Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 44 Species of Corals as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 10601-10606 [2013-03475]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10601-10606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03475]



[[Page 10601]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 130208645-3645-01]
RIN 0648-XC209


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 
to List 44 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.

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

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list 44 
species of corals off Alaska as threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition does not 
present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that the petitioned actions may be warranted.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petitions and related materials are available 
online at https://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/coral/default.htm or upon request from the Assistant Regional Administrator 
for Protected Resources, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, 
AK 99802-1668.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Olson, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 
271-1508; Jon Kurland, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 586-7638; or Maggie 
Miller, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 20, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity to list 44 taxa of coral (42 species, one 
subspecies and one variant) as threatened or endangered under the ESA. 
The petition is entitled ``Petition to List 43 Coral Species under the 
Endangered Species Act'' but it provides information regarding 44 taxa. 
We are therefore treating the petitioned action as the listing of 44 
taxa. The petitioner also requested that critical habitat be designated 
for these corals concurrent with listing under the ESA. The petition 
asserts that synergistic threats of ocean warming, ocean acidification, 
commercial fisheries, oil spills, and other impacts affect these 
species. The petition briefly summarizes the description, taxonomy, 
distribution, and status for each petitioned species. It also describes 
current and future threats that the petitioner asserts are affecting or 
will affect these species.
    The 44 taxa included in the petition are: Arthrogorgia otsukai, 
Arthrogorgia utinomii, Fanellia compressa, Fanellia fraseri, Narella 
abyssalis, Narella alaskensis, Narella arbuscula, Narella bayeri, 
Narella cristata, Plumarella aleutiana, Plumarella echinata, Plumarella 
hapala, Plumarella nuttingi, Plumarella profunda, Plumarella robusta, 
Plumarella spicata, Plumarella superba, Primnoa pacifica var. willeyi, 
Primnoa wingi, Thouarella cristata, Thouarella trilineata, Alaskagorgia 
aleutiana, Cryogorgia koolsae, Cavernularia vansyoci, Swiftia beringi 
(a junior synonym for Calcigorgia beringi), Crypthelia trophostega, 
Cyclohelia lamellata, Errinopora dichotoma, Errinopora disticha, 
Errinopora fisheri, Errinopora nanneca, Errinopora undulate, Errinopora 
zarhyncha, Stylaster trachystomus, Stylaster ellasotomus, Stylaster 
brochi, Stylaster alaskanus, Stylaster leptostylus, Stylaster 
campylecus, Stylaster crassiseptum, Stylaster parageus parageus, 
Stylaster repandus, Stylaster stejnegeri, and Distochopora borealis. 
Stylaster cancellatus is also mentioned in the petition but this is a 
junior synonym for Stylaster alaskanus. All 44 taxa are found in waters 
off Alaska in the Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, and/or Bering Sea.

ESA Statutory and Regulatory Provisions and Evaluation Framework

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days 
of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, 
the Secretary of Commerce make a finding as to whether that petition 
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that the petitioned action may be warranted, and promptly publish such 
finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we find 
that substantial scientific or commercial information indicates the 
petitioned action may be warranted (a ``positive 90-day finding''), we 
are required to commence a review of the status of the species 
concerned during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the 
best available scientific and commercial information. In such cases, we 
are to conclude the review with a finding as to whether the petitioned 
action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition. 
Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough 
review of the available information, a ``may be warranted'' 90-day 
finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.
    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, 
subspecies, or, for any vertebrate species, a distinct population 
segment (DPS) which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). 
Because corals are invertebrate species, we are limited to assessing 
the status of species or subspecies of corals. 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)). The ESA requires us to 
determine whether species are threatened or endangered based upon any 
of the following 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)).
    Implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and the US 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, the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) 
Clearly indicates the administrative action 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)).
    Court decisions clarify the appropriate scope and limitations of 
the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding stage in making 
a determination whether a petitioned

[[Page 10602]]

action may be warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that 
a petition need not establish a strong likelihood or a high probability 
that a species is either threatened or endangered to support a positive 
90-day finding.
    Decisions under the ESA must be based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available. We evaluate the petitioner's request based 
upon the information in the petition including its references, and the 
information readily available in our files. If the petitioner's sources 
are based on accepted scientific principles, we will accept them and 
characterizations of the information presented 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 90-day finding stage, so long as it is 
reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the 
petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information 
indicating 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 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, 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, will 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, or reasonably likely to be exposed, to a factor, but 
that the species may respond or may presently be responding in a 
negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that 
negative response.

Biology of Coral Species

    Corals are defined as ``animals in the cnidarian class Anthozoa and 
Hydrozoa that produce either calcium carbonate (argonite or calcite) 
secretions resulting in a continuous skeleton or as numerous, usually 
microscopic, individual sclerites, or that have a black, horn-like 
proteinaceous axis'' (Cairns, 2007). All of the petitioned corals 
belong to the phylum Cnidaria and to the classes Anthozoa or Hydrozoa. 
The anthozoans are exclusively polypoid (i.e., generally sessile) with 
no medusoid (i.e., generally free-swimming) stage and include the 
orders Gorgonacea (gorgonians) and Pennatulacea (sea whips and sea 
pens). The hydrozoans generally retain both the polypoid and medusoid 
stages in their life cycle and include the order Anthoathecatae 
(hydrocorals). To date, 134 unique coral taxa have been found in 
Alaskan waters (Stone and Rooper, in review) and all are ahermatypic 
(i.e., non-reef forming) and azooxanthellate (i.e., do not contain 
symbiotic algae in their tissues). They have a broad distribution in 
Alaskan waters and are found at depths between 3 and 6,328 meters (m) 
(Stone and Rooper, in review).
    Gorgonians are the most diverse coral group in Alaskan waters with 
61 unique taxa from 7 families (Stone and Rooper, in review). They are 
the most important structure-forming corals in Alaskan waters and 
generally require exposed, hard substratum for attachment (Stone and 
Shotwell, 2007). Gorgonians are locally abundant, contagiously 
distributed, and form both single- and multi-species assemblages (Stone 
and Shotwell, 2007). They range in depth from 6 to 4,784 m (Stone and 
Shotwell, 2007). Their skeletal components are composed of aragonite, 
calcite, high-magnesium calcite, amorphous carbonate hydroxylapatite 
and there is some evidence that some taxa may have polymorphic 
skeletons (Cairns and MacIntyre, 1992). Of the 23 gorgonians listed in 
the petition, 11 taxa are known exclusively from the Aleutian Islands, 
5 appear to be endemic to seamounts, 4 are known from the Aleutian 
Islands and Bering Sea Slope, 1 is known from the western Gulf of 
Alaska and Aleutian Islands, Primnoa pacifica var. willeyi ranges 
throughout Alaskan waters south of the Bering Sea, and Swiftia beringi 
(actually Calcigorgia beringi) appears to be broadly distributed from 
the eastern Gulf of Alaska through the Aleutian Island Archipelago 
(Stone et al., in preparation).
    Sea whips and sea pens have a widespread distribution in Alaskan 
waters and are represented by 10 taxa in 3 families (Stone and 
Shotwell, 2007). Several are important structure forming corals and at 
least three species form extensive groves in soft sediment areas (Stone 
and Shotwell, 2007). They range in depth from 3 to 2,947 m (Stone and 
Shotwell, 2007) and their skeletons appear to be composed exclusively 
of high-magnesium calcite (Stone et al., in preparation). The single 
pennatulacean listed in the petition is known from one specimen 
collected in the Aleutian Islands (Williams, 2005).
    Hydrocorals have a widespread distribution in Alaska but have not 
been reported from seamounts and are extremely rare north of the 
Aleutian Archipelago slope (Stone et al., in preparation). They are 
represented by 24 taxa in Alaskan waters (R. Stone, unpublished data) 
and several species are important structure forming corals (Stone and 
Shotwell, 2007). They form erect or encrusting calcareous colonies and 
require exposed, hard substratum for attachment. They range in depth 
from 10 to 2,124 m (Stone and Rooper, in review) and their skeletons 
may be composed of aragonite, calcite, high-magnesium calcite, 
amorphous carbonate hydroxylapatite, and there is some evidence that 
some taxa may have polymorphic skeletons (Cairns and MacIntyre, 1992). 
Of the 19 hydrocorals listed in the petition, 14 are known only from 
the Aleutian Islands, 3 are known from the Aleutians Islands region and 
the eastern Gulf of Alaska, and 2 are known from the Aleutian Islands 
and the southern Bering Sea (Stone et al., in preparation).

Analysis of Petition

    The petition describes factors which it asserts have led to the 
current status of

[[Page 10603]]

these corals, as well as threats which it asserts the taxa currently 
face, categorizing them under the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors. The 
petition focuses on habitat threats, asserting that the habitat of the 
petitioned coral taxa is under threat from several processes linked to 
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, including ocean acidification, 
ocean warming, and changes in currents and salinity. The petition also 
asserts that these global habitat threats are exacerbated by local 
habitat threats posed by commercial fishing activities, oil and gas 
exploration and production, and oil spills. Finally, the petition 
contends that the existing regulatory mechanisms in place are 
inadequate to address the identified threats to corals.
    For each of the petitioned taxa, we evaluated whether the 
information provided or cited in the petition met the regulatory 
standard for ``substantial information.'' We also reviewed other 
readily available information (i.e., currently within NMFS files) 
related to the distribution, abundance, and threats to the petitioned 
taxa.
    Information submitted by the petitioner for each of the 44 coral 
taxa was limited to a brief taxonomic/physical description, geographic 
and depth distribution information based on the cited literature, a map 
describing the possible spatial distribution, and a relatively generic 
status statement. Some distribution descriptions also contained 
temperature or substrate data. Relatively little species-specific 
information was presented in the petition or is presently available on 
the biology, population characteristics, distribution, or status of the 
44 individual taxa. The petitioner provided no species-specific 
information on abundance or trends. The petition states on page 27 that 
``[t]here are several factors that play an important role in the 
distribution of Alaska coral species, including nutrient flows and 
productivity, water temperature, availability of hard substrate, 
currents and sediment load, and seawater chemistry make-up including 
salinity and calcium carbonate saturation state.'' These statements are 
not referenced and we are unaware of any research that has been 
conducted in Alaska to date to support them. The petition continues: 
``[t]hese factors were not included in the mapping process as they are 
not readily available, and the specific interactions of these factors 
to each species' distribution are unknown.'' The petition acknowledges 
limited available data regarding the distribution, range, abundance, 
and population trends for the petitioned taxa and relies instead on 
relatively generic status statements for each of the petitioned taxa 
that suggest limited range (endemism) as well as a limited ability of 
corals to repair damage, adapt to new conditions, or colonize disturbed 
areas.
    Of the 44 petitioned coral taxa, 22 species have been described in 
just the past decade (14 of those in 2011). These include five species 
of Narella (N. abyssalis, N. alaskensis, N. arbuscula, N. bayeri, and 
N. cristata) collected during submersible surveys in 2002 and 2004 and 
formally described in 2007 (Cairns and Baco, 2007). These are all deep 
bathyal species and appear to be endemic to Gulf of Alaska seamounts. 
New species also include two gorgonians (Alaskagorgia aleutiana and 
Cryogorgia koolsae) and the small, cryptic pennatulacean Cavernularia 
vansyoci from the Aleutian Islands (Sanchez and Cairns, 2004; Williams, 
2005). The latter species is known from only a single specimen. Cairns 
(2011) published a major revision of the Primnoidae that yielded eight 
new species that are included in the petition, principally from the 
Aleutian Islands (Plumarella aleutiana, P. echinata, P. hapala, P. 
nuttingi, P. profunda, P. robusta, Thouarella cristata, T. trilineata). 
All of these species are extremely difficult to differentiate from each 
other, particularly in the field, and consequently our knowledge of 
their distribution is largely limited to expertly identified museum 
specimens. Cairns and Lindner (2011) also performed a major revision of 
the hydrocorals (Stylasteridae) from Alaskan waters yielding six new 
species that are included in the petition (Errinopora dichotoma, E. 
disticha, E. fisheri, E. undulata, Stylaster repandus, and S. 
crassiseptum). The genera Errinopora and Stylaster require advanced 
taxonomic expertise to identify to species in the field or laboratory 
and consequently our knowledge of their distribution is largely limited 
to expertly identified museum specimens.
    The remaining gorgonians in the petition are somewhat easier to 
identify in the field, and of those, six (Arthrogorgia otsukai, A. 
utinomii, Fanellia compressa, F. fraseri, Primnoa pacifica var. 
willeyi, and P. wingi) have been fairly well documented and most have 
been caught incidentally and repeatedly in bottom trawl surveys that 
NMFS conducts in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea to assess groundfish 
stocks. Plumarella spicata and P. superba are not documented in the 
NMFS bottom trawl survey. Swiftia beringi (actually Calcigorgia 
beringi) is relatively easy to identify in the field but is relatively 
uncommon and seldom encountered in the NMFS bottom trawl survey. Of the 
remaining hydrocorals, Crypthelia trophostega, Cyclohelia lamellata, 
Errinopora nanneca, E. zarhyncha, Stylaster brochi, and S. campylecus 
are relatively easy to differentiate to species level in the field and 
consequently some information on their distribution is available from 
the NMFS bottom trawl survey. Distichopora borealis has not been 
documented in the NMFS bottom trawl survey. Stylaster alaskanus, S. 
ellasotomus, S. leptostylus, S. parageus parageus, S. stejnegeri, and 
S. trachystomus are very difficult to identify to species and 
consequently few records are available from any source for these taxa.
    The petition presents little information on the past or present 
numbers, relative abundance, or distribution of the petitioned taxa, 
which is understandable because for many of the species only scant 
information exists. As noted above, 22 of the petitioned taxa are new 
to science in the last decade. For the other 22 petitioned taxa, 
sampling has been largely opportunistic as bycatch in surveys to assess 
groundfish stocks using trawl gear that is not designed to sample 
corals. To supplement information presented in the petition, we 
reviewed the 38,752 bottom trawl survey data points in our files 
(available at https://www.afsc.noaa.gov/RACE/groundfish/survey_data/data.htm) for the Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea, and Gulf of Alaska, and 
found 1,151 tows in which corals were caught incidentally since 1982, 
including 17 of the petitioned taxa. These data demonstrate a 
substantially wider distribution for some of these taxa than reported 
in the petition, both geographically and with regard to depth. We also 
have information that one of the species listed in the petition as 
``endemic to the Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, and Bering Sea,'' 
Swiftia beringi, has confirmed occurrences off Washington State. 
Nevertheless, systematic surveys have not been conducted in Alaska to 
assess the distribution, abundance, or population trends of these (or 
other) corals, providing no reliable basis to assess their status. 
Trawl surveys off Alaska are limited to areas that are relatively flat 
and not too rough, yet many Alaskan coral species, particularly in the 
Aleutian Islands, prefer hard substrate with high currents and steep 
slopes (Woodby et al., 2009) that are not conducive to sampling with a 
bottom trawl. NMFS and others have conducted coral research in Alaska 
with other tools

[[Page 10604]]

(e.g., submersibles) that has confirmed a much broader depth and 
geographical distribution and more varied habitat for many Alaskan 
coral species than previously documented (Stone, 2006; Stone and 
Alcorn, 2007; Miller et al., 2012). Even these efforts provide an 
incomplete picture of the population-level status and abundance of 
these species. Based on our review of the petition and other 
information available to us, too little survey information exists to 
conclude that the small number of documented occurrences of the 
petitioned taxa may equate to a risk of extinction due to low 
population size. We expect, based on surveys conducted to date, that 
additional survey effort would result in additional observations of the 
petitioned taxa in other locations.
    We examined each of the threats listed in the petition. Ocean 
acidification due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and 
oceanographic changes resulting from climate change are described in 
the petition as major threats. NMFS scientists are aware that others 
have hypothesized that both may produce conditions that directly and 
indirectly affect cold water corals, yet no empirical studies to date 
have demonstrated deleterious effects to the petitioned taxa or to 
similar coral taxa. The petition draws entirely on the results of ocean 
acidification research conducted on tropical corals and a single cold 
water coral species (Lophelia pertusa). Tropical scleractinian corals 
and cold water corals are very different animals both physiologically 
and ecologically. Tropical scleractinian corals are typically 
hermatypic (reef-building), contain intracellular zooxanthellae 
(symbiotic photosynthetic dinoflagellates), and inhabit shallow warm 
waters. L. pertusa is a reef building scleractinian predominantly found 
in the North Atlantic Ocean and is not found in the northern North 
Pacific Ocean. It is the only cold water coral for which there is 
species-specific information on the physiological effects of lowered pH 
(Maier, 2009). The results of that study were contradictory; L. pertusa 
exhibited reduced growth when exposed to lower pH but colonies still 
showed positive net calcification. Ocean acidification literature 
generally would lead scientists to expect both reduced growth and 
negative net calcification, so we find the Maier (2009) study unhelpful 
for assessing whether the petitioned corals may react negatively to 
ocean acidification.
    The petitioned corals and scleractinian corals (such as the 
tropical corals and L. pertusa) are not closely related and we find no 
basis to expect that they would have similar physiological responses to 
stress. Scleractinians and hydrocorals are related at the Phylum level 
whereas scleractinians and octocorals (gorgonians and pennatulaceans) 
are related at the Class level. Most importantly, the biomineralization 
processes for scleractinians and the petitioned coral groups are 
entirely different, so it is not appropriate to use the responses of 
the first group of corals as a surrogate for the latter group. 
Scleractinians accrete aragonite whereas all gorgonians and many 
hydrocorals accrete calcite and/or high-magnesium calcite. The 
biomineralization mechanisms that produce these compounds are very 
different (Lowenstam and Weiner, 1989). Aragonite is the kinetically 
favored polymorph of calcium carbonate to precipitate from seawater and 
scleractinian aragonite crystals are morphologically and chemically 
similar to aragonites precipitated inorganically (Holcomb et al., 
2009). Two factors indicate that scleractinian calcification is more of 
an inorganic process compared to gorgonians and hydrocorals (including 
the petitioned taxa) where the organic matrix plays a much more 
prominent role in calcification. First, scleractinian mineralization is 
entirely extracellular whereas gorgonian spicules are formed 
intracellularly. Second, the percent organic matrix in scleractinian 
coral skeletons is very small (< 1 percent) compared to a very high 
percentage for gorgonians and hydrocorals (Cohen and Holcomb, 2009).
    The literature cited in the petition does not support the 
petitioned action. For example, the petition states that 
undersaturation of calcite will affect the growth and repair of both 
the corals and the plankton that provide the corals' food and nutrient 
sources and then cites the work by Comeau et al. (2010) on pteropods. 
Drawing inferences based upon effects on pteropods is inappropriate 
because pteropods are not corals (they are mollusks), belong to an 
entirely different phylum of animals, and unlike corals are generally 
free-swimming and pelagic. Similarly, the petition states that shifting 
currents as the result of climate change may limit nutrients available 
to the petitioned species. The petition presents no evidence that 
currents in the areas of the petitioned corals may shift, and no 
scientific information is available regarding the role water currents 
play in delivering nutrients to the petitioned taxa. Rather, the 
petition provides citations from the tropical coral literature (Coma et 
al., 2009; Donner, 2009) that are not applicable to cold water corals. 
The petition states that global climate change and ocean acidification 
will impair biological and ecological functions of cold water corals, 
degrade habitat, and actively erode existing coral colonies, yet cites 
the work by Orr et al. (2005) on pteropods and the review by Hoffman et 
al. (2010) which does not provide any direct evidence to support the 
statement. The Hoffman paper reviews ocean acidification literature for 
``the responses of key marine calcifiers at the organismal level and 
extend[s] these observations, where possible, to potential outcomes at 
the ecosystem level.'' The review does not provide new information on 
the petitioned corals, but does state that ``some deep-living corals 
may resist dissolution because tissues protect their carbonate 
skeletons.''
    The petition also states that ``the petitioned coral species are 
under severe, pervasive and growing threats from * * * ocean 
acidification and climate change'' and again cites Hofmann et al. 
(2010). Hofmann et al. (2010), however, does not mention any of the 
petitioned corals but rather only specifically discusses the colonial 
scleractinian, L. pertusa, from the North Atlantic Ocean. As noted 
above, L. pertusa is a very different species from the petitioned taxa 
and we find no basis to infer that the petitioned corals would respond 
similarly to ocean acidification or climate change. To the contrary, 
extensive observations made in situ during the last decade indicate 
that corals in Alaska (including many of the petitioned species) are 
thriving at depths well below the saturation horizons in the Aleutian 
Islands (Stone, 2006; Heifetz et al., 2007). Additionally, all 
stylasterids and octocorals (including all of the petitioned taxa) have 
external tissue that would insulate the skeleton from acidic water, so 
they may not be as susceptible to the effects of corrosive seawater as 
other organisms that lack this tissue coverage (Rudolfo-Metalpa, 2011). 
In summary, while corals in other parts of the world have come under 
pressure, including from the effects of climate change and ocean 
acidification, the little information that exists regarding the 
petitioned cold water corals is too insubstantial to indicate that they 
may be threatened by the effects of climate change and ocean 
acidification.
    The information presented in the petition on threats from 
commercial fishing describes how fishing gear could affect corals, but 
it understates the degree of conservation provided by the

[[Page 10605]]

suite of management measures taken since 2005 to protect corals and 
other sensitive sea floor habitats in Alaska, which greatly alleviate 
these threats. On June 28, 2006, NMFS finalized regulations to minimize 
the effects of fishing on Essential Fish Habitat, including substantial 
new measures to address concerns about the impacts of bottom trawling 
on benthic habitat (particularly on coral communities) in the Aleutian 
Islands and Gulf of Alaska (71 FR 36694). The regulations established 
the Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area (AIHCA) to prohibit all 
bottom trawling in the Aleutians outside the historical footprint of 
the fishery. Over 95 percent of the management area (277,100 square 
nautical miles (nm\2\)) and 60 percent of ``fishable depths'' are 
closed to bottom trawling. Additionally, the regulations established 
six Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat Protection Areas totaling 110 nm\2\ 
with especially high density coral and sponge habitat that were closed 
to all bottom-contact fishing gear (nonpelagic trawl, dredge, 
dinglebar, pot, and hook[hyphen]and[hyphen]line). The regulations also 
identified 16 seamounts (mostly in the Gulf of Alaska) as Habitat 
Protection Areas and similarly closed them to all bottom contact 
fishing to protect corals and other habitat features. The same 
regulations closed 10 Gulf of Alaska Slope Habitat Conservation Areas 
totaling 2,086 nm\2\ to bottom trawling and closed 5 Gulf of Alaska 
Coral Habitat Protection Areas totaling 13.5 nm\2\ to all bottom 
contact fishing. Other substantial closures in the Aleutian Islands, 
such as the Steller Sea Lion protection measures, further limit the 
areas open to bottom trawling and therefore protect coral habitat. 
Preliminary GIS analysis of the NMFS trawl survey data show that in the 
Aleutian Islands, 30 percent of coral records are located in the AICHA 
alone, which is closed to bottom trawling. NMFS has also conducted 
cooperative research with the fishing industry, resulting in gear 
modifications to trawl sweeps that have been shown to reduce the 
effects of non-pelagic trawls on benthic invertebrates in the Bering 
Sea and Gulf of Alaska.
    The petition suggests that corals in the Bering Sea canyons remain 
unprotected from the effects of fishing and asserts that such corals 
are therefore vulnerable. In 2006 and 2007, the North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council considered protection measures for submarine canyons 
but ultimately postponed taking action because scientific information 
was not available to establish the dependence of managed fish species 
on habitat features of the canyons. A 2007 expedition to Zhemchug and 
Pribilof Canyons led to publication of a paper with new information 
(Miller et al., 2012). In April 2012 the Council requested that NMFS 
review and summarize existing and new information on the canyons, their 
habitat, and fish associations in those areas to assist the Council in 
determining whether any potential future management actions are 
warranted. The analysis will include the coral species in the canyons, 
but there is no indication at this time that corals, including the few 
petitioned species that are found there, face risks from commercial 
fishing that may warrant listing the species as threatened or 
endangered.
    With regard to increased shipping and tourism traffic and oil 
spills that may accompany such increases, the petition asserts that the 
risk of spills will intensify over time. According to the petition, 
most traffic to the Bering Sea and Arctic transits Unimak Pass, thereby 
placing corals in the Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea, and Gulf of Alaska 
at risk. NOAA has developed the General NOAA Oil Model Environment 
(GNOME) model to predict the trajectory and weathering of oil spills. 
Winds, currents, tides, and climatology can all be used as inputs. 
However, this is a surface trajectory model and a vertical mixing 
component is not available. Data on currents in the Aleutian Islands 
are general at best, and the petition's assertion that the ``currents 
would therefore be likely to transport oily water to cold water coral 
sites'' is unsupported, as there is no research to suggest a mechanism 
for ``likely'' transport of oil. Deep water flowing north in the 
Pacific Ocean encounters the Aleutian Trench where it is forced up onto 
the Aleutian Trench and into the Bering Sea through the many island 
passes (Johnson, 2003). Woodby et al. (2009) attempted to include 
currents in modeling coral distribution in the Aleutian Islands, but 
stated ``reliable and high resolution current data were not available 
for model development due to the general lack of current observations 
in the central Aleutian Islands.'' This statement is true throughout 
the Aleutians Islands and Alaska. Suchanek (1993) analyzed spill 
responses in tidal and subtidal environments and included hermatypic 
corals; however, mechanisms for transport of oil components to depths 
typical of the petitioned species in Alaska are not discussed. 
Information presented in the petition related to the Deepwater Horizon 
oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the effects of oil on Gulf of 
Mexico deep water corals is not directly relevant in Alaska as the 
Deepwater Horizon spill occurred at a depth of 1,259 m in an 
environment vastly different than the Aleutian Islands or other Alaskan 
waters. Fewer than a dozen exploratory wells have been drilled (and 
subsequently abandoned) in deep (> 100 m) central Bering Sea waters, 
and there has been no exploratory activity in the Aleutian Islands. No 
wells have been developed for production and no platforms exist. There 
is a moratorium on exploration in Bristol Bay until at least 2017. In 
the Arctic, several wells exist; however, most are developed through 
human-made drilling islands in shallow water (< 15 m). Exploration in 
the Chukchi Sea in 2012 was conducted in 50 m of water.
    The petition cites recent discoveries of corals in the Chukchi Sea 
as examples of corals at risk from oil exploration and development. 
However, the species encountered in that instance was a soft coral, 
Gersemia rubiformis, which is not included in the petition. The 
petition states that ``the density and coverage of cold water corals at 
the drill site were similar to those observed in tropical coral 
reefs,'' citing a Washington Post newspaper article (Eilperin, 2012), 
yet the cited article presents no such conclusion. Based on information 
in our files, the petitioned coral species do not occur north of 
approximately the Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea, approximately 600 
miles (966 km) south of the site of proposed oil exploration drilling 
in the Chukchi Sea. The petition does not present substantial 
information on possible threats from oil exploration or development to 
the petitioned species in Alaska.
    Beginning in 2012, NMFS implemented a 3 year field research program 
in Alaska as part of NOAA's Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology 
Program, which may help to answer some of the unknown questions with 
regard to corals in Alaska. The goals of the program are to better 
understand the location, distribution, ecosystem role, and status of 
deep-sea coral and sponge habitats. Research priorities include 
determining the distribution, abundance and diversity of deep-sea 
corals and sponges (and their distribution relative to fishing 
activity); compiling and interpreting habitat and substrate maps; 
determining associations of commercially important fish species 
(especially juveniles) with deep-sea coral and sponge habitats and the 
contribution of those habitats to

[[Page 10606]]

fisheries production; determining the impacts of fishing gears and 
testing gear modifications to reduce any impacts; determining recovery 
rates of deep-sea coral and sponge communities from physical 
disturbance; and establishing a long-term monitoring program to 
determine the potential effects of climate change and ocean 
acidification on deep-sea coral and sponge ecosystems. Additionally, 
NOAA's Ocean Acidification Program is currently analyzing the carbonate 
mineralogy of Alaskan corals. The mineralogy data will be used in 
conjunction with species distribution data (depth and geographical) and 
the present and projected aragonite and calcite saturation horizons in 
Alaska to predict the effects of ocean acidification on coral resources 
of the North Pacific Ocean.

Petition Finding

    We have reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the 
petition, and other literature and information available in our files. 
We find that the petition does not present substantial information 
indicating that the requested listing actions may be warranted for any 
of the 44 petitioned species.
    Per 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(1), the petition clearly requests that NMFS 
list 44 taxa of corals as threatened or endangered under the ESA and 
provides the scientific names for each taxon.
    Per 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(2), the petition provides a narrative 
justification for listing but does not present information on the past 
or present numbers or relative abundance of the petitioned taxa and 
provides scant information on their distribution. Based on information 
from the NMFS trawl surveys, the published literature, and museum 
records, at least 17 of the petitioned taxa have a broader depth and 
geographical distribution than reported in the petition. Of the 44 
petitioned taxa, 22 are new to science in the past decade and have very 
few recorded observations, and the remaining 22 have been recorded 
opportunistically as bycatch in fish surveys that are not designed to 
sample corals. Systematic surveys have not been conducted to assess the 
distribution, abundance, or population trends for any of the petitioned 
corals, providing no basis to assess their status. We conclude that too 
little survey data exist to lead a reasonable person to conclude that 
the small number of documented occurrences of the petitioned taxa may 
equate to a risk of extinction due to low population size, either now 
or in the foreseeable future.
    Per 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(3), the petition provides little 
information regarding the status of the species. We have somewhat more 
information including observations from bycatch in NMFS trawl surveys, 
but systematic surveys for these corals have not been undertaken. At 
least 17 of the petitioned taxa have a wider distribution than is 
reflected in the petition. The threats cited in the petition are ocean 
warming, ocean acidification, commercial fisheries, oil spills, and oil 
and gas exploration and development. Information presented in the 
petition regarding the effects of climate change and ocean 
acidification on the petitioned taxa is too tenuous or unsupported. 
Also, information in our files and the published literature (discussed 
above) suggests that certain corals off Alaska might be more resilient 
to the effects of ocean acidification than the petition implies, 
leading us to conclude that there is not substantial information that 
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the petitioned corals 
may be threatened with extinction due to the effects of climate change 
and ocean acidification, either now or in the foreseeable future. 
Regarding commercial fisheries, the petition discusses general threats 
from trawling and other bottom contact fishing but fails to provide a 
complete description of the protective measures that NMFS has 
implemented, particularly since 2006, to protect extensive areas of sea 
floor habitat off Alaska; many of the measures were expressly designed 
to protect corals. While some of the petitioned taxa may well exist in 
areas that remain open to bottom-contact fishing, due to the extensive 
fishery restrictions in place to protect coral habitats and the 
reasonable inference that the petitioned taxa likely have a wider 
distribution than has yet been documented in the limited surveys 
conducted to date, we find insufficient information to lead a 
reasonable person to believe that such fishing threatens those corals 
with extinction, either now or in the foreseeable future. Regarding oil 
spills and oil exploration and development, the petition discusses 
increasing human activity that may result in an increased risk of 
spills, but does not present substantial information suggesting that 
the petitioned corals will face exposure to spilled oil that would 
present a risk of extinction.
    Per 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(4), the petition includes references and 
maps, although as noted above, we conclude that overall the petition 
does not provide substantial information to support its conclusions, 
and the maps do not accurately reflect the known distribution of the 
petitioned taxa (acknowledging that even the known distribution is 
likely not the complete distribution, since comprehensive surveys have 
not been undertaken).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references is available upon request from 
the NMFS office in Juneau, Alaska (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: February 8, 2013.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, performing the 
functions and duties of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-03475 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P