Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 236 (Friday, December 7, 2012)

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 236 (Friday, December 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73220-73262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29350]

[[Page 73219]]

Vol. 77

Friday,

No. 236

December 7, 2012

Part III

Department of Commerce

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

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

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Listing
Determinations for 82 Reef-Building Coral Species; Proposed
Reclassification of Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis From
Threatened to Endangered; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 236 / Friday, December 7, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 73220]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 0911231415-2625-02]
RIN 0648-XT12

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed comprehensive status reviews under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 82 reef-building coral species in
response to a petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity
(CBD) to list the species as either threatened or endangered. We have
determined, based on the best scientific and commercial data available
and efforts being made to protect the species, that 12 of the
petitioned coral species warrant listing as endangered (five Caribbean
and seven Indo-Pacific), 54 coral species warrant listing as threatened
(two Caribbean and 52 Indo-Pacific), and 16 coral species (all Indo-
Pacific) do not warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the
ESA. Additionally, we have determined, based on the best scientific and
commercial information available and efforts undertaken to protect the
species, two Caribbean coral species currently listed warrant
reclassification from threatened to endangered. We are announcing that
18 public hearings will be held during the public comment period to
provide additional opportunities and formats to receive public input.
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for public hearing dates, times, and
locations.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by March 7, 2013. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for public hearing dates, times, and
locations.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2010-0036, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. To
submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the ``submit a
comment'' icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2010-0036 in the keyword search.
Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' icon on the right of that line.
Mail: Submit written comments to Regulatory Branch Chief,
Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Pacific Islands Regional Office, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110,
Honolulu, HI 96814; or Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional
Office, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: 82
coral species proposed listing.
Fax: 808-973-2941; Attn: Protected Resources Regulatory
Branch Chief; or 727-824-5309; Attn: Protected Resources Assistant
Regional Administrator.
Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods
to ensure that we receive, document, and consider them. Comments sent
by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received
after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All
comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be
posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All
personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) you submit
will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. We will
accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you
wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be
accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file
formats only.
You can obtain the petition and reference materials regarding this
determination via the NMFS Pacific Island Regional Office Web site:
http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/PRD_coral.html; NMFS Southeast Regional
Office Web site: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/82CoralSpecies.htm;
NMFS HQ Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html; or by submitting a request to the Regulatory Branch
Chief, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Pacific Islands Regional Office, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110,
Honolulu, HI 96814, Attn: 82 coral species. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for public hearing dates, times, and locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsey Young, NMFS, Pacific Islands
Regional Office, 808-944-2137; Lance Smith, NMFS, Pacific Island
Regional Office, 808-944-2258; Jennifer Moore, NMFS, Southeast Regional
Office, 727-824-5312; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, 301-427-8469.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 20, 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
petitioned us to list 83 reef-building coral species as either
threatened or endangered under the ESA and to designate critical
habitat. The 83 species included in the petition are: Acanthastrea
brevis, Acanthastrea hemprichii, Acanthastrea ishigakiensis,
Acanthastrea regularis, Acropora aculeus, Acropora acuminata, Acropora
aspera, Acropora dendrum, Acropora donei, Acropora globiceps, Acropora
horrida, Acropora jacquelineae, Acropora listeri, Acropora lokani,
Acropora microclados, Acropora palmerae, Acropora paniculata, Acropora
pharaonis, Acropora polystoma, Acropora retusa, Acropora rudis,
Acropora speciosa, Acropora striata, Acropora tenella, Acropora
vaughani, Acropora verweyi, Agaricia lamarcki, Alveopora allingi,
Alveopora fenestrata, Alveopora verrilliana, Anacropora puertogalerae,
Anacropora spinosa, Astreopora cucullata, Barabattoia laddi, Caulastrea
echinulata, Cyphastrea agassizi, Cyphastrea ocellina, Dendrogyra
cylindrus, Dichocoenia stokesii, Euphyllia cristata, Euphyllia
paraancora, Euphyllia paradivisa, Galaxea astreata, Heliopora coerulea,
Isopora crateriformis, Isopora cuneata, Leptoseris incrustans,
Leptoseris yabei, Millepora foveolata, Millepora tuberosa, Montastraea
annularis, Montastraea faveolata, Montastraea franksi, Montipora
angulata, Montipora australiensis, Montipora calcarea, Montipora
caliculata, Montipora dilatata, Montipora flabellata, Montipora
lobulata, Montipora patula, Mycetophyllia ferox, Oculina varicosa,
Pachyseris rugosa, Pavona bipartita, Pavona cactus, Pavona decussata,
Pavona diffluens, Pavona venosa, Pectinia alcicornis, Physogyra
lichtensteini, Pocillopora danae, Pocillopora elegans, Porites
horizontalata, Porites napopora, Porites nigrescens, Porites pukoensis,
Psammocora stellata, Seriatopora aculeata, Turbinaria mesenterina,
Turbinaria peltata, Turbinaria reniformis, and Turbinaria stellulata.
Eight of the petitioned species occur in the Caribbean and 75 of the
petitioned species occur in the Indo-Pacific region.

[[Page 73221]]

Most of the 83 species can be found in the United States, its
territories (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Navassa, Northern
Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Pacific Remote Island Areas), or
its freely associated states (Republic of the Marshall Islands,
Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic of Palau), though many
occur more frequently in other countries.
On February 10, 2010, we published a positive 90-day finding (75 FR
6616; February 10, 2010) in which we described our determination that
the petition contained substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted for
all of the petitioned species except the Caribbean species Oculina
varicosa. Subsequently, we announced the initiation of a formal status
review of the remaining 82 species (hereinafter referred to as
``candidate species'') as required by section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA.
Concurrently, we solicited input from the public on six categories of
information: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of
these species throughout their ranges (U.S. and foreign waters); (2)
historical and current condition of these species and their habitat;
(3) population density and trends; (4) the effects of climate change on
the distribution and condition of these coral species and other
organisms in coral reef ecosystems over the short and long term; (5)
the effects of all other threats including dredging, coastal
development, coastal point source pollution, agricultural and land use
practices, disease, predation, reef fishing, aquarium trade, physical
damage from boats and anchors, marine debris, and aquatic invasive
species on the distribution and abundance of these coral species over
the short and long term; and (6) management programs for conservation
of these species, including mitigation measures related to any of the
threats listed under (5) above.
The ESA requires us to make determinations on whether species are
threatened or endangered ``solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available * * * after conducting a review of the
status of the species * * * '' (16 U.S.C. 1533). Further, consistent
with case law, our implementing regulations specifically direct us not
to take possible economic or other impacts of listing species into
consideration (50 CFR 424.11(b)). In order to conduct a comprehensive
status review for this petition, given the number of species, the
geographic scope and issues surrounding coral biology and extinction
risk, we convened a Coral Biological Review Team (BRT) composed of
seven Federal scientists from NMFS' Pacific Islands, Northwest, and
Southeast Fisheries Science Centers, as well as the U.S. Geological
Survey and National Park Service. The members of the BRT are a diverse
group of scientists with expertise in coral biology, coral ecology,
coral taxonomy, physical oceanography, global climate change, and coral
population dynamics. The BRT's comprehensive, peer-reviewed Status
Review Report (SRR, Brainard et al., 2011) incorporates and summarizes
the best available scientific and commercial information as of August
2011 on the following topics: (1) Long-term trends in abundance
throughout each species' range; (2) potential factors for any decline
of each species throughout its range (human population, ocean warming,
ocean acidification, overharvesting, natural predation, disease,
habitat loss, etc.); (3) historical and current range, distribution,
and habitat use of each species; (4) historical and current estimates
of population size and available habitat; and (5) knowledge of various
life history parameters (size/age at maturity, fecundity, length of
larval stage, larval dispersal dynamics, etc.). The SRR evaluates the
status of each species, identifies threats to the species, and
estimates the risk of extinction for each of the candidate species out
to the year 2100. The BRT also considered the petition, comments we
received as a result of the 90-day Finding (75 FR 6616; February 10,
2010), and the results of the peer review of the draft SRR, and
incorporated relevant information from these sources into the final
SRR. Given the scope of the undertaking to gather and evaluate
biological information for an 82-species status review, the BRT elected
not to evaluate adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms and
conservation efforts in addressing threats to the 82 coral species.
Thus, we developed a supplementary, peer-reviewed Draft Management
Report (NMFS, 2012a) to identify information relevant to factor
4(a)(1)(D), inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and
protective efforts that may provide protection to the corals pursuant
to ESA section 4(b). We combined the information from the SRR and the
Draft Management Report to develop and apply the listing Determination
Tool (discussed below).
On April 17, 2012, we published a Federal Register notice
announcing the availability of the SRR and the Draft Management Report.
The response to the petition to list 83 coral species is one of the
broadest and most complex listing reviews we have ever undertaken.
Given the petition's scale and the precedential nature of the issues,
we determined that our decision-making process would be strengthened if
we took additional time to allow the public, non-federal experts, non-
governmental organizations, state and territorial governments, and
academics to review and provide information related to the SRR and the
Draft Management Report prior to issuing our 12-month finding. We
specifically requested information on the following: (1) Relevant
scientific information collected or produced since the completion of
the SRR or any relevant scientific information not included in the SRR;
and (2) Relevant management information not included in the Draft
Management Report, such as descriptions of regulatory mechanisms for
greenhouse gas emissions globally, and for local threats in the 83
foreign countries and the U.S. (Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, U.S.
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands),
where the 82 coral species collectively occur. Further, in June 2012,
we held listening sessions and scientific workshops in the Southeast
region and Pacific Islands region to engage the scientific community
and the public in person. During this public engagement period, which
ended on July 31, 2012, we received over 42,000 letters and emails.
Also, we were provided or we identified approximately 400 relevant
scientific articles, reports, or presentations either produced since
the SRR was finalized or not originally included in the SRR. We
compiled and synthesized all relevant information that we identified or
received into the Supplemental Information Report (SIR; NMFS, 2012b).
Additionally, we incorporated all relevant management and conservation
information into the Final Management Report (NMFS, 2012c).
Therefore, the 82 candidate coral species comprehensive status
review consists of the SRR (Brainard et al., 2011), the SIR (NMFS,
2012b), and the Final Management Report (NMFS, 2012c). The findings on
the petition described in this notice are based on the information
contained within these reports.

Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act

We are responsible for determining whether each of the 82 candidate
corals are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) We first must consider whether each candidate species meets the
definition of a ``species'' in section 3 of the ESA, then whether the
status of each species

[[Page 73222]]

qualifies it for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. As
described above, we convened the BRT which produced the SRR (Brainard
et al., 2011), then a public engagement period was opened which led to
the SIR and Final Management Report (NMFS, 2012b; NMFS, 2012c). We
developed a Determination Tool to consistently interpret and apply the
information in the three reports to the definitions of ``endangered''
and ``threatened'' species in the ESA, in order to produce proposed
listing determinations for each of the 82 species (the Determination
Tool is introduced and described in the Risk Analyses section below).
The BRT participated in the implementation of the Determination Tool,
and concurred that its inputs (demographic, spatial, and threat
vulnerability ratings for each species) are the best available
information. Further, the BRT believes our listing determinations for
the 82 candidate species are consistent with their extinction risk
analyses.
This finding begins with an overview of coral biology, ecology, and
taxonomy in the Introduction to Corals and Coral Reefs section below,
which also discusses whether each candidate species meets the
definition of a ``species'' for purposes of the ESA. Other relevant
background information in this section includes the general
characteristics of the habitats and environments in which the 82
candidate species are found. The finding then summarizes information on
factors adversely affecting and posing extinction risk to corals in
general in the Threats to Coral Species section. The Risk Analyses
section then describes development and application of the Determination
Tool that resulted in proposed listing statuses for the 82 candidate
species.

Introduction to Corals and Coral Reefs

Corals are marine invertebrates in the phylum Cnidaria that occur
as polyps, usually forming colonies of many clonal polyps on a calcium
carbonate skeleton. The Cnidaria include true stony corals (class
Anthozoa, order Scleractinia), the blue coral (class Anthozoa, order
Helioporacea), and fire corals (class Hydrozoa, order Milleporina).
Members of these three orders are represented among the 82 candidate
coral species (79 Scleractinia, one Helioporacea, and two Milleporina).
All 82 candidate species are reef-building corals, because they secrete
massive calcium carbonate skeletons that form the physical structure of
coral reefs. Reef-building coral species collectively produce coral
reefs over time in high-growth conditions, but these species also occur
in non-reef habitats (i.e., they are reef-building, but not reef-
dependent). There are approximately 800 species of reef-building corals
in the world.
Most reef-building coral species are in the order Scleractinia,
consisting of over 25 families, 100 genera, and the great majority of
the approximately 800 species. Most Scleractinian corals form complex
colonies made up of a tissue layer of polyps (a column with mouth and
tentacles on the upper side) growing on top of a calcium carbonate
skeleton, which the polyps produce through the process of
calcification. Scleractinian corals are characterized by polyps with
multiples of six tentacles around the mouth for feeding and capturing
prey items in the water column. In contrast, the blue coral, Heliopora
coerulea, is characterized by polyps always having eight tentacles,
rather than the multiples of six that characterize stony corals. The
blue coral is the only species in the suborder Octocorallia (the
``octocorals'') that forms a skeleton, and as such is the primary
octocoral reef-building species. Finally, Millepora fire corals are
also reef-building species, but unlike the scleractinians and
octocorals, they have near microscopic polyps containing tentacles with
stinging cells.
Reef-building coral species are capable of rapid calcification
rates because of their symbiotic relationship with single-celled
dinoflagellate algae, zooxanthellae, which occur in great numbers
within the host coral tissues. Zooxanthellae photosynthesize during the
daytime, producing an abundant source of energy for the host coral that
enables rapid growth. At night, polyps extend their tentacles to
filter-feed on microscopic particles in the water column such as
zooplankton, providing additional nutrients for the host coral. In this
way, reef-building corals obtain nutrients autotrophically (i.e., via
photosynthesis) during the day, and heterotrophically (i.e., via
predation) at night. In contrast, non-reef-building coral species do
not contain zooxanthellae in their tissues, and thus are not capable of
rapid calcification. Unlike reef-building corals, these
``azooxanthellate'' species are not dependent on light for
photosynthesis, and thus are able to occur in low-light habitats such
as caves and deep water. We provide additional information in the
following sections on the biology and ecology of reef-building corals
and coral reefs.

Taxonomic Uncertainty in Reef-Building Corals

In addressing the species question, the BRT had to address issues
related to the considerable taxonomic uncertainty in corals (e.g.,
reliance on morphological features rather than genetic and genomic
science to delineate species) and corals' evolutionary history of
reticulate processes (i.e., individual lineages showing repeated cycles
of divergence and convergence via hybridization). To address taxonomic
uncertainty, except as described below where there was genetic
information available, the BRT accepted the nominal species designation
as listed in the petition, acknowledging that future research may
result in taxonomic reclassification of some of the candidate species.
Additionally, to address complex reticulate processes in corals, the
BRT attempted to distinguish between a ``good species'' that has a
hybrid history--meaning it may display genetic signatures of
interbreeding and back-crossing in its evolutionary history--and a
``hybrid species'' that is composed entirely of hybrid individuals (as
in the case of Acropora prolifera, discussed in the status review of
acroporid corals in the Caribbean; Acropora Biological Review Team,
2005). The best available information indicates that, while several of
the candidate species have hybrid histories, there is no evidence to
suggest any of them are ``hybrid species'' (all individuals of a
species being F1 hybrids); thus, they were all considered to meet the
definition of a ``species''.
Studies elucidating complex taxonomic histories were available for
several of the genera addressed in the status review, and the BRT was
able to incorporate those into their species determinations. Thus,
while the BRT made species determinations for most of the 82 candidate
coral species on the nominal species included in the petition, it
deliberated on the proper taxonomic classification for the candidate
species Montipora dilatata and M. flabellata; Montipora patula; and
Porites pukoensis based on genetic studies; and Pocillopora elegans
because the two geographically-distant populations have different modes
of reproduction. The BRT decided to subsume a nominal species (morpho-
species) into a larger clade whenever genetic studies failed to
distinguish between them (e.g., Montipora dilatata, M. flabellata and
M. turgescens (not petitioned) and Porites Clade 1 forma pukoensis).
Alternatively, in the case of Pocillopora elegans, the BRT identified
likely differentiation within the nominal species. So, for the purposes
of this status review, the BRT chose to separate P. elegans into two
geographic subgroups, considered each subgroup as

[[Page 73223]]

a species as defined by the ESA, and estimated extinction risk
separately for each of the two subgroups (eastern Pacific and the Indo-
Pacific). The combining of nominal species (i.e., Montipora spp. and
Porites spp.) and the separation of geographically isolated populations
of another species (P. elegans) resulted in 82 candidate species being
evaluated for ESA listing status; however, these are not the same 82
``species'' included in the petition in that: Montipora dilatata and M.
flabellata were combined into one species; and P. elegans was separated
into two. The combining of the petitioned species Montipora patula with
the non-petitioned species P. verrilli did not affect the number of
candidate species. We did not receive any additional information
suggesting alteration to the BRT's species delineation nor indicating
any of the other 82 candidates should be separated or combined. We have
made listing determinations on the 82 candidate species identified by
the BRT in the SRR. Finally, a coral is a marine invertebrate, and as
such, we cannot subdivide it into DPSs (16 U.S.C. 1532(15)).

Reproductive Life History of Reef-Building Corals

Corals use a number of diverse reproductive strategies that have
been researched extensively; however, many individual species'
reproductive modes remain poorly described. Most coral species use both
sexual and asexual propagation. Sexual reproduction in corals is
primarily through gametogenesis (i.e., development of eggs and sperm
within the polyps near the base). Some coral species have separate
sexes (gonochoric), while others are hermaphroditic. Strategies for
fertilization are either by ``brooding'' or ``broadcast spawning''
(i.e., internal or external fertilization, respectively). Brooding is
relatively more common in the Caribbean, where nearly 50 percent of the
species are brooders, compared to less than 20 percent of species in
the Indo-Pacific. Asexual reproduction in coral species most commonly
involves fragmentation, where colony pieces or fragments are dislodged
from larger colonies to establish new colonies, although the budding of
new polyps within a colony can also be considered asexual reproduction.
In many species of branching corals, fragmentation is a common and
sometimes dominant means of propagation.
Depending on the mode of fertilization, coral larvae (called
planulae) undergo development either mostly within the mother colony
(brooders) or outside of the mother colony, adrift in the ocean
(broadcast spawners). In either mode of larval development, planula
larvae presumably experience considerable mortality (up to 90 percent
or more) from predation or other factors prior to settlement and
metamorphosis. (Such mortality cannot be directly observed, but is
inferred from the large amount of eggs and sperm spawned versus the
much smaller number of recruits observed later.) Coral larvae are
relatively poor swimmers; therefore, their dispersal distances largely
depend on the duration of the pelagic phase and the speed and direction
of water currents transporting the larvae. The documented maximum
larval life span is 244 days (Montastraea magnistellata), suggesting
that the potential for long-term dispersal of coral larvae, at least
for some species, may be substantially greater than previously thought
and may partially explain the large geographic ranges of many species.
The spatial and temporal patterns of coral recruitment have been
studied extensively. Biological and physical factors that have been
shown to affect spatial and temporal patterns of coral recruitment
include substratum availability and community structure, grazing
pressure, fecundity, mode and timing of reproduction, behavior of
larvae, hurricane disturbance, physical oceanography, the structure of
established coral assemblages, and chemical cues. Additionally, factors
other than dispersal may influence recruitment and several other
factors may influence reproductive success and reproductive isolation,
including external cues, genetic precision, and conspecific signaling.
In general, on proper stimulation, coral larvae, whether brooded by
parental colonies or developed in the water column, settle and
metamorphose on appropriate substrates. Some evidence indicates that
chemical cues from crustose coralline algae, microbial films, and/or
other reef organisms or acoustic cues from reef environments stimulate
settlement behaviors. Initial calcification ensues with the forming of
the basal plate. Buds formed on the initial corallite develop into
daughter corallites. Once larvae are able to settle onto appropriate
hard substrate, metabolic energy is diverted to colony growth and
maintenance. Because newly settled corals barely protrude above the
substrate, juveniles need to reach a certain size to limit damage or
mortality from threats such as grazing, sediment burial, and algal
overgrowth. Once recruits reach about 1 to 2 years post-settlement,
growth and mortality rates appear similar across species. In some
species, it appears that there is virtually no limit to colony size
beyond structural integrity of the colony skeleton, as polyps
apparently can bud indefinitely.

Distribution and Abundance of Reef-Building Corals

Corals need hard substrate on which to settle and form; however,
only a narrow range of suitable environmental conditions allows the
growth of corals and other reef calcifiers to exceed loss from
physical, chemical, and biological erosion. While corals do live in a
fairly wide temperature range across geographic locations, accomplished
via either adaptation (genetic changes) or acclimatization
(physiological or phenotypic changes), reef-building corals do not
thrive outside of an area characterized by a fairly narrow mean
temperature range (typically 25 [deg]C-30 [deg]C). Two other important
factors influencing suitability of habitat are light and water quality.
Reef-building corals require light for photosynthetic performance of
their zooxanthellae, and poor water quality can negatively affect both
coral growth and recruitment. Deep distribution of corals is generally
limited by availability of light. Hydrodynamic condition (e.g., high
wave action) is another important habitat feature, as it influences the
growth, mortality, and reproductive rate of each species adapted to a
specific hydrodynamic zone.
The 82 candidate coral species are distributed throughout the
wider-Caribbean (i.e., the tropical and sub-tropical waters of the
Caribbean Sea, western Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico; herein
referred to collectively as ``Caribbean''), the Indo-Pacific
biogeographic region (i.e., the tropical and sub-tropical waters of the
Indian Ocean, the western and central Pacific Ocean, and the seas
connecting the two in the general area of Indonesia), and the tropical
and sub-tropical waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean. The 82 candidate
species occur in 84 countries. Seven of the 82 candidate species occur
in the Caribbean (Agaricia lamarcki, Dendrogyra cylindrus, Dichocoenia
stokesii, Montastraea annularis, Montastraea franksi, Montastraea
faveola and Mycetophyllia ferox) in the United States (Florida, Puerto
Rico, U.S. Virgin islands (U.S.V.I.), Navassa), Antigua and Barbuda,
Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica,
Dominican Republic, France (includes Guadeloupe, Martinique, St.
Barthelemy, and St. Martin), Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, the Netherlands
(includes Aruba, Bonaire,

[[Page 73224]]

Cura[ccedil]ao, Saba, St. Eustatius, and Saint Maarten), Honduras,
Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St.
Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom
(includes British territories of Anguilla, British Virgin Islands,
Cayman Islands, Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos Islands), and
Venezuela. The remaining 75 species occur across the Indo-Pacific
region in the United States (Hawaii, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, Territories of Guam and American Samoa, and the U.S.
Pacific Island Remote Area), Australia (includes Australian colonies of
Cocos-Keeling Islands, Christmas Island, and Norfolk Island), Bahrain,
Brunei, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros Islands, Costa Rica,
Djibouti, Ecuador, El Salvador, Egypt, Eritrea, Federated States of
Micronesia, Fiji, France (includes French territories of New Caledonia,
French Polynesia, Mayotte, Reunion, and Wallis and Futuna), Guatemala,
Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya,
Kiribati, Kuwait, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands,
Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, New Zealand (includes
New Zealand colonies of Cook Islands and Tokelau), Nicaragua, Niue,
Oman, Palau, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar,
Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia,
South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-
Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom
(includes British colonies of Pitcairn Islands and British Indian Ocean
Territory), Vanuatu, Vietnam, and Yemen.
Determining abundance of the 82 candidate coral species presented a
unique challenge because corals are clonal, colonial invertebrates, and
colony growth occurs by the addition of new polyps. Colonies can
exhibit partial mortality in which a subset of the polyps in a colony
dies, but the colony persists. Colonial species present a special
challenge in determining the appropriate unit to evaluate for status
(i.e., abundance). In addition, new coral colonies, particularly in
branching species, can be added to a population by fragmentation
(breakage from an existing colony of a branch that reattaches to the
substrate and grows) as well as by sexual reproduction (see above, and
Fig. 2.2.1 in SRR). Fragmentation results in multiple, genetically
identical colonies (ramets) while sexual reproduction results in the
creation of new genetically distinct individuals (genotypes or genets).
Thus, in corals, the term ``individual'' can be interpreted as the
polyp, the colony, or the genet.
Quantitative abundance estimates were available for only a few of
the candidate species. In the Indo-Pacific, many reports and long-term
monitoring programs describe coral percent cover only to genus level
because of the substantial diversity within many genera and
difficulties in field identification among congeneric species. In the
Caribbean, most of the candidate species are either too rare to
document meaningful trends in abundance from literature reports (e.g.,
Dendrogyra cylindrus), or commonly identified only to genus
(Mycetophyllia and Agaricia spp.), or potentially misidentified as
another species. The only comprehensive abundance data in the Caribbean
were for the three Montastraea species, partially because they
historically made up a predominant part of live coral cover. Even for
these species, the time series data are often of very short duration
(they were not separated as sibling species until the early 1990s and
many surveys continue to report them as Montastraea annularis complex)
and cover a very limited portion of the species range (e.g., the time
series only monitors a sub-section of a single national park). In
general, the available quantitative abundance data were so limited or
compromised due to factors such as small survey sample sizes, lack of
species-specific data, etc., that they were considerably less
informative for evaluating the risk to species than other data, and
were therefore generally not included as part of the BRT individual
species extinction risk evaluations. Thus, qualitative abundance
characterizations (e.g., rare, common), available for all species, were
considered in the BRT's individual species extinction risk evaluations.

Coral Reefs, Other Coral Habitats, and Overview of Candidate Coral
Environments

A coral reef is a complex three-dimensional structure providing
habitat, food, and shelter for numerous marine species and, as such,
fostering exceptionally high biodiversity. Scleractinian corals produce
the physical structure of coral reefs, and thus are foundational
species for these generally productive ecosystems. It has been
estimated that coral reef ecosystems harbor around one-third of all
marine species even though they make up only 0.2 percent in area of the
marine environment. Coral reefs serve the following essential
functional roles: Primary production and recycling of nutrients in
relatively nutrient poor (oligotrophic) seas, calcium carbonate
deposition yielding reef construction, sand production, modification of
near-field or local water circulation patterns, and habitat for
secondary production, including fisheries. These functional roles yield
important ecosystem services in addition to direct economic benefits to
human societies such as traditional and cultural uses, food security,
tourism, and potential biomedical compounds. Coral reefs protect
shorelines, coastal ecosystems, and coastal inhabitants from high seas,
severe storm surge, and tsunamis.
As described above in Distribution and Abundance, reef-building
corals have specific habitat requirements, including hard substrate,
narrow mean temperature range, adequate light, and adequate water flow.
These habitat requirements most commonly occur on shallow tropical and
subtropical coral reefs, but also occur in non-reefal and mesophotic
areas (NMFS 2012b, SIR Section 4.3). While some reef-building corals do
not require hard substrates, all of the 82 candidate species in this
status review do require hard substrates. Thus, in this finding, ``non-
reefal habitat'' refers to hard substrates where reef-building corals
can grow, including marginal habitat where conditions prevent reef
development (e.g., turbid or high-latitude or upwelling-influenced
areas) and recently available habitat (e.g., lava flows). The term
``mesophotic habitat'' refers to hard substrates between approximately
30 m and 100 m of depth. The total area of non-reefal and mesophotic
habitats is greater than the total area of shallow coral reefs within
the ranges of the 82 species, as described in more detail below (NMFS,
2012b, SIR Section 4.3).
The Caribbean and Indo-Pacific basins contrast greatly both in size
and in condition. The Caribbean basin is geographically small and
partially enclosed, has high levels of connectivity, and has relatively
high human population densities. The wider-Caribbean occupies five
million square km of water and has 55,383 km of coastline, including
approximately 5,000 islands. Shallow coral reefs occupy approximately
25,000 square km (including [ap]2,000 square km within US waters), or
about 10 percent of the total shallow coral reefs of the world. The
amount of non-reefal and mesophotic habitat that could potentially be
occupied by corals in the Caribbean is unknown, but is likely greater
than the area of shallow coral reefs in the Caribbean (NMFS 2012b, SIR
Section 4.3).

[[Page 73225]]

The Caribbean region has experienced numerous disturbances to coral
reef systems throughout recorded human history. Fishing has affected
Caribbean reefs since before European contact. Beginning in the early
1980s, a series of basin-scale disturbances has led to altered
community states, and a loss of resilience (i.e., inability of corals
and coral communities to recover after a disturbance event). Massive,
Caribbean-wide mortality events from disease conditions of both the
keystone grazing urchin Diadema antillarum and the dominant branching
coral species Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis precipitated
widespread and dramatic changes in reef community structure. None of
the three important keystone species (Acropora palmata, Acropora
cervicornis, and Diadema antillarum) have shown much recovery over
decadal time scales. In addition, continuing coral mortality from
periodic acute events such as hurricanes, disease outbreaks, and
bleaching events from ocean warming have added to the poor state of
Caribbean coral populations and yielded a remnant coral community with
increased dominance by weedy brooding species, decreased overall coral
cover, and increased macroalgal cover. Additionally, iron enrichment in
the Caribbean may predispose the basin to algal growth. Further, coral
growth rates in the Caribbean have been declining over decades.
Caribbean-wide meta-analyses suggest that the current combination
of disturbances, stressful environmental factors such as elevated ocean
temperatures, nutrients and sediment loads, and reduced observed coral
reproduction and recruitment have yielded poor resilience, even to
natural disturbances such as hurricanes. Coral cover (percentage of
reef substrate occupied by live coral) across the region has declined
from approximately 50 percent in the 1970s to approximately 10 percent
in the early 2000s (i.e., lower densities throughout the range, not
range contraction), with concurrent changes between subregions in
overall benthic composition and variation in dominant species. Further,
a recent model suggests coral cover is likely to fall below five
percent in the Southeastern Caribbean by 2100, even with accounting for
potential adaptation by corals to increasing ocean temperatures caused
by any warming scenario (NMFS, 2012b, SIR Section 3.2.2). These wide-
scale changes in coral populations and communities have affected
habitat complexity and may have already reduced overall reef-fish
abundances; the trends are expected to continue. In combination, these
regional factors are considered to contribute to elevated extinction
risk for all Caribbean species.
With the exception of coral reefs in the eastern Pacific, ocean
basin size and diversity of habitats, as well as some vast expanses of
ocean area with only very local, spatially-limited, direct human
influences, have provided substantial buffering of Indo-Pacific corals
from many of the threats and declines manifest across the Caribbean.
The Indo-Pacific is enormous (Indian and Pacific Oceans) and hosts much
greater coral diversity than the Caribbean region (~700 species
compared with 65 species). The Indo-Pacific region encompasses the
tropical and sub-tropical waters of the Indian Ocean, the western and
central Pacific Ocean, and the seas connecting the two in the general
area of Indonesia. This vast region occupies at least 60 million square
km of water (more than ten times larger than the Caribbean), and
includes 50,000 islands and over 40,000 km of continental coastline,
spanning approximately 180 degrees of longitude and 60 degrees of
latitude. There are approximately 240,000 square km of shallow coral
reefs in this vast region, which is more than 90 percent of the total
coral reefs of the world. In addition, the Indo-Pacific includes
abundant non-reefal habitat, as well as vast but scarcely known
mesophotic areas that provide coral habitat. The amount of non-reefal
and mesophotic habitat that could potentially be occupied by corals in
the Indo-Pacific is unknown, but is likely greater than the area of
shallow coral reefs in the Indo-Pacific (NMFS, 2012b; SIR Section 4.3).
While the reef communities in the Caribbean have lost resilience,
the reefs in the central Pacific (e.g., American Samoa, Moorea, Fiji,
Palau, and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands) appear to remain
relatively resilient despite major bleaching events from ocean warming,
hurricanes, and crown-of-thorns seastar (COTS, Acanthaster planci)
predation outbreaks. That is, even though the reefs have experienced
significant impacts, corals have been able to recover. Several factors
likely result in greater resilience in the Indo-Pacific than in the
Caribbean: (1) The Indo-Pacific is more than 10-fold larger than the
Caribbean, including many remote areas; (2) the Indo-Pacific has
approximately 10-fold greater diversity of reef-building coral species
than the Caribbean; (3) broad-scale Caribbean reef degradation likely
began earlier than in the Indo-Pacific; (4) iron enrichment in the
Caribbean may predispose it to algal growth; (5) there is greater coral
cover on mesophotic reefs in the Indo-Pacific than in the Caribbean;
and (6) there is greater resilience to algal phase shifts in the Indo-
Pacific than in the Caribbean.
Even given the relatively higher resilience in the Indo-Pacific as
compared to the Caribbean, meta-analysis of overall coral status
throughout the Indo-Pacific indicates that substantial loss of coral
cover (i.e., lower densities throughout the range, not range
contraction) has already occurred in most subregions. As of 2002-2003,
the Indo-Pacific had an overall average of approximately 20 percent
live coral cover, down from approximately 50 percent, compared to an
overall average of approximately 10 percent live coral cover in the
Caribbean at the same time. This indicates that both basins have
experienced conditions leading to coral mortality and prevention of
full recovery; however, the Caribbean has been more greatly impacted.
While basin-wide averages are useful for large scale comparisons, they
do not describe conditions at finer, regional scales. For example,
decreases in overall live coral cover have occurred since 2002 in some
areas, such as on the Great Barrier Reef, while increases have occurred
in other areas, such as in American Samoa.
In the eastern Pacific (from Mexico in the north to Ecuador in the
south, and from the coast west out to the remote Revillagigedo,
Clipperton, Cocos, Malpelo, and Gal[aacute]pagos Islands), coral reefs
are exposed to a number of conditions that heighten extinction risk.
Compared to the Caribbean, coral reefs in the eastern Pacific have
approximately one third as many genera, less than half the species,
less reef area, and strong regional climate variability. Severe climate
swings typical of the region continue to be a hindrance to reef growth
today, with major losses of coral cover and even entire reefs lost from
Mexico to the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands. Regional climatic variability
not only has killed corals in recent decades, it has resulted in major
loss of reef structure. This regional climatic variability produces
extreme temperature variability (both extreme upwelling and high
temperatures during El Ni[ntilde]o), storm events, and changes in the
abundance, distribution, and behavior of both corallivores and
bioeroders. Eastern Pacific reefs have been among the slowest in the
world to recover after disturbance. Additionally, the naturally low
calcium carbonate saturation state of eastern Pacific waters has made
these reefs among the most fragile and subject to bioerosion in the
world. In conclusion, there have been

[[Page 73226]]

declines in coral cover in all basins. However, thus far, the Indo-
Pacific has been less affected as a whole, due to the differentiating
factors described above. The Caribbean and Eastern Pacific basins
continue to experience more severe adverse conditions than the Indo-
Pacific.

Threats Evaluation

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS's implementing regulations (50
CFR 424) state that the agency must determine whether a species is
endangered or threatened because of any one or a combination of five
factors: (A) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The
BRT evaluated factors A, B, C, and E in the SRR; the ``Inadequacy of
Regulatory Mechanisms'' (factor D) is evaluated separately in this 12-
month Finding and is informed by the Final Management Report. Our
consideration of the five factors was further informed by information
received during the public engagement period and provided in the SIR,
as explained in more detail below. The BRT identified factors acting
directly as stressors to the 82 coral species (e.g., sedimentation and
elevated ocean temperatures) as distinct from the sources responsible
for those factors (e.g., land management practices and climate change)
and qualitatively evaluated the impact each threat has on the candidate
species' extinction risk over the foreseeable future, defined as the
year 2100 as described below.
We established that the appropriate period of time corresponding to
the foreseeable future is a function of the particular type of threats,
the life-history characteristics, and the specific habitat requirements
for coral species under consideration. The timeframe established for
the foreseeable future takes into account the time necessary to provide
for the conservation and recovery of each threatened species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend, but is also a function of the
reliability of available data regarding the identified threats and
extends only as far as the data allow for making reasonable predictions
about the species' response to those threats. As described below, the
more vulnerable a coral species is to the threats with the highest
influence on extinction risk (i.e., ``high importance threats''; ocean
warming, diseases, ocean acidification), the more likely the species is
at risk of extinction. The BRT determined that ocean warming and
related impacts of climate change have already created a clear and
present threat to many corals, that will continue into the future; the
threat posed by the most optimistic scenarios of greenhouse gas
emissions in the 21st century and even the threat posed by unavoidable
warming due to emissions that have already occurred represents a
plausible extinction risk to the 82 candidate coral species. We agree
with the BRT's judgment that the threats related to global climate
change (e.g., bleaching from ocean warming, ocean acidification) pose
the greatest potential extinction risk to corals and have been assessed
with sufficient certainty out to the year 2100. Therefore, we have
determined the foreseeable future for the 82 candidate species to be to
the year 2100.
The BRT qualitatively ranked each threat as high, medium, low, or
negligible (or combinations of two; e.g., ``low-medium'') importance in
terms of their contribution to extinction risk of all coral species
across their ranges. The BRT considered the severity, geographic scope,
the level of certainty that corals in general are affected (given the
paucity of species-level information) by each threat, the projections
of potential changes in the threat, and the impacts of the threat on
each species. The BRT determined that global climate change directly
influences two of the three highest ranked threats, ocean warming and
ocean acidification, and indirectly (through ocean warming) influences
the remaining highest ranked threat, disease.
Overall, the BRT identified 19 threats (see Table 1) as posing
either current or future extinction risk to the 82 corals. Of these,
the BRT considers ocean warming, ocean acidification, and disease to be
overarching and influential in posing extinction risk to each of the 82
candidate coral species. These impacts are or are expected to become
ubiquitous, and pose direct population disturbances (mortality and/or
impaired recruitment) in varying degrees to each of the candidate coral
species. There is also a category of threats (some of which have been
responsible for great coral declines in the past) that the BRT
considers important to coral reef ecosystems, but of medium influence
in posing extinction risk because their effects on coral populations
are largely indirect and/or local to regional in spatial scale. This
category includes fishing, sea level rise, and water quality issues
related to sedimentation and nutrification. The remaining threats can
be locally acute, but because they affect limited geographic areas, are
considered to be of minor overall importance in posing extinction risk.
Examples in this category are predator outbreaks or collection for the
ornamental trade. These types of threats, although minor overall, can
be important in special cases, such as for species with extremely
narrow geographic ranges and/or those species at severely depleted
population levels. Based on the BRT's characterization of the threats
to corals, the most important threats to the extinction risk of reef-
building corals are shown in Table 1 below, and described below. The
description of the remaining ten threats can be found in the SRR and
SIR. While these ten threats did not rank highly in their contribution
to extinction risk, they do adversely affect the species.

[[Page 73227]]

Table 1--All Threats Considered by the BRT in Assessing Extinction Risks
to the 82 Candidate Coral Species. The Table is Ordered by the BRT
Estimate of the Threat's Importance to Extinction Risk for Corals in
General. The Threat is Paired With its Corresponding ESA Section 4
Factor in the Last Column. The Nine Threats Included in the Threats
Evaluation are Shown in bold.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07DE12.015

While we received and collected numerous sources of information
during the public engagement period pertaining to the 19 threats
identified in the SRR, no new threats were identified, and no new
information suggested changes to their relative importance. However,
some of the new information is relevant to characterizing the important
threats, particularly those related to Global Climate Change, and is
included in the sections below.

Global Climate Change--General Overview

Several of the most important threats contributing to the
extinction risk of corals are related to global climate change. Thus,
we provide a general overview of the state of the science related to
climate change before discussing each threat and its specific impacts
on corals. The main concerns regarding impacts of climate change on
coral reefs generally, and on the 82 candidate coral species in
particular, are the magnitude and the rapid pace of change in
greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations (e.g., carbon dioxide) and
atmospheric warming since the Industrial Revolution in the mid-19th
century. These changes are increasing the warming of the global climate
system and altering the carbonate chemistry of the ocean (ocean
acidification), which affects a number of biological processes in
corals including secretion of their skeletons. The atmospheric
concentration of the main GHG, carbon dioxide (CO2), has
steadily increased from ~ 280 parts per million (ppm) at the start of
the Industrial Revolution to over 390 ppm in 2009. Rates of human-
induced emissions of CO2 are also accelerating, rising from
1.5 ppm/yr during 1990-1999 to 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000-2007.
Furthermore, GHG emissions are expected to continue increasing and
atmospheric and ocean warming are likely to accelerate. Moreover,
because GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for exceptionally long
periods of time, even if all anthropogenic sources of GHG emissions
ceased immediately, at least another 1.0 [deg]C of atmospheric warming
will occur as a result of past emissions, and at our current emissions
rate, the earth's atmosphere is expected to warm 4 [deg]C (likely range
2.4 [deg]C-6.4 [deg]C), and waters around coral reefs are expected to
warm 2.8 [deg]C-3.6 [deg]C by the year 2100 (NMFS 2012b, SIR Section
3.2.2). As discussed below, temperature increases of this magnitude can
have severe consequences for corals, including bleaching and colony
death.
Supplemental information gathered during the public engagement
period shows that global temperatures continue to increase and that
temperature patterns differ regionally. New models (Representative
Concentration Pathways or RCPs) developed for the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (due to publish
in 2014) result in a larger range of temperature estimates than the
range of scenarios IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Special Reports on
Emission Scenarios or SRES), but the global mean temperature
projections by the end of the twenty-first century for the RCPs are
very similar to those of their closest SRES counterparts. Another study
used the second-generation Canadian earth system model (CanESM2) to
project future warming under three of the new RCPs and found simulated
atmospheric warming of 2.3

[[Page 73228]]

[deg]C over the time period 1850-2100 in the lowest RCP emissions
scenario (RCP2.6) and up to 4.9 [deg]C in the highest (RCP8.5; NMFS
2012b, SIR Section 3.2.2).

Nine Most Important Threats to Reef-Building Corals

As described above and shown in Table 1, the BRT considered nine
threats to be the most important to the current or expected future
extinction risk of reef-building corals: ocean warming, coral disease,
ocean acidification, trophic effects of reef fishing, sedimentation,
nutrients, sea-level rise, predation, and collection and trade.
Vulnerability of a coral species to a threat is a function of
susceptibility and exposure, considered at the appropriate spatial and
temporal scales. In this finding, the spatial scale is the current
range of the species, and the temporal scale is from now until the year
2100. Susceptibility, exposure, and vulnerability are described
generally below, and species-specific threat vulnerabilities are
described in the Vulnerability to Threats under Risk Analyses below.
Susceptibility refers to the response of coral colonies to the
adverse conditions produced by the threat. Susceptibility of a coral
species to a threat is primarily a function of biological processes and
characteristics, and can vary greatly between and within taxa (i.e.,
family, genus, or species). Susceptibility depends on direct effects of
the threat on the species, and it also depends on the cumulative (i.e.,
additive) and interactive (i.e., synergistic or antagonistic) effects
of multiple threats acting simultaneously on the species. For example,
ocean warming affects coral colonies through the direct effect of
bleaching, together with the interactive effect of bleaching and
disease, because bleaching increases disease susceptibility. We discuss
how cumulative and interactive effects of threats affected individual
threat susceptibilities in the Vulnerability to Threats under Risk
Analyses section below.
Vulnerability of a coral species to a threat also depends on the
proportion of colonies that are exposed to the threat. Exposure is
primarily a function of physical processes and characteristics that
limit or moderate the impact of the threat across the range of the
species. For example, prevailing winds may moderate exposure of coral
colonies on windward sides of islands to ocean warming, tidal
fluctuations may moderate exposure of coral colonies on reef flats to
ocean acidification, and large distances of atolls from runoff may
moderate exposure of the atoll's coral colonies from sedimentation.
Vulnerability of a coral species to a threat is a function of
susceptibility and exposure, considered at the spatial scale of the
entire current range of the species, and the temporal scale of from now
to the year 2100. For example, a species that is highly susceptible to
a threat is not necessarily highly vulnerable to the threat, if
exposure is low over the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.
Consideration of the appropriate spatial (range of species) and
temporal (to 2100) scales is particularly important, because of high
variability in the threats over the large spatial scales, and the
predictions in the SRR that nearly all threats are likely to increase
over the large temporal scale. The nine most important threats are
summarized below, including general descriptions of susceptibility and
exposure. Species-specific threat vulnerabilities are described in the
Vulnerability to Threats under the Risk Analyses section.

Ocean Warming (High Importance Threat, ESA Factor E)

Ocean warming is considered under ESA Factor E--other natural or
manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the species--
because the effect of the threat results from human activity and
affects individuals of the species directly, and not their habitats.
Mean seawater temperatures in reef-building coral habitat in both the
Caribbean and Indo-Pacific have increased during the past few decades,
and are predicted to continue to rise between now and 2100. More
importantly, the frequency of warm-season temperature extremes (warming
events) in reef-building coral habitat in both the Caribbean and Indo-
Pacific has increased during the past two decades, and is also
predicted to increase between now and 2100.
Ocean warming is one of the most important threats posing
extinction risks to the 82 candidate coral species; however, individual
susceptibility varies among species. The primary observable coral
response to ocean warming is bleaching of adult coral colonies, wherein
corals expel their symbiotic zooxanthellae in response to stress. For
corals, an episodic increase of only 1[deg]C-2[deg]C above the normal
local seasonal maximum ocean temperature can induce bleaching. Corals
can withstand mild to moderate bleaching; however, severe, repeated, or
prolonged bleaching can lead to colony death. While coral bleaching
patterns are complex, with several species exhibiting seasonal cycles
in symbiotic dinoflagellate density, thermal stress has led to
bleaching and associated mass mortality in many coral species during
the past 25 years. In addition to coral bleaching, other effects of
ocean warming detrimentally affect virtually every life-history stage
in reef-building corals. Impaired fertilization, developmental
abnormalities, mortality, impaired settlement success, and impaired
calcification of early life phases have all been documented.
In evaluating extinction risk from ocean warming, the BRT relied
heavily on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report because the analyses and
synthesis of information developed for it are the most thoroughly
documented and reviewed assessments of future climate and represent the
best available scientific information on potential future changes in
the earth's climate system. Emission rates in recent years have met or
exceeded levels found in the worst-case scenarios considered by the
IPCC, resulting in all scenarios underestimating the projected climate
condition. Further, newer studies have become available since the
completion of the SRR. New information suggests that regardless of the
emission concentration pathway, more than 97 percent of reefs will
experience severe thermal stress by 2050. However, new information also
highlights the spatial and temporal ``patchiness'' of warming, as
described in the next paragraph. This patchiness has the potential to
provide refugia for the species from thermal stress if the temperature
patches are spatially and temporally consistent, but the distributional
nature of the patchiness is not currently well understood (NMFS 2012b,
SIR Section 3.2.2).
Spatially, exposure of colonies of a species to ocean warming can
vary greatly across its range, depending on colony location (e.g.,
latitude, depth, bathymetry, habitat type, etc.) and physical processes
that affect seawater temperature and its effects on coral colonies
(e.g., winds, currents, upwelling shading, tides, etc.). Colony
location can moderate exposure of colonies of the species to ocean
warming by latitude or depth, because colonies in higher latitudes and/
or deeper areas are usually less affected by warming events. Also, some
locations are blocked from warm currents by bathymetric features, and
some habitat types reduce the effects of warm water, such as highly-
fluctuating environments. Physical processes can moderate exposure of
colonies of the species to ocean warming in many ways, including
processes that increase mixing (e.g., wind, currents, tides),

[[Page 73229]]

reduce seawater temperature (e.g., upwelling, runoff), or increase
shading (e.g. turbidity, cloud cover). For example, warming events in
Hawaii in 1996 and 2002 resulted in variable levels of coral bleaching
because colony exposure was strongly affected by winds, cloud cover,
complex bathymetry, waves, and inshore currents (NMFS 2012b, SIR
Section 3.2.2).
Temporally, exposure of colonies of a species to ocean warming
between now and 2100 will likely vary annually and decadally, while
increasing over time, because: (1) Numerous annual and decadal
processes that affect seawater temperatures will continue to occur in
the future (e.g., inter-decadal variability in seawater temperatures
and upwelling related to El-Ni[ntilde]o Southern Oscillation); and (2)
ocean warming is predicted to substantially worsen by 2100. While
exposure of the 82 candidate coral species to ocean warming varies
greatly both spatially and temporally, exposure is expected to increase
for all species across their ranges between now and 2100 (NMFS 2012b,
SIR Section 3.2.2).
Multiple threats stress corals simultaneously or sequentially,
whether the effects are cumulative (the sum of individual stresses) or
interactive (e.g., synergistic or antagonistic). Ocean warming is
likely to interact with many other threats, especially considering the
long-term consequences of repeated thermal stress, and ocean warming is
expected to continue to worsen over the foreseeable future. Increased
seawater temperature interacts with coral diseases to reduce coral
health and survivorship. Coral disease outbreaks often have either
accompanied or immediately followed bleaching events, and also follow
seasonal patterns of high seawater temperatures. The effects of greater
ocean warming (i.e., increased bleaching, which kills or weakens
colonies) are expected to interact with the effects of higher storm
intensity (i.e., increased breakage of dead or weakened colonies) in
the Caribbean, resulting in an increased rate of coral declines.
Likewise, ocean acidification and nutrients may reduce thermal
thresholds to bleaching, increase mortality and slowing recovery.
There is also mounting evidence that warming ocean temperatures can
have direct impacts on early life stages of corals, including abnormal
embryonic development at 32[deg]C and complete fertilization failure at
34[deg]C for one Indo-Pacific Acropora species. In addition to abnormal
embryonic development, symbiosis establishment, larval survivorship,
and settlement success have been shown to be impaired in Caribbean
brooding and broadcasting coral species at temperatures as low as
30[deg]C-32[deg]C. Further, the rate of larval development for spawning
species is appreciably accelerated at warmer temperatures, which
suggests that total dispersal distances could also be reduced,
potentially decreasing the likelihood of successful settlement and the
potential for replenishment of extirpated areas.
Finally, warming is and will continue causing increased
stratification of the upper ocean, because water density decreases with
increasing temperature. Increased stratification results in decreased
vertical mixing of both heat and nutrients, leaving surface waters
warmer and nutrient-poor. While the implications for corals and coral
reefs of these increases in warming-induced stratification have not
been well studied, it is likely that these changes will both exacerbate
the temperature effects described above (i.e., increase bleaching and
decrease recovery) and decrease the overall net productivity of coral
reef ecosystems (i.e., fewer nutrients) throughout the tropics and
subtropics.
Overall, there is ample evidence that climate change (including
that which is already committed to occur from past GHG emissions and
that which is reasonably certain to result from continuing and future
emissions) will follow a trajectory that will have a major impact on
corals. If many coral species are to survive anticipated global
warming, corals and their zooxanthellae will have to undergo
significant acclimatization and/or adaptation. There has been a recent
research emphasis on the processes of acclimatization and adaptation in
corals, but, taken together, the body of research is inconclusive on
how these processes may affect individual corals' extinction risk,
given the projected intensity and rate of ocean warming (NMFS 2012b,
SIR Section 3.2.2.1). In determining extinction risk for the 82
candidate coral species, the BRT was most strongly influenced by
observations that corals have been bleaching and dying under ocean
warming that has already occurred. Thus, the BRT determined that ocean
warming and related impacts of global climate change are already having
serious negative impacts on many corals, and that ocean warming is one
of the most important threats posing extinction risks to the 82
candidate coral species between now and the year 2100 (Brainard et al.
2011). These conclusions are reinforced by the new information in the
SIR (NMFS 2012b, SIR Section 3.2.2.1).

Disease (High Importance Threat, ESA Factor C)

Disease is considered under ESA Factor C--disease or predation.
Disease adversely affects various coral life history events, including
causing adult mortality, reducing sexual and asexual reproductive
success, and impairing colony growth. A diseased state results from a
complex interplay of factors including the cause or agent (e.g.,
pathogen, environmental toxicant), the host, and the environment. In
the case of corals, the host is a complex community of organisms,
referred to as a holobiont, which includes the coral animal, the
dinoflagellates, and their microbial symbionts. All impacts
incorporated and ranked as ``coral disease'' in this status review are
presumed infectious diseases or those attributable to poorly-described
genetic defects and often associated with acute tissue loss. Other
manifestations of disease in the broader sense, such as coral bleaching
from ocean warming, are incorporated under other factors (i.e., manmade
factors such as ocean warming as a result of climate change).
Coral diseases are a common and significant threat affecting most
or all coral species and regions to some degree, although the
scientific understanding of individual disease causes in corals remains
very poor. The incidence of coral disease appears to be expanding
geographically in the Indo-Pacific and there is evidence that massive
coral species are not recovering from disease events in certain
locations. The prevalence of disease is highly variable between sites
and species. There is documented increased prevalence and severity of
diseases with increased water temperatures, which may correspond to
increased virulence of pathogens, decreased resistance of hosts, or
both. Moreover, the expanding coral disease threat has been suggested
to result from opportunistic pathogens that become damaging only in
situations where the host integrity is compromised by physiological
stress and/or immune suppression. Overall, there is mounting evidence
that warming temperatures and coral bleaching responses are linked
(albeit with mixed correlations) with increased coral disease
prevalence and mortality. Complex aspects of temperature regimes,
including winter and summer extremes, may influence disease outbreaks.
Bleaching and coral abundance seem to increase the susceptibility of
corals to disease contraction. Further, most recent research shows
strong correlations between elevated human population

[[Page 73230]]

density in close proximity to reefs and disease prevalence in corals.
Although disease causes in corals remain poorly understood, some
general patterns of biological susceptibility are beginning to emerge.
There appear to be predictable patterns of immune capacity across coral
families, corresponding with trade-offs with their life history traits,
such as reproductive output and growth rate. Acroporidae, representing
the largest number of candidate species, has low immunity to disease.
Likewise, Pocilloporidae has low immunity; however, both of these
families have intermediate/high reproductive outputs. Both Faviidae and
Mussidae are intermediate to high in terms of disease immunity and
reproductive output. Finally, while Poritidae has high immunity to
disease, it has a low reproductive output. Overall, disease represents
a high importance threat in terms of extinction risk posed to coral
species; however, individual susceptibility varies among the 82
candidate species.
As with ocean warming, the effects of coral disease depend on
exposure of the species to the threat, which can vary spatially across
the range of the species, and temporally between now and 2100.
Spatially, exposure to coral disease in the Caribbean is moderated by
distance of some coral habitats from the primary causes of most disease
outbreaks, such as stressors resulting from sedimentation, nutrient
over-enrichment, and other local threats. Exposure to coral disease for
some species in the Indo-Pacific may be somewhat more moderated
spatially than in the Caribbean, due to a greater proportion of reef-
building coral habitats located in remote areas that are much farther
away from local sources of disease outbreaks. Exposure to coral disease
can also be moderated by depth of many habitats in both regions, but
again more so in the Indo-Pacific than in the Caribbean. Deep habitats
are generally less affected by disease outbreaks associated with
stressors resulting from ocean warming, especially in the Indo-Pacific.
Disease exposure in remote areas and deep habitats appears to be low
but gradually increasing. Temporally, exposure to coral disease will
increase as the causes of disease outbreaks (e.g., warming events)
increase over time (NMFS, 2012b, SIR Section 3.3.2).
As explained above, disease may be caused by a threat such as ocean
warming and bleaching, nutrients, toxins, etc. However, interactive
effects are also important for this threat, because diseased colonies
are more susceptible to the effects of some other threats. For example,
diseased or recovering colonies may be more quickly stressed than
healthy colonies by land-based sources of pollution (sedimentation,
nutrients, and toxins), more quickly succumb to predators, and more
easily break during storms or as a result of other physical impacts.
There are likely many other examples of cumulative and interactive
effects of disease with other threats to corals.

Ocean Acidification (Medium-High Importance Threat, ESA Factor E)

Ocean acidification is considered under ESA Factor E--other natural
or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the species--
because the effect is a result of human activity and affects
individuals of the coral species, not their habitats. As with ocean
warming, ocean acidification is a result of global climate change
caused by increased GHG accumulation in the atmosphere. Reef-building
corals produce skeletons made of the aragonite form of calcium
carbonate; thus, reductions in aragonite saturation state caused by
ocean acidification pose a major threat to these species and other
marine calcifiers. Ocean acidification has the potential to cause
substantial reduction in coral calcification and reef cementation.
Further, ocean acidification adversely affects adult growth rates and
fecundity, fertilization, pelagic planula settlement, polyp
development, and juvenile growth. The impacts of ocean acidification
can lead to increased colony breakage and fragmentation and mortality.
Based on observations in areas with naturally low pH, the effects of
increasing ocean acidification may also include potential reductions in
coral size, cover, diversity, and structural complexity.
As CO2 concentrations increase in the atmosphere, more
CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, causing lower pH and reduced
availability of carbonate ions, which in turn results in lower
aragonite saturation state in seawater. Because of the increase in
CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere since the Industrial
Revolution, ocean acidification has already occurred throughout the
world's oceans, including in the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific, and is
predicted to considerably worsen between now and 2100. Along with ocean
warming and disease, the BRT considered ocean acidification to be one
of the most important threats posing extinction risks to coral species
between now and the year 2100; however, individual susceptibility
varies among the 82 candidate species.
Numerous laboratory and field experiments have shown a relationship
between elevated CO2 and decreased calcification rates in
particular corals and other calcium carbonate secreting organisms.
However, because only a few species have been tested for such effects,
it is uncertain how most will fare in increasingly acidified oceans. In
addition to laboratory studies, recent field studies have demonstrated
a decline in linear growth rates of some coral species, suggesting that
ocean acidification is already significantly reducing growth of corals
on reefs. However, this has not been shown for all corals at all reefs,
indicating that all corals may not be affected at the same rate or that
local factors may be ameliorating the saturation states on reefs. A
potential secondary effect is that ocean acidification may reduce the
threshold at which bleaching occurs. Overall, the best available
information demonstrates that most corals exhibit declining
calcification rates with rising CO2 concentrations,
declining pH, and declining carbonate saturation state--although the
rate and mode of decline can vary among species. Recent publications
also discuss the physiological effects of ocean acidification on corals
and their responses. Corals are able to regulate pH within their
tissues, maintaining higher pH values in their tissues than the pH of
surrounding waters. This is an important mechanism in naturally highly
fluctuating environments (e.g., many backreef pools have diurnally
fluctuating pH) and suggests that corals have some adaptive capacity to
acidification. However, as with ocean warming, there is high
uncertainty as to whether corals will be able to adapt commensurate
with the rate of acidification.
In addition to the direct effects on coral calcification and
growth, ocean acidification may also affect coral recruitment, reef
cementation, and other important reef-building species like crustose
coralline algae (CCA). Studies suggest that the low pH associated with
ocean acidification may impact coral larvae in several ways, including
reduced survival and recruitment. Ocean acidification may influence
settlement of coral larvae on coral reefs more by indirect alterations
of the benthic community, which provides settlement cues, than by
direct physiological disruption. A major potential impact from ocean
acidification is a reduction in the structural stability of corals and
reefs, which results both from increases in bioerosion and decreases in
reef cementation. As atmospheric CO2 rises globally, reef-
building corals are

[[Page 73231]]

expected to calcify more slowly and become more fragile. Increased
bioerosion of coral reefs from ocean acidification may be facilitated
by declining growth rates of CCA. Recent studies demonstrate that ocean
acidification is likely having a great impact on corals and reef
communities by affecting community composition and dynamics,
exacerbating the effects of disease and other stressors (e.g.,
temperature), contributing to habitat loss, and affecting symbiotic
function. Some studies have found that an atmospheric CO2
level twice as high as pre-industrial levels will start to dissolve
coral reefs; this level could be reached as early as the middle of this
century. Further, the rate of acidification may be an order of
magnitude faster than what occurred 55 million years ago during the
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (Brainard et al. 2011; NMFS, 2012b,
SIR Section 3.2.3).
Spatially, while CO2 levels in the surface waters of the
ocean are generally in equilibrium with the lower atmosphere, there can
be considerable variability in seawater pH across reef-building coral
habitats, resulting in colonies of a species experiencing high spatial
variability in exposure to ocean acidification. The spatial variability
in seawater pH occurs from reef to global scales, driven by numerous
physical and biological characteristics and processes, including at
least seawater temperature, proximity to land-based runoff and seeps,
proximity to sources of oceanic CO2, salinity, nutrients,
photosynthesis, and respiration. CO2 absorption is higher in
colder water, causing lower pH in colder water. Land-based runoff
decreases salinity and increases nutrients, both of which can raise pH.
Local sources of oceanic CO2 like upwelling and volcanic
seeps lower pH. Photosynthesis in algae and seagrass beds draws down
CO2, raising pH. These are just some of the sources of
spatial variability in pH, which results in high spatial variability in
ocean acidification across the ranges of the 82 species (NMFS, 2012b,
SIR Section 3.2.3).
Temporally, high variability over diurnal to decadal time-scales is
produced by numerous processes, including diurnal cycles of
photosynthesis and respiration, seasonal variability in seawater
temperatures, and decadal cycles in upwelling. Temporal variability in
pH can be very high diurnally in highly-fluctuating or semi-enclosed
habitats such as reef flats and back-reef pools, due to high
photosynthesis during the day (pH goes up) and high respiration during
the night (pH goes down). In fact, pH fluctuations during one 24-hr
period in such reef-building coral habitats can exceed the magnitude of
change expected by 2100 in open ocean subtropical and tropical waters.
As with spatial variability in exposure to ocean warming, temporal
variability in exposure to ocean acidification is a combination of high
variability over short time-scales together with long-term increases.
While exposure of the 82 candidate coral species to ocean acidification
varies greatly both spatially and temporally, exposure is expected to
increase for all species across their ranges between now and 2100
(NMFS, 2012b, SIR Section 3.2.3).
Acidification is likely to interact with other threats, especially
considering that acidification is expected to continue to worsen over
the foreseeable future. For example, acidification may reduce the
threshold at which bleaching occurs, increasing the threat posed by
ocean warming. One of the key impacts of acidification is reduced
calcification, resulting in reduced skeletal growth and skeletal
density, which may lead to numerous interactive effects with other
threats. Reduced skeletal growth compromises the ability of coral
colonies to compete for space against algae, which grows more quickly
as nutrient over-enrichment increases. Reduced skeletal density weakens
coral skeletons, resulting in greater colony breakage from natural and
human-induced physical damage.

Trophic Effects of Fishing (Medium Importance Threat, ESA Factor A)

Trophic effects of fishing is considered under ESA Factor A--the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range--because the main effect of concern is to limit
availability of habitat for corals. Fishing, particularly overfishing,
can have large scale, long-term ecosystem-level effects that can change
ecosystem structure from coral-dominated reefs to algal-dominated reefs
(``phase shifts''). Fishing pressure alters trophic interactions that
are particularly important in structuring coral reef ecosystems. These
trophic interactions include reducing population abundance of
herbivorous fish species that control algal growth, limiting the size
structure of fish populations, reducing species richness of herbivorous
fish, and releasing corallivores from predator control. Thus, an
important aspect of maintaining resilience in coral reef ecosystems is
to sustain populations of herbivores, especially the larger scarine
herbivorous wrasses such as parrotfish.
On topographically complex reefs, population densities can average
well over a million herbivorous fishes per km\2\, and standing stocks
can reach 45 metric tons per km\2\. In the Caribbean, parrotfishes can
graze at rates of more than 150,000 bites per square meter per day, and
thereby remove up to 90-100 percent of the daily primary production
(e.g., algae). Under these conditions of topographic complexity with
substantial populations of herbivorous fishes, as long as the cover of
living coral is high and resistant to mortality from environmental
changes, it is very unlikely that the algae will take over and dominate
the substratum. However, if herbivorous fish populations, particularly
large-bodied parrotfish, are heavily fished and a major mortality of
coral colonies occurs, then algae can grow rapidly and prevent the
recovery of the coral population. The ecosystem can then collapse into
an alternative stable state, a persistent phase shift in which algae
replace corals as the dominant reef species. Although algae can have
negative effects on adult coral colonies (i.e., overgrowth, bleaching
from toxic compounds), the ecosystem-level effects of algae are
primarily from inhibited coral recruitment. Filamentous algae can
prevent the colonization of the substratum by planula larvae by
creating sediment traps that obstruct access to a hard substratum for
attachment. Additionally, macroalgae can suppress the successful
colonization of the substratum by corals through occupation of the
available space, shading, abrasion, chemical poisoning, and infection
with bacterial disease.
Overfishing can have further impacts on coral mortality via trophic
cascades. In general larger fish are targeted, resulting in fish
populations of small individuals. For parrotfishes, the effect of
grazing by individuals greater than 20 cm in length is substantially
greater than that of smaller fish. Up to 75 individual parrotfishes
with lengths of about 15 cm are necessary to have the same effect on
reducing algae and promoting coral recruitment as a single individual
35 cm in length. Species richness of the herbivorous fish population is
also necessary to enhance coral populations. Because of differences in
their feeding behaviors, several species of herbivorous fishes with
complementary feeding behaviors can have a substantially greater
positive effect than a similar biomass of a single species on reducing
the standing stock of macroalgae, of increasing the cover of CCA, and
increasing live coral cover.
Spatially, exposure to the trophic effects of fishing in the
Caribbean is

[[Page 73232]]

moderated by distance of some coral habitats from fishing effort.
Exposure to the trophic effects of fishing in the Indo-Pacific is
somewhat more moderated by distance than in the Caribbean, due to a
greater proportion of reef-building coral habitats located in remote
areas that are much farther away from fishing effort. Exposure to the
trophic effects of reef fishing is also moderated by depth of many
habitats in both regions, but again more so in the Indo-Pacific than in
the Caribbean. Deep habitats are generally less affected by the trophic
effects of fishing especially in the Indo-Pacific. Temporally, exposure
to the trophic effects of fishing will increase as the human population
increases over time (NMFS, 2012b, SIR Section 3.3.4).
The trophic effects of fishing are likely to interact with many
other threats, especially considering that fishing impacts are likely
to increase within the ranges of many of the 82 species over the
foreseeable future. For example, when carnivorous fishes are
overfished, corallivore populations may increase, resulting in greater
predation on corals. Further, overfishing appears to increase the
frequency of coral disease. Fishing activity usually targets the larger
apex predators. When the predators are removed, corallivorous butterfly
fishes become more abundant and can transmit disease from one coral
colony to another as they transit and consume from each coral colony.
With increasing abundance, they transmit disease to higher proportions
of the corals within the population.

Sedimentation (Low-Medium Importance Threat, ESA Factors A and E)

Sedimentation is considered under ESA Factor A--the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range--and ESA Factor E--other natural or manmade factors affecting the
continued existence of the species--because the effect of the threat,
resulting from human activity, is both to limit the availability of
habitat for corals and directly impact individuals of coral species.
Impacts from land-based sources of pollution include sedimentation,
nutrients, toxicity, contaminants, and changes in salinity regimes. The
BRT evaluated the extinction risk posed by each pollution component
individually. Only the stressors of sedimentation and nutrients were
considered low-medium threats to corals, although the 82 candidate
species vary in susceptibility. The BRT considered contaminants,
despite their primarily local sources and impacts, to pose low, but not
negligible, extinction risks, and salinity effects to be a local and
negligible overall contributor to extinction risk to the 82 candidate
coral species; however, individual species vary in susceptibility. All
four threats associated with land-based sources of pollution are
described in the SRR, and sedimentation and nutrients are considered
separately below. Human activities in coastal watersheds introduce
sediment into the ocean by a variety of mechanisms, including river
discharge, surface runoff, groundwater seeps, and atmospheric
deposition. Humans introduce sewage into coastal waters through direct
discharge, treatment plants, and septic leakage; agricultural runoff
brings additional nutrients from fertilizers. Elevated sediment levels
are generated by poor land use practices, and coastal and nearshore
construction. Additionally, as coastal populations continue to
increase, it is likely that pollution from land-based sources will also
increase.
The most common direct effect of sedimentation is deposition of
sediment on coral surfaces as sediment settles out from the water
column. Corals with certain morphologies (e.g., mounding) can passively
reject settling sediments. In addition, corals can actively displace
sediment by ciliary action or mucous production, both of which require
energetic expenditures. Corals with large calices (skeletal component
that holds the polyp) tend to be better at actively rejecting sediment.
Some coral species can tolerate complete burial for several days.
Corals that are unsuccessful in removing sediment will be smothered and
die. Sediment can also induce sublethal effects, such as reductions in
tissue thickness, polyp swelling, zooxanthellae loss, and excess mucus
production. In addition, suspended sediment can reduce the amount of
light in the water column, making less energy available for coral
photosynthesis and growth. Finally, sediment impedes fertilization of
spawned gametes and reduces larval settlement, as well as the survival
of recruits and juveniles.
Although it is difficult to quantitatively predict the extinction
risk that sedimentation poses to the 82 candidate coral species, human
activity has resulted in quantifiable increases in sediment inputs in
some reef areas. Continued increases in coastal populations combined
with poor land use and nearshore development practices will likely
increase sediment delivery to reef systems. Nearshore sediment levels
will also likely increase with sea level rise. Greater inundation of
reef flats can erode soil at the shoreline and resuspend lagoon
deposits, producing greater sediment transport and potentially leading
to leeward reefs being flooded with turbid lagoon waters or buried by
off-bank sediment transport. Finally, while some corals may be more
tolerant of elevated short-term levels of sedimentation, sediment
stress and turbidity can induce bleaching. Sedimentation is a low-
medium importance threat of extinction risk to corals; however,
individual susceptibility varies among the 82 candidate species.
The BRT acknowledged that individual land-based sources of
pollution interact in complex ways, and therefore also considered the
holistic nature of this type of threat (i.e., sedimentation, nutrient
over-enrichment, and contaminants). All land-based sources of pollution
act primarily at a local level and have direct linkage to human
population, consumption of resources, and land use within the local
area. This linkage is supported by correlative and retrospective
studies of both threat dosage of and coral response to land-based
sources of pollution. Therefore, land-based sources of pollution would
pose a substantial extinction risk only to species with extremely
limited distributions. However, local stresses can still be
sufficiently severe to cause local extirpation and interact with global
stresses to increase extinction risk.
Spatially, exposure to sedimentation in the Caribbean can be
moderated by distance of some coral habitats from areas where
sedimentation is chronically or sporadically heavy (i.e., heavily
populated areas), resulting in some areas of coral habitats being
unaffected or very lightly affected by sedimentation. Exposure to
sedimentation can be more moderated in the Indo-Pacific by the large
distances of many coral habitats from areas where sedimentation is
chronically or sporadically heavy (i.e., heavily populated areas),
resulting in vast areas of coral habitats and areas being unaffected or
very lightly affected by sedimentation. Exposure to sedimentation for
particular species could also be moderated by depth of many habitats in
both regions, but again more so in the Indo-Pacific than in the
Caribbean. Deep habitats are generally less affected by sedimentation,
especially in the Indo-Pacific. Temporally, exposure to sedimentation
will increase as human activities that produce sedimentation increase
over time, but in the Indo-Pacific will still be strongly moderated for
certain species by distance (NMFS, 2012b, SIR Section 3.3.1).

[[Page 73233]]

Sedimentation is also likely to interact with many other threats,
especially considering that sedimentation is likely to increase across
the ranges of many of the 82 species over the foreseeable future. For
example, when coral communities that are chronically affected by
sedimentation experience a warming-induced bleaching event and
associated disease outbreaks, the consequences for corals can be much
more severe than in communities not affected by sedimentation.

Nutrients (Low-Medium Importance Threat, ESA Factors A and E)

Nutrient enrichment is considered under ESA Factor A--the present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range--and ESA Factor E--other natural or manmade factors affecting
the continued existence of the species--because the effect of the
threat, resulting from human activity, is both to limit the
availability of habitat for corals and directly impact individuals of
coral species. The impacts of nutrient over-enrichment were determined
by the BRT to be of low-medium importance in terms of posing extinction
risk to coral species; however, individual susceptibility varies among
the 82 candidate species. Elevated nutrients affect corals through two
main mechanisms--direct impacts on coral physiology and indirect
effects through nutrient-stimulation of other community components
(e.g., macroalgal turfs and seaweeds, and filter feeders) that compete
with corals for space on the reef. Increased nutrients can decrease
calicification; however, nutrients may also enhance linear extension,
but reduce skeletal density. Either condition results in corals that
are more prone to breakage or erosion. Notably, individual species have
varying tolerance to increased nutrients. The main vectors of
anthropogenic nutrients are point-source discharges (such as rivers or
sewage outfalls) and surface runoff from modified watersheds. Natural
processes, such as in situ nitrogen fixation and delivery of nutrient-
rich deep water by internal waves and upwelling, bring nutrients to
coral reefs as well. Nutrient over-enrichment has low-medium importance
to the extinction risk of all 82 corals species.
Spatially, exposure to nutrients is moderated by distance of some
coral habitats from areas where nutrients are chronically or
sporadically heavy (i.e., heavily populated areas). However, nutrient
over-enrichment can result from very small human populations, and
nutrients can be quickly transported large distances; thus, distance is
less of a moderating factor for nutrients than for sedimentation.
Similarly, although nutrient exposure may also be moderated by depth of
some habitats, nutrient impacts can reach much farther than
sedimentation impacts. Temporally, exposure to nutrients will increase
as human activities that produce nutrients increase over time (NMFS,
2012b, SIR Section 3.3.1).
Nutrients are likely to interact with many other threats,
especially considering that nutrient over-enrichment is likely to
increase across the ranges of many of the 82 candidate species over the
foreseeable future. For example, when coral communities that are
chronically affected by nutrients experience a warming-induced
bleaching event and associated disease outbreaks, the consequences for
corals can be much more severe than in communities not affected by
nutrients.

Sea-Level Rise (Low-Medium Threat, ESA Factor A)

Sea-level rise is considered under ESA Factor A--the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range--because the effect of the threat is to availability of corals'
habitat and not directly to the species themselves. The effects of sea-
level rise may affect various coral life history events, including
larval settlement, polyp development, and juvenile growth, and
contribute to adult mortality and colony fragmentation, mostly due to
increased sedimentation and decreased water quality (reduced light
availability) caused by coastal inundation. The best available
information suggests that sea level will continue to rise due to
thermal expansion and the melting of land and sea ice. Theoretically,
any rise in sea-level could potentially provide additional habitat for
corals living near the sea surface. Many corals that inhabit the
relatively narrow zone near the ocean surface have rapid growth rates
when healthy, which allowed them to keep up with sea-level rise during
the past periods of rapid climate change associated with deglaciation
and warming. However, depending on the rate and amount of sea level
rise, rapid rises can lead to reef drowning. Rapid rises in sea level
could affect many of the candidate coral species by both submerging
them below their common depth range and, more likely, by degrading
water quality through coastal erosion and potentially severe
sedimentation or enlargement of lagoons and shelf areas. Rising sea
level is likely to cause mixed responses in the 82 candidate coral
species depending on their depth preferences, sedimentation tolerances,
growth rates, and the nearshore topography. Reductions in growth rate
due to local stressors, bleaching, infectious disease, and ocean
acidification may prevent the species from keeping up with sea level
rise (e.g., from growing at a rate that will allow them to continue to
occupy their preferred depth range despite sea-level rise).
The rate and amount of future sea level rise remains uncertain.
Until the past few years, sea level rise was predicted to be in the
range of only about one half meter by 2100. However, more recent
estimated rates are higher, based upon evidence that the Greenland and
Antarctic ice sheets are much more vulnerable than previously thought.
Hence, there is large variability in predictions of the sea-level rise,
but the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report likely underestimated the rates.
Fast-growing branching corals were able to keep up with the first 3
m of sea level rise during the warming that led to the last
interglacial period. However, whether the 82 candidate coral species
will be able to survive 3 m or more of future sea level rise will
depend on whether growth rates are reduced as a result of other risk
factors, such as local environmental stressors, bleaching, infectious
disease, and ocean acidification. Additionally, lack of suitable new
habitat, limited success in sexual recruitment, coastal runoff, and
coastal hardening will compound some corals' ability to survive rapid
sea level rise.
This threat is expected to disproportionately affect shallow areas
adjacent to degraded coastlines, as inundation results in higher levels
of sedimentation from the newly-inundated coastlines to the shallow
areas. Spatially, exposure to sea-level rise will be moderated by
horizontal and vertical distances of reef-building coral habitats from
inundated, degraded coastlines. Temporally, exposure to sea-level rise
will increase over time as the rate of rise increases (NMFS, 2012b, SIR
Section 3.2.4).
Sea-level rise is likely to interact with other threats, especially
considering that sea-level rise is likely to increase across the ranges
of the 82 candidate species over the foreseeable future. For example,
the inundation of developed areas (e.g., urban and agricultural areas)
and other areas where shoreline sediments are easily eroded by sea-
level rise is likely to degrade water quality of adjacent coral
habitat, through increased sediment and nutrient runoff, and the
potential release of toxic contamination.

[[Page 73234]]

Predation (Low Threat, ESA Factor C)

Predation is considered under ESA Factor C--disease or predation.
While the BRT ranked predation as having low importance to the
extinction risk of corals in general, predation on some coral genera by
many corallivorous species of fish and invertebrates (e.g., snails and
seastars) is a chronic, though occasionally acute, energy drain. It is
a threat that has been identified for most coral life stages. Thus,
predation factored into the extinction risk analysis for each of the 82
candidate species. Numerous studies have documented the quantitative
impact of predation by various taxa on coral tissue and skeleton.
Predators can indirectly affect the distribution of corals by
preferentially consuming faster-growing coral species, thus allowing
slower-growing corals to compete for space on the reef. The most
notable example of predation impacts in the Indo-Pacific are from large
aggregations of crown-of-thorns seastar (Acanthaster planci; COTS),
termed outbreaks; the specific causative mechanism of COTS outbreaks is
unknown. COTS can reduce living coral cover to less than one percent
during outbreaks, change coral community structure, promote algal
colonization, and affect fish population dynamics. Therefore,
predation, although considered to be of low importance to the
extinction risk of corals in general, can be significant to individual
species.
Spatially, exposure to predation by corallivores is moderated by
presence of predators of the corallivores (i.e., predators of the
predators). For example, corallivorous reef fish prey on corals, and
piscivorous reef fish and sharks prey on the corallivores; thus, high
abundances of piscivorous reef fish and sharks moderates coral
predation. Abundances of piscivorous reef fish and sharks vary
spatially because of different ecological conditions and human
exploitation levels. Spatially, exposure to predation is also moderated
by distance from physical conditions that allow corallivore populations
to grow. For example, in the Indo-Pacific, high nutrient runoff from
continents and high islands improves reproductive conditions for COTS,
thus coral predation by COTS is moderated by distance from such
conditions. Predation can also be moderated by depth of many habitats
because abundances of many corallivorous species decline with depth.
Temporally, exposure to predation will increase over time as conditions
change, but will still be strongly moderated by distance and depth for
certain species, depending upon the distribution and abundances of a
species' populations, relative to this threat (NMFS, 2012b, SIR Section
3.3.3).
Predation of coral colonies can increase the likelihood of the
colonies being infected by disease, and likewise diseased colonies may
be more likely to be preyed upon. There are likely other examples of
cumulative and interactive effects of predation with other threats to
corals.

Collection and Trade (Low Threat, ESA Factor B)

Collections and trade is considered under ESA Factor B--
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. While the BRT ranked collection and trade as
having low importance to the extinction risk of corals in general,
particular species are preferentially affected; therefore, the BRT
considered collection and trade when evaluating the extinction risk of
individual species. Globally, 1.5 million live stony coral colonies are
reported to be collected from at least 45 countries each year, with the
United States consuming the largest portion of live corals (64 percent)
and live rock (95 percent) for the aquarium trade. The imports of live
corals taken directly from coral reefs (not from aquaculture) increased
by 600 percent between 1988 and 2007, while the global trade in live
coral increased by nearly 1,500 percent. Harvest of stony corals is
usually highly destructive, and results in removing and discarding
large amounts of live coral that go unsold and damaging reef habitats
around live corals. While collection is a highly spatially focused
impact, it can result in significant impacts and was considered to
contribute to individual species' extinction risk.
Spatially, exposure to collection and trade is moderated by demand,
and can be moderated by distance and depth. Demand is highly species-
specific, resulting in variable levels of collection pressure. However,
even for heavily-collected species, geographic and depth distributions
strongly moderate collection because distance from land and depth
create barriers to human access. Temporally, exposure to collection and
trade may increase over time, but will still continue to be strongly
moderated by demand, distance, and depth (NMFS, 2012b, SIR Section
3.3.6).
Collection and trade of coral colonies can increase the likelihood
of the colonies being infected by disease, due to both the directed and
incidental breakage of colonies, which are then more easily infected.
There are likely other examples of cumulative and interactive effects
of collection and trade with other threats to corals.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (ESA Factor D)

As we previously described, the SRR does not assess the
contribution of ``inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms'' to the
extinction risk of corals. Therefore, we developed a Draft Management
Report that identifies: (1) Existing regulatory mechanisms relevant to
threats to the 82 candidate coral species; and (2) conservation efforts
with regard to the status of the 82 candidate coral species. This Draft
was peer reviewed and released with the SRR in April 2012, with a
request for any information that we may have omitted. The information
that we received was incorporated into the Final Management Report,
which forms the basis of our evaluation of this factor's effect on the
extinction risk of the 82 candidate coral species.
The relevance of existing regulatory mechanisms to extinction risk
for an individual species depends on the vulnerability of that species
to each of the threats identified under the other factors of ESA
Section 4, and the extent to which regulatory mechanisms could or do
control the threats that are contributing to the species' extinction
risk. If a species is not currently, and not expected within the
foreseeable future to become, vulnerable to a particular threat, it is
not necessary to evaluate the adequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for addressing that threat. Conversely, if a species is
vulnerable to a particular threat (now or in the foreseeable future),
we do evaluate the adequacy of existing measures, if any, in
controlling or mitigating that threat. In the following paragraphs, we
will discuss existing regulatory mechanisms for addressing the threats
to corals, generally, and assess their adequacy for controlling those
threats. In the Risk Analyses section, we determine if the inadequacy
of regulatory mechanisms is a contributing factor to an individual
species' status as threatened or endangered because the existing
regulatory mechanisms fail to adequately control or mitigate the
underlying threats.
As shown in Table 1 above, we identified 19 threats affecting all
coral species in general. Of the 19 threats, ocean warming, coral
disease, and ocean acidification are the most serious threats to coral
species. As described in the SRR, the SIR and the Final Management
Report, ocean warming and ocean acidification are directly linked, and
disease is indirectly linked, to

[[Page 73235]]

increasing anthropogenic GHGs in the atmosphere. The 19 threats to the
82 candidate coral species also include threats from more localized
human activities, such as reef fishing, sedimentation, collection,
physical damage, and other threats (see Table 1). The Final Management
Report identifies existing regulatory mechanisms that are relevant to
the threats to the 82 candidate coral species and is organized in two
sections: (1) Existing regulatory mechanisms that are relevant to
addressing global-scale threats to corals linked to GHG emissions; and
(2) existing regulatory mechanisms that are relevant to addressing
other threats to corals. A summary of the information in the report is
provided below.
GHG emissions are regulated through agreements, at the
international level, and through statutes and regulations, at the
national, state, or regional level. These two levels of regulation are
interrelated because climate change is a global phenomenon in which
emissions anywhere in the world mix in the global atmosphere.
Reflecting this interdependency of nations, often the national laws are
enacted as a result of commitments to international agreements. The
information presented in the Management Report (NMFS, 2012c; Final
Management Report, Section 2.1.3) suggests that existing regulatory
mechanisms with the objective of reducing GHG emissions are inadequate
to prevent the impacts to corals and coral reefs from ocean warming,
ocean acidification, and other climate change-related threats described
above.
One of the key international agreements relevant to attempts to
control GHG emissions, the Copenhagen Accord, was developed in 2009 by
the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Conventions
on Climate Change. The Copenhagen Accord identifies specific
information provided by Parties on quantified economy-wide emissions
targets for 2020 and on nationally appropriate mitigation actions to
the goal of capping increasing average global temperature at 2 [deg]C
above pre-industrial levels. Annex I countries are developed nations
and Annex II countries are developing nations. In terms of coral reef
protection, even if participating countries were reducing emissions
enough and at a quick enough rate to meet the goal of capping
increasing average global temperature at 2 [deg]C above pre-industrial
levels, there would still be moderate to severe consequences for coral
reef ecosystems. Tipping points analyses indicate that rising
atmospheric CO2 concentrations and climate change could lead
to major biodiversity transformations at levels near or below the 2
[deg]C global warming defined by the IPCC as ``dangerous,'' including
widespread coral reef degradation (Leadley et al., 2010). While there
will be spatial variation in climate warming throughout the globe,
according to the SRR, at the current rate of CO2 emissions,
a further temperature increase in waters around coral reefs of 2.8-3.6
[deg]C is expected during this century, depending on the ocean basin.
The global atmospheric CO2 concentration was up to 387 ppm
by the end of 2009, 39% above the concentration at the start of the
industrial revolution (about 280 ppm in 1750). The present
concentration is the highest during at least the last 2 million years
(Global Carbon Project, 2010). It has been estimated in some reports
that atmospheric CO2 must be reduced to levels similar to
those present in the 1970's (or below 340 ppm) to ensure healthy coral
growth over the long term (Brainard et al., 2011).
In addition to the insufficiency of the 2 [deg]C target (and the
associated estimated peak in atmospheric CO2 concentration)
in terms of preventing widespread damage to coral reefs, several
analyses show that pledges made under the Copenhagen Accord are not
sufficient to achieve even this target. Rogelj et al. (2010) state that
higher ambitions for 2020 are necessary to keep the options for 2 [deg]
and 1.5 [deg]C viable without relying on potentially infeasible
reduction rates after 2020. According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment
report, Annex I emission reduction targets of 25 to 40% below 1990
levels in 2020 would be consistent with stabilizing long-term
greenhouse gas concentration levels at 450 ppm CO2
equivalent, which corresponds to 1.2 [deg] to 2.3 [deg]C in global
warming over the next 100 years (Cubasch et al. 2001). The aggregated
reduction target by 2020 of all Annex I pledges under the Copenhagen
Accord ranges from 12 to 18% relative to the 1990 level which is
insufficient to stabilize GHG concentrations and achieve the desired
range of maximum warming (den Elzen and H[ouml]hne, 2008; Gupta et al.,
2007; Pew Center for Global Climate Change, 2010). Even in the high
pledge scenario of the Copenhagen Accord, this reduction goal will not
be met (den Elzen et al., 2010). Note, again, that even at this range
of warming, full protection of coral reefs is probably not feasible
(O'Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002). In terms of global emissions,
Copenhagen Accord pledges of Annex I countries and the action plans of
the seven major emerging economies would lead to a gap towards the 2
[deg]C target of between 3 and 9 Gt CO2 equivalents (den
Elzen et al., 2010; Light, 2010; UNEP, 2010c). Anticipated global
efforts toward GHG emission reduction are unlikely to close this gap
and may even be insufficient to prevent warming of 3 [deg]C or more
(Parry, 2010). With or without this gap, studies indicate that steep
emission reductions are needed post 2020 in order to maintain the
feasibility of limiting warming to 2 [deg]C or 1.5 [deg]C (UNEP, 2010).
The Climate Change Performance Index (Burck et al., 2010) evaluates
and compares the climate protection performance of the top 60 GHG
emitting countries that are together responsible for more than 90% of
global energy-related CO2 emissions. Performance rankings
are based on an index including emissions level, emissions trend, and
national and international climate change policy in each country. Each
year, the top three ranks are reserved for countries that have reduced
per capita emissions enough to meet the requirements to keep the
increase in global temperature below 2 [deg]C. According to the 2011
report, no countries are meeting those criteria. Importantly, the
performance of the top 10 emitters that account for over 60% of global
emissions is of particular concern as all but three of them are ranked
as either `poor' or `very poor' in overall performance (Burck et al.,
2010). In particular, the U.S. and China both contribute the largest
proportions to global emissions and both have `very poor' ranks in the
2011 Climate Change Performance Index. It is important to note that
even the most aggressive actions to reduce emissions will only slow
warming, not prevent it.
The evidence presented here suggests that existing regulatory
mechanisms at the global scale in the form of international agreements
to reduce GHG emissions are insufficient to prevent widespread impacts
to corals. It appears unlikely that Parties will be able to
collectively achieve, in the near term, climate change avoidance goals
outlined via international agreements. Additionally, none of the major
global initiatives to date appear to be ambitious enough, even if all
terms were met, to reduce GHG emissions to the level necessary to
minimize impacts to coral reefs and prevent what are predicted to be
severe consequences for corals worldwide.
Existing regulatory mechanisms directly or indirectly addressing
all of the localized threats identified in the SRR (i.e., those threats
not related to GHGs and global climate change) are primarily national
and local fisheries,

[[Page 73236]]

coastal, and watershed management laws and regulations in the 84
countries within the collective ranges of the 82 coral species. Because
of the large number of threats, and the immense number of regulatory
mechanisms in the 84 countries, a regulation-by-regulation assessment
of adequacy was not possible. Furthermore, there is not enough
information available to determine the effects of specific regulatory
mechanisms on individual coral species given the lack of information on
specific locations of individual species. We have information on the
overall distribution of the species from range maps and literature that
identify particular locations where the species have been observed, but
this information is not sufficient to do a species by species,
regulation by regulation evaluation of inadequacy. However, general
patterns include: (1) Fisheries management regimes regulate reef
fishing in many parts of the collective ranges of the 82 candidate
coral species albeit at varying levels of success; (2) laws addressing
land-based sources of pollution are less effective than those
regulating fisheries; (3) coral reef and coastal marine protected areas
have increased several-fold in the last decade, reducing some threats
through regulation or banning of fishing, coastal development, and
other activities contributing to localized threats; and (4) the most
effective regulatory mechanisms address the threats other than climate
change, i.e., laws regulating destructive fishing practices, physical
damage, and collection. Because the local threats have impacted and
continue to impact corals across their ranges, we can generally
conclude that, collectively, the existing regulations are not
preventing or controlling local threats. However, we do not have
sufficient information to determine if an individual species'
extinction risk is increased or exacerbated by inadequacy of individual
existing regulations.
Based on the Final Management Report, we conclude that existing
regulatory mechanisms for GHG emissions are inadequate to prevent
threats related to GHG emissions from worsening anywhere within the
range of the 82 candidate species and within the foreseeable future.
These threats include the three most important threats to the 82
candidate coral species: Bleaching from ocean warming, coral disease
related to ocean warming, and ocean acidification. In the Risk Analyses
section, we determine if the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for GHG emissions is a contributing factor to an individual
species' status as threatened or endangered because the existing
regulatory mechanisms fail to adequately control or mitigate these
three threats.

Risk Analyses

We developed a Determination Tool to consistently interpret the
information in the SRR, Final Management Report, and SIR, in order to
produce proposed listing determinations for each of the 82 species. The
Determination Tool provides a replicable method to distill relevant
information that contributes to each species' extinction risk and
listing status, and contains justifications for the assigned ranking
for each factor for each species. Copies of the entire Determination
Tool are available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html. The following discussion provides the basis and
rationale for our development of the Determination Tool instead of
directly assigning endangered, threatened, or not warranted status to
the extinction risk determinations of the BRT.
In the SRR, the BRT evaluated the status of each species,
identified threats to the species corresponding to four of the five
factors identified in ESA section 4(a)(1), and estimated the risk of
extinction for each of the candidate species out to the year 2100.
Predicting risk of absolute extinction (i.e., when there will be zero
living members of a species) is extremely challenging. In typically
clonal organisms like corals, where colonies can be very long-lived
(many hundreds of years), a species may be functionally unviable long
before the last colony dies. Further, problems associated with low
density may render a species at severely elevated risk well before
extinction. Rather than try to predict risk of absolute extinction, the
BRT estimated the likelihood that a population would fall below a
Critical Risk Threshold (CRT) within a specified period of time. The
CRT was not quantitatively defined. Rather, the BRT defined the CRT as
a condition where a species is of such low abundance, or so spatially
disrupted, or at such reduced diversity, that the species is at
extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for recovery (a
condition we consider to be worse than ``endangered''; discussed
below). Through a structured expert opinion process, the BRT assigned a
category describing the likelihood of each of the 82 species falling
below the CRT by 2100. The category boundaries and labels the BRT used
for this review were based on those used by the IPCC for summarizing
conclusions about climate change research, and are, in order of most
severe to least severe: Virtually certain (>99%); very likely (90-99%);
likely (66-90%), more likely than not (50-66%); less likely than not
(33-50%); unlikely (10-33%); very unlikely (1-10%), and exceptionally
unlikely (<1%). The BRT provided a summary of votes by each expert
(tallied in each risk likelihood category), mean (and standard error)
likelihood of falling below the CRT by 2100, and the mean likelihood
range for each of the 82 candidate coral species, ranked by mean
likelihood. To read a summary of how the BRT ranked these species, see
pages xxxv-xxxvii in the SRR.
While the BRT's review of the 82 candidates' status was rigorous
and extensive, the framework used does not allow us to easily or
clearly translate a particular BRT category of a certain likelihood of
falling below the CRT to an ESA listing status. Structured expert
opinion is a valid and commonly used method of evaluating extinction
risk; however, the scoring methods used by this BRT created a number of
issues that we must address to make listing determinations. For
example, some species with the same mean score might have widely
different ranges in the scores, suggesting differences in confidence
within or between BRT members. Additionally, the BRT scoring was based
on qualitative risk categories, which were then quantified and
summarized statistically. Thus, there is likely no precisely
describable distinction between two species with mean scores of 49 and
50, even though one species' score would seem to place it in a higher
risk category. In addition, in our judgment, the CRT approach used for
this status review does not correlate well with the ESA's definitions
of endangered and threatened.
The ESA defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any species which is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The CRT, as defined by the BRT, is a condition worse than
endangered, because it essentially precludes recovery. In developing
our Determination Tool discussed below, we carefully examined the
definitions of endangered and threatened species pursuant to section 3
of the ESA, wherein (1) ``endangered species'' is defined as ``any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range'', and (2) ``threatened species'' is
defined as ``any species which is likely to become an endangered
species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532 (6) and (20)). Recent case law
(In Re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing

[[Page 73237]]

and Sec. 4(d) Rule Litigation, 794 F. Supp.2d 65 (D.D.C. 2011); 748
F.Supp.2d 19 (D.D.C. 2010)) regarding FWS' listing of the polar bear as
threatened provides a thorough discussion of the ESA's definitions and
the Services' broad discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis
whether a species is in danger of extinction. The Court determined that
the phrase ``in danger of extinction'' is ambiguous. The Court held
that there is a temporal distinction between endangered and threatened
species in terms of the proximity of the ``danger'' of extinction,
noting that the definition of ``endangered species'' is phrased in the
present tense, whereas a threatened species is ``likely to become'' so
in the future. However, the Court also ruled that neither the ESA nor
its legislative history compels the interpretation of ``endangered'' as
a species being in ``imminent'' risk of extinction. Thus, in the
context of the ESA, a key statutory difference between a threatened and
endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of
extinction, either now (endangered) or in the foreseeable future
(threatened). The Court ruled that although imminence of harm is
clearly one factor that the Services weigh in their decision-making
process, it is not necessarily a limiting factor, and that Congress did
not intend to make any single factor controlling when drawing the
distinction between endangered and threatened species. In many cases,
the Services might appropriately find that the imminence of a
particular threat is the dispositive factor that warrants listing a
species as `threatened' rather than `endangered,' or vice versa.
Nevertheless, as discussed in the supplemental explanation filed by FWS
to further explain its decision to list the polar bear, to be listed as
endangered does not require that extinction be certain or probable, and
that it is possible for a species validly listed as ``endangered'' to
actually persist indefinitely. These considerations were incorporated
into our identification of the appropriate information that makes a
species in danger of extinction now, likely to become in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future, or not warranting listing. For
example, two major factors determining the immediacy of the danger of
extinction for corals are the certainty of impacts from high importance
threats and a species' current or future capacity to resist adverse
effects. While a threatened species may be impacted by the same threats
as an endangered species, a threatened species is less exposed, less
susceptible, or has a buffering capacity, which results in a temporal
delay in extinction risk. Thus, there is a temporal distinction between
endangered and threatened species in terms of the proximity of the
``danger'' of extinction.
Development of the Determination Tool involved 3 major steps: (1)
Identification of information elements that are significant in
determining and differentiating extinction risk for the candidate coral
species; (2) determining the conditions under which the elements
contribute to a species being endangered or threatened, or under which
the elements moderate extinction risk; and (3) developing appropriate
values to represent the state of the elements for each of the candidate
species.
For the first major step, the main components of the Determination
Tool were derived from the specific elements that the BRT identified in
the SRR as significant in terms of increasing or decreasing a species'
extinction risk, and refined by information in the SIR. These elements
were grouped into 3 categories as follows: Vulnerability to threats
(susceptibility and exposure), demography (rangewide abundance, trends
in abundance, and relative recruitment rate), and spatial structure
(overall distribution and ocean basin). Certain combinations of these
elements pose more immediate danger of extinction for corals. For
example, based on the analyses by the BRT, a coral species with
characteristics such as high vulnerability to bleaching from ocean
warming, narrow overall distribution, and rare abundance would have an
increased likelihood of extinction. In contrast, a species that has low
vulnerability to bleaching, wide overall distribution, and common
abundance would have a low likelihood of extinction. Thus, in step 2 of
developing the Determination Tool, we determined the particular
combinations of threat vulnerabilities, demographic information, and
spatial information that correspond to a particular proposed listing
status. Endangered species are species with a current high extinction
risk; they are highly vulnerable to one or more of the high importance
threats and have either already been seriously adversely affected by
one of these threats, as evidenced by a declining trend, and high
susceptibility to that threat, or they lack a buffer to protect them
from serious adverse effects from these threats in the future (e.g.,
rare abundance or narrow overall distribution). Threatened species are
species that are not currently in danger of extinction, but are likely
to become so within the foreseeable future. The Determination Tool
evaluates species' extinction risk over the foreseeable future, to the
year 2100, through the identification of specific threat
vulnerabilities, demographic traits, and distributional states. There
are two ways in which a species can warrant listing as threatened.
Threatened coral species are highly or moderately vulnerable to one or
more of the high importance threats or highly vulnerable to one or more
of the lower importance threats, but have either not yet exhibited
effects in their populations (e.g., stable or increasing trend), or
they have the buffering protection of a more common abundance or wider
overall distribution.
Notably, one major distinction between endangered and threatened
status for corals is based on the certainty of impacts from high
importance threats and a species' current or future capacity to resist
adverse effects. This is closely linked to the species' exposure and
susceptibility to these threats, as well as their demographic and
spatial elements. While a threatened species may be impacted by the
same threats as an endangered species, a threatened species is less
exposed, less susceptible, or has a buffering capacity, which results
in a temporal delay in extinction risk. Given the certainty that the
climate threats are increasing, and the particular combinations of
species-specific elements, a threatened species will be in danger of
extinction by 2100. Thus, there is a temporal distinction between
endangered and threatened species in terms of the proximity of the
``danger'' of extinction.
Species that do not warrant listing are species that are found not
to be in danger of extinction currently and not likely to become so by
2100 because they have: Low vulnerability to the high importance
threats, or low or moderate vulnerability to all the lower importance
threats, and common abundance or wide overall distribution. Species
that are not warranted for listing are distinguished from threatened
and endangered species because they have a lower susceptibility to
threats and the buffering capacity to resist adverse effect on their
status now and into the future, meaning few individuals are affected by
threats (lower vulnerability) and the high abundance and wide range
buffers the species from declines. Thus there is low extinction risk
for these species, which supports their not warranted status.
In the third step of the risk analysis we developed a range of
values for each of the information elements comprising the
Determination Tool, to provide an adequate description of that
elements'

[[Page 73238]]

contribution to each species' extinction risk, and to allow evaluation
of meaningful distinctions between species. For example, rangewide
abundance is rated as rare, uncommon, or common; depth distribution is
shallow, moderate or wide; threat susceptibilities are rated as high,
moderate or low, or as intermediate values. These values for each of
the Determination Tool elements are summarized in Table 3D below.

Detailed Description of Determination Tool Elements

As mentioned above, the Determination Tool uses three categories of
information for evaluating the status of each of the 82 candidate
species: Vulnerability to threats, demography and spatial structure
(Table 2). These three categories were selected based on the influence
this particular type of information has on the extinction risk of
corals. There are specific elements within each of these categories
with which we populated the Determination Tool. The following is a list
of the specific elements in their categories:
(1) Vulnerability to threats--(each of the nine most important
threats described in the Threats Evaluation section above) based on a
species' susceptibility and exposure to each of the threats;
(2) Demography--abundance, trends in abundance, relative
recruitment rate; and
(3) Spatial structure--overall distribution (which is a combination
of geographic and depth distributions), and ocean basin.

Where data were available within these elements for a particular
species, the Determination Tool provided a consistent method to
consider those elements for classifying each species in terms of its
listing status. However, if data were unavailable (i.e., no inference
could be made from the genus or family) on a particular element for a
species, that element had no effect on listing status (i.e., no
available information on which to identify contribution to extinction
risk). Notably, there were available data for at least one element in
each of the categories for each species to adequately populate the
Determination Tool for a listing status. Summaries of each element
considered in the Determination Tool, and its effect on listing status,
are shown in Table 2 below. In all cases, the effect on listing shown
in the table is a generality that depends on other elements, because
each outcome depends on a combination of the vulnerability,
demographic, and spatial structure ratings. Detailed descriptions of
each of the elements, and how they are rated in the Determination Tool,
follow after Table 2.

Table 2--Summary of Each Element Considered in the Determination Tool, and Its Effect on Listing Status. The Corresponding ESA Section 4 Listing Factor
Is Listed in Parentheses After Each Threat in the Element Column. ``E'' Means ``Endangered'' and ``T'' Means ``Threatened.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species-specific
Category Element Definition classification Effect on listing status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vulnerability to High Importance Ocean Warming (E).......... Elevation of ocean high, moderate, low........ high contributes to E or T
Threats. temperatures above depending on other
tolerated range resulting elements.
primarily in bleaching moderate contributes to T
(expulsion of symbiotic depending on other
algae) and other elements.
detrimental physiological
responses.
Disease (C)................ Presumed infectious high, moderate, low........ high contributes to E or T
diseases often associated depending on other
with acute tissue loss. elements.
moderate contributes to T
depending on other
elements.
Ocean Acidification (E).... Increased CO2 in the high, moderate, low........ high contributes to E or T
surface ocean, resulting depending on other
in reduced pH and reduced elements.
availability of carbonate moderate contributes to T
ions. depending on other
elements.
Vulnerability to Lower Importance Reef Fishing Impacts The alteration (through the high, moderate, low........ high or moderate
Threats. (Trophic Cascades) (A). removal of fish biomass) contributes to E or T
of trophic interactions depending on other
that is particularly elements.
important in structuring
coral reef ecosystems.
Sedimentation (A & E)...... Delivery of terrestrial high, moderate, low........ high contributes to T
sediments and re- depending on other
mobilization of in situ elements.
sediments.
Nutrient Over-enrichment (A An overabundance of high, moderate, low........ high contributes to T
& E). chemicals that organisms depending on other
need to live and grow, elements.
which results in
detrimental physiological
or ecological imbalances.

[[Page 73239]]

Sea-level Rise (A & E)..... Increase of observed sea high, moderate, low........ high contributes to T
level due to thermal depending on other
expansion and the melting elements.
of both land and sea ice
as direct consequences of
increases in atmospheric
greenhouse gases.
Predation (C).............. The feeding on corals by high, moderate, low........ high contributes to T
fish or invertebrates. depending on other
elements.
Collection and Trade (B)... The removal and transport high, moderate, low........ high contributes to T
of coral colonies. depending on other
elements.
Demographic......................... Qualitative Range-wide A qualitative estimate of rare, uncommon, common..... rare or uncommon
Abundance (E). the abundance of a species. contributes to E depending
on other elements.
rare contributes to T
depending on other
elements.
Trends in Abundance (E).... A quantitative or decreasing, stable, decreasing contributes to E
qualitative indicator of a increasing. depending on other
species' trajectory; elements.
represents realized
productivity.
Relative Recruitment Rate Number of recruits per low, moderate, high........ low contributes to E or T
(E). spawner. depending on other
elements.
Spatial Structure................... Overall Distribution (E)... The latitudinal, narrow, moderate, wide..... narrow contributes to E or
longitudinal, habitat, and T depending on other
depth extent occupied by elements.
the species. moderate or wide
contributes to T depending
on other elements.
Ocean Basin (E)............ The restriction of a Caribbean, Eastern Pacific, Restriction to Caribbean or
species to a particular Indo-Pacific. Eastern Pacific
ocean basin. contributes to E or T
depending on other
elements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vulnerability to Threats

The first information category in the Determination Tool is
vulnerability of coral species to the most important threats. The
future trajectories of the 82 candidate coral species will largely
depend on their vulnerabilities to these threats, thus threat
vulnerability is the key component to the 82 extinction risk analyses.
As described in the Threats to Coral Species section above,
vulnerability of a coral species to a threat is a function of
susceptibility and exposure, where susceptibility refers to the
response of coral colonies to the adverse conditions produced by the
threat, and exposure refers to the proportion of colonies that come
into contact with the threat across the range of the species.
Vulnerability applies to large spatial and temporal scales--for each
species and each threat, susceptibilities and exposures are considered
for its entire range, from now to the year 2100. Species-specific
ratings of susceptibilities and exposures were made in the
Determination Tool, leading to species-specific vulnerability ratings,
as described in more detail below.
Susceptibility generally refers to the response of coral colonies
to the adverse conditions produced by the threat. Susceptibility of a
coral species to a threat is primarily a function of biological
processes and characteristics, and can vary greatly between and within
taxa (i.e., family, genus, and species). In the Determination Tool,
susceptibility of each of the 82 candidate corals species to each of
the nine threats was rated as high, high-moderate, moderate, moderate-
low, or low, based on the information in the SRR and SIR.
Susceptibility of a species to a threat depends on the combination of:
(1) Direct effects of the threat on the species; and (2) the cumulative
(i.e., additive) and interactive (i.e., synergistic or antagonistic)
effects of the threat with the effects of other threats on the species.
Therefore, when rating the susceptibilities to each threat, we
specifically considered how the cumulative or interactive effects, for
which we have information, altered the rating that would be assigned to
a threat susceptibility in isolation. In many cases the interactive and
cumulative effects of threats increased a species' susceptibility
rating to a particular threat, specifically when the species has
moderate or high susceptibilities to the individual threats. Further,
species with low susceptibilities to individual threats are not
expected to have increased susceptibilities when considering cumulative
or interactive effects, because low susceptibility means that few
individuals of the species exhibit adverse impacts to the threat. Thus,
there is a low likelihood of multiple low susceptibility threats
affecting the same individuals either cumulatively or interactively.
The threat susceptibility ratings from the Determination Tool for each
of the candidate species for each threat are shown in Table 3. In
addition, the Determination Tool includes a

[[Page 73240]]

justification sheet that provides the rationale for each of the
susceptibility ratings. In the justifications sheet, we identify the
complete basis on which we assigned a ranking, including cumulative and
interactive effects of threats. Copies of the entire Determination Tool
are available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html.
As described above, vulnerability of a coral species to a threat
also depends on the proportion of colonies that are exposed to the
threat. Exposure is primarily a function of physical processes and
characteristics that limit or moderate the impact of the threat across
the range of the species. In the Determination Tool, exposure of each
of the 82 candidate corals species to each of the nine threats was
rated as high, high-moderate, moderate, moderate-low, or low, based on
the information in the SRR and SIR. Exposure of a species to a threat
depends on the spatial and temporal scales over which exposure to the
threat is being considered. As explained above, the appropriate spatial
scale is the entire current range of the species, and the appropriate
temporal scale is from now to the year 2100. The threat exposure
ratings from the Determination Tool for each of the candidate species
for each threat are shown in Table 3. In addition, the Determination
Tool includes a justification sheet that provides the rationale for
each of the exposure ratings.
Vulnerability of a coral species to a threat is a function of
susceptibility and exposure. Thus, in the Determination Tool, the
vulnerability rating for each species to each threat is determined by
the sum of the susceptibility and exposure ratings, resulting in a
threat vulnerability rating that we ranked as high, moderate, or low.
The threat vulnerability ratings from the Determination Tool for each
of the candidate species for each threat are shown in Table 3.
The three most important threats that contribute to a species'
extinction risk are ocean warming, disease, and ocean acidification. We
considered these threats to be the most significant threats posing
extinction risk to the 82 candidate coral species currently and out to
the year 2100. Thus, vulnerability to these threats highly influenced
the listing status for each of the 82 coral species. Threats of lower
importance--trophic effects of reef fishing, sedimentation, nutrients,
sea-level rise, predation, and collection and trade--were also
considered as contributing to extinction risks, but to a lesser extent.
Therefore, the vulnerability to the lower importance threats only
contributed to threatened or endangered status if the species had a
high vulnerability to that threat. Last, the threats not considered in
the tool, or those that have moderate or low ranking, may still have
negative effects on individual species, just not enough to
significantly affect extinction risk.

Demography (ESA Factor E)

Demographic elements that cause a species to be at heightened risk
of extinction, alone or in combination with threats under other listing
factors, are considered under ESA Factor E--other natural or manmade
factors affecting the continued existence of the species. Because the
demographic elements of abundance and productivity have such
interactive effects on extinction risk and because they are often both
estimated from the same time series data, we address these two
parameters together. Information related to coral abundance and
productivity can be divided into several qualitative and quantitative
metrics. However, abundance and trend data for the 82 coral species are
limited; the data that do exist suffer from substantial uncertainties
(see Section 4.2 of the SRR). Therefore, the Determination Tool relies
on the qualitative rangewide abundance and qualitative trends in
abundance.
Species-specific qualitative abundance estimates, coded as
``common'', ``uncommon'', or ``rare'' for the candidate species, are
based on information in Sections 6 and 7 of the SRR and SIR. A
qualitative rangewide abundance estimate was the only abundance metric
that was available for all of the 82 candidate species. In general,
``rare'' or ``uncommon'' species are more vulnerable than common ones,
although some species are naturally rare and have likely persisted in
that rare state for tens of thousands of years or longer. However,
naturally rare species may generally be at greater risk of extinction
than naturally more common species when confronted with global threats
to which they are vulnerable. Thus, in the Determination Tool, rarity
or uncommonness increased extinction risk and contributed to an
endangered or threatened status. Trends in abundance directly
demonstrate how the focal species responds under current or recent-past
conditions. Trend data for the 82 species were scarce; however, a
declining trend increased extinction risk and contributed to endangered
status in the Determination Tool.
Productivity is perhaps a more important indicator of extinction
risk than commonness. Productivity is defined here as the tendency of
the population to increase in abundance if perturbed to low numbers and
is often expressed as ``recruits per spawner,'' although the term
``recruit'' can be difficult to apply in the case of corals, which
reproduce both sexually and asexually (see Section 2.2.1 of the SRR).
Many of the 82 candidate coral species are long-lived, with low or
episodic productivity, making them highly vulnerable to trends of
increased mortality or catastrophic mortality events. As an example of
the high influence recruitment rate has on extinction risk, the BRT
considered a species that has lost the ability for successful
recruitment of sexually-produced progeny to be below the CRT, even if
it can still reproduce asexually; thus such a species would be at high
risk of extinction. Recruitment rate estimates for the 82 candidate
species were scarce; however, in the Determination Tool, where
estimates were available, low relative recruitment rates increased the
extinction risk and contributed to endangered or threatened status.

Spatial Structure (ESA Factor E)

Spatial elements that cause a species to be at heightened risk of
extinction, alone or in combination with threats under other listing
factors, are considered under ESA Factor E--other natural or manmade
factors affecting the continued existence of the species. Spatial
structure is important at a variety of scales. At small spatial scales
within a single population, issues of gamete density and other Allee
effects (when, in small populations, the reproduction and survival
rates of individuals decreases with declining population density) can
have significant impacts on population persistence. A wide geographic
distribution can buffer a population or a species from environmental
fluctuations or catastrophic events; it ``spreads the risk'' among
multiple populations (see Section 4.3 of the SRR). We explicitly
described how exposure to individual threats varies at different
spatial scales in the Threats Evaluation section above. The extent to
which an individual species' extinction risk is contributed to or
moderated by those spatial aspects is considered in exposure. Here, we
are identifying the general area a species may occupy across its
geographic and depth distributions. Generally, having a wide geographic
or depth distribution provides more potential area to occupy. However,
if populations are too isolated (even within a large distribution),
gene flow and larval connectivity may be reduced, making the species
less likely to recover from mortality events. Thus,

[[Page 73241]]

a robust spatial structure includes a wide geographic distribution,
with substantial connectivity to maintain proximity of populations and
individuals within the range. We considered the geographic (including
longitudinal, latitudinal, and habitat) distribution and depth
distribution in rating the overall distribution for each species. Based
on the information above on how distribution influences extinction
risk, a narrow overall distribution increases extinction risk. However,
in some cases a moderate or wide distribution is not sufficient to
reduce extinction risk to a level that the species would not warrant
listing.
We also considered the ocean basin in which a species exists under
spatial structure in the Determination Tool. The Caribbean basin is
geographically small and partially enclosed, biologically well-
connected, and has relatively high human population densities with a
long history of adversely affecting coral reef systems across the
basin. The eastern Pacific basin is geographically isolated from the
Indo-Pacific and has an environment that may be one of the least
hospitable to reef development and coral biodiversity. Further, since
1980, six of the 40 known reef-building scleractinian and hydrocoral
species in the eastern Pacific may have become extinct or locally
extirpated. The eastern Pacific contains approximately one third of the
number of genera and less than half the number of species compared to
the Caribbean, less reef area than in the Caribbean, and strong climate
variability. If a species is restricted to one of these basins, its
extinction risk is significantly increased, and thus contributed to a
status of endangered or threatened.
In the Determination Tool, the geographic distribution ratings are
defined as follows: All Caribbean species are rated as ``narrow; in the
Indo-Pacific, ``narrow'' is a portion of the Coral Triangle, or the
eastern Pacific, or the Hawaiian archipelago, or a similarly small
portion of the Indian and Pacific Oceans; ``moderate'' is somewhat
restricted latitudinally or longitudinally in the Indo-Pacific, but not
as much as the narrow species (e.g., species distributed throughout the
Coral Triangle are rated as moderate, not narrow); and ``wide'' is
broadly distributed latitudinally and longitudinally throughout most of
the Indo-Pacific. For all species, the depth distribution ratings are
defined as: ``Shallow'' is near the surface to approximately 15 m,
``moderate'' is near the surface to approximately 50 m, and ``wide'' is
near the surface to approximately 100 m. Species that are found
predominantly in deeper water potentially occur near the surface in
low-light environments (e.g., turbid habitats, overhangs, caves, etc.).
Overall distribution ratings are simply sums of the geographic and
depth ratings; thus, justifications for the overall distribution
ratings are not provided in the Determination Tool.

Summary of the Determination Tool

As discussed above and described in the outline below, particular
combinations of threat vulnerabilities, demographic information, and
spatial information result in a particular proposed listing status. The
outline below is the textual description of the Determination Tool. A
graphical depiction of the Determination Tool is available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html. The 82 outcomes are
provided in the Listing Determinations section that follows.
(1) A species warrants listing as endangered if:
(a) It is highly vulnerable to any high importance threat and
(b) It has any of the following demographic elements:
(i) Rare or uncommon abundance; or
(ii) Declining trend; or
(iii) Low recruitment rate; and
(c) It has any of the following spatial elements:
(i) Narrow overall distribution or
(ii) Occurs only in the E. Pacific or Caribbean; and
(d) The existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequately regulating
the high importance threats contributing to the species' status.
(2) A species warrants listing as threatened if:
(a) It is highly vulnerable to any high importance threat, but does
not have both one of the demographic elements and one of the spatial
elements listed under 1b and 1c above, or
(b) It is moderately vulnerable to any high importance threat, or
highly vulnerable to any lower importance threat, and
(i) It has any of the following qualities:
(1) Rare abundance or
(2) Narrow overall distribution; and
(c) The existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequately regulating
the threats contributing to the species' status.
(3) A species does not warrant listing as threatened or endangered
if:
(a) It is not highly or moderately vulnerable to any high
importance threat, nor highly vulnerable to any lower importance
threat, and
(b) It has one of the following qualities:
(i) Uncommon or common abundance and moderate or wide overall
distribution; or
(ii) The existing regulatory mechanisms are adequately regulating
the threats contributing to the species' status
Tables 3A-3D: The four tables below show all demographic (3A),
spatial (3A), and threat vulnerability (3B & 3C) data for each of the
84 species considered in the Determination Tool. Keys to the data are
shown in Table 3D. Copies of the entire Determination Tool are
available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html.

Table 3A--Demographic and Spatial Data for Each of the 84 Species Considered in the Determination Tool. A Key for the Ratings Is Provided in Table 3D
Below
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographic (E) Spatial (E)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRR order Species Generalized Relative
rangewide Trends in recruitment Geographic Depth Overall Restricted to Restricted to
abundance abundance rate distribution distribution distribution Caribbean Eastern Pacific
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0........... Acropora 2 1 1 1 1 2 Y N
cervicornis.
0........... Acropora palmata... 2 1 1 1 2 3 Y N
1........... Agaricia lamarcki.. 3 2 1 1 3 4 Y N
2........... Mycetophyllia ferox 1 1 1 1 3 4 Y N
3........... Dendrogyra 1 n/a 1 1 2 3 Y N
cylindrus.
4........... Dichocoenia 3 n/a 2 1 3 4 Y N
stokesii.
5........... Montastraea 3 1 1 1 3 4 Y N
faveolata.
6........... Montastraea franksi 3 1 1 1 3 4 Y N
7........... Montastraea 3 1 1 1 2 3 Y N
annularis.
8........... Millepora foveolata 2 n/a 3 1 1 2 N N
9........... Millepora tuberosa. 3 n/a 3 1 1 2 N N

[[Page 73242]]

10.......... Heliopora coerulea. 3 n/a 2 3 3 6 N N
11.......... Pocillopora danae.. 2 n/a n/a 2 2 4 N N
12.......... Pocillopora elegans 3 n/a 1 1 3 4 N Y
(East Pacific).
13.......... Pocillopora elegans 3 n/a n/a 3 3 6 N N
(Indo-Pacific).
14.......... Seriatopora 2 n/a n/a 2 2 4 N N
aculeata.
15.......... Acropora aculeus... 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
16.......... Acropora acuminata. 2 n/a 2 3 2 5 N N
17.......... Acropora aspera.... 3 n/a n/a 2 1 3 N N
18.......... Acropora dendrum... 1 n/a n/a 2 2 4 N N
19.......... Acropora donei..... 2 n/a n/a 2 2 4 N N
20.......... Acropora globiceps. 3 n/a n/a 2 1 3 N N
21.......... Acropora horrida... 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
22.......... Acropora 1 n/a n/a 1 2 3 N N
jacquelineae.
23.......... Acropora listeri... 2 n/a n/a 3 1 4 N N
24.......... Acropora lokani.... 1 n/a n/a 1 2 3 N N
25.......... Acropora 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
microclados.
26.......... Acropora palmerae.. 2 n/a n/a 2 2 4 N N
27.......... Acropora paniculata 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
28.......... Acropora pharaonis. 3 n/a n/a 1 2 3 N N
29.......... Acropora polystoma. 2 n/a n/a 3 1 4 N N
30.......... Acropora retusa.... 2 n/a n/a 3 1 4 N N
31.......... Acropora rudis..... 2 n/a n/a 1 1 2 N N
32.......... Acropora speciosa.. 2 n/a n/a 2 2 4 N N
33.......... Acropora striata... 2 n/a n/a 2 2 4 N N
34.......... Acropora tenella... 2 n/a n/a 2 3 5 N N
35.......... Acropora vaughani.. 2 n/a 2 3 2 5 N N
36.......... Acropora verweyi... 3 n/a n/a 3 1 4 N N
37.......... Anacropora 2 n/a n/a 2 2 4 N N
puertogalerae.
38.......... Anacropora spinosa. 2 n/a n/a 1 1 2 N N
39.......... Astreopora 2 n/a n/a 3 1 4 N N
cucullata.
40.......... Isopora 3 n/a n/a 2 2 4 N N
crateriformis.
41.......... Isopora cuneata.... 3 n/a 3 3 1 4 N N
42.......... Montipora angulata. 2 n/a 2 3 2 5 N N
43.......... Montipora 2 n/a 2 3 2 5 N N
australiensis.
44.......... Montipora calcarea. 2 n/a 2 3 2 5 N N
45.......... Montipora 2 n/a 2 3 2 5 N N
caliculata.
46.......... Montipora dilatata/ 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
flabellata(/
turgescens).
47.......... Montipora lobulata. 2 n/a 2 3 2 5 N N
48.......... Montipora patula(/ 3 n/a 2 1 2 3 N N
verrilli).
49.......... Alveopora allingi.. 2 n/a n/a 3 1 4 N N
50.......... Alveopora 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
fenestrata.
51.......... Alveopora 2 n/a 2 3 3 6 N N
verrilliana.
52.......... Porites 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
horizontalata.
53.......... Porites napopora... 3 n/a n/a 2 1 3 N N
54.......... Porites nigrescens. 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
55.......... Porites (Clade 1 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
forma pukoensis).
56.......... Psammocora stellata 2 n/a n/a 2 2 4 N N
57.......... Leptoseris 2 n/a n/a 3 3 6 N N
incrustans.
58.......... Leptoseris yabei... 2 n/a n/a 3 3 6 N N
59.......... Pachyseris rugosa.. 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
60.......... Pavona bipartite... 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
61.......... Pavona cactus...... 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
62.......... Pavona decussata... 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
63.......... Pavona diffluens... 2 n/a n/a 1 2 3 N N
64.......... Pavona venosa...... 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
65.......... Galaxea astreata... 3 n/a n/a 3 3 6 N N
66.......... Pectinia alcicornis 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
67.......... Acanthastrea brevis 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
68.......... Acanthastrea 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
hemprichii.
69.......... Acanthastrea 2 n/a n/a 3 1 4 N N
ishigakiensis.
70.......... Acanthastrea 2 n/a n/a 2 2 4 N N
regularis.
71.......... Barabattoia laddi.. 2 n/a n/a 2 1 3 N N
72.......... Caulastrea 2 n/a n/a 1 2 3 N N
echinulata.
73.......... Cyphastrea agassizi 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
74.......... Cyphastrea ocellina 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
75.......... Euphyllia cristata. 2 n/a n/a 2 2 4 N N
76.......... Euphyllia 2 n/a n/a 2 3 5 N N
paraancora.
77.......... Euphyllia 2 n/a n/a 1 2 3 N N
paradivisa.
78.......... Physogyra 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
lichtensteini.
79.......... Turbinaria 3 n/a 3 3 2 5 N N
mesenterina.
80.......... Turbinaria peltata. 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
81.......... Turbinaria 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
reniformis.
82.......... Turbinaria 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 N N
stellulata.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 73243]]

Table 3B--Exposure (Exp.), Susceptibility (Susc.), and Vulnerability (Vul.) Ratings for Five Threats for Each of the 84 Species Considered in the
Determination Tool. A Key for the Ratings Is Provided in Table 3D Below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High importance threats Medium and low importance threats
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocean warming Disease Ocean acidification Trophic effects of Sedimentation
SRR Order Species ---------------------------------------------------------------------- reef fishing ----------------------
-----------------------
Exp. Susc. Vul. Exp. Susc. Vul. Exp. Susc. Vul. Exp. Susc. Vul. Exp. Susc. Vul.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............. Acropora cervicornis 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 1.5 3 1.5 2 3.5 2 1 3
0............. Acropora palmata.... 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 1.5 3 1.5 2 3.5 2 1 3
1............. Agaricia lamarcki... 1.5 2 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4
2............. Mycetophyllia ferox. 1.5 3 4.5 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 2 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4
3............. Dendrogyra cylindrus 1.5 2 3.5 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 2 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4
4............. Dichocoenia stokesii 1.5 3 4.5 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 2 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 1.5 3.5
5............. Montastraea 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 1.5 3 1.5 2 3.5 2 1 3
faveolata.
6............. Montastraea franksi. 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 1.5 3 1.5 2 3.5 2 1 3
7............. Montastraea 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 1 2.5 1.5 1.5 3 1.5 2 3.5 2 1 3
annularis.
8............. Millepora foveolata. 1.5 1 2.5 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2 5
9............. Millepora tuberosa.. 1.5 1 2.5 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2 5
10............ Heliopora coerulea.. 1.5 3 4.5 2 3 5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 3 6
11............ Pocillopora danae... 1.5 1.5 3 2 2.5 4.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
12............ Pocillopora elegans 1.5 1.5 3 2 2.5 4.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
(East Pacific).
13............ Pocillopora elegans 1.5 1.5 3 2 2.5 4.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
(Indo-Pacific).
14............ Seriatopora aculeata 1.5 1.5 3 2 2.5 4.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
15............ Acropora aculeus.... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
16............ Acropora acuminata.. 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
17............ Acropora aspera..... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
18............ Acropora dendrum.... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
19............ Acropora donei...... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
20............ Acropora globiceps.. 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
21............ Acropora horrida.... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
22............ Acropora 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
jacquelineae.
23............ Acropora listeri.... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
24............ Acropora lokani..... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
25............ Acropora microclados 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
26............ Acropora palmerae... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
27............ Acropora paniculata. 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
28............ Acropora pharaonis.. 1.5 1 2.5 2 1 3 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
29............ Acropora polystoma.. 1.5 1 2.5 2 1 3 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
30............ Acropora retusa..... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
31............ Acropora rudis...... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
32............ Acropora speciosa... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
33............ Acropora striata.... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
34............ Acropora tenella.... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
35............ Acropora vaughani... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
36............ Acropora verweyi.... 1.5 1 2.5 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
37............ Anacropora 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2 5
puertogalerae.
38............ Anacropora spinosa.. 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
39............ Astreopora cucullata 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2 5
40............ Isopora 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2 5
crateriformis.
41............ Isopora cuneata..... 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2 5
42............ Montipora angulata.. 1.5 1.5 3 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2 5
43............ Montipora 1.5 1.5 3 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2 5
australiensis.
44............ Montipora calcarea.. 1.5 1.5 3 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2 5
45............ Montipora caliculata 1.5 1.5 3 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2 5
46............ Montipora dilatata/ 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2 5
flabellata(/
turgescens).
47............ Montipora lobulata.. 1.5 1.5 3 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2 5
48............ Montipora patula(/ 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 1.5 4.5
verrilli).
49............ Alveopora allingi... 1.5 1.5 3 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
50............ Alveopora fenestrata 1.5 1.5 3 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
51............ Alveopora 1.5 1.5 3 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
verrilliana.
52............ Porites 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
horizontalata.
53............ Porites napopora.... 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
54............ Porites nigrescens.. 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
55............ Porites (Clade 1 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
forma pukoensis).
56............ Psammocora stellata. 1.5 2.5 4 2 2.5 4.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
57............ Leptoseris 1.5 3 4.5 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
incrustans.
58............ Leptoseris yabei.... 1.5 3 4.5 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
59............ Pachyseris rugosa... 1.5 1.5 3 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
60............ Pavona bipartite.... 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
61............ Pavona cactus....... 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
62............ Pavona decussata.... 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
63............ Pavona diffluens.... 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
64............ Pavona venosa....... 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
65............ Galaxea astreata.... 1.5 2 3.5 2 2.5 4.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 3 6
66............ Pectinia alcicornis. 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 3 6
67............ Acanthastrea brevis. 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 3 6
68............ Acanthastrea 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 3 6
hemprichii.

[[Page 73244]]

69............ Acanthastrea 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 3 6
ishigakiensis.
70............ Acanthastrea 1.5 1.5 3 2 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 3 6
regularis.
71............ Barabattoia laddi... 1.5 2.5 4 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 n/a n/a
72............ Caulastrea 1.5 2.5 4 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 n/a n/a
echinulata.
73............ Cyphastrea agassizi. 1.5 2.5 4 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 n/a n/a
74............ Cyphastrea ocellina. 1.5 2.5 4 2 2 4 1.5 2 3.5 2 2 4 3 n/a n/a
75............ Euphyllia cristata.. 1.5 1.5 3 2 2.5 4.5 1.5 2.5 4 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
76............ Euphyllia paraancora 1.5 1.5 3 2 2.5 4.5 1.5 2.5 4 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
77............ Euphyllia paradivisa 1.5 1.5 3 2 2.5 4.5 1.5 2.5 4 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
78............ Physogyra 1.5 1.5 3 2 2 4 1.5 2.5 4 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
lichtensteini.
79............ Turbinaria 1.5 3 4.5 2 2 4 1.5 2.5 4 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
mesenterina.
80............ Turbinaria peltata.. 1.5 3 4.5 2 2 4 1.5 2.5 4 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
81............ Turbinaria 1.5 3 4.5 2 2 4 1.5 2.5 4 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
reniformis.
82............ Turbinaria 1.5 3 4.5 2 2 4 1.5 2.5 4 2 2 4 3 2.5 5.5
stellulata.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3C--Exposure (Exp.), Susceptibility (Susc.), and Vulnerability (Vul.) Ratings for Four Threats for Each of the 84 Species Considered in the
Determination Tool, and Regulatory Mechanisms Results. A Key for the Ratings is Provided in Table 3D Below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium and low importance threats
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRR Order Species Nutrients Sea-level rise Predation Collection & trade Inadequacy of
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ regulatory mechanisms?
Exp. Susc. Vul. Exp. Susc. Vul. Exp. Susc. Vul. Exp. Susc. Vul.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0................ Acropora cervicornis.... 2 1 3 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
0................ Acropora palmata........ 2 1 3 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
1................ Agaricia lamarcki....... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 3 6 YES.
2................ Mycetophyllia ferox..... 2 1 3 3 2 5 3 3 6 2.5 2.5 5 YES.
3................ Dendrogyra cylindrus.... 2 1.5 3.5 3 2 5 3 3 6 2.5 2.5 5 YES.
4................ Dichocoenia stokesii.... 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 2.5 5.5 3 3 6 YES.
5................ Montastraea faveolata... 2 1 3 3 2 5 3 2.5 5.5 3 3 6 YES.
6................ Montastraea franksi..... 2 1 3 3 2 5 3 2.5 5.5 3 3 6 YES.
7................ Montastraea annularis... 2 1 3 3 2 5 3 2.5 5.5 3 3 6 YES.
8................ Millepora foveolata..... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
9................ Millepora tuberosa...... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
10............... Heliopora coerulea...... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 3 6 3 3 6 NO.
11............... Pocillopora danae....... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
12............... Pocillopora elegans 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
(East Pacific).
13............... Pocillopora elegans 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
(Indo-Pacific).
14............... Seriatopora aculeata.... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
15............... Acropora aculeus........ 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
16............... Acropora acuminata...... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 3 6 3 3 6 YES.
17............... Acropora aspera......... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
18............... Acropora dendrum........ 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
19............... Acropora donei.......... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
20............... Acropora globiceps...... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
21............... Acropora horrida........ 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
22............... Acropora jacquelineae... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
23............... Acropora listeri........ 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
24............... Acropora lokani......... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
25............... Acropora microclados.... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
26............... Acropora palmerae....... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
27............... Acropora paniculata..... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
28............... Acropora pharaonis...... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
29............... Acropora polystoma...... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
30............... Acropora retusa......... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
31............... Acropora rudis.......... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
32............... Acropora speciosa....... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
33............... Acropora striata........ 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
34............... Acropora tenella........ 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
35............... Acropora vaughani....... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
36............... Acropora verweyi........ 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
37............... Anacropora puertogalerae 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
38............... Anacropora spinosa...... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
39............... Astreopora cucullata.... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
40............... Isopora crateriformis... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
41............... Isopora cuneata......... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
42............... Montipora angulata...... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
43............... Montipora australiensis. 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
44............... Montipora calcarea...... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
45............... Montipora caliculata.... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
46............... Montipora dilatata/ 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
flabellata(/turgescens).

[[Page 73245]]

47............... Montipora lobulata...... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
48............... Montipora patula(/ 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 1.5 4.5 3 3 6 YES.
verrilli).
49............... Alveopora allingi....... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
50............... Alveopora fenestrata.... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
51............... Alveopora verrilliana... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
52............... Porites horizontalata... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
53............... Porites napopora........ 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
54............... Porites nigrescens...... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
55............... Porites (Clade 1 forma 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 NO.
pukoensis).
56............... Psammocora stellata..... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 NO.
57............... Leptoseris incrustans... 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 NO.
58............... Leptoseris yabei........ 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 NO.
59............... Pachyseris rugosa....... 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
60............... Pavona bipartita........ 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 NO.
61............... Pavona cactus........... 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 NO.
62............... Pavona decussata........ 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 NO.
63............... Pavona diffluens........ 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 YES.
64............... Pavona venosa........... 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 3 6 NO.
65............... Galaxea astreata........ 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 3 6 3 3 6 NO.
66............... Pectinia alcicornis..... 2 3 5 3 2 5 3 1 4 3 3 6 YES.
67............... Acanthastrea brevis..... 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 3 6 YES.
68............... Acanthastrea hemprichii. 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 3 6 YES.
69............... Acanthastrea 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 3 6 YES.
ishigakiensis.
70............... Acanthastrea regularis.. 2 n/a n/a 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 3 6 YES.
71............... Barabattoia laddi....... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 3 6 YES.
72............... Caulastrea echinulata... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 3 6 YES.
73............... Cyphastrea agassizi..... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 3 6 NO.
74............... Cyphastrea ocellina..... 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 3 6 NO.
75............... Euphyllia cristata...... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 YES.
76............... Euphyllia paraancora.... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 YES.
77............... Euphyllia paradivisa.... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 2 5 YES.
78............... Physogyra lichtensteini. 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 n/a n/a 3 3 6 YES.
79............... Turbinaria mesenterina.. 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 3 6 3 3 6 NO.
80............... Turbinaria peltata...... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 3 6 3 3 6 NO.
81............... Turbinaria reniformis... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 3 6 3 3 6 NO.
82............... Turbinaria stellulata... 2 2.5 4.5 3 2 5 3 3 6 3 3 6 NO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3D--Guide to Values for the Determination Tool's Element Ratings
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family....................... Taxonomic Family to which the species
belongs.
SRR order.................... Order in which the species occurs in the
Status Review Report.
CRT score.................... The score assigned to each species
indicating the mean likelihood that the
species would fall below the critical
risk threshold (CRT) by 2100. The CRT is
defined as a condition where a species
is of such low abundance, or so
spatially disrupted, or at such reduced
diversity, that the species is at
extremely high risk of extinction with
little chance for recovery.
CRT Mode..................... The mode of the likelihood that the
species would fall below the CRT by
2100.
Proposed Listing Status Oct The listing status determined by the
2012. determination tool as populated in
October 2012.
Generalized Rangewide Scale (based on SRR's Abundance rating,
Abundance. unless otherwise noted in the
Justification):
1 = rare.
2 = uncommon.
3 = common.
Trends in abundance.......... Scale:
1 = decreasing.
2 = stable.
3 = increasing.
Relative Recruitment Rate.... Scale:
1 = low.
2 = moderate.
3 = high.
Geographic Distribution...... Scale:
1 = narrow (Caribbean or restricted to
a portion of the Coral Triangle, or
the eastern Pacific, or the Hawaiian
archipelago, or a similarly small
portion of the Indian and Pacific
Oceans).
2 = moderate (somewhat restricted
latitudinally or longitudinally in
the Indo-Pacific, but not as much as
the narrow species (e.g., species
distributed throughout the Coral
Triangle are rated as moderate, not
narrow).
3 = wide (broadly distributed
latitudinally and longitudinally.
Predominant Depth Scale:
Distribution.
1 = shallow (near surface to
approximately 15 m).
2 = moderate (near the surface to
approximately 50 m).

[[Page 73246]]

3 = wide (near the surface to
approximately 100 m).
Overall distribution......... Characterization of the total possible
area the species can occupy. Rated by
adding the geographic distribution
rating to the depth distribution rating.
Scale:
2-3 = narrow.
4 = moderate.
5-6 = wide.
Restricted to Caribbean Sea.. Identification of the species'
restriction to relatively small,
partially enclosed, highly-disturbed
wider-Caribbean as Y or N.
Restricted to Eastern Pacific Identification of the species'
restriction to the highly-vulnerable
Eastern Pacific as Y or N.
Threat Exposure.............. Exposure of colonies of a species to a
particular threat varies greatly across
its range, depending on colony location
(e.g., latitude, depth, bathymetry,
habitat type, etc.), and physical
processes that affect seawater
temperature and its effects on coral
colonies (e.g., winds, currents,
upwelling, shading, tides, etc.).
Exposure of colonies to a particular
threat also varies temporally daily,
seasonally, and annually, and is
assessed now and within the foreseeable
future. Last, species may be exposed to
multiple threats simultaneously or
sequentially. For most threats exposure
will increase over time.
Scale:
1 = high.
1.5 = high-to-moderate.
2 = moderate.
2.5 = moderate-to-low.
3 = low.
Threat Susceptibility........ Susceptibility to a particular threat is
a function of the species' initial
response to a threat and its capacity to
recover. Susceptibility to a particular
threat is also affected by the
interactive or cumulative effects of
other threats by altering the organism
or its environment biologically,
chemically, or physically.
Scale:
1 = high.
1.5--high-to-moderate.
2 = moderate.
2.5 = moderate-to-low.
3 = low.
Threat Vulnerability......... Species-specific vulnerability to each
threat is a function of the species-
specific exposure and susceptibility. It
is assessed by adding the species-
specific exposures and susceptibilities.
Scale:
2-3 = high.
3.5-4.5 = moderate.
5-6 = low.
Inadequacy of Regulatory Evaluates if ESA Factor D--Inadequacy of
Mechanisms (D). regulatory mechanisms is contributing to
the listing status because regulations
are intended to control threats that
contribute to listing status are
inadequate.
Scale:
Y = Yes--Factor D contributes to
listing status.
N = No--Factor D does not contribute
to listing status.
n/a = not applicable because species
is not endangered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Significant Portion of Its Range

The listing determination process described above was based on
applying the Determination Tool to each candidate species throughout
its range. The ESA requires that a species be listed if it is
threatened or endangered throughout all or in a significant portion of
its range (SPOIR) (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)). However, the ESA does not
provide a definition of the phrase ``significant portion of its
range.'' Therefore, we (with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have
proposed a ``Draft Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase `Significant
Portion of Its Range' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of
`Endangered Species' and `Threatened Species''' (76 FR 76987; December
9, 2011), which is consistent with our past practice as well as our
understanding of the statutory framework and language. While the Draft
Policy remains in draft form, the Services are to consider the
interpretations and principles contained in the Draft Policy as non-
binding guidance in making individual listing determinations, while
taking into account the unique circumstances of the species under
consideration.
The Draft Policy provides that: (1) If a species is found to be
endangered or threatened in only a significant portion of its range,
the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively,
and the Act's protections apply across the species' entire range; (2) a
portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if its
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that,
without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction; (3)
the range of a species is considered to be the general geographical
area within which that species can be found at the time FWS or NMFS
makes any particular status determination; and (4) if the species is
not endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but it is
endangered or threatened within a significant portion of its range, and
the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list
the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies. As
discussed above, dividing invertebrate species such as corals into DPSs
is not authorized by the ESA.
As explained in the Draft Policy, the analysis of a species'
listing status begins with an assessment of status throughout its
range, and this analysis generally will be determinative unless there
is particular information in the record to suggest that a particular
portion of the range warrants further

[[Page 73247]]

consideration (76 FR 76987 at 77002; December 9, 2011). Because a
listing decision can be driven by considerations of status in a portion
of the species' range only where the portion is both ``significant''
and more imperiled than the species overall, we only need to conduct
detailed analysis of portions where there is substantial information to
suggest both of these criteria might be met. Thus, where there are no
facts in the record to suggest that the members of the species in a
particular geographic area are either of high biological significance
or subject to a higher risk of extinction (due to concentration of
threats in the particular geographic area), the agencies' risk analysis
is properly concluded after assessing rangewide status.
The BRT did not identify any particular populations or portions of
ranges for any of the 82 coral species as being significant or at a
higher extinction risk, largely due to a lack of information regarding
abundance and geographic distributions. No additional information on
this topic was provided during the public engagement period. Because
there is a general lack of species-specific data regarding quantitative
abundance, distribution, diversity, and productivity of coral species,
we are not able to identify any populations or portions of any of the
``threatened'' or ``not warranted'' candidate species' ranges that can
be considered unusually biologically significant. Further, we have no
information to indicate that particular local threats are more severe
in a particular portion of an individual species' range. We do not have
any information that would help elucidate whether any species has
significant populations nor whether any species is at higher exposure
to threats in a particular area of its range. That is not to say that
these conditions do not exist. It is just that we do not have any
information on which to base a determination that any of the 82
candidates are at elevated risk within a SPOIR. Further, we were not
able to identify any portion of the species' range where threats are so
actute or concentrated that, if the species were removed from that
portion, would so impair the abundance, spatial distribution,
productivity, and diversity of the species in its remaining range that
it would be in danger of extinction. Thus, we did not identify any
significant portions of any of the candidate species' ranges and our
determinations on the entire species are based on the best available
information.

Conservation Efforts

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a
listing determination for a species, to take into account those
efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation to protect
the species. In judging the efficacy of protective efforts, we rely on
the Services' joint ``Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions'' (``PECE;'' 68 FR 15100; March 28,
2003). The PECE is designed to guide determinations on whether any
conservation efforts that have been recently adopted or implemented,
but not yet proven to be successful, will result in recovering the
species to the point at which listing is not warranted or contribute to
forming a basis for listing a species as threatened rather than
endangered. The purpose of the PECE is to ensure consistent and
adequate evaluation of future or recently implemented conservation
efforts identified in conservation agreements, conservation plans,
management plans, and similar documents when making listing decisions.
The PECE provides direction for the consideration of such conservation
efforts that have not yet been implemented, or have been implemented
but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The policy is expected to
facilitate the development by states and other entities of conservation
efforts that sufficiently improve a species' status so as to make
listing the species as threatened or endangered unnecessary. The PECE
established two basic criteria: (1) The certainty that the conservation
efforts will be implemented, and (2) the certainty that the efforts
will be effective. Satisfaction of the criteria for implementation and
effectiveness establishes a given protective effort as a candidate for
consideration, but does not mean that an effort will ultimately change
the risk assessment for the species. Overall, the PECE analysis
ascertains whether the formalized conservation effort improves the
status of the species at the time a listing determination is made.
Existing and planned protective efforts and their effectiveness
with regard to the status of the 82 candidate coral species were
thoroughly identified and are summarized in the Final Management
Report. The report acknowledges innumerable conservation initiatives,
projects, agreements, etc., that are either currently in place or
planned in the future to address global and local threats to the 82
candidate coral species.
Various partnerships and initiatives exist to address climate
change at the global level, as well as regionally throughout the world.
While varying approaches are being used via conservation efforts, they
share a common objective of reducing GHG emissions in participating
countries. Therefore, their overall effectiveness can be inferred from
an evaluation of the progress made thus far in reducing GHG emissions,
both at the national level and in aggregate globally. Globally, GHG
emissions have increased approximately 38 percent from 1990 to 2008.
Based on the current state of international laws, regulations, and non-
regulatory protective efforts, total world GHG emissions are projected
to increase to 97 percent above 1990 levels by 2035. Additionally,
there are no foreseen conservation efforts for global threats that will
significantly contribute to improved status of the 82 candidate
species.
The number of coral reef conservation programs and projects
addressing local threats to the 82 candidate species continues to
increase and expand. Many international agreements and conventions have
been signed and ratified to assist in the recovery of coral reef
resources. Additionally, voluntary marine protected areas have been
established in numerous areas, outreach and education programs are
increasingly growing in developing nations, and active coral reef
restoration projects are becoming increasingly popular as a management
tool. In many cases, the most effective conservation projects being
conducted are non-governmental organization-sponsored coral reef
management programs. In addition, most of the conservation efforts do
an excellent job of raising awareness about the status of coral reefs
around the world. However, although there are many laudable coral
conservation efforts being implemented on a local level, these
activities are only addressing minor anthropogenic threats that were
ranked as either low or negligible in terms of their level of impact
and extinction risk to corals (e.g., anchor damage, vessel strikes, and
tourism). We therefore conclude that conservation efforts on global or
local scales do not change the status determined for the 82 candidate
species as a result of application of the Determination Tool.

Listing Determinations

As described above in the Risk Analyses section, each of the 82
listing decisions is based on the threat vulnerabilities, demography,
and spatial structure for each species, which are in turn based on the
information in the SRR, and SIR, and Final Management Report. The
threat vulnerabilities,

[[Page 73248]]

demography, and spatial structure for each of the 82 candidate species
are summarized below, along with the proposed listing status for each
species. The relevant ESA section 4 factor is included in parentheses
following the associated threat element.
While we did not directly relate an ESA listing status to specific
ranges of CRT scores that resulted from the BRT's extinction risk
analysis, the CRT scores do provide a qualitative indication of
relative extinction risk. There is agreement between the relative
ranking of species according to CRT score and our determinations. Minor
inconsistencies are a result of information not considered by the BRT
for a particular species that either increased or decreased extinction
risk. The BRT reviewed the Determination Tool and the inputs to the
tool, and concurs that it is populated with the best available
information. Note that we determine if the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms is a contributing factor to a species' extinction
risk (factor D) because the existing regulatory mechanisms fail to
adequately control or mitigate the relevant high importance threats
caused by global climate change.

Caribbean Species: Listing Determinations

The seven Caribbean species are listed below by genus (five
genera). A summary of the supporting data for the determinations and
proposed listing status for each species is provided, with the relevant
ESA factors noted (A, B, C, D, or E).

Agaricia (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to Agaricia lamarcki's status are:
Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and
acidification (E); low relative recruitment rate (E); moderate overall
distribution (based on narrow geographic distribution and wide depth
distribution; E); restriction to the Caribbean (E); and inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. lamarcki warrants listing as
threatened because of ESA factors C, D, and E.

Mycetophyllia (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to Mycetophyllia ferox's status are: High
vulnerability to disease (C); moderate vulnerability to ocean warming
(E) and acidification (E); high vulnerability to nutrient over-
enrichment (A and E); rare general rangewide abundance (E); decreasing
trend in abundance (E); low relative recruitment rate (E); moderate
overall distribution (based on narrow geographic distribution and wide
depth distribution (NMFS, 2012b, SIR Section 6.2.1); E); restriction to
the Caribbean (E); and inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (D).
Therefore, M. ferox warrants listing as endangered because of ESA
factors A, C, D, and E.

Dendrogyra (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to Dendrogyra cylindrus' status are: High
vulnerability to disease (C); moderate vulnerability to ocean warming
(E) and acidification (E); rare general rangewide abundance (E); low
relative recruitment rate (E); narrow overall distribution (based on
narrow geographic distribution and moderate depth distribution; E);
restriction to the Caribbean (E); and inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms (D). Therefore, D. cylindrus warrants listing as endangered
because of ESA factors C, D, and E.

Dichocoenia (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to Dichocoenia stokesii's status are: High
vulnerability to disease (C); moderate vulnerability to ocean warming
(E) and acidification (E); moderate overall distribution (based on
narrow geographic distribution and wide depth distribution; E);
restriction to the Caribbean (E); and inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms (D). Therefore, D. stokesii warrants listing as threatened
because of ESA factors C, D, and E.

Montastraea (3 Species)

Elements that contribute to Montastraea faveolata's status are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E) disease (C), and ocean
acidification (E); high vulnerability to sedimentation (A and E) and
nutrient over-enrichment (A and E); decreasing trend in abundance (E);
low relative recruitment rate (E); moderate overall distribution (based
on narrow geographic distribution and wide depth distribution (NMFS,
2012b, SIR Section 6.5); E); restriction to the Caribbean (E); and
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, M. faveolata
warrants listing as endangered because of ESA factors A, C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Montastraea franksi's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E) disease (C), and ocean acidification
(E); high vulnerability to sedimentation (A and E) and nutrient over-
enrichment (A and E); decreasing trend in abundance (E); low relative
recruitment rate (E); moderate overall distribution (based on narrow
geographic distribution and wide depth distribution (NMFS, 2012b, SIR
Section 6.5); E); restriction to the Caribbean (E); and inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, M. franksi warrants listing as
endangered because of ESA factors A, C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Montastraea annularis's status are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); disease (C), and ocean
acidification (E); high vulnerability to sedimentation (A and E) and
nutrient over-enrichment (A and E); decreasing trend in abundance (E);
low relative recruitment rate (E); narrow overall distribution (based
on narrow geographic distribution and moderate depth distribution; E);
restriction to the Caribbean; and inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms
(D). Therefore, M. annularis warrants listing as endangered because of
ESA factors A, C, D, and E.

Indo-Pacific Species: Listing Determinations

The 75 Indo-Pacific species are listed below by genus (24 genera).
A summary of the supporting data for the determinations for each of the
75 species is provided, with the relevant ESA factors noted (A, B, C,
D, or E).

Millepora (2 Species)

Elements that contribute to Millepora foveolata's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); narrow overall distribution (based on narrow geographic
distribution and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, M. foveolata warrants
listing as endangered due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Millepora tuberosa's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E);
narrow overall distribution (based on narrow geographic distribution
and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, M. tuberosa warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.

Heliopora (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to Heliopora coerulea's status are:
Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E) and acidification (E); low
vulnerability to disease (C); common generalized range wide abundance
(E); and wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic
distribution and wide depth distribution, E). Therefore, H. coerulea

[[Page 73249]]

is not warranted for listing under the ESA.

Pocillopora (3 Species)

Elements that contribute to Pocillopora danae's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); moderate overall distribution (based on moderate geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, P. danae warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to P. elegans' (East Pacific) status are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide
abundance (E); overall moderate distribution (based on narrow
geographic distribution and wide depth distribution; E); restricted to
the eastern Pacific; E; low relative recruitment rate (E); and
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, P. elegans
(East Pacific) warrants listing as endangered due to ESA factors C, D,
and E.
Elements that contribute to P. elegans' (Indo-Pacific) status are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide
abundance (E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic
distribution and wide depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, P. elegans (Indo-
Pacific) warrants listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.

Seriatopora (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to Seriatopora aculeata's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); moderate overall distribution (based on moderate geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, S. aculeata warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.

Acropora (22 Species)

Elements that contribute to Acropora aculeus' status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E);
wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution and
moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. aculeus warrants listing as threatened
due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora acuminata's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. acuminata warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora aspera's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E);
narrow overall distribution (based on moderate geographic distribution
and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. aspera warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora dendrum's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); rare generalized rangewide abundance (E);
moderate overall distribution (based on moderate geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, A. dendrum warrants listing
as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora donei's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); moderate overall distribution (based on moderate geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. donei warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora globiceps' status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E);
narrow overall distribution (based on moderate geographic distribution
and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. globiceps warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora horrida's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. horrida warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora jacquelineae's status are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); rare generalized range wide
abundance (E); narrow overall distribution (based on narrow geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. jacquelineae warrants
listing as endangered due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora listeri's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized range wide abundance
(E); overall moderate distribution (based on wide geographic
distribution and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. listeri warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora lokani's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); rare generalized range wide abundance (E);
overall narrow distribution (based on narrow geographic distribution
and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. lokani warrants listing as
endangered due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora microlados' status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. microclados warrants listing
as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora palmerae's status are: High
vulnerability

[[Page 73250]]

to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease (C) and
acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance (E);
moderate overall distribution (based on moderate geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. palmerae warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora paniculata's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. paniculata warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora pharaonis' status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E) and disease (C); moderate
vulnerability to acidification (E); common generalized rangewide
abundance (E); narrow overall distribution (based on narrow geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. pharaonis warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora polystoma's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E) and disease (C); moderate
vulnerability to acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide
abundance (E); moderate overall distribution (based on wide geographic
distribution and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. polystoma warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora retusa's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); moderate overall distribution (based on wide geographic
distribution and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. retusa warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora rudis' status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); narrow overall distribution (based on narrow geographic
distribution and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. rudis warrants
listing as endangered due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora speciosa's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); moderate overall distribution (based on moderate geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. speciosa warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora striata's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); moderate overall distribution (based on moderate geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. striata warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora tenella's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); wide overall distribution (based on moderate geographic
distribution and wide depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. tenella warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora vaughani's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. vaughani warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora verweyi's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E);
moderate overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. verweyi warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.

Anacropora (2 Species)

Elements that contribute to Anacropora puertogalerae's status are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide
abundance (E); moderate overall distribution (based on moderate
geographic distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A.
puertogalerae warrants listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D,
and E.
Elements that contribute to A. spinosa's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); narrow overall distribution (based on narrow geographic
distribution and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. spinosa warrants
listing as endangered due to ESA factors C, D, and E.

Astreopora (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to Astreopora cucullata's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); moderate overall distribution (based on wide geographic
distribution and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, A. cucullata warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.

Isopora (2 Species)

Elements that contribute to Isopora crateriformis's status are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide
abundance (E); moderate overall distribution (based on moderate
geographic distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, I.
crateriformis warrants listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D,
and E.
Elements that contribute to I. cuneata's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E);
moderate

[[Page 73251]]

overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution and shallow
depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms. Therefore, I. cuneata warrants listing as threatened due to
ESA factors C, D, and E.

Montipora (7 Species)

Elements that contribute to Montipora angulata's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, M. angulata warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Factors that contribute to M. australiensis' status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, M. australiens warrants listing
as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Factors that contribute to M. calcarea's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, M. calcarea warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Factors that contribute to M. caliculata's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, M. caliculata warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Factors that contribute to the status of Montipora dilatata/
flabellata/turgescens are: High vulnerability to ocean warming (E);
moderate vulnerability to disease (C) and acidification (E); common
generalized range wide abundance (E); wide overall distribution (based
on wide geographic distribution and moderate depth distribution; E);
and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, M.
dilatata/flabellata/turgescens warrants listing as threatened due to
ESA factors C, D, and E.
Factors that contribute to M. lobulata's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); overall wide distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, M. lobulata warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Factors that contribute to the status of Montipora patula (/
verrili) are: High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate
vulnerability to disease (C) and acidification (E); common relative
rangewide abundance (E); narrow overall distribution (based on narrow
geographic distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, Montipora
patula (/verrili) warrants listing as threatened due to ESA factors C,
D, and E.

Alveopora (3 Species)

Elements that contribute to Alveopora allingi's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon relative rangewide abundance (E);
moderate overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. allingi warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors D and E.
Elements that contribute to Alveopora fenestrata's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon relative rangewide abundance (E);
wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution and
moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. fenestrata warrants listing as threatened
due to ESA factors C, D and E.
Elements that contribute to Alveopora verrilliana's status are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification; uncommon relative rangewide abundance
(E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and wide depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. verrilliana warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D and E.

Porites (4 Species)

Elements that contribute to Porites horizontilata's status are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide
abundance (E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, P. horizontilata
warrants listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Porites napapora's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E);
narrow overall distribution (based on moderate geographic distribution
and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, P. napapora warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Porites nigrescens' status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E);
wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution and
moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (D). Therefore, P. nigrescens warrants listing as threatened
due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to the status of Porites (Clade 1 forma
pukoensis) are: Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease
(C), and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E);
and wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution
and moderate depth distribution; E). Therefore, Porites (Clade 1 forma
pukoensis) is not warranted for listing under the ESA.

Psammocora (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to Psammocora stellata's status are:
Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and
acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance (E); and
moderate overall distribution (based on moderate geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E). Therefore, P.
stellata is not warranted for listing under the ESA.

[[Page 73252]]

Leptoseris (2 Species)

Elements that contribute to the status of Leptoseris incrustans
are: Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and
acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance (E); and
wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution and
wide depth distribution; E). Therefore, L. incrustans is not warranted
for listing under the ESA.
Elements that contribute to the status of L. yabei are: Moderate
vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and acidification (E);
uncommon generalized rangewide abundance (E); and wide overall
distribution (based on wide geographic distribution and wide depth
distribution; E). Therefore, L. yabei is not warranted for listing
under the ESA.

Pachyseris (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to the status of Pachyseris rugosa are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide
abundance (E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, P. rugosa warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.

Pavona (5 Species)

Elements that contribute to Pavona bipartita's status are: Moderate
vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and acidification (E);
uncommon generalized rangewide abundance (E); and wide overall
distribution (based on wide geographic range and moderate depth
distribution; E). Therefore, P. bipartita is not warranted for listing
under the ESA.
Elements that contribute to the status of P. cactus are: Moderate
vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and acidification (E);
common generalized rangewide abundance (E); and wide overall
distribution (based on wide geographic range and moderate depth
distribution; E). Therefore, P. cactus is not warranted for listing
under the ESA.
Elements that contribute to the status of P. decussata are:
Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and
acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E); and wide
overall distribution (based on wide geographic range and moderate depth
distribution; E). Therefore, P. decussata is not warranted for listing
under the ESA.
Elements that contribute to the status of P. diffluens are:
Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and
acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance (E); narrow
overall distribution (based on narrow geographic range and moderate
depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (D). Therefore, P. diffluens warrants listing as threatened
due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to the status of P. venosa are: Moderate
vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and acidification (E);
uncommon generalized rangewide abundance (E); and wide overall
distribution (based on wide geographic range and moderate depth
distribution; E). Therefore, P. venosa is not warranted for listing
under the ESA.

Galaxea (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to the status of Galaxea astreata are:
Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and
acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E); and wide
overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution and wide
depth distribution (NMFS 2012b, SIR Section 7.16); E). Therefore, G.
astreata is not warranted for listing under the ESA.

Pectinia (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to the status of Pectinia alcicornis are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide
abundance (E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic
range and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, P. alcicornis warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.

Acanthastrea (4 Species)

Elements that contribute to the status of Acanthatsrea brevis are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide
abundance (E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic
range and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. brevis warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to the status of Acanthastrea hemprichii
are: High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide
abundance (E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic
range and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. hemprichii warrants listing as
threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to the status of A. ishigakiensis are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide
abundance (E); moderate overall distribution (based on wide geographic
distribution and shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. ishigakiensis
warrants listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to the status of Acanthastrea regularis
are: High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide
abundance (E); moderate overall distribution (based on moderate
geographic distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A.
regularis warrants listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D, and
E.

Barabattoia (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to the status of Barabattoia laddi are:
Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and
acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance (E); narrow
overall distribution (based on moderate geographic distribution and
shallow depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (D). Therefore, B. laddi warrants listing as threatened due
to ESA factors C, D, and E.

Caulastrea (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to Caulastrea echinulata's status are:
Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and
acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance (E); narrow
overall distribution (based on narrow geographic distribution and
moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (D). Therefore, C. echinulata warrants listing as threatened
due to ESA factors C, D, and E.

Cyphastrea (2 Species)

Elements that contribute to Cyphastrea agassizi's status are:
Moderate vulnerability to ocean

[[Page 73253]]

warming (E), disease (C), and acidification (E); uncommon generalized
rangewide abundance (E); and wide overall distribution (based on wide
geographic distribution and moderate depth distribution; E). Therefore,
C. agassizi is not warranted for listing under the ESA.
Elements that contribute to C. ocellina's status are: Moderate
vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and acidification (E);
uncommon generalized rangewide abundance (E); and wide overall
distribution (based on wide geographic distribution and moderate depth
distribution; E). Therefore, C. ocellina is not warranted for listing
under the ESA.

Euphyllia (3 Species)

Elements that contribute to the status of Euphyllia cristata are:
High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide
abundance (E); moderate overall distribution (based on moderate
geographic distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, E.
cristata warrants listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D and E.
Elements that contribute to the status of E. paraancora are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); wide overall distribution (based on moderate geographic
distribution and wide depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, E. paraancora warrants
listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D and E.
Elements that contribute to the status of E. paradivisa are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to disease
(C) and acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance
(E); narrow overall distribution (based on narrow geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, E. paradivisa warrants
listing as endangered due to ESA factors C, D and E.

Physogyra (1 Species)

Elements that contribute to the status of Physogyra lichtensteini
are: High vulnerability to ocean warming (E); moderate vulnerability to
disease (C) and acidification (E); common generalized rangewide
abundance (E); wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic
distribution and moderate depth distribution; E); and inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, P. lichtensteini
warrants listing as threatened due to ESA factors C, D and E.

Turbinaria (4 Species)

Elements that contribute to the status of Turbinaria mesenterina
are: Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and
acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E); and wide
overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution and
moderate depth distribution; E). Therefore, T. mesenterina is not
warranted for listing under the ESA.
Elements that contribute to the status of T. peltata are: Moderate
vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and acidification (E);
common generalized rangewide abundance (E); and wide overall
distribution (based on wide geographic distribution and moderate depth
distribution; E). Therefore, T. peltata is not warranted for listing
under the ESA.
Elements that contribute to the status of T. reniformis are:
Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and
acidification (E); common generalized rangewide abundance (E); and wide
overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution and
moderate depth distribution; E). Therefore, T. reniformis is not
warranted for listing under the ESA.
Elements that contribute to the status of T. stellulata are:
Moderate vulnerability to ocean warming (E), disease (C), and
acidification (E); uncommon generalized rangewide abundance (E); and
wide overall distribution (based on wide geographic distribution and
moderate depth distribution; E). Therefore, T. stellulata is not
warranted for listing under the ESA.

Reclassification of Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis

After reviewing the status of the 82 candidate species, we also
evaluated the current status of the two threatened corals in the
Caribbean, Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis. The two species were
listed as threatened in May 2006 due to a combination of factors
including disease, elevated sea surface temperature, and hurricanes (70
FR 24359; May 9, 2006). The species were listed as threatened because
we determined they were likely to become in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future, as defined in that case. We based our
determination on the information available at that time, including the
high number of colonies of the species, the species' large geographic
ranges that remained intact, and the fact that asexual reproduction
provided a source for new colonies that can buffer natural demographic
and environmental variability. We concluded that both species would
retain significant potential for persistence and they were not in
danger of extinction throughout their ranges at that time.
This BRT, during its deliberation on developing its method for
evaluating the 82 candidate species, evaluated the likelihood of A.
palmata and A. cervicornis falling below the CRT by 2050 as 75 percent
and 73 percent, respectively. The BRT based this evaluation on its
general knowledge of the current status of the two species and the
threats affecting them, but it did not specifically collect the best
available scientific and commercial data available as it did for the 82
candidate species. The relatively high likelihoods of the two species
falling below the CRT by 2050, along with new understanding of the
impacts of some threats on these species, led us to re-evaluate the two
species' status. We collected the best available scientific and
commercial information on the status of the two species. We also relied
on the information in the SRR and SIR on the characteristics shared by
all species in the genus Acropora (described above). Specifically, the
genus Acropora is highly susceptible to bleaching from ocean warming,
ocean acidification, disease, and most local threats. Those
susceptibilities coupled with relatively high exposure rates lead to
high vulnerabilities to the threats that increase extinction risk for
both these species.
Our final determination to list A. palmata and A. cervicornis as
threatened, made over 8 years ago, found that the species were not yet
in danger of extinction, but were likely to become so within the next
30 years, citing the large number of remaining individuals, their
large, intact geographic ranges, and their ability to reproduce through
fragmentation. Since then population declines have continued to occur,
with certain populations of both species decreasing up to an additional
50 percent or more since the time of listing (Lundgren, 2008; Muller et
al. 2008; Williams et al. unpubl. data; Williams et al., 2008; Colella
et al., 2012; Rogers and Muller et al., 2012). Further, there are
documented instances of recruitment failure in some populations
(Williams, et al., 2008). In addition, minimal levels of thermal stress
(e.g., 30 degrees C)

[[Page 73254]]

have been shown to impair larval development, larval survivorship, and
settlement success of A. palmata (Randall and Szmant, 2009) and near-
future levels of acidification have been demonstrated to impair
fertilization, settlement success, and post-settlement growth rates in
A. palmata (Albright et al., 2012). We also understand that on average
50 percent of the colonies are clones, meaning the effective number of
genetic individuals is half the total population size (Baums et al.,
2006). The species' ranges are not known to have contracted, but with
continued declines local extirpations are likely, resulting in a
reduction of absolute range size. Furthermore, we are taking into
account that the BRT identified restriction to the Caribbean as a
spatial factor increasing extinction risk. Also, while asexual
reproduction (fragmentation) provides a source for new colonies (albeit
clones) that can buffer natural demographic and environmental
variability remains true, reliance on asexual reproduction is not
sufficient to prevent extinction of the species. Last, the previous
status review and listing determination underestimated the global
climate change-associated impacts to A. palmata and A. cervicornis,
based on our current knowledge of trends in emissions, likely warming
scenarios, and ocean acidification. In particular, in the previous
determination, we identified ocean acidification only as a factor that
``may be contributing'' to the status of two species, in comparison to
our current understanding that ocean acidification is one of the three
highest order threats affecting extinction risk for corals.
Elements that contribute to Acropora palmata's status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); ocean acidification (E) and disease
(C); high vulnerability to sedimentation (A and E) and nutrient over-
enrichment (A and E); uncommon abundance (E); decreasing trend in
abundance (E); low relative recruitment rate (E); narrow overall
distribution (E); restriction to the Caribbean (E); and inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. palmata warrants listing as
endangered because of ESA factors A, C, D, and E.
Elements that contribute to Acropora cervicornis' status are: High
vulnerability to ocean warming (E); ocean acidification (E) and disease
(C); high vulnerability to sedimentation (A and E) and nutrient over-
enrichment (A and E); uncommon abundance (E); decreasing trend in
abundance (E); low relative recruitment rate (E); narrow overall
distribution (E); restriction to the Caribbean (E); and inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms (D). Therefore, A. cervicornis warrants listing
as endangered because of ESA factors A, C, D, and E.

Summary of Determinations

We are responsible for determining whether each of the 82 candidate
coral species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make
listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available after conducting reviews of the statuses of
the species and after taking into account efforts being made by any
state or foreign nation to protect the species. We concluded that
conservation efforts are not protecting the candidate coral species in
a way that alters our determination that these corals are endangered or
threatened. Finally, section 4(b)(1)(B) of the ESA requires us to give
consideration to species which (1) have been designated as requiring
protection from unrestricted commerce by any foreign nation, or (2)
have been identified as in danger of extinction, or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future, by any state agency or by any agency of
a foreign nation. All stony corals are listed under Appendix II of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora, which regulates international trade of species to ensure
survival. Thus, the proposed listing is consistent with the
Convention's classification. Dendrogyra cylindrus is listed as
threatened by the State of Florida and all stony corals are protected
under the U.S. Virgin Islands Indigenous and Endangered Species Act of
1990. All the proposed corals are listed in the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered.
Thus, the proposed listing is consistent with these classifications.
We have determined that the following 12 species warrant listing as
endangered: In the Caribbean (five): Dendrogyra cylindrus, Montastraea
annularis, Montastraea faveolata, Montastraea franksi, and
Mycetophyllia ferox; and in the Indo-Pacific (seven): Millepora
foveolata, Pocillopora elegans (eastern Pacific), Acropora
jacquelineae, Acropora lokani, Acropora rudis, Anacropora spinosa, and
Euphyllia paradivisa. The following 54 species warrant listing as
threatened: In the Caribbean (two), Agaricia lamarcki and Dichocoenia
stokesii; and in the Indo-Pacific (52): Millepora tuberosa, Pocillopora
danae, Pocillopora elegans (Indo-Pacific), Seriatopora aculeata,
Acropora aculeus, Acropora acuminata, Acropora aspera, Acropora
dendrum, Acropora donei, Acropora globiceps, Acropora horrida, Acropora
listeri, Acropora microclados, Acropora palmerae, Acropora paniculata,
Acropora pharaonis, Acropora polystoma, Acropora retusa, Acropora
speciosa, Acropora striata, Acropora tenella, Acropora vaughani,
Acropora verweyi, Anacropora puertogalerae, Astreopora cucullata,
Isopora crateriformis, Isopora cuneata, Montipora angulata, Montipora
australiensis, Montipora calcarea, Montipora caliculata, Montipora
dilatata/flabellata/turgescens, Montipora lobulata, Montipora patula/
verrilli, Alveopora allingi, Alveopora fenestrata, Alveopora
verrilliana, Porites horizontalata, Porites napopora, Porites
nigrescens, Acanthastrea brevis, Acanthastrea hemprichii, Acanthastrea
ishigakiensis, Acanthastrea regularis, Pachyseris rugosa, Pectinia
alcicornis, Barabattoia laddi, Pavona diffluens, Caulastrea echinulata,
Euphyllia cristata, Euphyllia paraancora, and Physogyra lichtensteini.
Two species in the Caribbean currently listed as threatened warrant
reclassification as endangered: Acropora palmata and Acropora
cervicornis. A total of 16 candidate species (all in the Indo-Pacific)
do not warrant listing as endangered or threatened: Heliopora coerulea,
Cyphastrea agassizi, Cyphastrea ocellina, Galaxea astreata, Leptoseris
incrustans, Leptoseris yabei, Pavona bipartita, Pavona cactus, Pavona
decussata, Pavona venosa, Porites (Clade 1 forma pukoensis), Psammocora
stellata, Turbinaria mesenterina, Turbinaria peltata, Turbinaria
reniformis, and Turbinaria stellulata.

Effects of Listing

Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1553(f)),
critical habitat designations, Federal agency consultation requirements
(16 U.S.C. 1536), and prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538).
Recognition of the species' plight through listing promotes
conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, private groups, and
individuals, as well as the international community. Should the
proposed listing be made final, a recovery program could be
implemented, and critical habitat will be designated to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable. We anticipate that protective
regulations for threatened corals and recovery programs for all the
proposed corals may need to be developed in the context of

[[Page 73255]]

conserving aquatic ecosystem health. The cooperation and participation
of many Federal, state and private sector actors will be needed to
effectively and efficiently conserve the listed coral species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend.
Should the proposed reclassification of Acropora palmata and A.
cervicornis become final, the existing critical habitat designation (50
CFR 226.216) would remain valid, as the bases for the critical habitat
designated for these species are not changed by revising their status
from threatened to endangered. The specific areas within the species'
occupied geographical area that contain the substrate feature that is
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require
special management considerations or protection have not changed since
designation.
The existing protective regulations promulgated pursuant to ESA
section 4(d) (50 CFR 223.208) for Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis
would no longer be valid because such rules apply only to threatened
species. The take prohibition of ESA Section 9 instead applies directly
to endangered species. Therefore, should the proposed reclassification
become final, we would revoke the existing regulations.

Identifying Section 7 Conference and Consultation Requirements

Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA and NMFS/FWS regulations require Federal
agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of species proposed for listing, or likely to
result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical
habitat. If a proposed species is ultimately listed, Federal agencies
must consult under section 7 on any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out if those actions may affect the listed species or designated
critical habitat. Based on currently available information, we can
conclude that examples of Federal actions that may affect the 68 coral
species proposed to be listed or reclassified include, but are not
limited to: Energy projects, discharge of pollution from point sources,
non-point source pollution, dredging, pile-driving, setting of water
quality standards, vessel traffic, aquaculture facilities, military
activities, and fisheries management practices.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA as: ``(i) The
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 1533
of this title, on which are found those physical or biological features
(I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may
require special management considerations or protection; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of 1533 of this
title, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)).
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures needed to
bring the species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no
longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA
requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, critical
habitat be designated concurrently with the final listing of a species
(16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)). To the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, we will publish a proposed designation of critical
habitat for the coral species in a separate rule. Designations of
critical habitat must be based on the best scientific data available
and must take into consideration the economic, national security, and
other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. Once critical habitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA
requires Federal agencies to ensure that they do not fund, authorize,
or carry out any actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify
that habitat. This requirement is in addition to the section 7
requirement that Federal agencies ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species.

Section 9 Take Prohibitions

Because we are proposing to list seven Caribbean species, one in
the Eastern Pacific, and six in the Indo-Pacific as endangered, all of
the take prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA will apply to those
particular species if they become listed as endangered. These include
prohibitions against importing, exporting, engaging in foreign or
interstate commerce, or ``taking'' of the species. ``Take'' is defined
under the ESA as ``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.''
These prohibitions apply to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States, including in the United States, its territorial sea,
or on the high seas.
The ESA section 9 prohibitions do not automatically apply to
threatened species listed by NMFS. Therefore, pursuant to ESA section
4(d), we will evaluate whether there are protective regulations we deem
necessary and advisable to the conservation of any of the candidate
species listed as threatened in the final listing rule, including
application of some or all of the take prohibitions.

Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of
Section 9 of the ESA

On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS published a policy (59 FR 34272) that
requires us 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 ESA. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range. Based on
available information, we believe the following categories of
activities are those most likely to result in a violation of the ESA
section 9 prohibitions. We emphasize that whether a violation results
from a particular activity is entirely dependent upon the facts and
circumstances of each incident. The mere fact that an activity may fall
within one of these categories does not mean that the specific activity
will cause a violation; due to such factors as location and scope,
specific actions may not result in direct or indirect adverse effects
on the species. Further, an activity not listed may in fact result in a
violation. However, based on currently available information, we
conclude that the following types of activities are those that may be
most likely to violate the prohibitions in section 9:
1. Activities that result in elevated water temperatures in coral
habitat that causes bleaching or other degradation of physiological
function of listed corals.
2. Activities that result in water acidification in coral habitat
that causes reduced calcification, reproductive impairment, or other
degradation of physiological function of listed corals.
3. Removing, damaging, poisoning, or contaminating listed corals.
4. Removing, poisoning, or contaminating plants, wildlife, or other
biota required by listed corals for feeding, sheltering, or completing
other essential life history functions.
5. Harm to the species' habitat resulting in injury or death of the
species, such as removing or altering substrate, vegetation, or other
physical structures.
6. Altering water flow or currents to an extent that impairs
spawning, feeding, or other essential behavioral patterns of listed
corals.
7. Discharging pollutants, such as oil, toxic chemicals,
radioactivity,

[[Page 73256]]

carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, or organic nutrient-laden water,
including sewage water, into listed corals' habitat to an extent that
harms or kills listed corals.
8. Releasing non-indigenous or artificially propagated species into
listed corals' habitat or locations resulting in mortality or harm to
listed corals.
9. Interstate and foreign commerce dealing in listed corals, and
importing or exporting listed corals.
10. Shoreline and riparian disturbances (whether in the riverine,
estuarine, marine, or floodplain environment) that may harm or kill
listed corals, for instance by disrupting or preventing the
reproduction, settlement, reattachment, development, or normal
physiology of listed corals. Such disturbances could include land
development, run-off, dredging, and disposal activities that result in
direct deposition of sediment on corals, shading, or covering of
substrate for fragment reattachment or larval settlement.
11. Activities that modify water chemistry in coral habitat to an
extent that disrupts or prevents the reproduction, development, or
normal physiology of listed corals.
This list provides examples of the types of activities that could
have the potential to cause a violation, but it is not exhaustive. It
is intended to help people avoid violating the ESA should these
proposed listings become final after public comment. Further, the
scientific research community is encouraged to submit applications for
research to be conducted within the United States on the seven
Caribbean species and the seven Indo-Pacific species being proposed as
endangered so that the research can continue uninterrupted should they
become listed as endangered.

Policies on Role of Peer Review

In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information
Quality Act (Public Law 106-554) is intended to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Federal government's scientific information, and
applies to influential or highly influential scientific information
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements
under the OMB Bulletin, the BRT obtained independent peer review of the
draft Status Review Report, and NMFS obtained independent peer review
of the draft Management Report. Independent specialists were selected
from the academic and scientific community, Federal and state agencies,
and the private sector for this review. All peer reviewer comments were
addressed prior to dissemination of the final Status Review Report and
publication of this proposed rule.
On July 1, 1994, the Services published a policy for peer review of
scientific data (59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer review policy is
to ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial
data available. Prior to a final listing, we will solicit the expert
opinions of three qualified specialists, concurrent with the public
comment period. Independent specialists will be selected from the
academic and scientific community, Federal and State agencies, and the
private sector.

Public Comments Solicited

To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and effective as possible, we are soliciting comments
from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, and any other interested parties. We must base our
final determination on the best available scientific and commercial
information when making listing determinations. We cannot, for example,
consider the economic effects of a listing determination. Final
promulgation of any regulation(s) on these species or withdrawal of
this listing proposal will take into consideration the comments and any
additional information we receive, and such communications may lead to
a final regulation that differs from this proposal or result in a
withdrawal of this listing proposal.

Solicitation of Information

In addition to comments on the proposed rule, we are soliciting
information on features and areas that may support designations of
critical habitat for the coral species newly proposed to be listed. As
to Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis, for which critical habitat has
already been designated, we have broad discretion to revise existing
designations from time to time as appropriate, and we may decide to
exercise this discretion based on information received and available on
potential critical habitat features for the other coral species.
Information provided should identify the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and areas that
contain these features for the coral species proposed to be listed.
Areas outside the occupied geographical area should also be identified
if such areas themselves are essential to the conservation of the
species. Essential features may include, but are not limited to,
features specific to individual species' ranges, habitats and life
history characteristics within the following general categories of
habitat features: (1) Space for individual growth and for normal
behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional
or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for
reproduction and development of offspring; and (5) habitats that are
protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical,
geographical, and ecological distributions of the species (50 CFR
424.12(b)). ESA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h) specify
that critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries
or in other areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request
information only on potential areas of critical habitat within waters
in U.S. jurisdiction.
For features and areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat,
we also request information describing: (1) Activities or other threats
to the essential features or activities that could be affected by
designating them as critical habitat, and (2) the positive and negative
economic, national security and other relevant impacts, including
benefits to the recovery of the species, likely to result if these
areas are designated as critical habitat.

Public Hearing Dates and Locations

Public hearings will be held at 20 locations in Puerto Rico, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, Florida, Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana
Islands, and American Samoa, during the public comment period. The
public hearings in Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and
American Samoa will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. to gather
formal public comments on this proposed rule, preceded by town hall
meetings from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. to provide information about the
proposed rule. The specific dates and locations of these meetings are
listed below:
(1) Monday, January 14, 2013, at the Nova Southeastern University
Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Ecosystem Science, 8000 North Ocean
Drive, Dania Beach, FL 33004, 7-9 p.m.
(2) Tuesday, January 15, 2013, at the John Pennekamp State Park
Visitors Center, 102601 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, Florida 33037, 7-9
p.m.

[[Page 73257]]

(3) Wednesday, January 16, 2013, at the Florida Keys Eco-Discovery
Center, 35 East Quay Road, Key West, FL 33040, 7-9 p.m.
(4) Monday, February 4, 2013, at the Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources, 4th Floor Conference Room, Road 8838, km. 6.3,
Sector El Cinco, R[iacute]o Piedras, Puerto Rico, 6-8 p.m.
(5) Tuesday, February 5, 2013, at the University of Puerto Rico--
Mayag[uuml]ez Campus, Salas Eugene Francis, Physics Building, Room
229, Mayag[uuml]ez, Puerto Rico, 6-8 p.m.
(6) Wednesday, February 6, 2013, at the Buck Island Reef National
Monument, 2100 Church Street, 100, Christiansted, St. Croix,
U.S. Virgin Islands, 7-9 p.m.
(7) Thursday, February 7, 2013, at the Windward Passage Hotel,
Veterans Drive, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, 7-9
p.m.
(8) Tuesday, January 22, 2013, at the Mokupapapa Discovery Center,
308 Kamehameha Ave., Hilo, HI 96720, 5-9:30 p.m.
(9) Thursday, January 24, 2013, at the Kahakai Elementary School,
76147 Royal Poinciana Drive, Kailua Kona, HI 96740, 5-9:30 p.m.
(10) Monday, January 28, 2013, at the Mitchell Pauole Center, 90
Ainoa Street Kaunakakai, Molokai, HI 96748, 5-9:30 p.m.
(11) Wednesday, January 30, 2013, at the J. Walter Cameron Center,
95 Mahalani St., Wailuku, HI 96796, 5-9:30 p.m.
(12) Monday, February 4, 2013, at the Kauai Veteran's Center, 3125
Kapule Highway, Lihue, HI 96766, 5-9:30 p.m.
(13) February 7, 2013, at the Tokai University, 2241 Kapiolani
Blvd., Honolulu, HI 96826, 5-9:30 p.m.
(14) Monday, February 11, 2013, at the Guam Hilton, 202 Hilton
Road, Tumon Bay, Hagatna, 96913, Guam, 5-9:30 p.m.
(15) Tuesday, February 12, 2013, at the Multipurpose Center, Beach
Road, Susupe Saipan, 96950, MP, 5-9:30 p.m.
(16) Tuesday, February 13, 2013, at Sadie's by the Sea, Main Rd.,
Pago Pago, Tutuila 96799, American Samoa, 5-9:30 p.m.
(17) Wednesday, February 13, 2013, at the Fleming Hotel, P.O. Box
68, Tinian, 96952, MP, 5-9:30 p.m.
(18) Friday, February 15, 2013, at the Mayor's Office, Tatachog
Rd., Rota, 96961, MP, 5-9:30 p.m.

References

Albright, R. 2012. Effects of ocean acidification on early life
history stages of Caribbean scleractinian corals, University of
Miami, pp. 157.
Brainard, R.E., C. Birkeland, C.M. Eakin, P. McElhany, M.W. Miller,
M. Patterson, and G.A. Piniak. 2011. Status Review Report of 82
candidate coral species petitioned under the U.S. Endangered Species
Act. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-27, 530
P. + 1 appendix.
Baums, I.B., M.W. Miller, M.E. Hellberg. 2006. Geographic variation
in clonal structure in a reef-building Caribbean coral, Acropora
palmata. Ecological Monographs 76(4): 503-519.
Burck, J., C. Bals, and L. Parker. 2010. The Climate Change
Performance Index Results 2011. Germanwatch and Climate Action
Network Europe. 20pp.
Colella, M., Ruzicka, J.A. Kidney, J.M. Morrison, V. B. Brinkhuis.
2012. Cold-water event of January 2010 results in catastrophic
benthic mortality on patch reefs in the Florida Keys. Coral Reefs:
1-12.
Cubasch, U.,G.A. Meehl, A. Abe-Ouchi, S. Brinkop, M. Claussen, M.
Collins, J. Evans, I. Fischer-Bruns, G. Flato, J.C. Fyfe, A.
Ganopolski, J.M. Gregory, Z.-Z. Hu, F. Joos, T. Knutson, R. Knutti,
C. Landsea, L. Mearns, C. Milly, J.F.B. Mitchell, T. Nozawa, H.
Paeth, J. R[auml]is[auml]nen, R. Sausen, S. Smith, T. Stocker, A.
Timmermann, U. Ulbrich, A. Weaver, J. Wegner, P. Whetton, T. Wigley,
M. Winton, F. Zwiers. 2001. Projections of future climate change.
In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Houghton, J.T.,Y. Ding,
D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and
C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 526-582.
den Elzen, M. and N. Hohne. 2008. Reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions in Annex I and non-Annex I countries for meeting
concentration stabilisation targets: An editorial comment. Climatic
Change 91:249-274.
Global Carbon Project. 2010. 10 Years of Advancing Knowledge on the
Global Carbon Cycle and its Management. (Authors: Lavinia Poruschi,
Shobhakar Dhakal and Josep Canadell). Tsukuba: Global Carbon Project
Report No. 7. pp. 14.
Gupta, S., et al. 2007. Policies, Instruments and Co-operative
Arrangements. In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave and
L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge
University Press.
Leadley, P., H.M Pereira, R. Alkemade, J.F. Fernandez-Manjarres, V.
Proenca, J.P.W. Scharlemann, M.J, Walpole. 2010. Biodiversity
Scenarios: Projections of 21st Century Change in Biodiversity and
Associated Ecosystem Services. Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity. Montreal, Technical Series no. 50, pp. 132.
Light, A. 2010. Progress from the Copenhagen Accord. Center for
American Progress. February 9, 2010. 4pp.
Lundgren, I. 2008. The decline of elkhorn coral at Buck Island Reef
National Monument: Protecting the first threatened coral species.
National Park Science 25:36-43.
Muller, E.M., Rogers, C.S., Spitzack, A.S., van Woesik, R. 2008.
Bleaching increases likelihood of disease on Acropora palmata
(Lamarck) in Hawksnest Bay, St John, US Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs
27:191-195
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012b. Supplemental Information
Report for 82 Candidate Coral Species Petitioned Under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA NMFS Pacific
Islands and Southeast Regional Offices, Honolulu, HI, and St.
Petersburg, FL.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012c. Final Management Report
for 82 Candidate Coral Species Petitioned Under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act. Assessment of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, Other
Manmade Factors, and Conservation Efforts. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
NOAA NMFS Pacific Islands and Southeast Regional Offices, Honolulu,
HI, and St. Petersburg, FL.
O'Neill, B.C. and M. Oppenheimer. 2002. Dangerous Climate Impacts
and the Kyoto Protocol. Science 296: 1971-1972.
Parry, M. 2010. Copenhagen number crunch. Nature Reports Climate
Change 4: 18-19.
Pew Center for Global Climate Change. 2010a. Adding up the Numbers:
Mitigation Pledges under the Copenhagen Accord. 2pp.
Randall, C., Szmant, A. 2009. Elevated temperature affects
development, survivorship, and settlement of the elkhorn coral,
Acropora palmata (Lamarck 1816). Biological Bulletin 217:269-282.
Rogelj, J., J. Nabel, C. Chen, W. Hare, K. Markmann, M. Meinshausen,
M. Schaeffer, K. Macey, N. H[ouml]hne. 2010. Copenhagen Accord
pledges are paltry. Nature 464(7292): 1126-1128.
Solomon, S., G.-K. Plattner, R. Knutti, and P. Friedlingstein. 2009.
Irreversible Climate Change Due To Carbon Dioxide Emissions.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:1704-1709.
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 2010a. Overview of the
Republic of Korea's National Strategy for Green Growth. 54pp.
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 2010b. Proposed amendment
to the Montreal Protocol; A joint proposal submitted by Canada,
Mexico, and the United States of America in respect of the
hydroflourocarbon phase-down. Twenty-Second Meeting of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Bangkok, 8-12 November 2010. 9pp.
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 2010c. The Emissions Gap
Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord pledges sufficient to limit global
warming to 2 [deg]C or 1.5 [deg]C? A preliminary assessment
(Technical Summary). 16pp.
Williams, D. E., Miller, M. W., and K.L. Krammer. 2008. Recruitment
failure in Florida Keys Acropora palmata, a threatened Caribbean
coral. Coral Reefs 27: 697-705.

[[Page 73258]]

The NMFS reports referenced above are available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html.

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and NOAA
Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act), we have concluded
that ESA listing actions are not subject to requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act

As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process.
In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we have made a preliminary
determination that this proposed rule does not have significant
Federalism effects and that a Federalism assessment is not required. In
keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide
continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and
Federal interest, this proposed rule will be given to the relevant
state agencies in each state in which the species is believed to occur,
and those states will be invited to comment on this proposal. As we
proceed, we intend to continue engaging in informal and formal contacts
with the state, and other affected local or regional entities, giving
careful consideration to all written and oral comments received.

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires that Federal actions address
environmental justice in the decision-making process. In particular,
the environmental effects of the actions should not have a
disproportionate effect on minority and low-income communities. This
proposed rule is not expected to have a disproportionately high effect
on minority populations or low-income populations.

Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.

Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
of 1972 requires that all Federal activities that affect any land or
water use or natural resource of the coastal zone be consistent with
approved state coastal zone management programs to the maximum extent
practicable. We have preliminarily determined that this action is
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable
policies of approved CZMA programs of each of the states within the
range of the 49 proposed coral species. Letters documenting NMFS'
proposed determination, along with the proposed rule, will be sent to
the coastal zone management program offices in each affected state. A
list of the specific state contacts and a copy of the letters are
available upon request.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 223

Endangered and threatened species; Exports; Imports;
Transportation.

50 CFR Part 224

Administrative practice and procedure; Endangered and threatened
species; Exports; Imports; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements;
Transportation.

Dated: November 29, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and
duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 223.201-202
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
Sec. 223.206(d)(9).

2. In Sec. 223.102, in the table, amend paragraph (d) by removing
existing paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) and adding paragraphs (d)(1)
through (d)(54) to read as follows:

Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *

* * * * * * *
(d) * * *.......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)............................. Acropora aculeus.. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(2)............................. Acropora acuminata Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(3)............................. Acropora aspera... Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(4)............................. Acropora dendrum.. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(5)............................. Acropora donei.... Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].

[[Page 73259]]

(6)............................. Acropora globiceps Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(7)............................. Acropora horrida.. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(8)............................. Acropora listeri.. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(9)............................. Acropora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
microclados. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(10)............................ Acropora palmerae. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(11)............................ Acropora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
paniculata. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(12)............................ Acropora pharaonis Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(13)............................ Acropora polystoma Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(14)............................ Acropora retusa... Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(15)............................ Acropora speciosa. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(16)............................ Acropora striata.. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(17)............................ Acropora tenella.. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(18)............................ Acropora vaughani. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(19)............................ Acropora verweyi.. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(20)............................ Acanthastrea Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
brevis. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(21)............................ Acanthastrea Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
hemprichii. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(22)............................ Acanthastrea Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
ishigakiensis. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(23)............................ Acanthastrea Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
regularis. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(24) Lamarck's sheet coral...... Agaricia lamarcki. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Caribbean, WHEN PUBLISHED AS
Western Atlantic, A FINAL RULE].
Gulf of Mexico.
(25)............................ Alveopora allingi. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(26)............................ Alveopora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
fenestrata. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(27)............................ Alveopora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
verrilliana. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(28)............................ Anacropora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
puertogalerae. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(29)............................ Astreopora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
cucullata. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].

[[Page 73260]]

(30)............................ Barabattoia laddi. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(31)............................ Caulastrea Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
echinulata. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(32) Elliptical Star Coral...... Dichocoenia Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
stokesii. Caribbean, WHEN PUBLISHED AS
Western Atlantic, A FINAL RULE].
Gulf of Mexico.
(33)............................ Euphyllia cristata Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(34)............................ Euphyllia Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
paraancora. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(35)............................ Isopora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
crateriformis. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(36)............................ Isopora cuneata... Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(37)............................ Millepora tuberosa Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(38)............................ Montipora angulata Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(39)............................ Montipora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
australiensis. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(40)............................ Montipora calcarea Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(41)............................ Montipora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
caliculata. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(42)............................ Montipora dilatata/ Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
flabellata/ Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
turgescens. A FINAL RULE].
(43)............................ Montipora lobulata Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(44)............................ Montipora patula(/ Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
verrilli). Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(45)............................ Pachyseris rugosa. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(46)............................ Pavona diffluens.. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(47)............................ Pectinia Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
alcicornis. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(48)............................ Physogyra Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
lichtensteini. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(49)............................ Pocillopora danae. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(50)............................ Pocillopora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
elegans (Indo- Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
Pacific). A FINAL RULE].
(51)............................ Porites Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
horizontalata. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(52)............................ Porites napopora.. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].
(53)............................ Porites nigrescens Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].

[[Page 73261]]

(54)............................ Seriatopora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & DATE NA
aculeata. Indo-Pacific. WHEN PUBLISHED AS
A FINAL RULE].

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments of vertebrates (DPSs) (for a
policy statement; see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy
statement; see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

* * * * *
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

1. The authority citation of part 224 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

2. In Sec. 224.101, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
(d) Marine invertebrates. The following table lists the common and
scientific names of endangered species, the locations where they are
listed, and the citations for the listings and critical habitat
designations.
* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\ Citation(s) for Citation(s) for
----------------------------------------------------- Where listed listing critical habitat
Common name Scientific name determinations designations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Black abalone............... Haliotis USA, CA. From NOAA 2009; 74 FR NOAA 2011; 76 FR
cracherodii. Crescent City, 1937, January 14, 66806, October
California, USA 2009. 27, 2011.
to Cape San
Lucas, Baja
California,
Mexico, including
all offshore
islands.
(2) White abalone............... Haliotis sorenseni USA, CA. From NOAA 2001; 66 FR Deemed not prudent
Point Conception, 29054, May, 29, NOAA 2001; 66 FR
California to 2001. 29054, May, 29,
Punta Abreojos, 2001.
Baja California,
Mexico including
all offshore
islands and banks.
(3) Staghorn coral.............. Acropora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
cervicornis. Caribbean, DATE WHEN
Western Atlantic. PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
(4)............................. Acropora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
jacquelineae. Indo-Pacific. DATE WHEN
PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
(5)............................. Acropora lokani... Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
Indo-Pacific. DATE WHEN
PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
(6) Elkhorn coral............... Acropora palmata.. Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
Caribbean, DATE WHEN
Western Atlantic. PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
(7)............................. Acropora rudis.... Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
Indo-Pacific. DATE WHEN
PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
(8)............................. Anacropora spinosa Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
Indo-Pacific. DATE WHEN
PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
(9) Pillar coral................ Dendrogyra Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
cylindrus. Caribbean, DATE WHEN
Western Atlantic. PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
(10)............................ Euphyllia Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
paradivisa. Indo-Pacific. DATE WHEN
PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
(11)............................ Millepora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
foveolata. Indo-Pacific. DATE WHEN
PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
(12) Boulder star coral......... Montastraea Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
annularis. Caribbean, DATE WHEN
Western Atlantic, PUBLISHED AS A
Gulf of Mexico. FINAL RULE].
(13) Boulder star coral......... Montastraea Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
faveolata. Caribbean, DATE WHEN
Western Atlantic, PUBLISHED AS A
Gulf of Mexico. FINAL RULE].

[[Page 73262]]

(14) Mountainous star coral..... Montastraea Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
franksi. Caribbean, DATE WHEN
Western Atlantic, PUBLISHED AS A
Gulf of Mexico. FINAL RULE].
(15) Rough cactus coral......... Mycetophyllia Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
ferox. Caribbean, DATE WHEN
Western Atlantic, PUBLISHED AS A
Gulf of Mexico. FINAL RULE].
(16)............................ Millepora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
foveolata. Indo-Pacific. DATE WHEN
PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
(17)............................ Pocillopora Wherever found. [FR CITATION & NA
elegans (East Indo-Pacific. DATE WHEN
Pacific). PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-29350 Filed 12-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P