[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63941-63946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25095]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 130819728-3728-01]
RIN 0648-XC822
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List 23 Species of Corals as Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding; request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list 23
species of corals as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted for 3 species: Cantharellus noumeae,
Siderastrea glynni, and Tubastraea floreana. Therefore, we will conduct
status reviews of the three species to determine if the petitioned
actions are warranted. To ensure that the status reviews are
comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information
pertaining to these petitioned species from any interested party. We
find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted for 20 species: Acropora roseni, Acropora suharsonoi,
Alveopora excelsa, Alveopora minuta, Ctenella chagius, Hydnophora
bonsai, Isopora togianensis, Lithophyllon ranjithi, Lobophyllia
serratus, Millepora boschmai, Millepora striata, Montipora setosa,
Parasimplastrea sheppardi, Pectinia maxima, Pocillopora
[[Page 63942]]
fungiformis, Porites desilveri, Porites eridani, Porites ornata,
Rhizopsammia wellingtoni, and Stylophora madagascarensis.
DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received
by December 24, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data on this
document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2013-0138, by any of the
following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0138, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Fax: 301-713-4060, Attn: Dwayne Meadows.
Instructions: 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 by NMFS. 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.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous), although submitting comments anonymously will prevent us
from contacting you if we have difficulty retrieving your submission.
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word,
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Copies of the petition and related materials are available upon
request from the Director, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dwayne Meadows, Office of Protected
Resources, 301-427-8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from the WildEarth
Guardians to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under
the ESA and to designate critical habitat under the ESA. Copies of this
petition are available from us (see ADDRESSES). This finding addresses
the 23 species of corals identified as part of this petition. The 23
coral species considered in this finding are: Acropora roseni, Acropora
suharsonoi, Alveopora excelsa, Alveopora minuta, Cantharellus noumeae,
Ctenella chagius, Hydnophora bonsai, Isopora togianensis, Lithophyllon
ranjithi, Lobophyllia serratus, Millepora boschmai, Millepora striata,
Montipora setosa, Parasimplastrea sheppardi, Pectinia maxima,
Pocillopora fungiformis, Porites desilveri, Porites eridani, Porites
ornata, Rhizopsammia wellingtoni, Siderastrea glynni, Stylophora
madagascarensis, and Tubastraea floreana.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days
of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered,
the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish
the finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we
find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a
petition indicates that the petitioned action may be warranted (a
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species concerned, which includes
conducting a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and
commercial information. Within 12 months of receiving the petition, we
must conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the
petitioned action is warranted. Because the finding at the 12-month
stage is based on a significantly more thorough review of the available
information, a ``may be warranted'' finding at the 90-day stage does
not prejudge the outcome of the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a ``species,''
which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). This finding only addresses invertebrate
corals, so the DPS option cannot be considered. A species or subspecies
is ``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20),
respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our
implementing regulations, the determination of whether a species is
threatened or endangered shall be based on any one or a combination of
the following five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors
affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define ``substantial
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist,
or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted. When evaluating whether substantial information is
contained in a petition, we must consider whether the petition: (1)
Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the
scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains
detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure,
describing, based on available information, past and present numbers
and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the
species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species
over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied
by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of
bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of
reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request based
upon the information in the petition, including its references and the
information readily available in our files. We do not conduct
additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties
outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will
accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the
information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted
scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files
that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable,
obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information
that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is
contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at
the
[[Page 63943]]
90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person
would conclude that it supports the petitioner's assertions. Conclusive
information indicating that the species may meet the ESA's requirements
for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will
not conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a
positive 90-day finding if a reasonable person would conclude that the
unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for
the species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the subject species may be
either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we
evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with
the information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the
species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this
may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species'
status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to
the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic
factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at
issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial
structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical
range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential
contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the
species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic
risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section
4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for
information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed
to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative
fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative
response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-
governmental organizations, such as the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may
not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA.
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such
classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the
classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction
risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
In this petition the petitioner relies almost exclusively on the
risk classifications of the IUCN as the source of information on the
status of each petitioned species. All of the petitioned species are
listed as ``endangered'' or ``critically endangered'' on the IUCN
Redlist and the petitioner notes this as an explicit consideration in
offering petitions on these species. Species classifications under the
IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent, and data standards, criteria used
to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not
necessarily the same. Thus, we instead consider the information on
threats identified by the petitioners, as well as the data on which
they are based, as they pertain to each petitioned species.
All of the species considered in this petition are listed in
Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES). According to Article II of CITES, species listed on
Appendix II are those that are ``not necessarily now threatened with
extinction but may become so unless trade in specimens of such species
is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid utilization
incompatible with their survival.'' Based on the CITES definitions and
standards for listing species on Appendix II, the species' actual
listing on Appendix II is not itself an inherent indication that these
species may now warrant threatened or endangered status under the ESA.
Species classifications under CITES and the ESA are not equivalent, and
criteria used to evaluate species are not the same. Thus, we instead
consider the available information on the threat of international trade
(see below).
Species Description
Most of the petitioned coral species are shallow water, reef-
building anthozoan corals. The two Millepora species are hydrozoan
corals and thus differ in biology more from the other species. All of
the species occur in the Pacific and/or Indian oceans except Millepora
striata, which occurs in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and western
Atlantic Ocean. Only Porites eridani is noted as occurring in the
United States (the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands); all
of the other corals have strictly foreign distributions.
The introductory part of the coral section of the petition provides
general background information on corals, including anatomy, symbiosis
with photosynthetic zooxanthellae, reef formation, physiological needs,
and biodiversity. A general description of threats following the five
ESA Section 4(a)(1) factors is provided in the introductory coral
section of the petition and is meant to apply to all of the petitioned
corals. This section discusses the following threats: Extraction,
utilization, habitat destruction, sedimentation, disease, predation by
crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci), regulatory mechanisms,
human population growth, climate change, and synergistic effects. The
species-specific information section follows and provides information
from the IUCN assessment for each species. This species-specific
section includes less than one page of unique material per species,
including the species' CITES status, range and habitat information (see
specific discussion by species below in the ``Analysis of the
Petition'' section). Entries for only a few species provide species-
specific population status or trend information. Following the first
page of information for each species there is a section of about three
pages in length per species that considers the five ESA Section 4(a)(1)
threat factors for each species. Most of this information is repeated
verbatim for each species, and generally includes and repeats the same
points that were made in the introductory part of the coral section of
the petition. We consider the species-specific information provided
separately in the ``Analysis of the Petition'' section below.
Information in our files included the materials cited in the status
review
[[Page 63944]]
report, management report, and supplemental information report for our
consideration of a separate petition to list 82 species of corals
(Brainard et al., 2011; PIRO, 2012; and NMFS, 2012, respectively). In
addition we relied on a few citations from the status review report
that dealt directly with the petitioned species or their close
taxonomic relatives, including Forsman et al. (2005) and Richards
(2009).
Analysis of the Petition
General Information
The petition clearly indicates the administrative measure
recommended and gives the scientific and common names of the species
involved. The petition also contains a narrative justification for the
recommended measures and provides limited information on the species'
geographic distribution, habitat use, and threats. Limited information
is provided on past and present numbers, population status and trends
for all but a couple of species. A synopsis of our analysis of the
information provided in the petition and readily available in our files
is provided below.
Based on the information presented in the petition, along with the
information readily available in our files, we find that each of the 23
petitioned species constitutes a valid ``species'' eligible for listing
under the ESA as each is a valid taxonomic species.
The introductory threats discussion is general and not tied to any
of the specific petitioned species besides information later repeated
in the species-specific section (discussed below). The petitioners cite
the Brainard et al. (2011) status review report for many of the general
threats to corals. Other recent citations in this section not available
during our status review of the petition to list 82 corals include
online news articles and the most recent ``Reefs at Risk'' (Burke et
al., 2012) review. Many other citations are undated, which inhibits
assessment of the quality of the information presented. The general
threats discussion is not clearly or causally linked to the petitioned
species or their range or habitat (e.g., discussion of dead zone in the
northern Gulf of Mexico is from an area outside the range of the
petitioned species; a discussion suggesting that disease affects all
Indo-Pacific corals only because some disease occurs generally in the
region). The discussion of regulatory mechanisms argues that there are
no adequate regulatory mechanisms because the species are listed as
endangered or critically endangered by IUCN and asserts that all wild
populations are declining based on overall trends in coral reef
habitat, which is assumed to be a proxy for population trends despite
evidence in the petition itself to the contrary (see below). However,
generalized evidence of declining habitat or declining populations per
se are neither evidence of declines large enough to infer extinction
risk that may meet the definition of either threatened or endangered
under the ESA, nor evidence of inadequate regulatory mechanisms, since
sustainable management regimes can have periods of declining
populations. The discussion of CITES incorrectly characterizes the
applicability of CITES provisions when countries that are parties to
CITES trade with non-party countries, and makes an unsubstantiated
generalization that enforcement issues for some range countries for
largetooth sawfish (Pristis perotetti) relate to most or all countries
involved in coral trade. The two Millepora species are listed in the
petition as being in Appendix I and II of CITES. This is incorrect;
they are only in Appendix II. The petitioner's general discussion of
climate change acknowledges that some corals are resistant to
bleaching, but continues to attempt to generalize bleaching as an
extinction threat to all corals or to corals within the same genus when
there are better data on a congeneric species. Likewise they imply that
ocean acidification is a threat to all the petitioned species. Data in
our files as summarized by Brainard et al. (2011) show that adaptation
and acclimatization to increased ocean temperatures are possible, that
there is intra-genus variation in susceptibility to bleaching, ocean
acidification, and sedimentation, that at least some species have
already expanded their range in response to climate change, and that
not all species are seriously affected by ocean acidification.
While the information in this introductory section is otherwise
largely accurate and suggests concern for the status of corals
generally, its broadness, generality, and speculative nature, and the
failure of the petitioner to make reasonable connections between the
threats discussed and the status of the individual petitioned species,
means that we cannot find that this information reasonably suggests
that one or more of these threat factors may be operative threats that
act or have acted on any of the petitioned species to the point that it
may warrant protection under the ESA. There is little information in
this introductory section indicating that particular petitioned species
may be responding in a negative fashion to any of the discussed
threats. Therefore, we determine that the information in this section
does not constitute substantial information that listing may be
warranted for any of the petitioned species.
The next part of the petition consists of individual species
accounts for each of the 23 petitioned corals. Accompanying the
petition account for each species is a reference to the IUCN assessment
from 2008, a list of references used in the IUCN assessment, and our
status review report for a prior petition to list 82 species of corals
(Brainard et al., 2011). For each species the petitioner describes the
species' range and preferred habitat type from the IUCN analysis. For
most species the petitioner offers no species-specific life history,
abundance, or threat information (see discussion of exceptions below).
Many do have supposedly species-specific statements regarding
vulnerability to bleaching, disease or other threats, but these
statements do not provide citations to scientific literature
establishing these vulnerabilities (including within the IUCN analyses)
or the petitioner bases their vulnerability determination on inferences
from research on the vulnerability of other related species (usually
within the same genus) that may or may not be applicable to the
petitioned species. Based on information in our files on the intra-
genus variation in threat response in corals discussed above, we do not
believe that these vulnerability determinations constitute substantial
information that listing may be warranted.
The petitioners use 2004 ocean-basin wide estimates of reef habitat
that has already been destroyed or is ``likely to be destroyed within
20 years'' (Wilkinson, 2004) as proxies for likely trends in population
size for the petitioned species. We find this problematic for a number
of reasons: The habitat loss data are broad geographic estimates that
do not necessarily reflect the actual range of the petitioned species;
it is unclear on what basis and using what data Wilkinson (2004) was
able to estimate future habitat loss; not all species respond the same
way to the threats underlying the assumed habitat loss (see above
discussion); and in fact, the estimated trend in population status
contradicts other information in the petitions and IUCN assessments for
some species (e.g., Ctenella chagius, Isopora togianensis, Porites
desilveri, and Stylophora madagascarensis) where the IUCN assessments
notes that those
[[Page 63945]]
species are currently ``common''. Moreover, even if true, the estimated
population declines based on these expected habitat losses do not
exceed the levels of population loss in actively and sustainably
managed fishery species. Therefore, we do not believe these population
decline estimates constitute substantial information that listing may
be warranted for the petitioned species.
Finally, within each species' petition the petitioner provides a
discussion of the ESA section 4(a)(1) threats. Much of this discussion,
especially for climate change effects, repeats almost verbatim
discussion in the general introduction for all corals. Species-specific
information in these petitions is discussed further below.
Overall, the petition provides no species-specific information for
15 of the petitioned species and solely relies on generalizations from
related species and broad assumptions that potential threats are
actually influencing the petitioned species. For each of these 15
species listed below, we also had no additional information in our
files with which to assess status or potential extinction risk to the
species. Therefore, based on our policies as described above for
reviewing petitions at this stage, we find that for the 15 petitioned
species where there is no species-specific trend, life-history or
threat information, the information presented in the petition does not
constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. The
15 species to which this conclusion applies are: Acropora roseni,
Alveopora excelsa, Alveopora minuta, Ctenella chagius, Hydnophora
bonsai, Isopora togianensis, Millepora striata, Montipora setosa,
Parasimplastrea sheppardi, Pectinia maxima, Pocillopora fungiformis,
Porites desilveri, Porites eridani, Porites ornata, and Stylophora
madagascarensis.
Species-Specific Information
For the following species, at least some species-specific
information on population trends, life history, and/or threats was
provided in the petition or available in our files in addition to the
general information discussed above. Below we analyze this species-
specific information in light of the standards of the ESA and our
policies as described above.
The petition notes that Acropora suharsonoi is commercially traded
and cites information that the total number of live and raw specimens
exported for this species in 2005 was 175. The petitioner claims that
any trade of species categorized by IUCN as endangered or critically
endangered is a threat, despite their status on CITES Appendix II. The
petitioner provides no justification for this claim, and it contradicts
the policy and intent of CITES Appendix II listings, which establish
procedures to ensure that trade in Appendix II listed species is
sustainable and which the U.S. government fully supports as the first
party to CITES. The petitioner does not explain how this level of
trade, alone or in combination with other threats, is likely to imply
that this species may be threatened or endangered under the ESA.
Therefore, we find that for A. suharsonoi, the species-specific
information presented in the petition does not constitute substantial
information that listing may be warranted.
Cantharellus noumeae occurs only in a restricted area on reefs in
water close to soft sediment habitats in sheltered bays in New
Caledonia where it is exposed to mining activities and urbanization
causing habitat degradation from the sedimentation and potential
pollutants. We have no additional information on the mining activity,
but the limited area of occupancy of the species of less than 225 km\2\
is cause for concern that the urbanization, combined with even a single
mining operation with poor sediment controls could threaten this
species. Therefore, we conclude that the species-specific information
presented in the petition constitutes substantial information that
listing may be warranted for C. noumeae.
The petitioner cites the IUCN assessment that notes that
Lithophyllon ranjithi is exposed to a threat of siltation from
deforestation activity somewhere near or within its range. While this
species is restricted to a relatively small area of about 250km\2\ in
northeast Borneo, the petitioner does not provide information on the
location or extent of the deforestation activity nor the extent of the
range of the species affected by deforestation. Therefore, we find that
for L. ranjithi, the species-specific information presented in the
petition does not constitute substantial information that listing may
be warranted.
For Lobophyllia serratus, the petitioner and IUCN assessment note
that the species is ``likely collected for the aquarium trade.'' No
information on the extent of this trade or whether it exceeds
sustainable levels, or occurs illegally outside the CITES Appendix II
processes, is provided or implied. Therefore, we find that for L.
serratus, the species-specific information presented in the petition
does not constitute substantial information that listing may be
warranted.
Species-specific population data are available for Millepora
boschmai. According to the IUCN assessment, the species was the least
abundant of the three Millepora species in its range but was still not
uncommon. It was then almost eliminated by the 1982-83 El Ni[ntilde]o
Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event, but eight live colonies were found
within its restricted range after the ENSO. However, after a second
ENSO in 1997-98, all known colonies were found dead (Glynn et al.,
2001). Since that time ``no live colonies have been observed, despite
targeted searches throughout the former distribution'' (Guzman and
Edgar, 2008). Brainard et al. (2011) assessed the status of M. boschmai
to provide an extreme case study to provide context for their analysis
of the status of the 82 coral species petitioned under the ESA in 2009.
They also concluded that the species was extinct. The purpose of the
ESA is to conserve species that are in danger of or threatened with
extinction. The definition of an endangered species is ``any species
which is [emphasis added] in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range'' (Section 3(6)). Species that are
already extinct are not protected by the ESA. The best available
scientific information suggests that M. boschmai is not known to be
alive or exist in the wild and may already be extinct; therefore, we
find that this species does not qualify for listing as endangered or
threatened under the ESA.
Some species-specific abundance data exist for Rhizopsammia
wellingtoni, which is endemic to the Galapagos Islands. Prior to the
1982-83 ENSO the species was extremely abundant at Tagus Cove on the
island of Isabela (approximately 13 percent mean cover of the reef
surface at 15 m depth). According to the IUCN assessment, all colonies
known prior to the 1982-83 ENSO have disappeared. A few additional
colonies were found at two sites in the Galapagos as late as 2000, but
these are also now extirpated. The purpose of the ESA is to conserve
species that are in danger of or threatened with extinction. The
definition of an endangered species is ``any species which is [emphasis
added] in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range'' (Section 3(6)). Species that are already extinct are not
protected by the ESA. The best available scientific information
suggests that R. wellingtoni is not known to be alive or exist in the
wild and may already be extinct; therefore, we find that this species
does not
[[Page 63946]]
qualify for listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA.
Siderastrea glynni was first discovered in 1992 as an endemic
species in Panama in a small area near the Pacific opening of the
Panama Canal. Only five individual colonies have ever been discovered.
Four currently survive. According to the IUCN assessment, during the
1997-98 El Ni[ntilde]o the four S. glynni colonies started to
deteriorate, displaying bleaching and tissue loss. Due to their
unhealthy state, the four colonies were moved to Smithsonian Tropical
Research Institute (STRI) aquaria in Panama where they remain to this
day. Attempts made by STRI staff to propagate this coral in the STRI
aquaria have produced 11 propagules, which also remain in captivity.
Recent genetic work by Forsman et al. (2005) has shown that this
species is genetically very similar to the Caribbean species S.
siderea. Their study could not differentiate between the possibility
that S. siderea and S. glynni are the same species and that S. glynni
may have recently passed through or been carried across the Panama
Canal to the Pacific Ocean side, or the alternate possibility that S.
glynni evolved from S. siderea 2 to 2.3 million years ago during a
period of high sea level that may have breached the Isthmus of Panama.
However, because of the possibility that S. glynni is a unique species,
we conclude that the species-specific information presented in the
petition and our files constitutes substantial information that listing
this species may be warranted.
Some species-specific abundance data exist for Tubastraea floreana.
The species is also endemic to the Galapagos Islands. According to the
IUCN assessment, prior to the 1982-83 ENSO the species was known from
six sites on four islands. Since the 1982-83 ENSO specimens have only
been observed at two sites. At one of these two sites the species has
not been seen since 2001, leaving only a single confirmed site with
living specimens. We have no additional information on this species in
our files. Therefore, we conclude that the species-specific information
presented in the petition constitutes substantial information that
listing may be warranted for T. floreana.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well
as information readily available in our files, including the sections
of the petition applicable to all of the petitioned corals as well as
the species-specific information, we conclude the petition in its
entirety does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for 20 of
the 23 species of corals. These 20 species are: Acropora roseni,
Acropora suharsoni, Alveopora excelsa, Alveopora minuta, Ctenella
chagius, Hydnophora bonsai, Isopora togianensis, Lithophyllon ranjithi,
Lobophyllia serratus, Millepora boschmai, Millepora striata, Montipora
setosa, Parasimplastrea sheppardi, Pectinia maxima, Pocillopora
fungiformis, Porites desilveri, Porites eridani, Porites ornata,
Rhizopsammia wellingtoni, and Stylophora madagascarensis. In contrast,
as described above, we find that there is substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be
warranted for 3 of the 23 species of corals and we hereby announce the
initiation of a status review for each of these three species to
determine whether the petition action is warranted. These 3 species
are: Cantharellus noumeae, Siderastrea glynni, and Tubastraea floreana.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant
to whether the three species we believe may be warranted for listing
(Cantharellus noumeae, Siderastrea glynni, and Tubastraea floreana) are
threatened or endangered. Specifically, we are soliciting information,
including unpublished information, in the following areas: (1)
Historical and current distribution and abundance of each species
throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3)
life history; (4) data on international trade; (5) any current or
planned activities, including additional details on those threats
discussed above, that may adversely impact the species; (6) current
status and plans for husbandry or release of Siderstrea glynni, (7)
ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the population and
its habitat; and (8) management, regulatory, and enforcement
information. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1)
supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name,
address, and any association, institution, or business that the person
represents.
References Cited
A complete list of references is available upon request to the
Office of Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: October 18, 2013.
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.
[FR Doc. 2013-25095 Filed 10-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P