Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 166 (Wednesday, August 26, 2020) 2020 Federal Register, 85 FR 52516-52540; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 26, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52516-52540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17091]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0050; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
RIN 1018-BE15

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Marron Bacora and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
proposing to list the marron bacora (Solanum conocarpum), a plant
species from the U.S. and British Virgin Islands, as an endangered
species and designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the species
is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the marron bacora as an
endangered species under the Act. If we finalize this rule as proposed,
it would add this species to the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants and extend the Act's protections to the species. We
also propose to designate critical habitat for the marron bacora under
the Act. In total, approximately 2,549 acres (1,032 hectares) on St.
John, U.S. Virgin Islands, fall within the boundaries of the proposed
critical habitat designation. Finally, we announce the availability of
a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation of critical
habitat for marron bacora.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
October 26, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by October 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2019-0050,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2019-0050, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: For the critical habitat
designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps
are generated are included in the administrative record and are
available at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/caribbean, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0050, and can be
requested from the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION

[[Page 52517]]

CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information that we may
develop for the critical habitat designation will also be available at
the Service website and Field Office set out above, and may also be
included in the preamble and/or at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Mu[ntilde]iz, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological Services Field
Office, P.O. Box 491, Road 301 Km 5.1, Boquer[oacute]n, PR 00622;
telephone 787-851-7297. Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that
a species is warranted for listing as an endangered or threatened
species throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we are
required to promptly publish a proposal in the Federal Register and
make a determination on our proposal within one year. To the maximum
extent prudent and determinable, we must designate critical habitat for
any species that we determine to be an endangered or threatened species
under the Act. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species
and designation of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a
rule.
What this rule does. This rule proposes to list the marron bacora
(Solanum conocarpum) as an endangered species under the Act, and
proposes to designate critical habitat for the species. Marron bacora
is a species for which we have on file sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a
listing proposal, but for which development of a listing rule was
previously precluded by other higher priority listing activities (also
known as a candidate species). This proposed rule makes a new 12-month
finding using the best available information regarding threats facing
the marron bacora and its status.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the primary threats acting
on marron bacora are habitat destruction or modification by exotic
mammal species (e.g., white-tailed deer, goats, pigs, and donkeys)
(Factor A), herbivory by nonnative, feral ungulates and insect pests
(Factor C), the lack of natural recruitment (Factor E), absence of
dispersers (Factor E), fragmented distribution and small population
size (Factor E), lack of genetic diversity (Factor E), climate change
(Factor E), and exotic, invasive plants (e.g., guinea grass) (Factor
E).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of
the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Peer review. We prepared a species status assessment report (SSA
report) for the marron bacora that represents a compilation and
assessment of the best scientific and commercial information available
concerning the status of the marron bacora, including past, present,
and future factors influencing the species (Service 2019, entire). In
accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of six
appropriate specialists regarding the SSA report, which informed this
proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing
determinations, critical habitat designations, and 4(d) rules are based
on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer
reviewers have expertise in the biology, habitat, and threats to the
species.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species is
threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species
does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a
threatened species and withdraw our proposal. Such final decisions
would be a logical outgrowth of this proposal, as long as we: (a) Base
the decisions on the best scientific and commercial data available
after considering all of the relevant factors; (2) do not rely on
factors Congress has not intended us to consider; and (3) articulate a
rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made,
including why we changed our conclusion.

Information Requested

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The marron bacora's reproductive biology, range, and population
trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
microhabitat requirements for establishment and availability of
pollinators;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease (insect pest or pathogens), predation, the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range,

[[Page 52518]]

distribution, and population size of this species, including the
locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may
be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(6) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of marron bacora habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments
regarding:
(i) Whether occupied areas are inadequate for the conservation of
the species, and
(ii) Specific information that supports the determination that
unoccupied areas will, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the
conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
(7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(8) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(9) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts.
(10) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(11) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide public hearings
using webinars that will be announced on the Service's website, in
addition to the Federal Register and local newspapers. The use of these
virtual public hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

On November 21, 1996, we received a petition from the U.S. Virgin
Islands (USVI) Department of Planning and Natural Resources requesting
that we list Eggers' century plant and marron bacora as endangered. On
November 16, 1998, we published in the Federal Register (63 FR 63659)
our finding that the petition to list both species presented
substantial information indicating that the requested action may be
warranted; that document also initiated a status review of these two
plants.
On September 1, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
filed a lawsuit alleging that the Service failed to publish a 12-month
finding for Eggers' century plant and marron bacora (CBD v. Norton,
Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-2553 CAP). In a stipulated settlement
agreement entered into on April 27, 2005, we agreed to submit a 12-
month finding for Eggers' century plant and marron bacora to the
Federal Register by February 28, 2006. On March 7, 2006, we published a
12-month finding (71 FR 11367) that listing of Eggers' century plant
and marron bacora was not warranted, because we did not have sufficient
information to determine the status of either species.
On September 9, 2008, CBD filed a complaint challenging our
determination that Eggers' century plant and marron bacora did not
warrant listing (CBD v. Hamilton, Case No. 1:08-CV-02830-CAP). In a
settlement agreement entered into on August 21, 2009, the Service
agreed to submit to the Federal Register a new 12-month finding for
marron bacora by February 15, 2011; as part of that settlement
agreement, we also agreed to submit a

[[Page 52519]]

new 12-month finding for the Eggers' century plant, which we listed as
an endangered species on September 9, 2014 (79 FR 53303).
We published a request for additional information to inform the
status review of marron bacora on January 20, 2010 (75 FR 3190). The
subsequent 12-month finding for marron bacora, published on February
22, 2011 (76 FR 9722), determined the species was warranted for
listing, but precluded by higher priority listing actions. The threats
to the species included the lack of natural recruitment, absence of
dispersers, fragmented distribution, lack of genetic variation, climate
change, and habitat destruction or modification by exotic mammal
species. The species received a listing priority number (LPN) of 2
based on the high magnitude and immanency of the threats. The listing
of this species was determined to be warranted but precluded in
subsequent annual candidate notices of review (CNORs) (76 FR 66370,
October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November
22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24,
2015; 81 FR 87246, December 2, 2016; 84 FR 54732, October 10, 2019).
This document constitutes a new 12-month finding for the marron bacora.

Supporting Documents

A species status assessment (SSA) team, composed of Service
biologists in consultation with other species experts, prepared an SSA
report for marron bacora. The SSA report provides a compilation of the
best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of
the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors
(both negative and beneficial) affecting the species to determine the
viability of the species. The Service sent the SSA report to six
independent peer reviewers and received one response from colleagues at
the Fairchild Tropical Botanic Gardens. The Service also sent the SSA
report to two partners for review--the National Park Service (NPS) and
Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR)--and
received a response from DPNR. The comments we received provided
support for the conclusions in the SSA report and provided additional
information to improve that document.

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of
marron bacora is presented in the SSA report version 1.0 and evaluates
the species' overall viability (Service 2019, entire). Below, we
summarize the key results and conclusions of the SSA report, which can
be viewed under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0050 at http://www.regulations.gov.
Marron bacora is a dry-forest, perennial shrub of the Solanaceae
(or nightshade) family that is endemic to the Virgin Islands. It has
small purple flowers and can grow to the height of around 9.8 feet (ft)
(3 meters (m)). The plants produce a green fruit with white striations
and golden yellow when ripe (Acevedo-Rodriguez 1996, p. 415). The
species typically requires pollinators for reproductive success, but
may self-pollinate under certain conditions.
The historical range of the species includes St. John and possibly
St. Thomas, USVI; however, recent surveys found the species on the
neighboring island, Tortola, British Virgin Islands (BVI). There is an
additional, unconfirmed record from plant material collected in 1969 at
Gordon Peak on Virgin Gorda, BVI (Acevedo-Rodr[iacute]guez 1996, p.
415). There is suitable habitat for the species on Virgin Gorda;
however, that is the only record of the species on another island and
there have been no other records since the single plant was found in
1969. At least three populations on St. John have been extirpated.
The species is currently found on St. John, USVI, and Tortola, BVI,
with a fragmented distribution of seven populations on St. John and a
single population on Tortola. St. John has a history of land-use
changes that resulted in habitat loss and degradation further isolating
suitable habitats in patches that were not readily connected. The
species is a dioecious (separate male and female plants) obligate out-
crosser and typically self-incompatible, so the larger the population,
the better for ensuring successful reproduction and maintaining genetic
diversity within populations.
The sex ratio of marron bacora is 1:1, and a much longer time is
needed for female plants to flower for the first time (from the
seedling stage) compared with the males (Anderson et al. 2015, p. 475).
This may explain the rarity of the species in the landscape as only
half of the wild individuals (based on the 1:1 ratio) have the
potential to produce fruits and viable seeds, and thus highlights the
importance of introducing an adequate number of plants into the wild
(Anderson et al. 2015, p. 482). Nonetheless, there is no available
information regarding the seed dormancy or long-term storage potential
for marron bacora.
As plant populations become reduced and spatially segregated,
important life-history needs provided by pollinators and seed
dispersers may be compromised (Kearns and Inouye 1997, p. 305). The
fragmented distribution of marron bacora on St. John can be attributed
to historical habitat degradation. Based on the hermaphroditic and
dioecious biology of marron bacora, the species requires cross-
pollination. Pollinators including carpenter bees (Xylocopa mordax),
honey bees (Apis mellifera), and bananaquits (Coereba flaveola) have
been documented at the Nanny Point population. (USFWS 2017aa, p. 7). In
fact, about 92 percent of the 75 marron bacora natural individuals in
this area were observed in flower (USFWS 2017aa, p. 7).
The natural dispersal mechanism of marron bacora remains unknown,
but fruit predation is suspected as the explanation of lack of natural
recruitment in the wild (USFWS 2011, p. 9726). Although predators may
also disperse the species, it is likely that the seeds have not adapted
to passing through the gastrointestinal tracts of the exotic mammals
currently occurring in the island of St. John (e.g., white-tailed deer,
feral hogs, donkeys). The native hermit crab (Coenobita clypeatus) has
also been documented depredating marron bacora fruit (Ray and Stanford
2005, p. 18; Vilella and Polumbo 2010, p. 1), and, although there are
several species of fruit-eating bats on St. John (Artibeus jamaicensis,
Brachyphylla cavernarum, and Stenoderma rufum), there have been no
studies to document their possible role in the life history of marron
bacora, if any. Also, it is possible that natural fruit dispersers of
marron bacora had targeted other food sources as the populations of
this shrub became increasingly patchy, as a result of deforestation and
introduction of exotic plant species. The patchy distribution of this
species may suggest that its natural disperser is extinct or that the
populations of the plant are too small to attract the disperser (Roman
2006, p. 82).
Little is known of the life history of this plant. Marron bacora is
a perennial shrub that may live more than two decades. For example, the
Nanny Point population was discovered in 2002 (Carper 2005, pers.
comm.), and at that time, the population was already composed mainly of
adult individuals and little natural recruitment was recorded. Thus,
the current known natural individuals at Nanny Point should be
approximately 20 years old. Marron bacora material was under
cultivation from an individual

[[Page 52520]]

rediscovered in early 1990s (USFWS 2017aa, p. 4). Therefore, these
plants would also be more than 20 years old. Nonetheless, the species
may reach reproductive maturity 16 months from germination under
greenhouse conditions (Anderson et al. 2015, p. 475). However, this
period is expected to be greater in the wild, as seedlings may require
longer periods to grow and individuals may remain suppressed under
closed canopy and possible drought conditions.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent a decision by
the Service on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does, however,
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA
report can be found under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0050 on http://www.regulations.gov.
To assess marron bacora's viability, we used the three conservation
biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency supports the
ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic
stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy
supports the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events
(for example, droughts, large pollution events), and representation
supports the ability of the species to adapt over time to long-term
changes in the environment (for example, climate changes). In general,
the more resilient and redundant a species is and the more
representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain populations
over time, even under changing environmental conditions. Using these
principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for
survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species
levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the
species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over

[[Page 52521]]

time. We use this information to inform our regulatory decision.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its needs, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability. Requirements for individuals
to survive include having appropriate habitat, with both male and
female plants present in a balanced sex ratio, and seasonal rainy
periods. The habitat is described as dry deciduous and coastal scrub
forests with dry soils at lower elevations (less than 85 m (278.9 ft))
restricted to the U.S. and British Virgin Islands; however, marron
bacora shows little fidelity to any particular suite of community
associations. Plants may reach a reproductive size in less than 2 years
under greenhouse conditions; however, it may take decades for wild
plants to effectively reproduce.
Due to the nature of marron bacora's narrow endemic distribution,
the species is confined to the available habitat on St. John, USVI, and
Tortola, BVI. Most of the species' habitat and the largest population
on St. John occur within the Virgin Islands National Park (VINP), an
area managed by NPS. Across St. John, NPS manages about 60 percent of
the island's area, with VINP consisting of about 14,737 acres (ac)
(5,963.9 hectares (ha)).

Species Needs

Resilient populations require a population size and density that
provides a balanced sex ratio (proportion of male and female plants).
The demographics and population structure should reflect evidence of
successful recruitment within each population. In order to maintain
resilient populations, marron bacora needs continuous suitable habitat
that allows for room for growth and dispersal, as well as connectivity
between populations and availability of pollinators.
The species is typically found in dry deciduous forests at lower
elevations (less than 85 m (278.9 ft)) with low annual rainfall with
seasonal runoff conditions. Many plants have been found in open, eroded
areas. The plant's growth and reproductive phenology are synchronized
with the rainy seasons associated with the Virgin Islands. Maintaining
conditions that facilitate the reproductive biology of marron bacora,
along with maintaining forest connectivity and habitat corridors among
known populations, is critical for the long-term conservation of the
species and will contribute to the ecological interactions with native
pollinators and dispersers to ensure these systems remain functional.

Factors Affecting the Viability of the Species

The stressors acting on the species as described in the SSA report
include invasive species (plants and animals), predation, demographic
and genetic consequences of small population size and density, human-
induced fires, habitat loss/degradation, insect pests and pathogens,
changes in phenology and breeding systems, recreation, and climate
change and hurricanes. The primary stressors acting on the species are
impacts from nonnative, invasive species that preclude natural
recruitment.
Nonnative/Invasive Species
Marron bacora is directly affected by nonnative, invasive plants
and animals. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are naturalized
and very abundant on the islands. They directly affect the species by
browsing on the plants (seedlings and saplings) and fruits. Other
nonnative species used as livestock, including hogs (Sus scrofa), goats
(Capra aegagrus hircus), and donkeys (Equus africanus asinus), have
also naturalized and have been recorded within the VINP. These species
also forage freely on the island both on native vegetation and on
invasive guinea grasses such as Megathyrsus maximus (USVI Dept. of
Planning and Natural Resources, p. 8). Cattle also range freely on St.
John and Tortola. In addition, the habitat of marron bacora at Nanny
Point is affected by encroachment of exotic grasses and vines following
Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017 (Island Conservation 2018, pp. 3,
12).
Herbivory by Feral Ungulates
Another major threat acting on marron bacora is the lack of natural
recruitment most likely due to depredation of its fruits and seedlings
by feral ungulates. There is ongoing research studying the impact by
feral browsers on the viability of marron bacora. The effects of
foraging on marron bacora plants during a post-hurricane study on St.
John in 2018 showed 35.5 percent of the known population at Nanny Point
exhibited signs of herbivory from mammals, such as white-tailed deer.
During the same study, 61 percent (11 plants) of the John's Folly
population exhibited a combination of impacts by herbivorous insects
and browsing by invasive mammals (IC Report 2018, p. 5). White-tailed
deer were introduced to St. John in the 1920s in order to provide
hunting opportunities. Since then, the deer range freely across the
island, foraging on the native vegetation, and according to local
experts, populations of deer are increasing on the island (Gibney 2017,
pers comm.). There are currently no estimates on the deer abundance on
St. John, and there are no native predators to control the deer
population.
Small Population Size and Density
Marron bacora currently shows overall low numbers of individuals,
low numbers of populations, and low numbers of individuals at each
population site, which is reflected with low resiliency, redundancy,
and representation. There is a lack of knowledge regarding the
abundance and roles of dispersers and pollinators at the population and
species levels. Current knowledge of the ecology and genetic diversity
of Virgin Islands rare flora is sparse (Stanford et al. 2013, p. 173).
While the genetic diversity at the species level of marron bacora is
relatively high, the majority of its diversity is confined to the
largest population at Nanny Point (Stanford 2013, p. 178). The current
fragmented population distribution may result in Allee effects due to
small population sizes, a lack of genetic exchange among populations,
and eventual genetic drift.
Human-Induced Fires
In the Caribbean, native plant species, particularly endemics with
limited distribution, may be vulnerable to manmade events such as
human-induced fires. Fire is not a natural component of subtropical dry
forests in the Virgin Islands; thus, most species found in this type of
forest are not fire-adapted and are not likely to withstand frequent
fire events (Monsegur, cited in USFWS 2011, p. 9726). Marron bacora is
associated with lower elevation dry forests. This habitat may be
susceptible to forest fires, particularly on private lands, where fire
could be accidentally ignited. Furthermore, regenerating forests, such
as the ones prevalent on St. John, are prone to wildfires that
perpetuate the succession of persistent shrub land dominated by
introduced tree species and grasses; this inhibits native species'
growth and subsequently contributes to more intense and more severe
fires (Wiley and Vilella 1998, p. 340). Given the growth pattern of
marron bacora, it is unlikely that individuals would survive a fire
even of moderate intensity (Vilella and Palumbo 2010, p. 15). Intrusion
by exotic plants

[[Page 52522]]

may also occur in areas where fire changes the structure of the native
vegetation. A site visit to St. John to evaluate the threats to the
species' known natural populations found no substantial evidence
indicating fires posed an imminent threat to the species (Monsegur,
pers. obs.). The site on St. John that is most vulnerable to fires is
Johns Folly, due to its proximity to a road and the accumulation of
debris associated with a former house (Monsegur, pers. obs.). In
addition, following Hurricanes Irma and Maria, the habitat at the Nanny
Point population has been encroached by exotic grasses, making this
population vulnerable to a fire event (Monsegur, pers. obs.).
Insect Pests and Pathogens
Although known marron bacora populations are relatively protected,
the small size of populations coupled with the effects of insect pests
or pathogens could contribute to local extirpation. For example,
although the Reef Bay Valley population consisted of 6 wild individuals
and 60 introduced individuals in 2011, the population was considered
extirpated by 2017 most likely due to a low survival rate for the
introduced marron bacora. However, an unknown pathogen was documented
in that population (Stanford et al. 2013, p. 178), which also may have
contributed to its loss. More recently, in 2018, 63.2 percent of the
marron bacora individuals at Nanny Point showed some sort of stem
dieback; however, it is not clear if this is due to some pest or
disease (IC Report 2018, p. 5). Nonetheless, recent observations
indicate that dieback is clustered mainly to the eastern corner of the
Nanny Point population and associated to edge vegetation (vines and
shrub land vegetation exposed to salt spray).
In addition, the assessment by Service staff in 2017 recorded the
presence of the Jacaranda bug (Insignorthezia insignis) at the Nanny
Point population, and the scale insects Praelongorthezia praelonga
(Douglas) and Insignorthezia insignis on plants at the gardens of the
NPS facilities (USFWS 2017a, p. 14). The Jacaranda bug is a sap-feeding
insect in the Orthezidae family. The scale insect (Praelongorthezia
praelonga) can also damage plants directly by sucking their sap, or
indirectly by injecting toxic salivary secretions that may attract
ants, transmit pathogens, and encourage growth of sooty molds (Ramos et
al. 2018, p. 273). Our conclusions on the effects of these insects and
pathogens on marron bacora are based on the available information about
their effects on other species of plants that occur on St. John (e.g.,
Ramos et al. 2018, p. 273), and on our observations in the field during
marron bacora assessments (Monsegur and Yrigoyen 2018, pers. comm.). No
studies have been carried out to ascertain the extent of potential
impacts by these pests specifically on marron bacora.
Phenology and Breeding System
The hermaphroditic and dioecious biology of marron bacora was
confirmed by lack of pollination in crossings of pollen to the stigma
of other male flowers or transferred to the stigma of the same flower
(Anderson et al. 2015, p. 479). A 1:1 sex ratio and a much longer time
for marron bacora female plants to flower for the first time (from the
seedling stage) compared with the males has been documented (Anderson
et al. 2015, p. 475). At this point, the natural disperser of marron
bacora remains unknown, and fruit predation is suspected as the
explanation of lack of natural recruitment in the wild (76 FR 9722,
February 22, 2011, p. 76 FR 9725). It is possible that natural fruit
dispersers of marron bacora have targeted other food sources as the
populations of this shrub became increasingly patchy, as a result of
historical land-use changes and introduction of exotic plant species.
The absence of a fruit disperser may also indicate that the disperser
of the species is extinct or that the populations are too small to
attract the disperser (Roman 2006, p. 82). The above information
highlights the vulnerability of extirpation of relatively small
populations of marron bacora as they may become functionally extinct
and cannot support recovery or rescue of neighboring populations,
limiting their value for redundancy and species resiliency.
Recreation
Some evidence of damage consistent with trail maintenance was
recorded along Brown Bay trail, and additional habitat disturbance was
observed at the John Folly site (park boundary) (USFWS 2011, p. 9724).
Also, site disturbance (vegetation clearing) was recorded in 2017 at
the John Folly population, where, for example, one seedling in the
middle of the trail was susceptible to being trampled by hikers (USFWS
2017a, p. 9). However, considering the remoteness of the marron bacora
habitat and given that the majority of the populations are within NPS
land, recreational uses have a low likelihood of affecting the survival
of the species.
Climate Change and Hurricanes
Hurricanes and tropical storms frequently affect the islands of the
Caribbean; thus, native plants should be adapted to such disturbance.
In fact, successional responses to hurricanes can influence the
structure and composition of plant communities in the Caribbean islands
(Van Bloem et al. 2005, p. 576). However, climate change is predicted
to increase tropical storm frequency and intensity, but also cause
severe droughts (Hopkinson et al. 2008, p. 255). Climate model
simulations indicate an increase in global tropical cyclone intensity
in a warmer world, as well as an increase in the number of very intense
tropical cyclones, consistent with current scientific understanding of
the physics of the climate system (USGCRP 2018, p. 2). The
vulnerability of species to climate change is a function of sensitivity
to changes and exposure to those changes, and the adaptive capacity of
the species (Glick et al. 2011, p. 1). Within natural conditions, it is
likely that marron bacora is well-adapted to these atmospheric events.
However, the cumulative effects of severe tropical storms and
associated increased sediment runoff (erosion), along with the species'
small population size and reduced natural recruitment, may jeopardize
the future establishment of seedlings along drainage areas usually
associated with suitable habitat for marron bacora (Ray and Stanford
2005, p. 2). There is evidence of direct impacts to the Nanny Point
population due to a flash flood event associated with Hurricane Irma
that hit St. John on September 6, 2017 (USFWS 2017b, p. 3).
Additive climate change stressors projected for the future include:
(a) Increased number and intensity of strong storms, (b) increased
temperatures, and (c) shifts in the timing and amounts of seasonal
precipitation patterns. Despite projected increased storm intensity and
frequency related to future hurricane seasons, recent works on climate
change models for tropical islands predict that, for example, by the
mid-21st century, Puerto Rico will be subject to a decrease in overall
rainfall, along with increase annual drought intensity (Khalyani et al.
2016). Thus, due to the proximity of Puerto Rico to St. John, and that
these islands belong to the same biogeographical unit (Puerto Rican
Bank), these model predictions could also extend to the USVI (including
St. John). Given the low number of known populations and individuals,
and the lack of natural recruitment of marron bacora, the species may
not have the genetic breath to adapt to these predicted conditions. In
addition, there is little knowledge of marron bacora's

[[Page 52523]]

life history (e.g., fruit/seed dispersers and germination requirements
in the wild); the species has a restricted known range (e.g., mainly
St. John); and its habitat is degraded due to free-ranging populations
of feral animals (e.g., deer and goats), which precludes recruitment of
new individuals. Moreover, in 2017, the island of St. John was affected
by two catastrophic hurricanes (Irma and Maria), resulting in direct
adverse impacts to individuals of marron bacora and its habitat. Marron
bacora habitat remains encroached by weedy plants that persist more
than 2 years after these atmospheric events and continue to affect the
species.
Habitat Loss/Degradation
By 1717, the forested landscape of St. John was parceled into more
than 100 estates for agriculture (i.e., sugarcane and cotton) and the
majority of this landscape was deforested. Under this land-use regime,
marron bacora populations were decimated, as the species had no
economic importance or use. The current fragmented distribution of
marron bacora is most likely the result of that historical land
clearing for agriculture and subsequent development that has occurred
since the 1700s. Even though these land-use changes occurred centuries
ago, there are long-lasting effects that continue to affect the
condition of the habitat; the effects on the species are exacerbated by
the species' reproductive biology, the absence of seed dispersal,
suspected fruit predation, and further habitat modification by feral
ungulates.
At present, the Friis Bay (St. John, USVI) and Sabbath Hill
(Tortola, BVI) populations are located on private lands vulnerable to
habitat modification due to urban development. In addition, the Nanny
Point and Johns Folly populations are situated within VINP lands just
at the park boundary, and there is potential for urban and tourism
development in the future, resulting in possible direct impacts to the
species and interrelated effects (lack of habitat connectivity and
cross pollination, and further habitat encroachment by exotic plant
species). While the land that harbors the Nanny Point population is
located on VINP, the adjacent private land could be at risk of
development which may directly affect the species' most resilient
population.
Synergistic interactions are possible between the effects of
climate change and other potential threats such as nonnative species,
pests, and development. The extent of impacts to the species due to
synergistic threats is not well understood, as there is uncertainty in
how nonnative species (plants and animals) may respond to climate
variables such as increased drought and changes in hurricane frequency
and intensity. We expect the synergistic effects of the current and
future threats acting on the species will exacerbate the decline in the
species' viability by continued declines in reproductive success.
Projecting the extent of synergistic effects of climate change on
marron bacora is too speculative due to the complexity and uncertainty
of the species' response to the combination of dynamic factors that
influence its viability.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the species. Our assessment of the
current and future conditions encompasses and incorporates the threats
individually and cumulatively. Our current and future condition
assessment is iterative because it accumulates and evaluates the
effects of all the factors that may be influencing the species,
including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework
considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they
collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment
integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a
standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Conservation Measures
Efforts to conserve the species have included a captive propagation
and planting program. Marron bacora has successfully been propagated by
a St. John horticulturist with cuttings and manually assisting
pollination by dusting the flowers (Kojis and Boulon 1996, pers comm.).
Marron bacora specimens were then distributed to various places with
suitable habitat in the Virgin Islands (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 3).
An implementation plan was developed to conduct shade-house propagation
of marron bacora using both seedlings and cuttings for reintroduction
within VINP (Ray and Stanford 2003, p. 3). A Nanny Point landowner
funded and implemented a propagation program of marron bacora through
germination and cloning of adult individuals to enhance natural
populations of the species at Nanny Point, Brown Bay Trail, and Johns
Folly (Ray and Carper 2009, p. 6). While the species has been
successfully propagated, the reintroductions have yielded unsuccessful
results with a very low survival rate for propagated and reintroduced
plants, and even lower for relocated adult plants.
The NPS has its own regulatory mechanisms to protect the species
within VINP on St. John. The NPS is responsible under the Organic Act
(54 U.S.C. 100101(a) et seq.; NPS 2006) for managing the national parks
to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife.
The National Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-391; NPS
2006), Title II, ``National Park System Resource Inventory and
Management,'' mandates research in order to enhance management and
protection of national park resources by providing clear authority and
direction for the conduct of scientific study in the National Park
System and to use the information gathered for management purposes.
This law affects not only the NPS, but other Federal agencies,
universities, and other entities that conduct research in the National
Park system. Currently, the NPS has implemented its resource management
responsibilities through its management policies, section 4.4.1, which
state that NPS ``will maintain as parts of the natural ecosystems of
parks all plants and animals native to park ecosystems'' (NPS 2006, p.
42). The Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands currently considers
marron bacora to be endangered under the Virgin Islands Indigenous and
Endangered Species Act (V.I. Code, title 12, chapter 2), and an
existing regulation provides for protection of endangered and
threatened wildlife and plants by prohibiting the take, injury, or
possession of indigenous plants.
In 2017, funding was provided to Island Conservation through the
Service's Coastal Program to: (1) Propagate at least 100 marron bacora
individuals to enhance the largest known population at Nanny Point, (2)
introduce propagated materials to the Nanny Point population, (3)
assess the extent of impacts of invasive mammal species to marron
bacora and its habitat, (4) assess the extent of impacts by invasive
mammal species to additional sites identified for marron bacora
introduction, and (5) provide management recommendations for invasive
mammals in order to significantly advance the recovery of marron bacora
(IC Report 2018, p. 1). This project has been temporarily delayed in
order to allow archaeological surveys to be completed prior to any
outplanting.

[[Page 52524]]

Current Conditions

To determine the current condition of the species, we evaluated the
resiliency, redundancy, and representation of populations across the
landscape considering past and current stressors acting on the species
and its habitat. The description of the species' current condition is
described in more detail in the species status assessment (SSA) report
(Service 2019, pp. 22-30).
Resiliency
In order to determine population resiliency, we generated
resiliency scores for marron bacora by combining scores using habitat
and population metrics. The best available information for each
population was gathered from the literature and species experts. Each
of the four metrics were weighted equally, with the overall effect that
habitat (i.e., protected vs. unprotected lands [development risk],
feral ungulates, and pest depredation) was weighted three times higher
than population size/trend (Service 2018, pp. 58-59) (see Table 1,
below). The scores for each population across all metrics were summed,
and final population resilience categories were assigned (see Table 2,
below).

Table 1--Description of How Habitat and Population Factors Were Scored To Determine Marron Bacora Resilience
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat metrics Population metric
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Score Habitat protection/ Pest presence/ Population size/
development risk Feral ungulates depredation trend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-1....................... Habitat not High number of High number of pests Relatively low
protected, at risk exotic mammals. present. population size
of being developed. and/or declining
trend.
0........................ Some habitat Unknown or moderate Moderate number of Relatively moderate
protected, and some number of exotic pests present. population size
at risk of being mammals. and stable trend,
developed. or high degree of
uncertainty in
population size/
trends.
1........................ Habitat protected... Exotic mammals Pests absent........ Relatively high
absent. population size
and/or growth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--Resiliency Scores for Marron Bacora Using Habitat and
Demographic Metrics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resiliency scores
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Resilience............................. -4 to -2.
Moderately Low Resilience.................. -1.
Moderate Resilience........................ 0.
Moderately High Resilience................. 1.
High Resilience............................ 2 to 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The species is found on two islands with 11 known populations, of
which 3 have become extirpated. The resiliency of the extant
populations vary according to the abundance of individuals and habitat
conditions at each location. The remaining eight extant populations
vary between a single individual to 201 plants, and the habitat
conditions vary according to the site location. The most recent
abundance estimates of each population is described in the current
condition and provided in Table 3, below.

Nanny Point (St. John, USVI)

The largest known population is on St. John at Nanny Point; in
2017, this population consisted of 75 mature adult individuals, 4
natural seedlings, and 44 planted individuals from past population
enhancement efforts (USFWS 2017b, pers. obs.). During the 2017 survey,
most plants were observed in flower, with some already producing fruit;
however, despite this evidence of reproduction, only three seedlings
were observed. The low number of seedlings, despite the relatively high
fruit production, is consistent with the information already available
to the Service indicating that this population continues to show low
recruitment (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 18; USFWS 2011, p. 9726; USFWS
2017a, p. 7). Hurricane Maria resulted in flash floods that caused a
loss of canopy (USFWS 2017b, p.3). Following Hurricane Maria,
individual plants were covered with tree branches or sediment and
several individuals were uprooted or lying on the ground (USFWS 2017b,
p. 6-8). A 2018 assessment found 201 individual plants with an increase
in natural seedlings and juveniles, suggesting the hurricane created
favorable conditions for seedling establishment. A follow-up survey in
2019 found invasive grasses and vines were covering much of the area
that was exposed from the canopy loss from the hurricanes.
This population is also affected by herbivory from invasive mammals
and the Jacaranda beetle. The Nanny Point population has low resilience
because the site is partially within VINP but also overlaps with
unprotected, private lands; the population has a high presence of feral
ungulates, high insect predation, and has a declining population size.

Friis Bay (St. John, USVI)

With the discovery of a new population in the British Virgin
Islands, this is now the third largest natural population of marron
bacora, with an estimated 33 individuals (Ray and Stanford 2005, p.
16). The site has not been visited since 2005; thus, no current
information is available on the status of this population. Based on our
data and knowledge, it is our assumption that this population is also
impacted by ungulates as they are free-roaming throughout the entire
island of St. John. In addition, by being located on private land, the
population is vulnerable to impacts from habitat modification as
residents may not have knowledge of the species.

Johns Folly (St. John, USVI)

This site is located upslope in a ravine about 700 m (2,296.6 ft)
northwest of the Nanny Point population. A 2017 population assessment
identified only 4 natural individuals and 1 natural seedling, and 13
plants corresponding to planted material from a previous population
enhancement with material from the Nanny Point population (USFWS 2017a,
p. 7). Despite the evidence of flowering events, natural recruitment
appears to be minimal, as only one natural seedling was observed. The
distribution of the natural individuals is similar to Nanny Point with
the majority of the plants at the bottom of the drainage. This site is
located along the Park boundaries and the populations appear to be
affected by human disturbance such as vegetation clearing for a hiking
trail that begins nearby and former evidence of dumping (USFWS 2017a,
p. 9).
In 2018, a post hurricane assessment of the population found 18
adult

[[Page 52525]]

individuals with no seedlings or juveniles reported. All individuals
documented in this population were mature plants; none of the plants
presented flowers or fruit. All individuals in this population were
described as standing (none lying) with three of the individuals (16.7
percent) exhibiting some form of dieback and 11 plants (61.1 percent)
exhibiting a combination of impacts by herbivorous insects and browsing
by potential invasive mammals (IC Report 2018, p. 7). The Johns Folly
population has low resilience due to habitat loss and fragmentation by
development, low density of pollinators, high presence of feral
ungulates, and a declining population.

Brown Bay Trail (St. John, USVI)

The Brown Bay Trail site is located along the Brown's Bay hiking
trail within the VINP, an area of mature secondary dry forest located
on the northeastern shore of St. John. The site is located on a slope
approximately 60 m (196.85 ft) from shore and the populations is
composed of a remnant natural individual and planted individuals that
were part of a 2009 population enhancement using material propagated
from the Nanny Point population. The wild individual occurs on the edge
of an NPS-maintained hiking trail and showed signs of direct impacts
from trail maintenance activity (i.e., clearing of vegetation) (Palumbo
et al. 2016, pp. 6-7).
In 2018, a post-hurricane assessment reported that the population
was composed of 18 individuals--17 adults and 1 juvenile. The
population here was described as an aged structure, with 94.4 percent
of the individuals being classified as adults with no signs of flowers
or fruit on any plants in this population. This population showed
evidence of dieback on their leaves, impacts by herbivorous insects,
and browsing by potential invasive mammals, and all of the plants at
this location were described as suffering from severe dry conditions
(IC Report 2018, p. 8). The Brown Bay Trail population has low
resilience due to high presence of feral ungulates, high insect
predation, and a declining population trend.

Reef Bay Trail (St. John, USVI)

The Reef Bay Trail locality is a new population located during a
2017 population assessment (USFWS 2017a, p. 11). The site lies within
VINP along the NPS hiking trail from Europa Bay to Reef Bay. A
population assessment in 2017 discovered 7 wild individuals, 85 percent
in flower and some individuals producing fruits. Additional habitat
surveys may be required for a more thorough assessment of this area. No
post hurricane assessments were carried out for this population. The
Reef Bay Trail population has moderately low resilience due to high
presence of feral ungulates that are causing an overall decline across
all populations (Roberts 2017, entire).

Base Hill (St. John, USVI)

The population at Base Hill consists of 1 natural individual (Ray
and Stanford 2005, p. 16). There have been no subsequent visits to this
population since 2005; thus, no further data on the status of this
individual are known. The current condition of this population is
unknown.

Brown Bay Ridge (St. John, USVI)

In 2017, one wild individual was discovered on top of a ridge
approximately 0.25 miles from the Brown Bay Trail population (Cecilia
Rogers 2017, pers. comm.). Additional habitat surveys may be required
for a more thorough assessment of this area, and no post hurricane
assessments were carried out in this area. The Brown Bay Ridge
population has moderately low resilience because, while there is a high
presence of feral ungulates in the area, the area harbors suitable
habitat and in addition, the single documented wild individual was a
juvenile plant suggesting possible evidence of recruitment.

Sabbat Point (St. John, USVI)

This population was reported as a single natural individual in 2005
(Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16; 76 FR 9722, February 22, 2011, p. 76 FR
9724). The individual was never relocated in a subsequent site visit,
and the site showed evidence of disturbance based on the abundance of
Leucaena leucocephala, Opuntia repens, and Bromelia pinguin (USFWS
2017a, p. 4). This population is considered extirpated.

Reef Bay Valley (St. John, USVI)

This locality is on the southern coast of St. John, along the shore
near White Cliffs. In 2005, 6 wild and 60 introduced individuals were
reported at the Reef Bay site (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16). Further
assessments of this area were unsuccessful in detecting any marron
bacora (USFWS 2017a, p. 11). Thus, the best available information
indicates this population is extirpated, and no individuals are known
in its proximity.

Europa Ridge (St. John, USVI)

The Europa Ridge population was a single individual when documented
in the early 1990s (Acevedo-Rodriguez, P. 1996, p. 415). In 2005, the
site was composed of 1 natural individual and 60 planted individuals
(population enhancement) (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 16). However, based
on the latest habitat assessments by the Service, this population is
likely extirpated (USFWS 2017a, p. 11).

Sabbath Hill (Tortola, BVI)

In 2018, surveys on Tortola identified a plant morphologically
consistent with marron bacora, near Sabbath Hill. On a follow-up trip
to confirm marron bacora in the area, a population of approximately 46
to 48 individuals was identified with most plants described as small
and only about 7 as large. Three of the large plants were described as
fertile, with one having flowers with no fruit, another having flowers
and immature fruit, and the last having fruit but no flowers. The
habitat was described as having open vegetation compared with the
surrounding forest and containing a lot of nonnative annuals and Acacia
riparia encroaching. Feral animal droppings and grazing of marron
bacora were noted in the area (Heller et al. 2018, entire). The Sabbath
Hill population has low resilience due to a high presence of feral
ungulates and the location of the population not being associated with
any protected lands. The population was only recently found; therefore,
the population trends are unknown. However, due to the threats acting
on this population, without management of free-ranging ungulates, the
habitat will likely decline.

Table 3--Marron Bacora Most Recent Population Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population location Population estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. John, USVI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nanny Point............................ 201 (2018).
Friis Bay.............................. 33 (2005).
Johns Folly............................ 18 (2018).
Brown Bay Trail........................ 18 (2018).
Reef Bay Trail......................... 7 (2017).
Base Hill.............................. 1 (2005).
Brown Bay Ridge........................ 1 (2017).
Sabbat Point........................... Extirpated.
Reef Bay Valley........................ Extirpated.
Europa Ridge........................... Extirpated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tortola, BVI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabbath Hill........................... 46 (2018).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is little evidence of natural recruitment in any of the known

[[Page 52526]]

populations of marron bacora. The population structure at Nanny Point
and Johns Folly is characterized by the absence of individuals smaller
than 1 meter high, with little evidence of seedlings or juveniles
(three for Nanny Point and one for Johns Folly) (USFWS 2017a, p. 7).
These populations consist primarily of reproductive individuals, as 92
percent and 75 percent of the plants, respectively, were recorded in
flower during a recent survey (USFWS 2017a, p. 7). The Johns Folly
population was composed of 4 natural adult individuals (reproductive
size individuals naturally occurring at this site) or 36 percent of the
total (11 plants) (USFWS 2017a, p. 9). The lack of natural recruitment
does not seem to be attributed to low seed viability as germination
under greenhouse conditions is high, with almost 100 percent
germination (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 6).
Efforts have been conducted to enhance existing natural populations
by planting seedlings, including planting of 128 seedlings (different
seed sources) at two localities in the south coast of St. John (Europa
Ridge and Reef Bay Valley) (Stanford et al. 2013, p. 178). Overall
survival of these seedlings over a 32-month period was approximately
81.3 percent in Europa Ridge, and 78.1 percent in Reef Bay Valley, and
irrespective of seed source, survival rate was not significantly
different between the two sites (Stanford et al. 2013, p. 177).
However, growth rates for these sites were recorded as highly erratic,
and plant material was affected by drought stress and insect herbivory
(Stanford et al. 2013, p. 178). Further monitoring of these sites by
NPS staff has not located living material of marron bacora, either
natural or planted, and these populations are presumed extirpated
(McKinley 2017, pers. comm.). In fact, the species was not detected in
these areas in 2017 (USFWS 2017a, p. 11). Additional population
enhancements from seedling and cuttings have been conducted at Nanny
Point (50), Johns Folly (37), and Brown Bay (36) (76 FR 9722, February
22, 2011, p. 76 FR 9724). The current number of surviving individuals
for these sites is 44 (88 percent), 13 (35 percent), and 10 (27
percent), respectively (USFWS 2017a, p. 13).
All eight extant populations are declining and have moderately low
to low resiliency; many populations are on the brink of extirpation.
The entire species consists of 324 known individuals, with 201 of those
plants located within a single population (Nanny Point).
Redundancy and Representation
The species is showing very low to no natural recruitment across
all populations. Only three populations have more than 18 individuals,
two populations have 18 individuals, and the three remaining
populations have fewer than 7 individuals. Most of the populations are
small and isolated with little to no connectivity. Marron bacora
currently shows overall low numbers of individuals, low numbers of
populations, and low numbers of individuals at each population site.
The overall resiliency, redundancy, and representation of this species
are low.

Future Conditions

As part of the SSA, we also developed multiple future condition
scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future
threats and the projected responses by marron bacora. Our scenarios
included a status quo scenario, which incorporated the current risk
factors continuing on the same trajectory that they are on now. We also
evaluated two additional future scenarios, one that that considered
increasing levels of risk factors resulting in elevated negative
effects on marron bacora populations. The other scenario considered
improved environmental and habitat conditions through conservation
actions including land management and invasive plant and animal
management. We determined that the current condition of marron bacora
and the projections for all scenarios are consistent with an endangered
species (see Determination of Species Status, below); we are not
presenting the results of the future scenarios in this proposed rule.
Please refer to the SSA report (Service 2019) for the full analysis of
future conditions and descriptions of the associated scenarios.

Determination of Status for Marron Bacora

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because
of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
We have determined that the major threats acting on marron bacora
are the habitat destruction or modification by nonnative mammal species
(e.g., white-tailed deer, goats, pigs, and donkeys) (Factor A);
herbivory by nonnative, feral ungulates (Factor C); the lack of natural
recruitment (Factor E); absence of dispersers (Factor E); fragmented
distribution and small population size (Factor E); lack of genetic
diversity (Factor E); effects of climate change (Factor E); and exotic,
invasive plants (e.g., guinea grass) (Factor E).

Status Throughout All of Its Range

After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
found that the lack of recruitment will cause a continued decline in
the species' viability through loss of representation, redundancy, and
resiliency.
Marron bacora is adapted for life in the dry forests of St. John,
USVI, and Tortola, BVI. These islands have endured landscape changes
over time and will continue to be affected by human visitation and
development. The largest extant population on St. John is within the
VINP boundaries and is protected from future development; however,
neighboring areas are vulnerable to development as the human population
increases. Depredation from ungulates is largely responsible for the
low levels of seedling recruitment that have caused the lack of natural
recruitment. The species is also affected by insect pests along with
habitat degradation by nonnative plants and animals.
There are currently 11 known historical and current populations.
Three of these populations are considered extirpated, two are
represented by only a single individual (possibly functionally
extirpated), and five are represented by very low numbers of
individuals. Only the single population at Nanny Point has more than
100 individuals, and between 2010 and 2017, this population declined by
over half. Seedlings were discovered at this site, likely assisted by
release/reproduction due to opening of canopy/moist soil conditions
from the

[[Page 52527]]

hurricanes, but those seedlings were being affected by ungulate
herbivory that was reducing survival. Despite having the greatest
number of individuals, Nanny Point, alone, is in danger of extirpation
due to little or no reproductive output, the continued presence of
nonnative mammals, and habitat degradation from recent hurricanes and
invasive plant species. Additionally, it has seen an almost 50 percent
reduction in the number of individuals over the last 10 years. Across
the entire range, the lack of evidence of reproduction/recruitment is
resulting in the continued decline of all populations. Reintroductions
to date have resulted in limited survival (28 percent) and have not
yielded any increase in reproductive success (either have not achieved
reproductive status, or have not successfully reproduced). Resiliency
for all extant populations is low as is redundancy and representation.
There is very little evidence of natural recruitment, with recent
seedling evidence from only two populations. Due to the lack of
recruitment across all populations, the species is at risk of becoming
functionally extinct.
The threats acting on the species are likely to continue at the
existing rate or increase without management of the marron bacora and
the identified threats, such as nonnative, invasive species. The
species is a narrow endemic and has suffered extirpation of populations
across its limited range; most remaining populations have only a single
or few individuals. The species has lost redundancy, and remaining
populations have low resiliency. The impacts from herbivory by
nonnative species have impaired the viability of marron bacora to the
point of imminent decline across the species' entire range. Despite
efforts to propagate the species and re-establish it in the wild,
plants are not reproducing offspring sufficiently to support resilient
populations. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we
conclude that marron bacora is in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We have determined that marron bacora is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range, and accordingly, did not
undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because
we have determined that marron bacora warrants listing as endangered
throughout all of its range, our determination is consistent with the
decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289
(D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the court vacated the aspect of the
2014 Significant Portion of its Range Policy that provided the Services
do not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species'
range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of
its range.

Determination of Status

Our review of the best scientific and commercial data information
indicates that marron bacora meets the definition of an endangered
species because the species is currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range due to the low resiliency, redundancy, and
representation of the species; threats acting on the species across its
range; and the lack of recruitment to support resilient populations.
Therefore, we propose to list the marron bacora as an endangered
species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their
recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing
recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal
and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders)
are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the
recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will
be available on our website (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from
our Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the Territory of the U.S. Virgin
Islands would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the marron bacora.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.

[[Page 52528]]

Although marron bacora is only proposed for listing under the Act
at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating
in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to
submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by NPS (Virgin Islands
National Park).
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.61, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to import or export; remove and reduce to possession
from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy on
any such area; remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on any other
area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of a State or in the
course of an violation of a State criminal trespass law; deliver,
receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce,
by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce an endangered
plant. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management
agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permit issuance are codified at 50 CFR 17.62. With regard to
endangered plants, a permit may be issued for scientific purposes or
for enhancing the propagation or survival of the species. There are
also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are
found in sections 6(g)(2) and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing.
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they
are not authorized in accordance with applicable law (this list is not
comprehensive):
Modifying the habitat of the species on Federal lands
without authorization (e.g., unauthorized opening of trails within NPS
lands);
Removing, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying
of the species on any non-Federal lands in knowing violation of any law
or regulation of the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands or in the
course of any violation of the Territory of U.S. Virgin Islands'
criminal trespass law.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Caribbean
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Critical Habitat

Background

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Designation also does not allow the government
or public to access private lands, nor does designation require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon

[[Page 52529]]

the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas,
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the
life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, 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.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition,
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species, the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions in section 9 of the Act. Federally
funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings
in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue
to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
the Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation
would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
There is currently no imminent threat of collection or vandalism
identified under Factor B for this species, and identification and
mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such
threat. In our SSA report for the marron bacora and this document, we
determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range is a threat to marron bacora and that
threat in some ways can be addressed by section 7(a)(2) consultation
measures. The species occurs under the jurisdiction of the United
States and the United Kingdom. We are able to identify areas under U.S.
jurisdiction that meet the definition of critical habitat.

[[Page 52530]]

Therefore, because none of the circumstances enumerated in our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) has been met and because there are
no other circumstances we are aware of for which this designation of
critical habitat would be not prudent, we have determined that the
designation of critical habitat is prudent for marron bacora.

Critical Habitat Determinability

Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act, we must find whether critical habitat for marron
bacora is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the
following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.'' When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows
the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat
designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where these species is
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is determinable for marron bacora.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of a species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkali soil
for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or susceptibility
to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-successional habitat
characteristics. Biological features might include prey species, forage
grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting,
symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species consistent
with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a
characteristic essential to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality,
quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat
characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition,
and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not
limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding,
reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats
that are protected from disturbance.
The specific physical or biological features required for marron
bacora were derived from available observations and current information
on the species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below.
To identify the physical and biological needs of the species, we have
relied on current conditions at locations where marron bacora occurs.
In addition, available literature on the species' genetics,
reproductive biology, and habitat modeling were used (Stanford et al.
2013; Anderson et al. 2015; Palumbo et al. 2016).
Marron bacora is a shrub endemic to the islands of St. John (USVI)
and Tortola (BVI), and its distribution is restricted to the
subtropical dry forest life zone (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 72). The
vegetation in this life zone usually consists of a nearly continuous,
single-layered canopy, with little groundcover. Tree heights usually do
not exceed 49 ft (15 m) and crowns are typically broad, spreading, and
flattened (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 72). It is estimated that more
than 80 percent of the overall land surface of St. John is covered by
subtropical dry forest (Stanford et al. 2013, p. 173).
The climate within the subtropical dry forest life zone (sensu
Holdridge 1967) where marron bacora occurs is seasonal with most of the
runoff between September and October, and mean annual rainfall ranging
from 24 to 40 inches (600 to 1,110 millimeters) (Lugo et al. 1978, p.
278). Moisture availability as a function of shallow soils plus low
rainfall and its seasonality determine the forest productivity, growth
characteristics, water loss, and physiognomy in subtropical dry forest
life zones where temperature tends to be constant throughout the year
(Lugo et al. 1978, p. 278). The most recently discovered populations of
marron bacora occur on dry and poor soils (Ray and Stanford 2005, p.
6). Historically, the species was locally abundant in exposed
topography on sites disturbed by erosion (depositional zones at the toe
of the slopes), areas that have received moderate grazing, and around
ridgelines as an understory component in diverse woodland communities
(Carper and Ray 2008, p. 1).
The specific microhabitat requirements of marron bacora remain
unknown, but like other species within the genus Solanum, marron bacora
may be adapted to poor soils and some sort of natural disturbance
(e.g., hurricanes). The habitat has been fragmented and degraded due to
the historic land-use changes.
Based on the hermaphroditic and dioecious biology of marron bacora,
the species requires cross-pollination. Recent surveys by the Service
(May 2017) recorded carpenter bees (Xylocopa mordax) and honey bees
(Apis mellifera) visiting the flowers of marron bacora at Nanny Point
(USFWS 2017, p. 7). Nanny Point is the largest known population and
harbors the majority of the species' genetic diversity. It is the only
population showing some evidence of natural recruitment (Stanford et
al. 2013, p. 178). Further habitat modification and fragmentation at
Nanny Point may adversely affect the genetic exchange (cross-
pollination) with other natural populations (e.g., Johns Folly), and
may further reduce suitable habitat needed for seedling recruitment,
thus compromising the species' viability.
We cannot attribute the lack of natural recruitment to low seed
viability, as germination under nursery conditions is almost 100
percent (Ray and Stanford 2005, p. 6). Fruit and seedling predation

[[Page 52531]]

by feral ungulates (e.g., deer and goats) may be largely responsible
for the low levels of seedlings recruitment and the predominant old
population structure of the species. In addition, despite the ability
of marron bacora to colonize disturbed areas, any seedling or juvenile
may be outcompeted by exotic, invasive plant species such Guinea grass
(Megathyrsus maximus) and tan-tan (Leucaena leucocephala) (IC 2018, p.
3). Therefore, in order to secure viable populations of marron bacora,
the species needs extended forested habitat dominated by native plants
that provides for connectivity between populations to promote cross-
pollination and gene flow, and the habitat conditions for long-term
recruitment in the absence of invasive plants and feral ungulates.
As indicated above, marron bacora is a shrub endemic to the dry
forest of St. John (USVI) and Tortola (BVI). At approximately 53 square
kilometers (20.5 square miles) in area, the island of St. John has the
greatest amount of forest cover (91.6 percent) and mature secondary
forest (20 percent) in relation to land area compared to the adjacent
islands (USVI). NPS, under its Organic Act, is responsible for managing
the National Parks to conserve their scenery, natural and historic
objects, and wildlife. In addition, the National Parks Omnibus
Management Act of 1998 requires NPS to inventory and monitor its
natural resources. NPS has implemented its resource management
responsibilities through its management policies, section 4.4.1, which
state that NPS ``will maintain as parts of the natural ecosystems of
parks all plants and animals native to park ecosystems'' (NPS 2006, p.
42).

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the marron bacora from studies of the species'
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. Additional
information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2018, entire;
available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0050. We have determined that the following physical or biological
features are essential to the conservation of marron bacora:
(i) Native forest within the subtropical dry forest life zone in
St. John.
(ii) Dry scrubland, deciduous forest, and semi-deciduous forest
vegetation at elevations lower than 150 meters (492 feet).
(iii) Continuous native forest cover with low abundance of exotic
plant species (e.g., Leucaena leucocephala and Megathyrsus maximus),
and that provides the availability of pollinators to secure cross-
pollination between populations.
(iv) Habitat quality evidenced by the presence of regional endemic
plant species, including Zanthoxyllum thomasianum, Peperomia wheeleri,
Eugenia earhartii, Eugenia sessiliflora, Cordia rickseckeri, Croton
fishlockii, Malpighia woodburyana, Bastardiopsis eggersii, Machaonia
woodburyana, and Agave missionum.
(v) Open understory with appropriate microhabitat conditions,
including shaded conditions and moisture availability, to support seed
germination and seedling recruitment.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. All the proposed units are occupied habitat by the species
at the time of proposed listing (i.e., are currently occupied) and have
mixed ownership of predominantly Federal lands (97 percent) and private
lands (3 percent) (see Table 4, below).
The features essential to the conservation of marron bacora may
require special management considerations or protection to ameliorate
the following stressors: Habitat modification and fragmentation
(development); erosion (from storm water runoff); feral ungulates
(predation); and invasive, exotic plants (habitat intrusion). Special
management considerations or protection may be required within critical
habitat areas to ameliorate these stressors, and include, but are not
limited to: (1) Protect and restore native forests to provide
connectivity between known populations and secure availability of
pollinators and dispersers; (2) reduce density of feral ungulates; (3)
remove and control invasive plants; and (4) avoid physical alterations
of habitat to secure microhabitat conditions.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat. The proposed critical habitat
designation includes all currently occupied areas within the historical
range that have retained the necessary physical or biological features
that will allow for the maintenance and expansion of these existing
populations. The occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation of
the species.
For areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the
time of listing (i.e., areas that are currently occupied), we
delineated critical habitat unit boundaries as described below. The
primary sources of data used to define marron bacora proposed critical
habitat include a habitat suitability model (by selecting areas
identified as containing moderate and high quality habitat for the
species) developed by Palumbo et al. (2016), and validated by recent
habitat assessments throughout the species' range. The habitat
suitability model included elevation, slope, soil association, and
vegetation types and identified approximately 694.94 hectares (ha)
(1,717.23 acres (ac)) of high-quality habitat, 1,274.94 ha (3150.45 ac)
of moderate-quality habitat, 1,568.53 ha (3,875.92 ac) of low-quality
habitat, 1,343.16 ha (3,319.16 ac) of poor-quality habitat, and 186.88
ha (461.79 ac) of unsuitable habitat (Palumbo et al. 2016, p. 5) on St.
John. When adding all hectares of high- and moderate-quality habitat,
approximately 32 percent of the land area of VINP may be suitable
habitat for marron bacora (Palumbo et al. 2016, p. 5). However, the
latest discovered population of marron bacora on St. John at Reef Bay
Trail (USFWS 2017, p. 11) occurs at elevations higher than what was
provided by the model results, thus, the amount of suitable habitat for
marron bacora at St. John may include areas higher in elevation
indicating more suitable habitat than previously reported (Palumbo et
el. 2016, p. 5). Therefore, to delineate the critical habitat unit
boundaries the areas originally identified as moderate and high quality
for the species identified by Palumbo et el. (2016, p. 5) were slightly
expanded to include further habitat at higher elevations consistent
with the

[[Page 52532]]

recently discovered populations (Reef Bay Trail).
We analyzed recent satellite images to identify areas dominated by
native forest vegetation associated to known localities for the species
within St. John. Finally, we adjusted the elevation to 150 m (492 ft),
as the latest discovered population of marron bacora was at an
elevation higher than the records available to Palumbo et al. (2016).
We further cropped the units using the contour of the coastline,
excluding wetland areas (e.g., ponds) and developed areas. Critical
habitat units were then mapped using ArcGIS Desktop version 10.6.1, a
geographic information system (GIS) program. We identified two units,
North and South, falling within these parameters.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features necessary for marron bacora. The scale
of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical
habitat.
We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently
occupied), that contain one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the
species, and that may require special management considerations or
protections. The two units, South and North, each contain all of the
identified physical or biological features and support multiple life-
history processes for marron bacora.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include
more detailed information on the boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0050, or on our internet site, https://www.fws.gov/southeast/caribbean.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

We are proposing two units as critical habitat for marron bacora.
The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat
for marron bacora. The two units we propose as critical habitat are:
(1) South and (2) North. Table 4 shows the proposed critical habitat
units, the land ownership, and the approximate area of each unit. Both
units are occupied at the time of listing.

Table 4--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Marron Bacora With Ownership, Area, and Occupied Status
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land ownership by Size of unit in acres
Critical habitat unit type (hectares) * Occupied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. South.......................... Federal (NPS) Private 1,635 ac (664 ha)......... Yes.
71 ac (29 ha).............
Unit total: 1,706 ac (690
ha).
2. North.......................... Federal (NPS)........ 844 ac (343 ha)........... Yes.
----------------------------
Total......................... ..................... 2,549 ac (1,033 ha)....... .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum exactly due to rounding.

We present brief descriptions of both units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for marron bacora, below.

Unit 1: South

Unit 1 consists of a total of 1,706 ac (690 ha). Approximately
1,635 ac (664 ha) are managed by NPS within the Virgin Islands National
Park (VINP), and approximately 71 ac (29 ha) are in private ownership
adjacent to the east corner of VINP. This unit is within the
geographical area occupied by marron bacora at the time of the proposed
listing. This unit harbors the largest population and core of known
individuals of marron bacora in St. John, USVI. It contains all of the
identified physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of marron bacora.
Ongoing and potential threats or activities that occur in this unit
are urban and tourist development, trampling and predation by feral
ungulates, and forest management actions (e.g., conservation/
restoration, recreation, trail maintenance, roads, control of feral
mammals, and fire management control). Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include minimizing or avoiding habitat modification or
fragmentation from urban and recreational development, protecting and
restoring native forests to provide connectivity between known
populations and to secure availability of pollinators and dispersers,
reducing the density of feral ungulates, and removing and controlling
invasive plants.

Unit 2: North

Unit 2 consists of a total of 844 ac (343 ha) of federally owned
land managed by NPS within the VINP. This unit is within the
geographical area occupied by marron bacora at the time of proposed
listing and harbors the habitat structure that supports marron bacora's
viability. This unit contains all of the identified physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of marron bacora.
Ongoing and potential threats or activities that occur in this unit
are roaming feral mammals and forest management actions (e.g.,
conservation/restoration, recreation, trails, roads, control of feral
mammals, and fire management control). Special management
considerations or protection measures to reduce or alleviate the
threats may include

[[Page 52533]]

protecting and restoring native forests to provide connectivity between
known populations and to secure availability of pollinators and
dispersers, reducing density of feral ungulates, removing and
controlling invasive plants, and avoiding physical modification of
habitat to secure microhabitat conditions.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final regulation with a revised definition of
destruction or adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976).
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as
a whole for the conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2), is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and,
subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species
or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal
action, or the action has been modified in a manner that affects the
species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous
consultation. In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need
to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations
also specify some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation on specific land management plans after subsequently
listing a new species or designating new critical habitat. See the
regulations for a description of those exceptions.

Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard

The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above,
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate 7(a)(2)
of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, or that
may be affected by such designation.
Activities that the Services may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter the structure of the
native forest. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
habitat fragmentation and development (e.g., from recreational
facilities and activities like trails, hiking, bicycling, using all-
terrain vehicles (ATVs); herbicide and pesticide use on private lands;
and urban and tourist developments). In addition, habitat modification
may promote habitat encroachment by invasive plant species, thus
promoting favorable conditions for human-induced fires. These
activities could degrade the habitat necessary for marron bacora
populations to expand.
(2) Actions that would increase habitat modification. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, predation and erosion
cause by feral animals, and risk of human-induced fires. These
activities could significantly reduce the species' recruitment and
could exacerbate the vulnerability of the species to stochastic events
(e.g., hurricanes).

Exemptions

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

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any
lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the Department
of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are subject to

[[Page 52534]]

an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. There are no
DoD lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed critical habitat
designation.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that
the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and
how much weight to give to any factor.
The first sentence in section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we
take into consideration the economic, national security, or other
relevant impacts of designating any particular area as critical
habitat. We describe below the process that we undertook for taking
into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the
relevant impacts.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and
local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of
all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act
(i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless
of whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical
habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts associated
specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species.
The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not
be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the
species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable
solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the
baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits
of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final
designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct a
discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for marron bacora (IEc 2019). We began by conducting a
screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in
order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to
result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening
analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the critical
habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable incremental
economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers
baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes
probable economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to
conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices,
or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal
listing status of the species. The screening analysis filters out
particular areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such
protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic
impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our
analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur
probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation.
The screening analysis also assesses whether units are unoccupied by
the species and may require additional management or conservation
efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation for the species
that may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis
combined with the information contained in our IEM are what we consider
our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat
designation for the marron bacora; our DEA is summarized in the
narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities.
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely to
be affected if we adopt the critical habitat designation as proposed.
In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that may
result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the marron
bacora, first we identified, in the IEM dated September 16, 2019
(Service 2019, entire), probable incremental economic impacts
associated with the following categories of activities: (1) Federal
lands management from recreational activities (e.g., hiking, bicycles,
ATVs), trails, grazing, and erosion and fire management control; (2)
transportation (road construction and maintenance); (3) feral mammal
control; and (4) tourism or residential developments. We considered
each industry or category individually.
Additionally, we considered whether these activities have any
Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will not
affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under the
Act, designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or

[[Page 52535]]

authorized by Federal agencies. If we list the species, in areas where
marron bacora is present, Federal agencies would be required to consult
with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund,
permit, or implement that may affect the species. If, when we list the
species, we also finalize this proposed critical habitat designation,
consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat would be incorporated into that existing consultation
process.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that will result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for marron
bacora's critical habitat. Because the designation of critical habitat
for marron bacora is proposed concurrently with the listing, it has
been our experience that it is more difficult to discern which
conservation efforts are attributable to the species being listed and
those which will result solely from the designation of critical
habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this case
help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or biological
features identified for critical habitat are the same features
essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions
that would result in sufficient harm to constitute jeopardy to marron
bacora would also likely adversely affect the essential physical or
biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale
concerning this limited distinction between baseline conservation
efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat
for this species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been
used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts
of this proposed designation of critical habitat. The following
describes the information provided in the DEA:
Section 7 Costs
The economic costs of implementing the rule associated with section
7 of the Act would most likely be limited to additional administrative
effort to consider adverse modification during consultations. This
finding is based on the following factors:
(1) For the purposes of consultation, the Service considers both
proposed critical habitat units to be occupied by the species. Thus,
incremental consultations resulting solely from the designation of
critical habitat are unlikely.
(2) Project modifications likely to be recommended by the Service
to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat are anticipated to be
the same as those needed to avoid jeopardizing the species.
Based on a review of available information, no more than two
technical assistance projects and no more than one informal
consultation are likely to occur in a given year. The additional
administrative cost of addressing adverse modification in these
projects is not expected to exceed $3,300 in a given year.
Other Costs
The designation of critical habitat is not expected to trigger
additional requirements under territorial or local regulations. We are
unable to quantify the degree to which the public's perception of
possible restrictions on the use of public land could reduce the value
of private property. We recognize that a number of factors may already
result in perception-related effects, including the presence of marron
bacora and other federally listed species, which may temper any
additional perception-related effects of critical habitat designation.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our
required determinations. During the development of the final
designation, we will consider the information presented in the DEA and
any information on economic impacts we receive during the public
comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. We
may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or
address information we receive during the public comment period. In
particular, in the final designation, we may exclude an area from
critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the
area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the
exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.

Consideration of National Security Impacts

In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for marron bacora
are not owned, managed, or used by the Department of Defense or the
Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no
impact on national security. However, during the development of a final
designation, we will consider any additional information we receive
through the public comment period on the impacts of the proposed
designation on national security or homeland security to determine
whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final critical
habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts

We have not considered any areas for exclusion from critical
habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas
will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the
final designation, including information obtained during the comment
period and information about the economic impact of designation.
Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the
proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review
and comment (see ADDRESSES).

Exclusions

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security discussed above. We consider a number of factors including
whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in
the area such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs), or candidate
conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs), or whether there are
non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at the existence of tribal conservation plans and
partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of
the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for marron bacora, and the
proposed designation does not include any tribal lands or trust
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or
HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. Additionally, as
described above, we are not proposing to exclude any particular areas
on the basis of impacts to national security or economic impacts.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any
additional information we receive through the public comment period
regarding other relevant impacts to

[[Page 52536]]

determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has waived their review regarding their significance
determination of this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in the light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. There
is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Executive Order 13771

We do not believe this proposed rule is an E.O. 13771 (``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'') (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017) regulatory action because we believe this rule is not significant
under E.O. 12866; however, the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has waived their review regarding their E.O. 12866 significance
determination of this proposed rule.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that the
designation of this proposed critical habitat will significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use due to the absence of any energy
supply or distribution lines in the proposed

[[Page 52537]]

critical habitat designation. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because the lands proposed for
critical habitat designation are primarily Federal lands (97 percent),
with a small amount of private land (3 percent). Small governments
would be affected only to the extent that any programs involving
Federal funds, permits, or other authorized activities must ensure that
their actions would not adversely affect the designated critical
habitat. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for marron bacora in a takings implications assessment. The Act
does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on private
lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat
designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land
ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or
access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward.
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the
proposed designation of critical habitat for marron bacora, and it
concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical habitat does
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected
by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local
governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the

[[Page 52538]]

Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
species, this proposed rule identifies the elements of physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The
proposed areas of designated critical habitat are presented on maps,
and the proposed rule provides several options for the interested
public to obtain more detailed location information, if desired.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

References Cited

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the
Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by adding an entry for ``Solanum conocarpum
''in alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants to read as set forth below:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *
Solanum conocarpum............. Marron bacora..... Wherever found.... E [Federal Register
citation when
published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.96(a).\CH\

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec. 17.96(a) by:
0
a. Adding Family Solanaceae in alphabetical order to the list of
families; and
0
b. Adding an entry for ``Solanum conocarpum'' in alphabetical order
under Family Solanaceae.
The additions read as set forth below.

Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.

(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Solanaceae: Solanum conocarpum (marron bacora)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for St. John, U.S. Virgin
Islands, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of marron bacora consist of the following
components:
(i) Native forest within the subtropical dry forest life zone in
St. John.
(ii) Dry scrubland, deciduous forest, and semi-deciduous forest
vegetation at elevations lower than 150 meters (492 feet).
(iii) Continuous native forest cover with low abundance of exotic
plant species (e.g., Leucaena leucocephala and Megathyrsus maximus),
and that provides the availability of pollinators to secure cross-
pollination between populations.
(iv) Habitat quality evidenced by the presence of regional endemic
plant species, including Zanthoxyllum thomasianum, Peperomia wheeleri,
Eugenia earhartii, Eugenia sessiliflora, Cordia rickseckeri, Croton
fishlockii, Malpighia woodburyana, Bastardiopsis eggersii, Machaonia
woodburyana, and Agave missionum.
(v) Open understory with appropriate microhabitat conditions,
including shaded conditions and moisture availability, to support seed
germination and seedling recruitment.
(3) Critical habitat does not include human-made structures (such
as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using ArcMap version 10.6.1 (Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc.), a Geographic Information Systems program on a base of
USA Topo Map and the program world imagery. Critical habitat units were
then mapped using NAD 1983, State Plane Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands
FIPS 5200 coordinates. The maps in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which
each map is based are available to the public at the Service's internet
site, https://www.fws.gov/southeast/caribbean, or http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0050, and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one

[[Page 52539]]

of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at
50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU20.010

(6) Unit 1: South Unit, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands.
(i) General description: Unit 1 consists of 1,706 acres (690
hectares) in estates Rustenberg & Adventure, Sieben, Mollendal & Little
Reef Bay, Hope, Reef Bay, Lameshur Complex, Mandal, Concordia A,
Concordia B, St. Quaco & Zimmerman, Hard Labor, Johns Folly and Friis.
Lands are composed of 1,635 ac (664 ha) of Federal lands managed by the
U.S. National Park Service and 71 acres (29 hectares) of privately
owned lands.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU20.011

[[Page 52540]]

(7) Unit 2: North Unit, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands.
(i) General description: Unit 2 consists of 844 acres (343
hectares) in estates Leinster Bay, Browns Bay, Zootenvaal, Hermitage,
Mt. Pleasant and Retreat, Haulover, and Turner Point. The unit is
composed entirely of Federal lands managed by the U.S. National Park
Service.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU20.012

* * * * *

Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-17091 Filed 8-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P