
evaluated in light of the new information. The same commenter also
suggested that the contaminants attribute of the essential feature be
expanded to address plastic pollution, because that has recently become
a global problem for coral reefs.
Response: We agree that the addition of new information on the
effects of nutrients and plastics on corals are appropriate and have
updated the descriptions of the nutrients and contaminants components
of the essential feature in this rule and the Final Information Report
(NMFS 2025) accordingly. However, we do not agree that nutrient impacts
need to be re-evaluated in light of the new information that was
brought to our attention by the public comment, since it merely added
to the already-existing information that we previously used to
summarize nutrient impacts on listed corals in the proposed rule.
Comments on the Application of ESA Section 4(a)(3)
Comment 10: Several commenters disagreed with our conclusion that
the Navy's 2019 Joint Region Marianas Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan (JRM INRMP) is likely to benefit the listed coral A.
globiceps, which was the basis for our determinations that the Navy's
Submerged Lands around Guam and FDM, as well as its Tinian Marine Lease
Area (MLA), were ineligible for designation as coral critical habitat.
Most of these commenters based their disagreement on the general
argument that the Navy's activities are likely to continue to degrade
the coral reefs and listed corals within all of these areas despite the
implementation of the coral conservation components of the JRM INRMP.
Similarly, one commenter made a general argument that the Navy has a
poor track record of implementing its planned conservation projects in
the Marianas and thus cannot be trusted to implement the projects as
planned in the JRM INRMP. In addition, one commenter disagreed with our
ineligibility determination for the Tinian MLA, based on specific
information regarding the high quality of the A. globiceps habitat on
Tinian together with the impacts of the different types of anticipated
Navy activities on that habitat.
Response: Although several commenters expressed general skepticism
regarding the benefits of the Navy's JRM INRMP to the listed coral, as
well as general disagreement with our determination that the JRM INRMP
provides a benefit to the listed coral, no new specific information was
provided by these comments to support their claims. The updated 4(a)(3)
determinations in this final rule and the Final Information Report
(NMFS 2025) are based on the best available information on the listed
coral and its habitat within the JRM INRMP marine areas, and the
current status of the implementation of the coral conservation
components of the JRM INRMP, including the most recent updates from the
Navy (Department of the Navy [DON] 2023, 2024). As described in the
updated conclusion for the JRM INRMP sections of this final rule and
the Final Information Report, in general our determinations for the JRM
INRMP are based on clear and recent documentation of coral conservation
projects, demonstration of good faith efforts for listed corals, and a
history of strong conservation work by the Navy, all of which have been
demonstrated and documented.
With regard to the specific comment about the Tinian MLA, no new
information was provided about either the use of the area by listed
corals or the potential impacts of the Navy's activities. In contrast,
our review of the most recent information provided by the
[[Page 31806]]
Navy on the implementation of the JRM INRMP within the Tinian MLA (DON
2023, 2024) shows that the coral conservation projects are benefiting,
or are likely to benefit, listed corals in several ways, including at
least removal of non-permitted buoys, control of crown-of-thorns
outbreaks, and monitoring to detect changes that could result in
management responses.
Comments on the Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2)
Comment 11: Several commenters disagreed with our conclusion that
no areas should be excluded from coral critical habitat due to economic
impacts. This conclusion was based on our determination that economic
impacts are not likely to outweigh conservation benefits, based on the
results of our draft Economic Impact Analysis report (NMFS 2023,
appendix C) that was prepared for the proposed rule. These commenters
argued that coral critical habitat would result in substantial economic
impacts by delaying infrastructure development such as mooring buoys,
boat ramps, sewage outfall management, harbor maintenance, seawall
construction, and others, as well as by restricting ongoing activities
such as commercial and recreational fisheries management and water
quality management. The commenters contend that such development and
activity is increasingly important economically due to rising sea-
levels, shrinking local economies, and reduced populations, thus
exacerbating the economic impacts of coral critical habitat on the
local communities, thereby warranting exclusion of the most
economically-impacted areas.
Response: We disagree with commenters that we underestimated the
economic impacts of coral critical habitat. As detailed in the Final
Economic Impact Analysis report (NMFS 2025, appendix C), we do not
anticipate that section 7 consultations on the effects of proposed
Federal actions on coral critical habitat will result in project
modifications beyond those that are already being required to minimize
effects to the listed corals, which have been required since the corals
were listed in 2014. In addition, as explained in the Final Economic
Impact Analysis report, no incremental costs of coral critical habitat
are expected to be borne by third parties such as local governments or
private companies. One major reason why the economic impacts are
expected to be low is that coral critical habitat does not include any
existing managed areas (i.e., harbors, navigation channels, boat ramps,
etc.) or artificial substrates, which is where many economically
important activities are concentrated. These managed areas and
artificial substrates are listed and described island-by-island in
appendix B of the Final Information Report (NMFS 2025).
Comment 12: Several other commenters maintained that our Economic
Impact Analysis report underestimated the potential economic benefits
of coral critical habitat by not fully accounting for the economic
benefits of coral reefs, such as providing food sources, protection
from tropical storms, and ecotourism.
Response: We disagree with commenters that we underestimated the
economic benefits of coral critical habitat. As described in the Final
Economic Impact Analysis report (NMFS 2025, appendix C), the
incremental economic benefits of this critical habitat designation are
limited by the fact that these benefits will likely already stem from
the protections the species receive as a result of their listing under
the ESA. In addition, while we expect benefits to result from: (1) the
increased protection of the essential feature from Federal actions via
section 7 technical assistance; (2) enhanced ecosystem service benefits
of coral reef conservation; and (3) greater education and awareness of
coral reef conservation, these potential benefits are uncertain and
cannot be quantified. Thus, we do not agree that the Economic Impact
Analysis underestimates the potential benefits of coral critical
habitat.
Comments on Engagement With Local Governments and Communities
Comment 13: Many commenters objected to how the in-person
informational meetings and public hearings were carried out. Some of
these commenters argued that more meetings and hearings should have
been held, especially on the outer islands of American Samoa such as
Ofu, Olosega, and Ta'u. Others complained that the advertising for the
meetings and hearings was inadequate, especially on Guam. Some stated
that additional informational meetings should have been held at a
larger number of venues throughout each island.
Response: Public hearings on proposed Federal rules are not
required unless requested, and even then, only one hearing is required
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)(E)). However, we held seven public hearings on
the proposed coral critical habitat rule even though none were
requested. Six of the public hearings were in-person and were held
throughout the jurisdictions where critical habitat was proposed (two
in American Samoa, one in Guam, and three in CNMI (one each in Saipan,
Tinian, and Rota)). We planned these public hearings based on previous
attendance, information gleaned from various outreach intiatives from
2022 to 2023, and public input we received on previous engagement
efforts. Notwithstanding our limited resources, our outreach efforts
consisting of multiple hearings across a wide Pacific region exceeded
the requirements in the ESA. We also contracted facilitators, who
provided translation/interpretation in Samoan, Chamorro, and
Carolinian. We then followed up the in-person hearings by hosting a
virtual public hearing to provide an additional opportunity for the
public to learn about the proposed rule and provide public comment.
Each public hearing was advertised to the public via local media (i.e.,
newspapers and radio), social media, and email lists in addition to
being announced on the NOAA Fisheries website and the Federal Register.
Furthermore, in addition to the public hearings, we held approximately
two dozen in-person meetings and engagement events during the public
comment period in American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI, including with
territory resource agency departments, other Federal agency partners,
gubernatorial and mayoral offices, community colleges, and community
members (among others) to provide information to the public regarding
proposed coral critical habitat. Thus, NOAA Fisheries went beyond what
is required in order to engage the public and solicit public comments
on the proposed rule, and we consider this to be meaningful engagement.
Comment 14: Many commenters complained that future impacts of
critical habitat on local governments and communities were not clearly
explained in the proposed rule and supporting documents.
Response: We believe that the future impacts of critical habitat on
local governments and communities were described with sufficient
clarity in the proposed rule and its supporting documents to allow for
meaningful public comment. To address the commenters' concerns, this
final rule and the Final Information Report (NMFS 2025) have been
revised to incorporate plain language descriptions of why the economic
impacts of coral critical habitat on local governments and communities
are expected to be very low, especially within the Economic Impacts,
Effects of Critical Habitat Designations, and Activities that May be
Affected sections of the final
[[Page 31807]]
rule, together with their corresponding sections of the Final
Information Report and its appendices (NMFS 2025).
Comment 15: Many commenters expressed concerns about restrictions
they asserted would be caused by critical habitat on public access to
marine resources and public use of those resources, especially
subsistence fishing and reef gleaning. These commenters expressed a
strong preference for community-based conservation over Federal
regulations, such as designation of critical habitat.
Response: This coral critical habitat (and critical habitat in
general) will not affect public access to, or public use of, marine
resources. The ESA only requires federal agencies to consult prior to
undertaking, funding or authorizing actions that might affect
designated critical habitat. Accordingly, critical habitat does not:
(1) restrict or change public access to any shorelines or marine areas
such as beaches, lagoons, coral reefs, etc. that are within or adjacent
to coral critical habitat; or (2) restrict public use of marine
resources such as subsistence or recreational fishing and reef gleaning
within coral critical habitat. Likewise, critical habitat does not
establish a marine protected area of any kind, and thus will not lead
to reduced public access to, or public use of, marine resources within
critical habitat.
In addition, with regard to the strong preference for community-
based conservation over Federal regulations such as designation of
critical habitat, we agree that community-based conservation can be an
effective approach for marine resource conservation and we strongly
support it. We are not designating critical habitat to replace
community-based conservation or because we believe it is better than
community-based conservation, but rather because we are required by the
ESA to designate critical habitat as a necessary means to conserve and
recover threatened and endangered species.
Comment 16: Many commenters expressed objections to the potential
increase in regulatory burdens to local governments resulting from
critical habitat, which commenters believe could hinder future
development of basic infrastructure that is sorely needed in the
Territories (e.g., shoreline protection, communication networks, public
transportation, public health), hinder maintenance of existing
infrastructure that are increasingly subject to damage by sea-level
rise and storms in the Territories (e.g., seawalls, roads, airports,
buildings), and the release and spending of Federal funds in the
Territories.
Response: Coral critical habitat is expected to have low impacts on
local governments because the requirement to consult over an action's
impacts to critical habitat only applies to actions funded, authorized
or carried out by federal agencies. In those cases where Federal
actions affect local governments such as Federal funding of a Territory
government's actions, the ``incremental impacts'' of coral critical
habitat are expected to be low. These incremental impacts are those
that would be over and above the impacts that stem from existing
protection of the corals through their listing as threatened species
under the ESA. For example, if a Territory government agency has been
receiving Federal funding annually over the past few years, the Federal
agency that has been providing the funding would have already been
consulting with NOAA Fisheries if the funded action were likely to
affect listed corals. Since the effects of such actions on colonies of
listed corals are typically similar to their effects on coral critical
habitat, the designation of coral critical habitat is expected to
result in low incremental impacts to local governments. These public
comments were especially focused on concern that coral critical habitat
could hinder future development of basic infrastructure that is sorely
needed in the Territories (e.g., shoreline protection, communication
networks, public transportation, public health), hinder maintenance of
existing infrastructure that are increasingly subject to damage by sea-
level rise and storms in the Territories (e.g., seawalls, roads,
airports, buildings), and delay the release and spending of Federal
funds in the Territories. However, such effects in the Territories are
unlikely because of the low incremental impacts of coral critical
habitat. These incremental impacts are summarized in the Economic
Impacts section of this rule and described in the Final Economic Impact
Analysis report (appendix C of NMFS 2025). Examples of the very limited
impacts of critical habitat on local governments and communities in the
Pacific Islands are provided by over a decade of experience in Hawaii,
where critical habitat was broadly designated across federal and state
marine waters for the Hawaiian monk seal in 2013, and also across
federal and state marine waters of the main Hawaiian Islands for the
Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale in 2018.
Comment 17: Several commenters expressed opposition to what they
stated are contrasting approaches used to consider critical habitat for
areas controlled by the DOD versus areas controlled by local
governments, especially in the Mariana Islands.
Response: Under the ESA, we are required to consider additional
information with respect to areas owned or controlled by the DOD or
designated for its use that does not apply to areas controlled or
managed by local governments. Specifically, under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the ESA, we consider whether there is an approved INRMP prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a) that provides a
benefit to the listed species. We are prohibited from designating as
critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the DOD (i.e., Navy, Air Force, Army, etc.), or
designated for its use, that are subject to a DOD INRMP, if the
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a conservation
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is designated. As
explained in the Application of ESA Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) section of
this rule, we have determined that the Navy's JRM INRMP and the Air
Force's Wake Islands INRMP (Wake INRMP) are both likely to benefit
listed corals. Thus, all marine areas subject to these INRMPs that are
within the control of DOD, including parts of Guam and Tinian and all
of FDM and Wake Island, are ineligible for coral critical habitat.
Since the Sikes Act does not apply to areas outside the control of DOD,
including those controlled by Territory governments, there are
inevitably contrasting approaches to the implementation of critical
habitat between the two types of areas.
Comment 18: Several commenters stated that the proposed critical
habitat is inconsistent with the Administration's stance on Equity and
Environmental Justice (EEJ), asserting that the coral critical habitat
rule conflicts with EEJ-related Executive Orders (E.O.s), including
E.O. 13985 (advancing equity for all), E.O. 14096 (environmental
justice), and E.O. 14031 (equity, justice, and opportunity for Asian
Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders) because areas
covered by the JRM INRMP in the Mariana Islands were not included in
proposed critical habitat, while areas covered by Guam's and CNMI's
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) were included in proposed critical
habitat.
Response: As noted in the above response to comments on the
contrasting approaches used to consider critical habitat for areas
controlled by DOD versus areas controlled by local governments, the
inclusion of some areas but not others in coral critical
[[Page 31808]]
habitat results from the implementation of the ESA's Section 4(a)(3) to
consider INRMPs and Section 4(b)(2) to consider the economic impact,
impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of
designating any particular area as critical habitat, as further
explained in the ``Application of ESA Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)'' and
``Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2)'' sections of this rule. Moreover,
on January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14148 Initial Rescissions of
Harmful Executive Orders and Actions, revoked the referenced Executive
Orders.
Comment 19: Several commenters expressed appreciation for several
aspects of the proposed rulemaking process, including the in-person
public hearings that were held in January 2023 in the Territories, the
translation and interpretation in the Samoan, Chamorro and Carolinian
languages at the hearings, and the responses by NOAA Fisheries to the
public comments on the 2020 proposed coral critical habitat rule,
especially the replacement of that rule with the new 2023 proposed rule
which addressed many of the major comments made by the Territorial
Governments on the 2020 proposed rule.
Response: We appreciate the positive comments we received regarding
several aspects of the proposed rulemaking process. Such feedback is
very helpful for planning the implementation of future rulemakings.
Critical Habitat Identification and Designation
In the following sections, we describe the relevant definitions and
requirements in the ESA and our implementing regulations, and the key
information and criteria used to prepare this final critical habitat
designation for the five listed corals (A. globiceps, A. retusa, A.
speciosa, F. paradivisa, and I. crateriformis). In accordance with
section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and our implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.12), this final rule is based on the best scientific and commercial
information available.
We used a five-step process for identifying critical habitat areas
for the threatened corals to determine the following: (1) the
geographical areas occupied (i.e., range) by the listed corals at the
time of listing (i.e., occupied areas, as well as depth ranges for the
listed corals within the occupied areas); (2) the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the listed corals
(i.e., essential feature); (3) whether the physical or biological
features within these geographical areas may require special management
considerations or protection; (4) the specific areas within each of the
occupied areas where the essential features occur (this step consists
of four sub-steps); and (5) whether any unoccupied areas are essential
to the conservation of any of the listed corals.
Geographical Area Occupied by the Species (Occupied Area)
The phrase ``Geographical area occupied by the species'' in the
statutory definition of critical habitat is further defined in the ESA
section 4 implementing regulations as ``An area that may generally be
delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary
(i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all
or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis
(e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used
periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals).'' (50 CFR
424.02). That is, the ``Geographical area occupied by the species''
(hereafter abbreviated to ``occupied area'') refers to the range of the
species at the time of listing, based on its historical records of
occurrence. The methodology for determining which U.S. islands were
within the occupied area for each listed species at the time of listing
is described in section 2.1.4 of the Final Information Report (NMFS
2025) and summarized here.
The determinations of the occupied areas for each listed species at
the time of listing are based on the records of each listed coral
species within U.S. waters. However, using the records to determine
occupied areas in U.S. waters requires overcoming three major
challenges: (1) Finding all the records (compilation); (2) accounting
for the high variability in the quality, quantity, age, species
identification uncertainty, survey effort, and other factors associated
with the records (assessment); and (3) interpreting the records to
determine which islands are within the occupied area for each listed
species and thus should be included in critical habitat (application).
In order to address these challenges and ensure that we are using the
best available information, we compiled all the available records for
each listed coral species around each island within U.S. Pacific
Islands jurisdictions and developed a consistent and transparent
methodology for assessing and applying the records to determine
occupied areas for each species in U.S. waters. The results are
provided in appendix A (the ``Records Document'') of the Final
Information Report (NMFS 2025), and were applied to this final rule.
The compilation, assessment, and application of the records are
summarized from the Records Document below.
The available records for each listed coral species around each
island within U.S. Pacific Islands waters were compiled from all
available sources. The search produced records of seven listed coral
species (A. globiceps, A. jacquelineae, A. retusa, A. speciosa, F.
paradivisa, I. crateriformis, and S. aculeata) from U.S. Pacific
Islands waters. These records were divided into 47 records groups by
island and species: The 47 records groups from 26 islands included 5
islands in American Samoa, 1 island in Guam, 10 islands in CNMI, 7
islands in PRIA, and 3 islands in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands of
Hawai[revaps]i (NMFS 2025, appendix A).
Each of the 47 records groups was assessed in terms of the
following factors: (1) quality of records; (2) quantity of records; (3)
age of records; (4) species identification uncertainty; (5) survey
effort; and (6) other factors, as summarized below and explained in
more detail in the Records Document.
The quality of records was addressed by categorizing records as
``photo records,'' ``expert data records,'' or ``other records.''
Because of species identification uncertainty, photo records are ideal
if the location and date of the photo are known, and the photo clearly
shows colony and branch morphology. However, many records of coral
species are in the form of data sheets or species lists and lack
photos. Any such record collected by a recognized Indo-Pacific reef-
building coral species expert is considered an expert data record.
Records that do not meet the criteria for photo records or expert data
records are considered other records (e.g., personal communications).
Such records have higher uncertainty than photo records or expert data
records, but still may provide valuable information. We confirmed all
records via direct communication with the experts who took the records,
or with experts who were able to vouch for the records. Our
determinations of whether the island was within the occupied area for a
listed species at the time of listing relied almost entirely upon photo
records and expert data records. However, other records provided
valuable information for some islands or parts thereof (NMFS 2025,
appendix A).
The quantity of records is an important consideration, since the
more photo records and expert data records we have for a species from
an island, the greater the likelihood that the island was within the
occupied area for a listed species at the time of listing (2014).
Islands with a single photo record or expert data record of a listed
species
[[Page 31809]]
may or may not have been within the occupied area of that species at
the time of listing, depending on other factors. Older records are not
necessarily lower quality. However, the older a record is, the less
relevance it has to our determination of whether the island was within
the occupied area for a listed species at the time of listing (NMFS
2025, appendix A).
Species identification uncertainty is substantial for most of the
15 listed Indo-Pacific reef coral species, even for experts. For listed
coral species that are consistently distinct from similar species and
frequently observed, species identification uncertainty has decreased
since listing, as survey effort and expertise have increased. This is
the case with A. globiceps and I. crateriformis. In addition, F.
paradivisa and S. aculeata are consistently distinct from similar
species, although they are very infrequently observed within U.S.
waters. For these four listed species, identification uncertainty is
relatively low now for coral species experts based in the U.S. Pacific
Islands. In contrast, for listed species that are very similar to other
species, the increase in survey effort since listing in 2014 has
emphasized the difficulty in distinguishing them. This is the case with
A. retusa, A. jacquelineae, and A. speciosa. For these three listed
species, identification uncertainty is relatively high now, even for
coral species experts who focus on the U.S. Pacific Islands (NMFS 2025,
appendix A).
Survey effort refers to the amount of expert coral species surveys
that have been conducted on an island. Historical survey effort has
been highly variable from island to island, potentially influencing the
interpretation of the records. However, all islands in this rule except
FDM in CNMI have been included in the PIFSC's species-level
standardized coral reef monitoring surveys at least one time since
listing in 2014, and some islands have also been included in
standardized surveys by other agencies. PIFSC's surveys are quite
extensive around each island, including many transects and covering
wide depth ranges. The DON restricts access to FDM, hence PIFSC does
not survey there. However, the Navy periodically conducts species-level
coral surveys at FDM, thus numerous surveys have been conducted on FDM
both around and since the time of listing. All islands have been
subject to extensive species-level surveys (i.e., the PIFSC and DON
surveys) around or since the time of listing, including within the
depth ranges and habitat types of all listed coral species (NMFS 2025,
appendix A).
In addition, other factors were also taken into consideration in
assessment of the records, including taxonomic issues, morphological
variability across archipelagos, and habitat preferences. The taxonomic
issues that had to be accounted for included historical confusion of A.
globiceps with A. humilis, and the name change from Acropora
crateriformis to Isopora crateriformis, both of which affect treatment
of historical records. Secondly, the apparent variability in colony
morphology of A. retusa and related species between the American Samoa,
Guam-CNMI, and PRIA archipelagos had to be accounted for. That is, the
combination of high colony morphological variability and low numbers of
records in Guam-CNMI and PRIA is such that we have low confidence in
these records. Finally, some types of coral reef habitats are surveyed
more than others, mainly because of accessibility and safety, raising
the possibility that the records may not be representative of species'
distributions across habitats (NMFS 2025, appendix A).
After we compiled and assessed each of the 47 records groups, we
rated the level of evidence provided by each group that the island was
within the occupied area for the listed species at the time of listing
in 2014, using a systematic rating system that takes all the assessment
factors into consideration. Each records group was rated between 1
(least likely) and 10 (most likely), resulting in the following 47
ratings:
1. Nine records groups were rated as 1: A. jacquelineae from
Tutuila; A. retusa from Guam, Rota, Tinian, Howland, Kingman Reef,
and Johnston Atoll; and A. speciosa from Guam and Kingman Reef.
2. Seven records groups were rated as 2: A. globiceps from
Howland, Baker, Kingman Reef, Maro Reef, and Gardner Pinnacles; and
S. aculeata from Guam and Saipan.
3. One records group was rated as 3: A. retusa from Jarvis.
4. Three records groups were rated as 4: A. globiceps from
Alamagan, Asuncion and Uracas.
5. Two records groups were rated as 5: A. retusa from Wake
Atoll; and A. speciosa from Tutuila.
6. Six records groups were rated as 6: A. globiceps from Rose,
FDM, Palmyra, Johnston, and French Frigate Shoals (FFS, also known
as Lalo); and F. paradivisa from Tutuila.
7. Three records groups were rated as 7: A. retusa from Ofu-
Olosega, Ta'u, and Swains.
8. Six records groups were rated as 8: A. globiceps from Ofu-
Olosega, Ta'u, Aguijan, Pagan, Maug Islands, and Wake Atoll.
9. Two records groups were rated as 9: A. retusa from Tutuila
and Rose Atoll.
10. Eight records groups were rated as 10: A. globiceps from
Tutuila, Guam, Rota, Tinian, and Saipan; and I. crateriformis from
Tutuila, Ofu-Olosega, and Ta'u.
Finally, we interpreted the ratings for each of the 47 records
groups in terms of the likelihood that the island was within the
occupied area for the listed species at the time of listing in 2014.
Seventeen of the records groups were rated as 1-3, generally because
these records groups each consist of one or two records collected years
or decades before listing together with the fact that no additional
records have been collected since then despite extensive expert
surveys. Thus, each of these 17 records groups provide inadequate
evidence that the island was within the occupied area for the listed
species at the time of listing, as explained in more detail in the
Records Document (NMFS 2025, appendix A).
Of the remaining 30 records groups, the 25 that were rated as 6-10
each provide clear evidence that the island was within the occupied
area for the listed species at the time of listing, as explained in
more detail in the Records Document. The remaining five records were
rated as either 4 or 5, the most ambiguous ratings in terms of
providing inadequate vs. adequate evidence. We have determined that
these five records groups each provide adequate evidence that the
island was within the occupied area for the listed species at the time
of listing, as summarized here from the Records Document (NMFS 2025,
appendix A).
Three A. globiceps records groups were rated as 4 (Alamagan,
Asuncion, Uracas), a species with low species identification
uncertainty for trained experts. These records groups consist of one
(Alamagan and Asuncion) and two (Uracas) records from 2017 and 2022.
Because A. globiceps has low species identification uncertainty, and
these records consist of records from 2017 and 2022, these records
groups provide adequate evidence that the three islands were within the
occupied area of A. globiceps at the time of listing in 2014 (NMFS
2025, appendix A).
Two records groups were rated as 5, A. retusa from Wake Atoll and
A. speciosa from Tutuila, species with high species identification
uncertainty, even for trained experts. The A. retusa/Wake records group
consists of many photo and expert data records since listing in 2014.
The A. speciosa/Tutuila records group consists of several photo and
expert data records before and after listing in 2014, including two
from 2016 that were confirmed with skeletal samples, and one record
from a standardized monitoring survey in 2015
[[Page 31810]]
that was not confirmed with a skeletal sample. Although both species
have high species identification uncertainty even for trained experts,
the A. retusa/Wake records group consists of many photo and expert data
records since listing, and the A. speciosa/Tutuila records group
includes multiple post-listing records that were mostly confirmed with
skeletal samples. Thus, the records groups provide adequate evidence
that Wake Atoll was within the occupied area of A. retusa, and that
Tutuila was within the occupied area of A. speciosa, at the time of
listing in 2014 (NMFS 2025, appendix A).
In summary, 17 records groups each provide inadequate evidence that
the island was within the occupied area of the listed species at the
time of listing, while 30 records groups each provide adequate evidence
that the island was within the occupied area of the listed species at
the time of listing. These 30 records groups were from a total of 20
islands, including 19 islands for A. globiceps, 6 islands for A.
retusa, 1 island each for A. speciosa and F. paradivisa, and 3 islands
for I. crateriformis (NMFS 2025, appendix A), as shown in table 2.
In addition, the 30 records groups were used to determine the depth
range of each listed species around each island. For A. globiceps, the
depth ranges were 0-20 m (3 islands), 0-12 m (11 islands), and 0-10 m
(5 islands). For the other 4 species, the depth ranges were 0-20 m for
A. retusa (6 islands) and I. crateriformis (3 islands), and 20-50 m for
A. speciosa and F. paradivisa (1 island each; NMFS 2025, appendix A),
as shown in table 2.
Table 2--Islands Considered Within the Occupied Area at the Time of Listing for Each Coral Species Found in U.S.
Waters, and Their Depth Ranges in Meters
[NMFS 2025, Appendix A]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Island A. globiceps A. retusa A. speciosa F. paradivisa I. crateriformis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tutuila and Offshore Banks....... 0-20 0-20 20-50 20-50 0-20
Ofu-Olosega...................... 0-20 0-20 ............ ............... 0-20
Ta'u............................. 0-20 0-20 ............ ............... 0-20
Swains........................... .............. 0-20 ............ ............... ..................
Rose Atoll....................... 0-10 0-20 ............ ............... ..................
Guam............................. 0-12 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Rota............................. 0-12 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Aguijan.......................... 0-12 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Tinian........................... 0-12 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Saipan........................... 0-12 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Farallon de Medinilla............ 0-12 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Alamagan......................... 0-12 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Pagan............................ 0-12 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Asuncion......................... 0-12 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Maug Islands..................... 0-12 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Uracas........................... 0-12 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Palmyra Atoll.................... 0-10 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Johnston Atoll................... 0-10 .......... ............ ............... ..................
Wake Atoll....................... 0-10 0-20 ............ ............... ..................
French Frigate Shoals/Lalo....... 0-10 .......... ............ ............... ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical or Biological Features Essential for Conservation
Within the occupied areas, critical habitat consists of specific
areas in which are found those physical and biological features (PBFs)
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require
special management considerations or protection. PBFs essential to the
conservation of the species are defined as the features that occur in
specific areas and that are essential to support the life-history needs
of the species, including water characteristics, soil type, geological
features, sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other
features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more
complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include
habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat
conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to
principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution
distances, and connectivity (50 CFR 424.02).
Based on the best scientific information available, we identify the
following physical feature essential to the conservation of the five
corals.
Reproductive, recruitment, growth, and maturation habitat. Sites
that support the normal function of all life stages of the corals,
including reproduction, recruitment, and maturation. These sites are
natural, consolidated hard substrate or dead coral skeleton, which is
free of algae and sediment at the appropriate scale at the point of
larval settlement or fragment reattachment, and the associated water
column. Several attributes of these sites determine the quality of the
area and influence the value of the associated feature to the
conservation of the species:
(1) Substrate with presence of crevices and holes that provide
cryptic habitat, the presence of microbial biofilms, or presence of
crustose coralline algae;
(2) Reefscape (all the visible features of an area of reef) with no
more than a thin veneer of sediment and low occupancy by fleshy and
turf macroalgae;
(3) Marine water with levels of temperature, aragonite saturation,
nutrients, and water clarity that have been observed to support any
demographic function; and
(4) Marine water with levels of anthropogenically-introduced (from
humans) chemical contaminants that do not preclude or inhibit any
demographic function.
With regard to the first and second attributes, reef-building
corals, including the listed species, require exposed natural
consolidated hard substrate for the settlement and recruitment of
larvae or asexual fragments. Substrate provides the physical surface
and space necessary for settlement of coral larvae, a stable
environment for metamorphosis of the larvae into the primary polyp,
growth of
[[Page 31811]]
juvenile and adult colonies, and re-attachment of fragments. A number
of attributes have been shown to influence coral larval settlement.
Positive cues include the presence of crustose coralline algae,
biofilms, and cryptic habitat such as crevices and holes. Attributes
that negatively affect settlement include presence of sediment and
algae (NMFS 2025).
With regard to the third and fourth attributes, reef-building
corals, including the listed species, require seawater temperature,
aragonite saturation, nutrients, and water clarity conditions within
suitable ranges to enable coral growth, reproduction, and recruitment.
Corals may tolerate and survive in conditions outside these suitable
ranges, depending on the local conditions to which they have
acclimatized and the intensity and duration of deviations outside the
suitable ranges. Extended deviations from suitable ranges result in
direct negative effects on all life stages. The listed corals thrive in
warm, clear, nutrient-poor marine waters with calcium carbonate
concentrations that allow for symbiont photosynthesis, coral
physiological processes, and skeleton formation. This water must also
have low to no levels of contaminants that would interfere with normal
functions of all life stages (NMFS 2025).
Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection
As described in the Final Information Report (NMFS 2025), we
determined that the essential feature may require special management
considerations or protection throughout the species' ranges because
threats to this feature exist within these areas. Such threats include
global and local threats, especially ocean warming, ocean
acidification, coral disease, land-based sources of pollution, and
fishing. There were no public comments on this section of the draft
Information Report or the proposed rule, nor has any relevant new
information become available that would alter our conclusion regarding
the potential need for special management considerations or protection.
Specific Areas Containing the Essential Feature Within the Geographical
Areas Occupied by the Species
As described under Geographical Area Occupied by the Species
(Occupied Area), we identified a total of 20 critical habitat units
that are within the occupied area for at least one listed coral
species. Within each of those critical habitat units, we delineated
more specific areas that contain the essential feature using a 4-step
process: (1) general information was used to delineate soft vs. hard
substrates; (2) for the hard substrate areas identified in step 1,
specific substrate information was used to delineate unsuitable vs.
suitable hard substrates; (3) for the suitable hard substrate areas
identified in step 2, we used water quality information to further
delineate suitable vs. unsuitable areas; and (4) from the suitable
areas identified in steps 1-3, we removed any overlapping artificial
substrates and managed areas. The 4 steps were implemented for each of
the 20 units as follows:
(1) For step 1, we used comprehensive substrate maps developed by
PIFSC (PIFSC 2021) to delineate soft vs. hard substrates, leaving only
hard substrate areas within the combined depth ranges of all listed
species in each unit, except for Wake Atoll and FFS/Lalo, for which
PIFSC (2021) did not produce maps. For Wake Atoll, we used the
substrate map from the Pacific Islands Benthic Habitat Mapping Center
(PIBHMC) (PIBHMC 2021). For FFS, we used the geomorphological structure
component of the maps developed by National Centers for Coastal and
Ocean Sciences (NCCOS) (NCCOS 2003).
(2) For step 2, we started with the hard substrate areas identified
in step 1, then distinguished unsuitable vs. suitable hard substrates.
Many hard substrates are unsuitable because: (1) highly-fluctuating
physical conditions cause frequent and extreme environmental changes
(e.g., high tide surge vs. low tide sun exposure on many reef flat
substrates); (2) water motion continuously mobilizes sediment (e.g.,
pavement with sand channels) or unstable substrate (e.g., rubble); or
(3) flat, low-relief areas provide poor settlement and growth habitat
(e.g., pavement). Removal of these areas left suitable hard substrates,
including spur-and-groove, individual patch reef, aggregate reef,
aggregated patch reef, scattered coral/rock, and subtidal rock/boulder.
For this step, primary information sources were Brainard et al. (2008,
2012, 2019), NCCOS (2003, 2005, 2010), PIBHMC (2021), PIFSC (2021), the
detailed public comment letters from the territories (AS DMWR 2021,
Guam DOAG 2021, CNMI DLNR 2021), and the American Samoa, Guam, CNMI,
PRIA, and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) chapters in Waddell and
Clarke (2008). Additional sources for individual critical habitat units
are cited in the unit sections in the Final Information Report (NMFS
2025).
(3) For step 3, starting with the suitable hard substrate areas
identified in step 2, we used water quality information to further
delineate suitable vs. unsuitable areas. Unsuitable areas are those
with water quality conditions that chronically fall outside of suitable
ranges. For example, some of the areas identified in step 2 are nearly
constantly exposed to pollution such as excessive nutrients, excessive
sediment (i.e., more than a thin veneer), or contaminants, making them
unsuitable. Generally, such areas occur in enclosed lagoons and inner
harbors where there is high runoff and limited water circulation.
Outside of such areas, point and non-point sources of pollution
generally do not overlap with suitable hard substrates because
wastewater outfalls are located on soft substrates beyond the reef
slopes, and stormwater and freshwater discharges occur primarily on
soft substrates (sand or mud) or unsuitable hard substrates (pavement
or rubble) along or near shorelines. For this step, primary information
sources were Brainard et al. (2008, 2012, 2019), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) (2021a-f), the detailed public comment letters
from the territories (AS DMWR 2021, 2024, CNMI DLNR 2021, CNMI Governor
2024, Guam DOAG 2021, 2024), territory water quality assessments (AS
EPA 2020, CNMI BECQ 2018, 2020), and sources for individual critical
habitat units cited in the Final Information Report (NMFS 2025).
(4) For step 4, from the suitable areas identified via the above
three steps, we removed any artificial substrates and managed areas
(listed and described in appendix B of the Final Information Report),
because they do not provide the essential feature. ``Managed areas,''
for the purposes of this final rule, are specific areas where the
substrate has been persistently disturbed by planned management
authorized by local, State, or Federal governmental entities at the
time of critical habitat designation, and expectations are that the
areas will continue to be periodically disturbed by such management.
Examples include, but are not necessarily limited to, all harbors and
their entrance channels, navigation channels, turning basins, and
berthing areas that are periodically dredged or maintained. This
definition of managed areas only applies to existing artificial
substrates and managed areas (as of when this rule becomes effective),
not to future proposed or planned artificial substrates and managed
areas.
The resulting specific areas are where we consider the essential
feature to be distributed currently within each critical habitat unit
and depth range, based on the best available information. However, on
smaller spatial scales,
[[Page 31812]]
there are likely locations within the specific areas that lack the
essential feature, and the exact locations with and without the
essential feature are likely to change somewhat over time in response
to changing conditions. Thus, the specific areas described below are
areas containing the essential feature, rather than areas made up
completely and permanently of the essential feature. As described in
detail in the Final Information Report (NMFS 2025), these 4 steps were
applied to each of the 20 critical habitat units to delineate the
specific areas of final coral critical habitat.
Unoccupied Critical Habitat Areas
Section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the ESA authorizes the designation of
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species
(referred to here as ``unoccupied areas''), if those areas are
determined to be essential for the conservation of the species. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) require that we first evaluate areas
occupied by the species, and reiterate the statutory requirements that
such areas must be essential for the conservation of the species.
To evaluate unoccupied areas that may qualify as critical habitat,
we first considered the ranges at the time of listing of the five coral
species that occur in areas under U.S. jurisdiction (NMFS 2025). The
best available data provide no evidence that those occupied areas have
been reduced from the historical ranges for any of the five listed
species. Of the areas within U.S. jurisdiction that are outside the
occupied ranges of the listed coral, <1 percent of the area could serve
as habitat for the listed species. Because these species still occupy
their historical ranges, the feature essential to their conservation is
present in these areas, and the unoccupied areas represent a very small
amount of potential habitat, we find the occupied areas adequate to
ensure the conservation of the species (NMFS 2025). Thus, we are not
designating any unoccupied areas within U.S. jurisdiction as critical
habitat.
The impacts of global threats (especially ocean warming and ocean
acidification) to the listed corals and their habitats are projected to
substantially worsen in the foreseeable future, which may result in
range shifts for some or all of the 5 listed coral species, as well as
the other 10 species of corals that occur outside U.S. jurisdiction.
For the five species occurring within U.S. waters, the areas outside
their occupied ranges mostly occur along the northern edges of their
ranges, thus ocean warming could make the ocean temperatures of these
areas more suitable for the listed species in the foreseeable future.
In contrast, ocean acidification is likely to have the opposite effect,
causing ocean pH levels along the northern fringes of the species'
ranges to become less suitable (Brainard et al. 2011, NMFS 2014).
However, it is not possible to determine where such changes are likely
to happen, and how they would affect any of the listed species'
habitat. Because the five coral species each still occupy their
historical ranges, the feature essential to their conservation is
present in these areas, and unoccupied areas represent a very small
amount of potential habitat, we cannot conclude that any unoccupied
areas are essential to their conservation.
Application of ESA Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) (INRMPs)
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA prohibits designating as critical
habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by
the DOD, or designated for its use, that are subject to an INRMP
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the
Secretary of Commerce determines in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.
Two INRMPs are applicable to the coral critical habitat: (1) The
Navy's JRM INRMP, which was finalized and signed in 2019 (DON 2019a);
and (2) the Air Force's INRMP for Wake Island Air Field, Wake Atoll,
Kokee Air Force Station, Kauai, Hawai[revaps]i, and Mt. Kaala Air Force
Station, Oahu, Hawai[revaps]i (Wake INRMP), which was finalized and
signed in 2023 (United States Air Force [USAF] 2023a). The JRM INRMP is
a composite of management plans for many distinct DOD-controlled areas
in the Mariana Islands, including areas in Guam, Tinian, and FDM (DON
2019a).
Summaries of the analyses provided in NMFS (2024b) of whether these
two INRMPs are likely to benefit the ESA-listed corals or their habitat
in Guam and CNMI (JRM INRMP) and Wake (Wake INRMP) are provided below.
The analyses address the four considerations outlined in our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h). These four considerations
are: (1) The extent of the area and essential feature present in the
area; (2) The type and frequency of use of the area by the listed
species; (3) The relevant elements of the INRMP in terms of management
objectives, activities covered, and best management practices, and the
certainty that the relevant elements will be implemented; and (4) The
degree to which the relevant elements of the INRMP will protect the
habitat (essential feature) from the types of effects that would be
addressed through a destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis under
section 7 of the ESA.
JRM INRMP--Guam
In Guam, the JRM INRMP encompasses three marine areas (hereafter
``INRMP marine areas'') that overlap with smaller areas being
considered for inclusion in coral critical habitat for the one listed
coral that occurs in the Mariana Islands, A. globiceps: (1) Naval Base
Guam--Main Base (NBG Main Base) Submerged Lands; (2) Naval Base Guam--
Telecommunications Site (NBG TS) Submerged Lands; and (3) Andersen Air
Force Base (AAFB) Submerged Lands. A summary of the analyses of whether
the INRMP is likely to benefit the habitat of A. globiceps in each of
these three INRMP marine areas is provided below, from the full 4(a)(3)
analysis (NMFS 2024).
With regard to the extent of the area and essential feature
present: (1) the NBG Main Base Submerged Lands cover approximately
30,000 acres (12,100 hectares) along the coastline from Orote Peninsula
to Asan (described in the JRM INRMP, section 5.3, DON 2019a); (2) the
NBG TS Submerged Lands cover approximately 19,500 acres on the
northwestern side of Guam (described in the JRM INRMP, section 8.3, DON
2019a); and (3) AAFB Submerged Lands cover approximately 26,500 acres
(10,700 hectares) of Submerged Lands on the northern side of Guam
(described in the JRM INRMP, section 9.3, DON 2019a). Each of the three
INRMP marine areas include extensive habitat for A. globiceps (NMFS
2025). The potential critical habitat within the three INRMP marine
areas includes both the substrate and water quality components of the
essential feature of coral critical habitat (i.e., characteristics of
substrate and water quality to support coral life history, including
reproduction, recruitment, growth, and maturation), based on
information provided in the Guam section of the full 4(a)(3) analysis
(NMFS 2024) and the INRMP (DON 2019a).
With regard to the relevant elements of the INRMP, and the
certainty that the relevant elements will be implemented, the two parts
of this step are addressed separately below. The relevant elements of
the JRM INRMP for each INRMP marine area include: (1) for the NBG Main
Base Submerged Lands, the INRMP includes a Coral Habitat Enhancement
Plan (section 5.4.2.1), consisting of eight specific actions in three
categories (three monitoring and
[[Page 31813]]
adaptive management actions, three collaboration with local partners
actions, and two reduction of vessel impacts actions); (2) for NBG TS
Submerged Lands, the INRMP includes a Coral Habitat Enhancement plan
(section 8.4.2.1), consisting of a similar set of eight specific
actions as for NBG Main Base; and (3) for AAFB Submerged Lands, the
INRMP includes a Coral Habitat Enhancement plan (section 9.4.2.1),
consisting of a similar set of seven specific actions as for NBG Main
Base, except that there is less focus on reduction in vessel impacts
because of the much lower vessel traffic there. The actions, projects,
and updates through early 2024 are described in detail in the full
4(a)(3) analysis (NMFS 2024).
NMFS concludes that the Navy will implement the relevant elements
of the JRM INRMP for the previously described three INRMP marine areas
for three reasons:
(1) Clear and Recent Documentation--the 2019 JRM INRMP includes
Coral Habitat Enhancement plans for INRMP marine areas in Guam, with
clear strategies and actions that address the habitat conservation
needs of ESA-listed corals within these areas. The JRM INRMP's Appendix
D also includes annual reports describing how coral conservation
efforts had been implemented in the years leading up to the 2019 final
INRMP. These coral habitat conservation plans, as well as progress
reports from the most recent years (DON 2019b, 2020, 2021a,b,c,d, 2023,
2024), clearly articulate how the Navy is conserving coral habitat
within the INRMP marine areas in Guam, and how it is planning to do so
in the future (NMFS 2024).
(2) Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts for Listed Corals--the Navy
has already implemented coral habitat conservation projects that are
beneficial to ESA-listed corals within some INRMP marine areas in Guam,
as described in the INRMP itself and its appendix D (DON 2019b), as
well as progress reports (DON 2019b, 2020, 2021a,b,c,d, 2023, 2024).
Many of these projects have been ongoing for several years and are
proactive, in that they were not required of the Navy by the ESA (NMFS
2024).
(3) History of Strong Conservation Work--in our experience working
with the Navy on the development of the marine resource components of
its 2013 and 2019 final INRMPs (DON 2013, 2019a), we have found the
Navy to be successful at carrying out marine habitat conservation work
on Guam, and that it often takes the initiative on conservation efforts
whether requested by NMFS or not. For example, many of the coral
habitat conservation projects in the 2019 JRM INRMP (DON 2019a) and
progress reports (DON 2019b, 2020, 2021a,b,c,d, 2023, 2024) had already
been started by the Navy before corals were listed in 2014, and were
being done to improve conservation of marine resources on the island,
regardless of whether they were required by Federal statute or not
(NMFS 2024).
The coral habitat enhancement elements of the JRM INRMP described
previously are expected to substantially reduce the types of effects
within the three INRMP marine areas in Guam that would be addressed
through the destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis. The Navy
would accomplish this primarily by using the results of its own
monitoring program to develop and implement management measures to
minimize the impacts of the Navy's actions in Guam on coral habitat
within the INRMP marine areas. Thus, implementation of the JRM INRMP is
likely to provide substantial protection to the essential feature of
coral critical habitat (reproductive, recruitment, growth, and
maturation habitat) within the Guam INRMP marine areas from the types
of effects that would be addressed through critical habitat
consultation (DON 2021a,b,d, 2023, 2024, NMFS 2024).
JRM INRMP--CNMI
In CNMI, the JRM INRMP encompasses two marine areas that overlap
with smaller areas being considered for inclusion in coral critical
habitat for the one listed coral that occurs in the Mariana Islands, A.
globiceps: (1) the Tinian Marine Lease Area (Tinian MLA) Submerged
Lands; and (2) the FDM Submerged Lands (DON 2019a). A summary of the
analyses of whether the INRMP is likely to benefit the habitat of A.
globiceps in each of these two INRMP marine areas is provided below,
from the full 4(a)(3) analysis (NMFS 2024).
With regard to the extent of the area and essential feature
present: (1) the Tinian MLA Submerged Lands cover approximately 47,500
acres (19,200 hectares) surrounding the northern portion of Tinian
(described in the JRM INRMP, section 11.3, DON 2019a); (2) the FDM
Submerged Lands consists of approximately 25,000 acres (10,100
hectares) surrounding FDM (described in the JRM INRMP, section 12.3,
DON 2019a). Most or all of the potential critical habitat within the
two INRMP marine areas includes both the substrate and water quality
components of the essential feature of coral critical habitat (i.e.,
characteristics of substrate and water quality to support coral life
history, including reproduction, recruitment, growth, and maturation),
based on information provided in the Tinian and FDM sections of the
full 4(a)(3) analysis (NMFS 2024) and the INRMP (DON 2019a).
With regard to the relevant elements of the INRMP, and the
certainty that the relevant elements will be implemented, the two parts
of this step are addressed separately below. The relevant elements of
the JRM INRMP for each INRMP marine area include: (1) for the Tinian
MLA Submerged Lands, the INRMP includes a Coral Habitat Enhancement
plan, consisting of three specific actions to enhance coral habitat by
monitoring health and acute impacts (section 11.4.2.1; DON 2019a); and
(2) for the FDM Submerged Lands, the INRMP includes marine habitat
management actions, consisting of surveys and mapping of ESA-listed
corals, coral reef, and other marine habitats within the area (section
12.4.2; DON 2019a). The INRMP also includes an assessment of ESA-listed
corals, as required by the 2015 biological opinion on the Navy's
Mariana Islands Testing and Training program (section 12.4.2.2; DON
2019a). The actions, projects, and updates through early 2024, are
described in detail in the full 4(a)(3) analysis (NMFS 2024).
NMFS concludes that the Navy will implement these relevant elements
of the JRM INRMP for three reasons:
(1) Clear and Recent Documentation--the 2019 JRM INRMP includes
Coral Habitat Enhancement plans for INRMP marine areas in CNMI (Tinian
MLA, FDM Submerged Lands), with clear strategies and actions that
address the habitat conservation needs of ESA-listed corals within
these areas. The JRM INRMP's appendix D also includes annual reports
describing how coral conservation efforts had been implemented in the
years leading up to the 2019 final INRMP. These coral habitat
conservation plans, as well as progress reports from the most recent
years including through early 2024 (DON 2019b, 2020, 2021a,b,c,d, 2023,
2024), clearly articulate how the Navy is conserving coral habitat
within the INRMP marine areas in CNMI, and how it will do so in the
future (NMFS 2024).
(2) Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts for Listed Corals--the Navy
has already implemented coral projects that have the potential to
benefit the habitat of ESA-listed corals within INRMP marine areas in
CNMI (Tinian MLA, FDM Submerged Lands). For example, coral species
presence and abundance surveys were conducted within the Tinian MLA in
2013 (Tetra Tech 2014) and 2017 (DON 2017), and around FDM in 2012
(Smith and Marx 2016), 2017
[[Page 31814]]
(Carilli et al. 2018), and 2022 (DON 2023). These surveys have the
potential to benefit the habitat of ESA-listed corals by providing the
information needed to better protect these areas in the future (NMFS
2024).
(3) History of Strong Conservation Work--the Navy has a long
history of carrying out successful marine habitat conservation work in
the Mariana Islands and often takes the initiative on conservation
efforts whether requested by NMFS or not. For example, many of the
coral habitat conservation projects in the 2019 JRM INRMP (DON 2019a)
and progress reports (DON 2019b, 2020, 2021a,b,c,d, 2023, 2024) had
already been started by the Navy before corals were listed in 2014.
These projects were conducted to improve the conservation of marine
resources on the island, regardless of whether they were required by
Federal statute or not. While the majority of these projects have been
implemented in Guam rather than CNMI, the JRM INRMP includes many plans
for CNMI (as noted above), and the same Navy command (Joint Region
Marianas) is responsible for carrying out such work in both Guam and
CNMI (NMFS 2024).
The coral habitat enhancement elements of the JRM INRMP described
above are expected to substantially reduce the types of effects within
the INRMP marine areas in CNMI that would be addressed through the
destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis. The Navy would accomplish
this primarily by using the results of its own monitoring program to
develop and implement management measures to minimize the impacts of
the Navy's actions in CNMI on coral habitat within the INRMP marine
areas. Thus, implementation of the JRM INRMP is likely to provide
substantial protection to the essential feature of coral critical
habitat (reproductive, recruitment, growth, and maturation habitat)
within the CNMI INRMP marine areas from the types of effects that would
be addressed through critical habitat consultation (DON 2021a,c,d,
2023, 2024, NMFS 2024).
Wake INRMP
On Wake Atoll, the Wake INRMP (USAF 2023a) encompasses the entire
area being considered for coral critical habitat for the two listed
corals on the atoll, A. globiceps and A. retusa, as described in the
Final Information Report (NMFS 2025). A summary of the analyses of
whether the INRMP is likely to benefit the habitat of ESA-listed corals
in this INRMP marine area is provided below, from the full 4(a)(3)
analysis (NMFS 2024).
With regard to the extent of the area and essential feature
present, the Wake INRMP marine area includes nearly 500,000 acres
(202,300 hectares) of Submerged Lands and waters within the lagoon and
surrounding the atoll out to 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) from the mean
low water line (USAF 2023a), and thus includes all reef-building corals
and coral reefs associated with the atoll. Most or all of the potential
critical habitat within the INRMP marine area includes both the
substrate and water quality components of the essential feature of
coral critical habitat (i.e., reproductive, recruitment, growth, and
maturation habitat provided by suitable substrate and suitable water
quality), based on information provided in the Wake section of the full
4(a)(3) analysis (NMFS 2024) and the INRMP (USAF 2023a).
With regard to the relevant elements of the INRMP, and the
certainty that the relevant elements will be implemented, the two parts
of this step are addressed separately below. The relevant element of
the Wake INRMP is the coral conservation component that was added to
the INMRP in 2017 (appendix K, Coral Conservation Actions at Wake
Atoll; USAF 2023a), which is made up of four groups of actions, each of
which includes multiple projects: Water quality improvements (six
projects), education and outreach (two projects), fisheries management
(four projects), and physical DOD presence on Wake Atoll (three
projects; USAF 2023a). The actions, projects, and updates through early
2024, are described in detail in the full 4(a)(3) analysis (NMFS 2024).
NMFS concludes that the Air Force will implement these relevant
elements of the Wake INRMP for three reasons:
(1) Clear and Recent Documentation--the Wake INRMP includes a coral
conservation plan (USAF 2023a) with a 4-pronged strategy (water quality
improvement, outreach and education for Wake-based staff, fisheries
management, and physical DOD presence on Wake Atoll, i.e., restriction
of access and overall natural resource management) that comprehensively
addresses the conservation needs of ESA-listed corals and their habitat
on Wake Atoll. This coral conservation plan clearly articulates how
U.S. Air Force (USAF) is conserving corals and coral reef habitat on
Wake, and how it will do so in the future. The ongoing implementation
of the Wake INRMP is reported via progress updates and reviews
including through early 2024 (USAF 2018, 2019, 2021a,b, 2023b, 2024,
NMFS 2024).
(2) Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts for Listed Corals--In the
years leading up to the final Wake INRMP (USAF 2023a), USAF implemented
projects on Wake related to each of its 4-pronged coral conservation
strategy, as explained in appendix S of the Wake INRMP. For water
quality improvement, in 2016 USAF began implementation of both the
stormwater pollution prevention and invasive plant control projects.
For outreach and education, in 2016 USAF revised the Wake Island Dive
Club Charter to further reduce the potential impacts of recreational
activities on corals. For fisheries management, in 2017 USAF updated
its fishing rules, which are part of the Wake Island Operating
Guidance, to prohibit the use of (1) cast nets on the exterior of the
atoll, (2) anchoring on coral reef habitat, and (3) and trolling over
coral reef habitat. For physical DOD presence on Wake Atoll, in 2016
USAF funded and provided logistical support for a U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) coral survey that documented two ESA-listed
corals on the atoll for the first time. Since 2017, USAF has
implemented projects on Wake for each of its 4-pronged coral
conservation strategy, as noted above and detailed in the progress
updates and reviews (USAF 2018, 2019, 2021a,b, 2023b, 2024, NMFS 2024).
(3) History of Strong Conservation Work--USAF has a long history of
carrying out successful marine habitat conservation work on Wake and
often takes the initiative on conservation efforts. For example, many
of the projects in the INRMP's coral conservation strategy had already
been started by USAF before corals were listed in 2014, and were being
done to improve the conservation of marine and terrestrial resources on
the atoll, regardless of whether they were required by Federal statute.
Likewise, in 2016, USAF funded and supported the USFWS coral survey of
the atoll, leading to the discovery that the two ESA-listed corals
occur on the atoll. In addition, USAF has historically been a strong
conservation partner with NMFS, supporting a wide variety of marine and
terrestrial conservation projects, and actively engaging both agencies
in the INRMP planning and implementation process, as described in the
progress updates and reviews (USAF 2018, 2019, 2021a,b, 2023b, 2024,
NMFS 2024).
The coral conservation component of the Wake INRMP (appendix K,
Coral Conservation Actions at Wake Atoll; USAF 2023a) is expected to
reduce both direct and indirect impacts to listed corals via
minimization or avoidance of recreational impacts (fishing, diving,
[[Page 31815]]
anchoring), and terrestrial impacts (i.e., run-off from land-based
activities), thereby addressing two of the primary threats to listed
corals and elements of their habitat (fishing and land-based sources of
pollution). That is, the coral conservation elements of the Wake Atoll
INRMP described previously are expected to substantially reduce the
types of effects at Wake Atoll that would be addressed through the
destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis. Based on the fact that
the Wake INRMP's coral conservation strategy is well-designed to reduce
impacts to listed corals and their habitat, and also that recent
progress updates and reviews (USAF 2018, 2019, 2021a,b, 2023b, 2024)
demonstrate substantial progress with the implementation of the
strategy, we determined that the Wake INRMP provides a benefit to
listed corals, and their critical habitat (reproductive, recruitment,
growth, and maturation habitat) (NMFS 2024).
Conclusion Regarding Areas Subject to INRMPs
Based on the analyses summarized previously and provided in the
full 4(a)(3) analysis (NMFS 2024), we conclude both the JRM INRMP (DON
2019a) and the Wake INRMP (USAF 2023a) provide a conservation benefit
to the listed corals and their habitats within all INRMP marine areas
on Guam, CNMI, and Wake. Thus, the potential coral critical habitat
areas within the INRMP marine areas on Guam, Tinian, FDM, and Wake are
ineligible for designation as critical habitat.
Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2)
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires that we consider the economic
impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of
designating any particular area as critical habitat. Additionally, the
Secretary has the discretion to consider excluding any area from
critical habitat if they determine that the benefits of exclusion (that
is, avoiding some or all of the impacts that would result from
designation) outweigh the benefits of designation based upon the best
scientific and commercial data available. The Secretary may not exclude
an area from designation if exclusion will result in the extinction of
the species.
The following sub-sections summarize the economic, national
security, and other relevant impacts analyses in the Final Information
Report (NMFS 2025) that we projected would result from the designation
of coral critical habitat. We considered these impacts when deciding
whether to exercise our discretion to exclude particular areas from the
designation. Both positive and negative impacts were identified and
considered (these terms are used interchangeably with benefits and
costs, respectively). Impacts were evaluated in quantitative terms
where feasible, but qualitative appraisals were used where that is more
appropriate.
The primary impacts of a critical habitat designation result from
the ESA section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies ensure that
their actions are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat and that they consult with NMFS in
fulfilling this requirement. The impacts of designating coral critical
habitat are only those that would be over and above the impacts of
listing (i.e., incremental impacts). The distribution of listed corals
within critical habitat strongly influences the extent of incremental
impacts. That is, the more colonies of listed corals that are
distributed throughout coral critical habitat, the lower the proportion
of Federal actions that would affect critical habitat and not affect
listed corals, and thus the lower the incremental impacts of critical
habitat designation. As described in section 3.3.21 of the Final
Information Report (NMFS 2025), colonies of listed corals are generally
distributed throughout the specific areas being considered for coral
critical habitat, and thus the incremental impacts are expected to be
very low.
Summaries of the economic, national security, and other relevant
impact analyses in the Final Information Report (NMFS 2025) are
provided below. The analyses follow the guidance for 4(b)(2) analyses
provided in our 2016 policy (81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016) and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Economic Impacts
The economic impacts of designating the areas identified as coral
critical habitat are analyzed in the 4(b)(2) Economic Impact Analysis
document, completed in early 2024, which is Appendix C of the Final
Information Report (NMFS 2025). Economic impacts of the critical
habitat designation result through implementation of section 7 of the
ESA in consultations with Federal agencies to ensure their proposed
actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
We estimated the economic impacts of coral critical habitat in terms of
present value costs for the 10-year period of 2024-2033, and annualized
costs over that 10-year period. For the annualized costs, current
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance requires application of
a 7 percent discount rate. Application of the 7 percent discount rate
results in the annualized costs being more than 10 percent of the
estimated cost for the 10-year period. For example, the total economic
impacts of coral critical habitat for all units combined was estimated
to be $360,000 for the 10-year period, while the total annualized cost
was estimated to be $51,000. These costs can be expressed by unit for
each of the 18 coral critical habitat units, by jurisdiction for each
of the 5 affected jurisdictions, and by Federal activity for each of
the 8 types of affected Federal activities (NMFS 2025, appendix C).
The three units with the highest 10-year and annualized costs are
those with the largest human populations, the highest being Guam
($82,000, $12,000), followed by Tutuila ($64,000, $9,200) and Saipan
($42,000, $6,000), which together make up slightly over half of the
total costs. The 18 units are in 5 jurisdictions, including American
Samoa, Guam, CNMI, PRIA, and Hawai[revaps]i (only includes FFS in
NWHI). American Samoa has the highest 10-year and annualized costs
($120,000, $17,000), followed by CNMI ($100,000, $14,000), Guam
($82,000, $12,000), Hawai[revaps]i ($39,000, $5,600), and PRIA
($19,000, $2,700). The three Federal activity categories with the
highest 10-year and annualized costs are in-water and coastal
construction ($120,000, $17,000), scientific research and monitoring
($86,000, $12,000), and protected area management ($67,000, $9,500),
which make up over three-quarters of the total costs (NMFS 2025,
appendix C).
Based on the foregoing information and full analyses provided in
the Final Economic Impact Report (NMFS 2025, appendix C), we expect the
total economic impacts of coral critical habitat to be less than half a
million dollars over the first decade of designation, amounting to
$51,000 annually. Economic impacts are limited to the costs associated
with the additional administrative effort to complete section 7
consultations that would not otherwise be required, rather than project
modifications that would not otherwise be required. In addition, coral
critical habitat has the potential to result in economic benefits
because it can lead to increased protection of economically-valuable
coral reefs. However, such benefits are not quantifiable and thus have
not been factored into the estimates of economic impacts (NMFS 2025,
appendix C).
Based on these results, the economic impacts of coral critical
habitat are likely to be very low, even on the
[[Page 31816]]
islands with concentrated economic activity (Tutuila, Guam, Saipan).
This is largely because we do not expect any project modification
costs. Since we expect most future proposed Federal actions that could
affect critical habitat to be on Tutuila, Guam, and Saipan, which also
have the largest populations, the conservation benefits of critical
habitat are the greatest in these three units, as summarized below in
the Other Relevant Impacts section and described in the Final Economic
Impact Analysis report (NMFS 2025, Appendix C).
National Security Impacts
We received a request from the Department of the Navy (Navy) to
exclude one site based on national security impacts: The portion of the
Navy's Ritidian Point Surface Danger Zone (SDZ) Complex outside of DOD
Submerged Lands on Guam. For this site, we considered whether the
national security impacts asserted by the Navy of designating the site
as critical habitat would outweigh the conservation benefits to the
listed corals of designating the site as critical habitat. If impacts
to national security outweigh the benefits of including an area in the
designation, the Secretary may exercise discretion to exclude that
particular area from critical habitat. If the benefits of including the
area in the designation outweigh the impacts to national security,
however, the site cannot be considered for exclusion from critical
habitat (81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016).
The Ritidian Point SDZ complex overlaps with a small area of
forereef identified for potential designation as coral critical
habitat. The area is 0-12 m of depth and consists primarily of spur-
and-groove and aggregate reef that provides high quality coral habitat.
A species-level coral survey conducted in 2006 at this site did not
find any A. globiceps colonies along a set of eight 50-m transects
between 1 and 20 m within forereef and reef flat habitat (NMFS 2025).
However, a more recent species-level coral survey conducted in 2021 at
this site indicated that A. globiceps was present, finding a total of
four colonies along a different set of eight 50-m transects at 6 m
depth within forereef habitat at the site.
National security impacts depend on the additional section 7
requirements that would result from the coral critical habitat, above
and beyond those already required to avoid jeopardizing the continued
existence of any listed species or avoid destruction or adverse
modification of other, designated critical habitats (i.e., incremental
impacts). The Navy noted that the Ritidian Point SDZ complex supports
training at the Marine Corps Live Fire Training Range Complex (LFTRC)
at AAFB, and construction of new facilities (e.g., range administration
building, range maintenance building, and observation towers) at AAFB,
to meet the individual weapons training/qualification requirements of
the Marine Corps. This SDZ is expected to be operational for 32 weeks
per year and extends approximately 2 miles (3.2 km) over open water in
the event stray bullets go over the berm and into the ocean. If this
occurs, the bullets will settle on the seafloor (NMFS 2025).
The Navy stated that designation of the marine component of this
site as coral critical habitat would result in limitations on live fire
training at LFTRC. The Navy explained that such limitations would occur
because limited staff time and resources would be diverted to preparing
additional documents required to implement activities in critical
habitat areas from work required on other vital environmental items. In
2021 and 2022, the Navy confirmed that this information is still
applicable to the site.
The Navy noted that the individual live fire training for Marine
Corps personnel at the LFTRC on Guam is a prerequisite for conducting
unit level and combined level training. The Navy further explained that
without the qualification of these live fire training events,
individuals and small teams are not capable of conducting larger unit
collective events, and that the LFTRC provides the necessary foundation
upon which training progression is built. Plans are in place to
considerably expand LFTRC in anticipation of growing Marine Corps
training needs. No other facility on Guam or elsewhere in the Mariana
Islands provides this type of training. In 2021 and 2022, the Navy
confirmed that this information is still applicable to the site (NMFS
2025).
Because many training and construction activities are planned at
LFTRC adjacent to this marine area, the listed coral A. globiceps
occurs there, and the planned activities have the potential to affect
this listed species, ESA section 7 consultations would likely be
necessary whether critical habitat is designated or not. That is, the
additional consultation requirement above and beyond what would already
be required by the fact that listed corals occur at the site is not
expected to be substantial. Also, the additional consultation for
critical habitat would be for activities that are planned in advance,
and thus the additional section 7 consultation workload would not be
unpredictable but rather could be anticipated and managed ahead of
time.
In determining benefits to the conservation of ESA-listed corals we
considered whether designation of critical habitat at the particular
site would lead to additional conservation of the species beyond what
is already provided by the species' listing. The potential for
additional conservation at a given site is a function of the listed
corals' use of the area, the level of protection already provided by
existing management (e.g., the site is entirely within Guam National
Wildlife Refuge), and the likelihood of non-DOD actions that are likely
to affect the area and that are subject to the consultation
requirements of section 7.
As elsewhere on Guam, the coral reef habitat within the area being
considered for coral critical habitat is made up of forereef from 0-12
m depth, consisting primarily of spur-and-groove and aggregate reef. As
noted above, A. globiceps occurs at this site. However, colonies of the
species may die off in response to natural disturbances and not
reappear for a few years, which may be why the 2021 survey found A.
globiceps there but the 2006 survey did not despite surveying within
the same habitat and depth range. Such mortality and recovery and
associated disappearance and reappearance of coral populations at any
given site is a normal response to natural disturbance. Although we
cannot predict when or where this will occur, if colonies of the listed
coral species do not occur at the site at the time of consultation,
critical habitat would serve to protect the essential feature. However,
at this time, we note that all of the areas being designated as
critical habitat are occupied by one or more of the listed corals.
The area being considered for potential designation as coral
critical habitat is entirely within USFWS Submerged Lands, which forms
the marine component of the Guam National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and is
managed according to the Guam NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The
plan includes Strategies to Restore, Protect, and Maintain Native
Marine Communities, such as marine debris removal and area closures.
The site is also entirely within Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for coral
reef ecosystems, but EFH protections are not mandatory (NMFS 2025).
It is possible that non-DOD Federal actions will be proposed within
this site that could affect the essential feature (e.g., actions
proposed by USFWS), but that would no longer be subject to the critical
habitat provision if the particular area were excluded from the
designation. When the site is not closed
[[Page 31817]]
by the SDZ, non-DOD actions could potentially occur there, for example
those permitted or carried out by USFWS. Although such actions would
presumably be consistent with the Guam NWR Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (USFWS 2009), they may affect the essential feature (NMFS 2025).
Based on the considerations described above, we conclude that the
impacts to national security of including this area within critical
habitat do not outweigh the conservation benefits to the listed corals,
and thus do not exclude the Ritidian Point SDZ complex from coral
critical habitat due to national security impacts. The most important
factors supporting this conclusion are: (1) the national security
impacts of coral critical habitat are unlikely to be either substantial
or unpredictable because listed corals are known to occur at this site
at least some of the time, meaning that the Navy would already be
conducting section 7 consultations on listed corals for any of their
activities that may affect listed corals at this site even without
critical habitat, resulting in little additional consultation work; and
(2) the conservation benefits of coral critical habitat could be
considerable because critical habitat would provide additional
protection of the high quality essential feature that is found
throughout the area from future proposed Federal actions (NMFS 2025).
Other Relevant Impacts
Other relevant impacts include the benefits of critical habitat
designation and impacts on governmental or private entities that are
implementing existing management plans that provide benefits to the
listed species. The three main types of benefits of critical habitat
designation are increased protection of the essential feature from
Federal actions, ecosystem service benefits of coral reef conservation,
and education and awareness.
Critical habitat is habitat needed to support recovery of listed
species. That is, the most direct benefits of the critical habitat
designation stem from the increased protection of the essential feature
from Federal actions. While listed corals are generally distributed
throughout the specific areas, there are still many locations within
the specific areas that lack colonies of listed corals at any given
point in time due to natural spatial and temporal fluctuations of coral
colony presence. That is, individual colonies of listed corals may
decrease or disappear from particular locations in response to local
disturbances, then return and increase as local conditions improve.
Such dynamic spatial and temporal fluctuations in the distribution of
colonies of listed corals within the specific areas is a natural
process. In locations and during times when specific areas lack
colonies of listed corals and where Federal actions are proposed,
critical habitat could serve to provide protection of the essential
features (NMFS 2025).
Overall, coral reef ecosystems, including those comprising
populations of the listed corals, provide important ecosystem services
of value to individuals, communities, and economies. These include
recreational opportunities (and associated tourism spending in the
regional economy), habitat and nursery functions for recreationally and
commercially valuable fish species, shoreline protection in the form of
wave attenuation and reduced beach erosion, and atmospheric
stabilization via carbon sequestration. As of 2023, the total economic
value of coral reefs in the three U.S. Pacific Islands jurisdictions
where the great majority of critical habitat is being designated was
estimated as (1) American Samoa--$14.9 million/year, (2) Guam--$182.8
million/year, and (3) CNMI--$67.0 million/year (NMFS 2025, appendix C).
Efforts to conserve the listed corals also benefit the broader reef
ecosystems, thereby preserving or improving these ecosystem services
and values (NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, 2013). While we
cannot quantify the precise economic benefits of designating critical
habitat, providing these values gives an indication of the value of
conserving coral habitat. That is, these values represent the total
value of coral reefs in general, an unquantifiable portion of which
could be supported by coral critical habitat.
Additionally, there is the potential for education and awareness
benefits arising from the critical habitat designation, stemming from
entities that engage in section 7 consultations, and from members of
the general public interested in coral conservation. Entities that
engage in section 7 consultations may alter their activities to benefit
the species or essential feature because they were made aware of the
critical habitat designation through either the section 7 consultation
process or the original listings. Members of the public may engage in
similar efforts because they learned of the critical habitat
designation through outreach materials (NMFS 2025).
There are a large number of Federal MPAs in American Samoa, Guam,
CNMI, PRIA, and NWHI where coral critical habitat is designated, and
many of these jurisdictions have draft or proposed management plans
(NMFS 2025). Impacts of critical habitat designation on the agencies
responsible for natural resource management planning of these areas
(e.g. the National Park Service, USFWS, and Territorial natural
resources management agencies), depend on the type and number of
section 7 consultations that may result from the designation in the
areas covered by those plans, as well as any potential project
modifications recommended by these consultations. Negative impacts to
these entities could result if the critical habitat designation
interferes with these agencies' ability to provide for the conservation
of reef coral species including the listed coral species, or otherwise
hampers the management of these areas.
Conclusions for Section 4(b)(2)
We are not exercising our discretion to exclude any areas from
coral critical habitat based on economic or national security impacts.
As summarized in the Economic Impacts section, the economic impacts of
coral critical habitat are expected to be very low, even on the islands
with concentrated economic activity (Tutuila, Guam, Saipan). Since we
expect most future proposed Federal actions that could affect critical
habitat to be in these three units, which also have the largest
populations (NMFS 2025, appendix C), the incremental conservation
benefits of critical habitat are the greatest in these three units,
although they apply to all critical habitat units. These benefits
include: (1) increased protection of the essential feature from Federal
actions via section 7 consultation and technical assistance; (2)
enhanced ecosystem service benefits of coral reef conservation; and (3)
greater education and awareness of coral reef conservation. While the
conservation benefits of designating coral critical habitat are not
quantifiable, they are not outweighed by the very low economic impacts,
thus no areas are excluded on the basis of economic impacts. Likewise,
as summarized in the National Security Impacts section, the national
security impacts of designating coral critical habitat on the one
requested exclusion site, the Navy's Ritidian Point Surface Danger Zone
complex in Guam, are not expected to outweigh the conservation benefits
of designating critical habitat, thus this area is not excluded.
Critical Habitat Designations
We are designating critical habitat for 5 listed coral species
around 18 islands in 5 U.S. Pacific Islands jurisdictions
[[Page 31818]]
(table 3). For A. globiceps, we are designating specific areas around
17 islands, including 4 in American Samoa, 1 in Guam, 9 in CNMI, 2 in
PRIA, and 1 in Hawaii. The depth ranges of the specific areas for A.
globiceps are 0-20 m (3 islands), 0-12 m (10 islands), and 0-10 m (4
islands). For A. retusa, we are designating specific areas around five
islands, all of which are in American Samoa. The depth ranges of the
specific areas for A. retusa are 0-20 m on all five islands. For A.
speciosa and F. paradivisa, we are designating specific areas around
Tutuila and its offshore banks in American Samoa. The depth ranges of
the specific areas for A. speciosa and F. paradivisa are 20-50 m. For
I. crateriformis, we are designating specific areas around three
islands, all of which are in American Samoa. The depth ranges of the
specific areas for I. crateriformis are 0-20 m on all three islands
(table 3). The 4(a)(3)(B)(i) INRMP analyses found that the entire areas
around FDM and Wake Atoll, several areas off of Guam, and most of
Tinian are ineligible for coral critical habitat. Maps of the critical
habitat for each of the listed species around the 18 islands are
provided at the end of this rule (table 3).
Table 3--Critical Habitat Units for the 5 Listed Coral Species *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. globiceps A. retusa A. speciosa F. paradivisa I. crateriformis
Unit -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depth Fig. Depth Fig. Depth Fig. Depth Fig. Depth Fig.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tutuila and Offshore Banks.................................... 0-20 1 0-20 2 20-50 3 20-50 4 0-20 5
Ofu-Olosega................................................... 0-20 6 0-20 7 ....... ....... ....... ....... 0-20 8
Ta'u.......................................................... 0-20 9 0-20 10 ....... ....... ....... ....... 0-20 11
Rose Atoll.................................................... 0-10 12 0-20 13 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Swains........................................................ ....... ....... 0-20 14 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Guam.......................................................... 0-12 15 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Rota.......................................................... 0-12 16 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Aguijan....................................................... 0-12 17 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Tinian........................................................ 0-12 18 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Saipan........................................................ 0-12 19 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Alamagan...................................................... 0-12 20 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Pagan......................................................... 0-12 21 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Asuncion...................................................... 0-12 22 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Maug Islands.................................................. 0-12 23 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Uracas........................................................ 0-12 24 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Palmyra Atoll................................................. 0-10 25 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Johnston Atoll................................................ 0-10 26 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
FFS/Lalo...................................................... 0-10 27 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For each species, depth ranges in meters and figure numbers (``Fig.'') for the maps are shown.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designations
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies, including
NMFS, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by
the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of any
threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. When a species is listed or critical
habitat is designated, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS on any
agency actions that may affect the listed species or its critical
habitat. During formal consultation, NMFS would evaluate the agency's
action to determine whether the action may adversely affect listed
species or designated critical habitat and issue its findings in a
biological opinion. If NMFS concludes in the biological opinion that
the proposed agency action would likely result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat, NMFS would
identify any reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives are defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as
alternative actions identified during formal consultation that can be
implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the
action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that would avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or resulting in
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. If NMFS
concludes in the biological opinion that the proposed agency action
would not likely result in the destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat, NMFS may provide discretionary
conservation recommendations.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies that have
retained discretionary involvement or control over an action, or where
such discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law, to
reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances
where, among other situations: (1) critical habitat is subsequently
designated, or (2) new information or changes to the action may result
in effects to critical habitat not previously considered in the
biological opinion. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request
reinitiation of consultation with NMFS on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect the
designated critical habitat for the listed corals.
Activities That May Be Affected
Section 4(b)(8) of the ESA requires, to the maximum extent
practicable, that in any final regulation to designate critical
habitat, we provide a brief description and evaluation of those
activities (whether public or private) that may adversely modify such
habitat or that may be affected by such designation. A wide variety of
activities may affect the designated critical habitat, and may be
subject to the ESA section 7 consultation process when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Such activities include, but
are not limited to: in-water and coastal construction, water quality
and discharges, fishery management, military activities, derelict
vessel and marine debris removal, scientific research and monitoring,
aquaculture, and protected area management. Section 7 consultations
must be based on the best scientific and commercial data available at
the time the consultation is undertaken, and outcomes are case
specific. Inclusion (or exclusion) of an activity from this list,
therefore, does not predetermine the occurrence or outcome of any
consultation.
Non-federal entities may also be affected by these proposed
critical habitat designations if they are undertaking a project that
requires a
[[Page 31819]]
Federal permit or receives Federal funding. However, as we have stated
previously, the incremental impacts of the critical habitat designation
will likely be limited to additional administrative costs to NMFS and
Federal agencies stemming from the need to consider impacts to critical
habitat as part of the forecasted section 7 consultations, thus the
designation of critical habitat is not expected to have substantial
indirect impacts on State or Territory governments. Further information
is provided in the Economic Impact Analysis in our Final Information
Report (NMFS 2025, appendix C). Questions regarding whether specific
activities will constitute destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat should be directed to us (see ADDRESSES and FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Information Quality Act and Peer Review
The data and analyses supporting this action have undergone a pre-
dissemination review and have been determined to be in compliance with
applicable information quality guidelines implementing the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554). On December 16, 2004, OMB
issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
(Bulletin). The Bulletin was published in the Federal Register on
January 14, 2005 (70 FR 2664), and went into effect on June 16, 2005.
The primary purpose of the Bulletin is to improve the quality and
credibility of scientific information disseminated by the Federal
Government by requiring peer review of ``influential scientific
information'' and ``highly influential scientific information'' prior
to public dissemination. ``Influential scientific information'' is
defined as information the agency reasonably can determine will have or
does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies
or private sector decisions. The Bulletin provides agencies broad
discretion in determining the appropriate process and level of peer
review. Stricter standards were established for the peer review of
highly influential scientific assessments, defined as information whose
dissemination could have a potential impact of more than $500 million
in any one year on either the public or private sector or that the
dissemination is novel, controversial, or precedent-setting, or has
significant interagency interest.
The information in the Final Information Report (NMFS 2025) and its
appendices was considered influential scientific information and
subject to peer review. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB
Bulletin, we obtained independent peer review of the Final Information
Report (NMFS 2025) and its appendices. The resulting Peer Review
Reports are available on our website <a href="http://noaa.gov">noaa.gov</a> (search for ``Peer Review
Reports for Indo-Pacific coral critical habitat'') or upon request (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is
available on our website (see ADDRESSES) or upon request from the NMFS
Pacific Islands Regional Office in Honolulu, HI (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Classification
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
Under E.O. 12630, Federal agencies must consider the effects of
their actions on constitutionally protected private property rights and
avoid unnecessary takings of private property. A taking of property
includes actions that result in physical invasion or occupancy of
private property and regulations imposed on private property that
substantially affect its value or use. In accordance with E.O. 12630,
this final rule would not have significant takings implications,
because it does not include, occupy or invade private property or
otherwise affect the value or use of private property to qualify as a
taking. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.s 12866, 13563)
E.O. 12866 provides that OIRA will review all significant rules.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, calling for
improvements in the Federal Government's regulatory system to promote
predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory objectives. OMB
determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action
under E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563. 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.
Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (E.O. 14192)
This final rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
The E.O. on Federalism, Executive Order 13132, requires agencies to
take into account any Federalism impacts of regulations under
development. It includes specific consultation directives for
situations in which a regulation may preempt State law or impose
substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments
(unless required by statute). Pursuant to E.O. 13132, we determined
that this final rule does not have significant Federalism effects and
that a Federalism assessment is not required. The designation of
critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal
agencies. In keeping with Department of Commerce policies and
consistent with ESA regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(1)(ii), we
requested information for this rule from the appropriate marine
resources agencies in American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, PRIA, and
Hawai[revaps]i. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on
the states or territories, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in E.O. 1312. State or local governments may be indirectly affected by
this critical habitat designation if they require Federal funds or
formal approval or authorization from a Federal agency as a
prerequisite to conducting an action. In these cases, the State or
local government agency may participate in the ESA section 7
consultation as a third party. One of the key conclusions of the
economic impact analysis is that the incremental impacts of the
critical habitat designation will likely be limited to additional
administrative costs to NMFS and Federal agencies stemming from the
need to consider impacts to critical habitat as part of the forecasted
section 7 consultations. The designation of critical habitat is not
expected to have substantial indirect impacts on State or Territory
governments.
The designation may have some benefit to State and Territory
resource agencies in that the rule more clearly defines the physical
and biological feature essential to the conservation of the species and
the areas in which that feature is found. While this designation would
not alter where and what non-Federally sponsored activities may occur,
it may assist State and Territory governments in long-range planning
(rather than waiting for case-by-case ESA section 7 consultations to
occur).
[[Page 31820]]
Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use (E.O. 13211)
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking an action expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or regulation that is a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and is likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. However,
this final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of Executive Order 12866, and thus E.O. 13211 does not apply.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
We prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) pursuant
to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The FRFA
analyzes the impacts to small entities that may be affected by the
proposed designation and is included as appendix D of the Final
Information Report (NMFS 2025), which is available at the link provided
in ADDRESSES, or upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The FRFA uses the best available information to identify the
potential impacts of designating critical habitat on small entities.
However, uncertainty regarding the extent to which impacts of the
proposed designation would be allocated between large and small
entities complicates quantification of impacts specifically borne by
small entities. Absent specific knowledge regarding which small
entities may be involved in consultations with NMFS over the next 10
years, this analysis relies on industry- and location-specific
information on small businesses with North American Classification
System (NAICS) codes that were identified as relevant to the major
activity categories considered in the economic analysis and which
operate within counties or territories that share a coastline with the
proposed critical habitat. Activities considered in the final economic
analysis and the FRFA include in-water and coastal construction,
dredging and disposal, beach nourishment/shoreline protection, water
quality management, fishery management, military activities, derelict
vessel and marine debris removal, scientific research and monitoring,
aquaculture, and protected area management.
Information presented in section 5.0 of the Final Economic Impact
Analysis Report, which is appendix C of the Final Information Report
(NMFS 2025), demonstrates the lack of third-party involvement in
consultations on the effects of Federal fishery management, protected
area management, derelict vessel and marine debris removal, scientific
research and monitoring, and military activities on ESA-listed marine
species within the critical habitat units considered for coral critical
habitat in the five jurisdictions. Unlike consultations on in-water and
coastal construction, dredging and disposal, and shoreline
stabilization projects, these consultations are conducted directly
between NMFS and the Federal action agency with no third-party
involvement. Each of these five categories of consultation is
represented in the consultations completed in 2014-2023 that were
reviewed for the economic impact analysis, and third parties were not
involved in any of them. As discussed in the FRFA and section 5.2 of
the Final Economic Impact Analysis Report, consultations on water
quality management include inter-agency consultations on regional water
quality standards, which do not involve third parties, and project-
specific consultations regarding point source water pollution, such as
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued
to third parties in American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI. The third parties
issued NPDES permits are either businesses or territorial or
commonwealth governments that do not qualify as small entities. In
addition, because no section 7 consultations on beach nourishment
projects occurred within the historical time frame selected for the
economic impact analysis, no section 7 consultations on such projects
were projected over the next 10 years. As a result, no incremental
costs are assigned to small entities for beach nourishment activities.
While consultations on aquaculture projects have the potential to
involve third parties, the potential economic impacts to third parties
are considered de minimis. Moreover, all of the historical aquaculture
projects that resulted in consultations considered in the economic
impact analysis were sponsored by public entities, none of which
qualify as small entities.
Consultations on in-water and coastal construction, dredging and
disposal, and shoreline stabilization (as explained further in the
Final Economic Impact Analysis Report), all have the potential to
involve third parties, such as recipients of Clean Water Act section
404 permits. These activities were combined into one broad industry
category that may experience impacts to small entities: In-Water and
Coastal Construction and Dredging. NAICS industries that are relevant
to these activities include:
<bullet> Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction (NAICS 237310).
<bullet> Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction (237990).
<bullet> Dredging and Surface Cleanup (NAICS 237990).
The FRFA relies on the estimated incremental impacts resulting from
the proposed critical habitat designation, as described in section 7.0
of the Economic Impact Analysis Report. The FRFA estimates the impacts
of the coral critical habitat in terms of the percentage of revenues
per small entity, which are estimated to be less than 0.1 percent of
average annual revenues per potentially impacted small entity for each
of the three jurisdictions (FRFA, table 1). These estimates reflect the
conservative assumption that all costs borne by third parties are borne
by small entities. Impacts are anticipated to be borne by the small
entities engaged in in-water and coastal construction and dredging that
consult with NMFS regarding the listed Indo-Pacific coral species
critical habitat in the next 10 years. Impacts are presented in the
FRFA for each of the three U.S. Pacific jurisdictions where one or more
of the listed coral species occur and where small businesses engaged in
the relevant activities have been identified--American Samoa, Guam, and
CNMI. According to section 6.0 of the Final Economic Impact Analysis
Report, no more than one consultation on in-water and coastal
construction projects is forecasted to occur in either the NWHI or the
PRIA. However, because no businesses are located in either the NWHI or
the PRIA, it is not possible to determine what small entities, if any,
would be affected. Given that so few consultations are expected to
occur, the potential costs to small entities associated with in-water
and coastal construction and dredging projects in the NWHI and the PRIA
are anticipated to be negligible.
The estimated impacts to small entities reflect the assumption of
the final economic analysis that critical habitat designation would not
result in incremental project modifications. The rationale for this
assumption is provided in section 5.0 of the Final Economic Impact
Analysis Report and in this final rule. Impacts to small entities are
thus assumed to be due solely to the additional administrative costs of
considering the potential for adverse effects to critical habitat
during section 7 consultations. In addition, the impact estimates
generally assume that trends in the frequency of formal and informal
consultations over the next 10 years will resemble those of the past 10
[[Page 31821]]
years (section 6.0 of the Final Economic Impact Analysis Report).
Given the uncertainty regarding which small entities in a given
industry will need to consult with NMFS, this analysis estimates
impacts to small entities under two different scenarios. These
scenarios are intended to reflect the range of uncertainty regarding
the number of small entities that may be affected by the designation
and the potential impacts of critical habitat designation on their
annual revenues.
Under scenario 1, the FRFA assumes that all third parties involved
in future consultations are small entities and that incremental impacts
for each territory or commonwealth (American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI) are
distributed evenly across all of the entities in the respective
territory or commonwealth. Scenario 1 accordingly reflects a high
estimate of the number of potentially affected small entities and a low
estimate of the potential effect in terms of percent of revenue, except
for American Samoa, where it is estimated that only one entity is
conducting construction activities in the areas considered for critical
habitat. The assumption under scenario 1 that 2.8 small entities will
be involved in consultation annually reflects the forecast that
approximately 2.8 consultations will occur annually on construction
activities involving third parties. This assumes that each consultation
on construction activities involves a unique small entity, including 1
small entity in American Samoa, 1.2 small entities in Guam, and 0.6
small entities in CNMI. Critical habitat designation is expected to
impact less than one small entity per year in CNMI because fewer than
10 consultations on construction-related activities in CNMI are
projected to be completed over the next 10 years. Under scenario 1, the
FRFA estimates total annual impacts of $1,008 for American Samoa (in
2023 dollars), $561 for Guam, and $309 for CNMI, or $1,878 across the
three jurisdictions. As noted above, annualized impacts of the rule are
estimated to make up less than 0.1 percent of average annual revenues
for impacted small entities in each of the three jurisdictions.
Estimated average annual revenues of potentially impacted small
entities are $2.20 million in American Samoa, $3.40 million in Guam,
and $2.71 million in CNMI.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Average annual revenues were calculated based on company-
specific revenue data sourced from the Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers
database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under scenario 2, this analysis assumes that all third parties
participating in future consultations are small entities and that costs
associated with each consultation action are borne each year by a
single small entity in each of the three jurisdictions. Estimated
annualized impacts are equivalent under scenario 1 and scenario 2 in
American Samoa and CNMI because impacts are expected to be borne by a
single small entity under both scenarios for each of these
jurisdictions. In American Samoa, there is only one small entity
participating in potentially impacted construction-related activities.
In CNMI, only six consultations--or less than one consultation per
year--are expected to impact small entities over the next 10 years;
third-party costs of a single consultation would be borne by a single
entity under both scenarios. In Guam, projected annualized costs per
small entity are 20 percent higher under scenario 2 than scenario 1
($561 versus $468) because consultations involving third parties are
projected to occur at a rate of 1.2 consultations per year. As with
scenario 1, annualized costs borne by small entities total $1,878
across American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI, and impacts constitute less than
0.1 percent of average annual revenues for impacted small entities in
each of the three jurisdictions.
There are no record-keeping requirements associated with the rule.
Similarly, there are no reporting requirements. No public comments on
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) were received during
the public comment period. No Federal laws or regulations duplicate or
conflict with this final rule. However, the protection of listed
species and habitat under critical habitat may overlap other sections
of the ESA. For instance, listing of the threatened Indo-Pacific corals
under the ESA already requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS to
avoid jeopardy to the species. However, this analysis only examines the
incremental impacts to small entities from the critical habitat rule.
The RFA requires consideration of alternatives to the proposed rule
that would minimize significant economic impacts to small entities. We
considered the following alternatives when developing the proposed
critical habitat rule.
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative, we would not designate critical
habitat for the listed corals. The alternative of not designating
critical habitat was considered in this FRFA but rejected because, in
this case, it would violate the legal requirements of the ESA.
Moreover, we have determined that the physical feature forming the
basis for critical habitat designation is essential to the corals'
conservation, and conservation for these species will not succeed
without this feature being available. Thus, the lack of protection of
the critical habitat feature from adverse modification could result in
continued declines in abundance of the listed corals, and loss of
associated economic and other values these corals provide to society,
such as recreational and commercial fishing and diving services, and
shoreline protection services. Small entities engaged in some coral
reef-dependent industries would be adversely affected by the continued
declines in the listed corals. Thus, while small entities would incur
no direct incremental costs under the no action alternative, the no
action alternative is not necessarily a ``no cost'' alternative for
small entities.
Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative
Under this alternative, the areas designated are waters ranging
from 0 to 10 m, 0 to 20 m, and 20 to 50 m deep (depending on the listed
coral species and the critical habitat unit) in American Samoa, Guam,
CNMI, the NWHI, and the PRIA. As noted in the Final Critical Habitat
Information Report (NMFS 2025), the following areas are ineligible for
critical habitat: parts of Guam, parts of Tinian, all of FDM, and all
of Wake Atoll. An analysis of the costs and benefits of the preferred
alternative designation is presented in the Final Economic Impact
Analysis Report (appendix C of NMFS 2025). Relative to the no action
alternative, this alternative will likely involve an increase in
administrative costs for those section 7 consultations required to
avoid adverse impacts to critical habitat, above and beyond those
required due to the corals' listing alone. We have determined that no
categories of activities would require consultation in the future
solely due to this rule and the need to prevent adverse modification of
critical habitat, based on the designation of only occupied critical
habitat. Similarly, it is extremely unlikely that adverse effects of
future activities on the critical habitat will result in destruction or
adverse modification of the critical habitat. This is due to the fact
that the critical habitat areas constitute a sufficiently small portion
of each listed coral species' overall range such that the loss or
degradation of habitat from future Federal actions within U.S. waters
is not expected to pose a significant threat to their conservation and
recovery, and thus future Federal actions would likely not result in
destruction or adverse modification
[[Page 31822]]
determinations. The preferred alternative was selected because it best
implements the critical habitat provisions of the ESA by including the
well-defined environmental features essential to the species'
conservation, and due to the important conservation benefits that will
result from this alternative relative to the no action alternative.
Moreover, as described above, incremental costs to small entities under
the preferred alternative are expected to be negligible, i.e., less
than 0.1 percent of average annual revenues for impacted small
entities.
Alternative 3: Designating a Subset of Areas
A third alternative was considered that would have excluded from
designation those areas in which, on economic or national security
bases, the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. No
areas were identified where it was determined that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the conservation value of designation to the
species. In addition, the public did not submit comments on the
benefits of exclusion and inclusion in general, nor were comments
submitted on those benefits as they relate to specific areas. Thus, we
rejected this alternative because it would lessen the conservation
value to the species.
Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.)
Under section 307(c)(1)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(1)(A)) and its implementing regulations, each
Federal activity within or outside the coastal zone that has reasonably
foreseeable effects on any land or water use or natural resource of the
coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to
the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of
approved State coastal zone management programs. We have determined
that this final rule will have no reasonably foreseeable effects on any
of American Samoa's, Guam's, CNMI's, or Hawai[revaps]i's coastal uses
or resources. These negative determinations were described in letters
sent to American Samoa's, Guam's, CNMI's, and Hawai[revaps]i's Coastal
Zone Management (CZM) offices on August 5, 2024. The Guam CZM office
disagreed with our negative determination, as described in their
October 10, 2024, response letter. On November 5, 2024, we responded to
the Guam CZM office, reaffirming our negative determination. The CNMI
CZM office concurred with our negative determination in their October
18, 2024, response letter. The American Samoa and Hawai[revaps]i CZM
offices did not respond within 60 days and therefore concurrence is
presumed (15 CFR 930.35(c)).
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This final rule does not contain any new or revised collection of
information, defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements
of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently
valid OMB Control Number.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
This final rule will not produce a Federal mandate. The designation
of critical habitat does not impose a legally-binding duty on non-
federal government entities or private parties. The only regulatory
effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7 of the
ESA. Non-federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance,
permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal
agency for an action may be indirectly affected by the designation of
critical habitat, but the Federal agency has the legally binding duty
to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
We do not anticipate that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Therefore, a Small Government Action Plan is
not required.
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O.
13175)
The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal
and Tribal Governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive
orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, which differentiate Tribal
Governments from the other entities that deal with, or are affected by,
the Federal Government.
This relationship has given rise to a special Federal trust
responsibility involving the legal responsibilities and obligations of
the United States towards Indian Tribes and with respect to Indian
lands, Tribal trust resources, and the exercise of Tribal rights.
Pursuant to these authorities, lands have been retained by Indian
Tribes or have been set aside for Tribal use. These lands are managed
by Indian Tribes in accordance with Tribal goals and objectives within
the framework of applicable treaties and laws. Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, outlines
the responsibilities of the Federal Government in matters affecting
Tribal interests. The critical habitat designations for threatened
Indo-Pacific corals are located in U.S. Pacific Islands and therefore
do not have Tribal implications in accordance with Executive Order
13175.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
50 CFR Part 226
Endangered and threatened species.
Dated: July 10, 2025
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR parts
223 and 226 as follows:
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 223.201-202
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
Sec. 223.206(d)(9).
0
2. In Sec. 223.102(e), in the table, under the heading ``Corals''
revise the entries for ``Acropora globiceps,'' ``Acropora retusa,''
``Acropora speciosa,'' ``Fimbriaphyllia paradivisa,'' and ``Isopora
crateriformis'' to read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 31823]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------ Citation(s) for Critical
Description of listing habitat ESA rules
Common name Scientific name listed entity determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coral, [no common name]...... Acropora Entire species.. 79 FR 53852, 226.230 NA.
globiceps. Sept. 10, 2014.
* * * * * * *
Coral, [no common name]...... Acropora retusa. Entire species.. 79 FR 53852, 226.230 NA.
Sept. 10, 2014.
* * * * * * *
Coral, [no common name]...... Acropora Entire species.. 79 FR 53852, 226.230 NA.
speciosa. Sept. 10, 2014.
* * * * * * *
Coral, [no common name]...... Fimbriaphyllia Entire species.. 79 FR 53852, 226.230 NA.
paradivisa \3\. Sept. 10, 2014.
Coral, [no common name]...... Isopora Entire species.. 79 FR 53852, 226.230 NA.
crateriformis. Sept. 10, 2014.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
\2\ Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.
\3\ Name changed from Euphyllia paradivisa to Fimbriaphyllia paradivisa on October 9, 2024 (89 FR 81867).
PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
0
3. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
0
4. Add Sec. 226.232 to read as follows:
Sec. 226.232 Critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Acropora
retusa, Acropora speciosa, Fimbriaphyllia paradivisa, and Isopora
crateriformis.
Critical habitat is designated in the following jurisdictions for
the following species as depicted in figures 1 through 27 of this
section and described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
The maps can be viewed or obtained with greater resolution (available
at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/critical-habitat#critical-habitat-designations-maps-and-gis-data">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/critical-habitat#critical-habitat-designations-maps-and-gis-data</a>) to enable a more precise inspection of the critical habitat
for A. globiceps, A. retusa, A. speciosa, F. paradivisa, and I.
crateriformis.
(a) Critical habitat locations. Critical habitat is designated for
the following species in the following jurisdictions:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State--Counties (or other
Species jurisdiction)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acropora globiceps..................... American Samoa (AS), Guam (Gu),
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI),
Pacific Remote Island Areas
(PRIA), Hawai[revaps]i (HI).
Acropora retusa........................ AS, PRIA.
Acropora speciosa...................... AS.
Fimbriaphyllia paradivisa.............. AS.
Isopora crateriformis.................. AS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Critical habitat boundaries. Except as noted in paragraph (d)
of this section, critical habitat for the five species includes all
specific areas depicted in figures 1 through 27 of this section.
(c) Essential feature. The feature essential to the conservation of
A. globiceps, A. retusa, A. speciosa, F. paradivisa and I.
crateriformis is: Sites that support the normal function of all life
stages of the corals, including reproduction, recruitment, and
maturation. These sites are natural, consolidated hard substrate or
dead coral skeleton, which is free of algae and sediment at the
appropriate scale at the point of larval settlement or fragment
reattachment, and the associated water column. Several attributes of
these sites determine the quality of the area and influence the value
of the associated feature to the conservation of the species:
(1) Substrate with presence of crevices and holes that provide
cryptic habitat, the presence of microbial biofilms, or presence of
crustose coralline algae;
(2) Reefscape with no more than a thin veneer of sediment and low
occupancy by fleshy and turf macroalgae;
(3) Marine water with levels of temperature, aragonite saturation,
nutrients, and water clarity that have been observed to support any
demographic function; and
(4) Marine water with levels of anthropogenically-introduced (from
humans) chemical contaminants that do not preclude or inhibit any
demographic function.
(d) Areas not included in critical habitat. Critical habitat does
not include the following particular areas where they overlap with the
areas described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section:
(1) Pursuant to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), all areas subject to the
2023 Wake Island and 2019 Joint Region Marianas INRMPs;
(2) Managed areas that do not provide the quality of substrate
essential for the conservation of the five Indo-Pacific corals are
defined as particular areas whose consistently disturbed nature renders
them poor habitat for coral
[[Page 31824]]
growth and survival over time. These managed areas include specific
areas where the substrate has been disturbed by planned management
authorized by local, territorial, state, or Federal governmental
entities at the time of critical habitat designation, and will continue
to be periodically disturbed by such management. Examples include, but
are not necessarily limited to, dredged navigation channels, shipping
basins, vessel berths, and active anchorages. Specific federally-
authorized channels and harbors considered as managed areas not
included in the designations are:
(i) Pago Pago Harbor.
(ii) Aunu'u Harbor.
(iii) Auasi Harbor.
(iv) Ofu Harbor.
(v) Ta'u Harbor.
(vi) Faleasao Harbor.
(vii) Apra Harbor.
(viii) Agat Harbor.
(iv) Agana Harbor.
(x) Rota Harbor.
(xi) Tinian Harbor.
(xii) Saipan Harbor.
(3) Existing artificial substrates including but not limited to:
fixed and floating structures, such as aids-to-navigation (AToNs),
seawalls, wharves, boat ramps, fishpond walls, pipes, submarine cables,
wrecks, mooring balls, docks, aquaculture cages.
(e) Critical habitat maps. The specific areas of critical habitat
within the 18 units for the 5 listed coral species are shown in figures
1 through 27 of this section. Spatial data for these critical habitats
and mapping tools are maintained on our website and are available for
public use (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/critical-habitat">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/critical-habitat</a>).
[[Page 31825]]
Figure 1. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Tutuila and
Offshore Banks
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.018
[[Page 31826]]
Figure 2. Final critical habitat for Acropora retusa, Tutuila and
Offshore Banks
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.019
[[Page 31827]]
Figure 3. Final critical habitat for Acropora speciosa, Tutuila and
Offshore Banks
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.020
[[Page 31828]]
Figure 4. Final critical habitat for Fimbriaphyllia paradivisa, Tutuila
and Offshore Banks
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.021
[[Page 31829]]
Figure 5. Final critical habitat for Isopora crateriformis, Tutuila and
Offshore Banks
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.022
[[Page 31830]]
Figure 6. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Ofu-Olosega
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.023
[[Page 31831]]
Figure 7. Final critical habitat for Acropora retusa, Ofu-Olosega
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.024
[[Page 31832]]
Figure 8. Final critical habitat for Isopora crateriformis, Ofu-Olosega
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.025
[[Page 31833]]
Figure 9. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Ta'u
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.026
[[Page 31834]]
Figure 10. Final critical habitat for Acropora retusa, Ta'u
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.027
[[Page 31835]]
Figure 11. Final critical habitat for Isopora crateriformis, Ta'u
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.028
[[Page 31836]]
Figure 12. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Rose Atoll
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.029
[[Page 31837]]
Figure 13. Final critical habitat for Acropora retusa, Rose Atoll
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.030
[[Page 31838]]
Figure 14. Final critical habitat for Acropora retusa, Swains
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.031
[[Page 31839]]
Figure 15. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Guam
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.032
[[Page 31840]]
Figure 16. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Rota
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.033
[[Page 31841]]
Figure 17. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Aguijan
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.034
[[Page 31842]]
Figure 18. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Tinian
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.035
[[Page 31843]]
Figure 19. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Saipan
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.036
[[Page 31844]]
Figure 20. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Alamagan
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.037
[[Page 31845]]
Figure 21. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Pagan
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.038
[[Page 31846]]
Figure 22. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Asuncion
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.039
[[Page 31847]]
Figure 23. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Maug Islands
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.040
[[Page 31848]]
Figure 24. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Uracas
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.041
[[Page 31849]]
Figure 25. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Palmyra Atoll
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.042
[[Page 31850]]
Figure 26. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, Johnston
Atoll
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.043
[[Page 31851]]
Figure 27. Final critical habitat for Acropora globiceps, French
Frigate Shoals (Lalo)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY25.044
[FR Doc. 2025-13238 Filed 7-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 15, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.