[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47592-47598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20512]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 180503449-8782-01]
RIN 0648-XG232


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Positive 90-Day Finding on a 
Petition To List the Cauliflower Coral, Pocillopora Meandrina, in 
Hawaii as Endangered or Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act

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

ACTION: 90-day petition finding, request for information, and 
initiation of status review.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the 
cauliflower coral (Pocillopora meandrina) in Hawaii as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The petition 
requested that the Hawaii population of P. meandrina be considered a 
significant portion of the range of the species, and that the species 
be listed because of its status in Hawaii. Our policy on the 
interpretation of the phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' (SPR) 
under the ESA states that, before undergoing an SPR analysis, we must 
first find that the species is neither endangered nor threatened 
throughout all of its range. Therefore, we interpret the petition as a 
request to consider the status of P. meandrina throughout its range 
first. We find that the petition and other readily available 
information in our files indicates that P. meandrina may warrant 
listing as a threatened species or an endangered species throughout its 
range. Thus, we will initiate a global status review of P. meandrina to 
determine whether listing it throughout its range is warranted. If not, 
we will determine if Hawaii constitutes an SPR, and proceed 
accordingly. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are 
soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to P. 
meandrina from any interested party.

DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received 
by November 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data on this 
document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2018-0060, by either of the 
following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0060. Click the ``Comment Now'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Lance Smith, NOAA IRC, 
NMFS/PIRO/PRD, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
    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. NMFS will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous).
    Copies of the petition and related materials are available on our 
website at http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/Pocillopora-meandrina.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lance Smith, NMFS, Pacific Islands 
Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, (808) 725-5131; or 
Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 14, 2018, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity to list the cauliflower coral (Pocillopora 
meandrina) in Hawaii as an endangered or threatened species under the 
ESA. The petition asserts that P. meandrina in Hawaii is threatened by 
at least four of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) Pesent 
modification of its habitat; (2) disease and predation; (3) inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms: and (4) other natural or manmade 
factors, specifically ocean warming and ocean acidification resulting 
from global climate change. Copies of the petition are available upon 
request (see ADDRESSES).

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation 
Framework

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 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

[[Page 47593]]

of Commerce make a finding on 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 it is found 
that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition 
indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a ``positive 90-day 
finding''), we are required to commence a comprehensive review of the 
status of the species concerned using the best available scientific and 
commercial information, which we will conclude with a finding as to 
whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted. This finding is 
due 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, compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day 
stage, a ``may be warranted'' 90-day finding does not prejudge the 
outcome of the 12-month finding.
    ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 
CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ``substantial scientific or commercial 
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, 
or reclassify a species as credible scientific or commercial 
information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable 
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that 
the action proposed in the petition may be warranted. Conclusions drawn 
in the petition without the support of credible scientific or 
commercial information will not be considered ``substantial 
information.'' In evaluating whether substantial information is 
contained in the petition, we 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 a 
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)).
    Under the ESA, a listing determination addresses the status of 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)). Because P. meandrina is 
an invertebrate, it cannot qualify as a DPS. Under the ESA, a species 
is ``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, or ``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 petition requests that 
the Hawaii portion of the species' range be considered a significant 
portion of its range, thus the petition focuses primarily on the status 
of P. meandrina in Hawaii. However, the petition also requests that P. 
meandrina be listed throughout its range, and provides some information 
on its status and threats outside of Hawaii. Our policy on the 
interpretation of the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) 
under the ESA (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014) states that, before 
undergoing an analysis of SPR, we must first find that the species is 
neither endangered nor threatened throughout all of its range. 
Therefore, we interpret the petition as a request to consider the 
status of P. meandrina throughout its range first; and if appropriate, 
subsequently consider whether P. meandrina in Hawaii constitutes an SPR 
and the status of that SPR.
    At the 90-day finding stage, we evaluate the petitioners' 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 are not 
required to consider any supporting materials cited by the petitioner 
if the petitioner does not provide electronic or hard copies, to the 
extent permitted by U.S. copyright law, or appropriate excerpts or 
quotations from those materials (e.g., publications, maps, reports, and 
letters from authorities). We will accept the petitioners' 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 90-day finding stage, so long as it is 
reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the 
petitioners' 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. See 50 CFR 424.14 for regulations on petitions under 
the ESA.
    Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted depends in part on the degree to which the 
petition includes the following types of information: (1) Information 
on current population status and trends and estimates of current 
population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if 
available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of 
the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting 
upon the species; (3) whether and to what extent any or all of the 
factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the 
ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened 
species (i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is 
likely to become so within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how 
high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its 
habitat are; (4) information on adequacy of regulatory protections and 
effectiveness of conservation activities by States as well as other 
parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect 
the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation 
of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims 
in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).
    The factors under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA that may affect the 
species are as follows: (1) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) 
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
to address identified threats; rand (5) any other natural or manmade 
factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 
424.11(c)). Information presented on these factors 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

[[Page 47594]]

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 
indicating 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.

Taxonomy of the Petitioned P. meandrina

    As described in the final rule to list 20 species of coral under 
the ESA (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014), the morphology-based 
taxonomy of the genus Pocillopora, including P. meandrina, has been 
called into question by several recent genetics papers. A range-wide 
phylogeographic survey that included most currently recognized 
pocilloporid species found that reliance on colony morphology is 
broadly unreliable for species identification, and that several genetic 
groups have highly limited geographic distributions. The study 
concluded that ``a taxonomic revision informed foremost by genetic 
evidence is needed for the entire genus'' (Pinzo 301;n et al., 2013). 
Similarly, a phylogeographic survey of several currently recognized 
pocilloporid species representing a range of atypical morphologies 
thought to be rare or endemic to remote locations throughout the Indo-
Pacific found that (1) the current taxonomy of Pocillopora based on 
colony morphology shows little correspondence with genetic groups; (2) 
colony morphology is far more variable than previously thought; and (3) 
there are numerous cryptic lineages (i.e., two or more distinct 
lineages that are classified as one due to morphological similarities). 
The study concluded that ``the genus Pocillopora is in need of 
taxonomic revision using a combination of genetic, microscopic 
characters, and reproductive data to accurately delineate species'' 
(Marti-Puig et al., 2014). Likewise, a more limited study of several 
currently recognized pocilloporid species in Moorea, French Polynesia 
found that genetic groups do not correspond to colony morphology, and 
exhibit a wide range of morphological variation (Forsman et al., 2013).
    These studies demonstrate that colony morphology in pocilloporids 
is a poor indicator of taxonomic relationships for the following 
reasons: (1) Morphologically similar colonies may not be the same 
species (i.e., colonies of different species appear similar because of 
similar environmental conditions or other reasons); and (2) 
morphologically different colonies may be the same species (i.e., 
colonies of the same species appear different because of different 
environmental conditions or other reasons). Because of the taxonomic 
uncertainty for the genus Pocillopora, we concluded in the final 
listing rule that no final listing decision could be made for the two 
Pocillopora species that had been proposed for listing in 2012 (P. 
elegans, P. danae; 79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014).
    Other recent papers on genetic or morphological aspects of 
Pocillopora taxonomy that were in our files when we received the 
petition (Johnston et al., 2017; Johnston et al., 2018; Pas-Garcia et 
al., 2015; Schmidt-Roach et al., 2014) indicate that gross 
morphological plasticity is characteristic of Pocillopora species, thus 
morphological data should be supplemented with genetic data for 
accurate identification of species (Johnston et al., 2017). A combined 
genetics and morphology study of several Pocillopora species, including 
P. meandrina, did not propose any taxonomic changes to P. meandrina. 
The study found that, in contrast to morphological similarities, P. 
verrucosa and P. meandrina are very distinct genetically, and P. 
meandrina is much more closely related to P.eydouxi than to P. 
verrucosa genetically (Schmidt-Roach et al., 2014). The morphological 
plasticity of Pocillopora species was shown by a study of P. damicornis 
and P. inflata at a site in the southern Gulf of California that 
coincided with a shift to a higher frequency of storms and lower water 
turbidity. Over the 44-month period of the study, 23 percent of the P. 
damicornis colonies changed shape to P. inflata morphology, providing 
an in situ demonstration of the influence of temporal shifts in 
environmental conditions on morphologically plastic responses (Pas-
Garcia et al., 2015). A genomic study found that Pocillopora species 
are genetically distinct from one another, and that there is a lack of 
introgressive hybridization between species. Some of these authors went 
on to develop a genetic technique for identification of Hawaiian 
Pocillopora species, and found that morphology-based identifications 
often led to P. ligulata being mistaken for P. meandrina (Johnston et 
al., 2018).
    Despite doubt raised by traditional morphology-based taxonomy, 
other readily available information in our files presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that P. meandrina may 
constitute a valid species for the following reasons: (1) The recent 
taxonomic revision to some Pocillopora species did not propose any 
changes to P. meandrina (Schmidt-Roach et al., 2014); (2) other recent 
papers have found that Pocillopora species, including P. meandrina, are 
genetically distinct from one another (Johnston et al., 2017, 2018), 
and; (3) the growing genetic information on P. meandrina could lead to 
the description of sub-species rather than new species, but sub-species 
are treated as species under the ESA. Therefore, P. meandrina may be a 
type of entity that is eligible for listing under the ESA.

Habitat, Range, and Life History

    Pocillopora meandrina occurs on shallow reefs and amongst coral 
communities on rocky reefs at depths of 1 to 27m, and is common in 
high-energy reef front environments (shallow forereef) throughout its 
range (Fenner, 2005; Hoeksma et al., 2014; Veron, 2000). In Hawaii and 
the eastern Pacific, P. meandrina is often the dominant species in 
shallow forereef coral communities (Fenner, 2005; Glynn, 2001). It is 
found on most coral reefs of the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific, with 
its range encompassing over 180[deg] longitude from the western Indian 
Ocean to the eastern Pacific Ocean, and approximately 60[deg] latitude 
from the northern Ryukyu Islands to central western Australia in the 
western Pacific, and the Gulf of California to Easter Island in the 
eastern Pacific (Corals of the World website http://www.coralsoftheworld.org/).
    Pocillopora meandrina has a branching colony morphology, is a 
broadcast spawner, and has rapid skeletal growth, allowing it to 
recruit quickly to available substrate and successfully compete for 
space (Darling et al, 2012). High recruitment rates, rapid skeletal 
growth, and successful competition are well documented for P. meandrina 
in Hawaii (e.g., Brown, 2004; Grigg and Maragos, 1974) and the eastern 
Pacific (e.g., Jime[eacute]nez and Corte[eacute]s, 2003).
    While such competitive reef coral species typically dominate ideal 
environments, they also have higher susceptibility to threats such as 
elevated seawater temperatures than reef coral species with generalist, 
weedy, or stress-tolerant life histories (Darling et al., 2012). For 
example, P. meandrina was among the most affected reef coral species in 
the 2014 and 2015 mass bleaching events in Hawaii (Kramer et al., 2016; 
Rodgers et al., 2017). That said, the life history characteristics of 
P. meandrina provide some buffering against threats such as warming-
induced bleaching by allowing for rapid

[[Page 47595]]

recovery from die-offs. For example, in 2016, P. meandrina populations 
in the main Hawaiian Islands were already showing signs of recovery 
from the 2014 and 2015 bleaching mortality (PIFSC, unpublished data).
    The species has several other characteristics that may also provide 
buffering against some threats, including the capacity for 
acclimatization and adaptation to changing conditions, the potential 
for range expansion as previously unsuitable habitat becomes suitable, 
and a broad range that encompasses extensive habitat heterogeneity. The 
bleaching and mortality of some colonies of a coral species on a reef, 
followed by the recovery of hardier colonies, is the process by which 
acclimatization and adaptation of a species to ocean warming occurs, 
and has been documented in some Pocillopora species (e.g., 
Rodr[iacute]guez-Troncoso, et al., 2010; Coles et al., 2018). As 
conditions change in response to ocean warming, some areas that were 
previously too cold for reef corals may become suitable, potentially 
allowing range expansion of certain species into these areas (Yamano et 
al., 2011; Yara et al., 2011). Finally, habitat conditions are highly 
heterogeneous across the ranges of broadly-distributed reef corals such 
as P. meandrina, creating a patchwork of conditions that may 
potentially provide refugia to threats (Fine et al., 2013; McClanahan 
et al., 2011).

Abundance and Population Trends

    Although there is little species-specific, range-wide data on P. 
meandrina's abundance and population trends, there are some data 
available on the species' abundance and population trends in the main 
Hawaiian Islands portion of the Hawaiian archipelago, which indicate a 
significant decrease in coral cover over a recent 14-year period, 
followed by severe bleaching events. The Hawaii Coral Reef Assessment 
and Monitoring Program (CRAMP) monitors species-level live coral cover 
at 60 permanent stations throughout the main Hawaiian Islands. From 
1999 to 2012, P. meandrina decreased in live coral cover by 36.1 
percent for all stations combined (Rodgers et al., 2015). Subsequently, 
P. meandrina was severely impacted in parts of the Hawaiian archipelago 
due to back-to-back warming-induced bleaching events in 2014 and 2015. 
Surveys of the impacts of these bleaching events on P. meandrina in the 
northwestern and main Hawaiian Islands show high levels of bleaching 
and post-bleaching mortality in some locations (Couch et al., 2017; 
Kramer et al., 2016; Rodgers et al., 2017; see ``Other Natural or 
Manmade Factors--Ocean Warming'' section below). While there are 
currently no estimates available of the total abundance or overall 
population trends for P. meandrina in the main Hawaiian Islands, the 
above information strongly indicates that the species has been in 
decline in this area, and that the decline was accelerated by the back-
to-back mass bleaching events of 2014 and 2015.
    It is likely that P. meandrina has declined in abundance across 
most, if not all, of its range, over the past 50 to 100 years, and that 
the decline has recently accelerated. For most of the world's reef 
corals, Carpenter et al. (2008; Supplementary Information) extrapolated 
species abundance trend estimates from total live coral cover trends 
(i.e., all reef coral species combined) and habitat types. For P. 
meandrina, the overall decline in abundance was estimated at 22 percent 
over the 30-year period up to 2006 (``Percent Population Reduction''), 
and 10 percent over the 30 year period up to the 1998 bleaching event 
(``Back-cast Percent Population Reduction''). However, total live coral 
cover trends are highly variable both spatially and temporally, thus 
data from the same location and time period can be interpreted 
differently (Bellwood et al., 2004; Sweatman et al., 2011), and species 
trends do not necessarily correlate with overall live coral cover 
trends. Thus, quantitative inferences of species-specific trends from 
total live coral cover trends should be interpreted with caution. At 
the same time, an extensive body of literature documents global 
declines in live coral cover, accompanied by shifts to coral reef 
communities dominated by hardier coral species or algae over the past 
50 to 100 years (e.g., Birkeland, 2004; Brainard et al., 2011; Pandolfi 
et al., 2003; Sale and Szmant, 2012; Veron et al., 2009). Recently, 
these changes have accelerated in response to an unprecedented series 
of mass bleaching events across the majority of the world's coral reefs 
(Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2017; Hughes 2018a, 2018b; Lough et al., 2018), 
90 percent of which are in the Indo-Pacific. Given that P. meandrina 
occurs in many areas affected by these broad changes, and it is 
susceptible to both global and local threats, the species likely 
declined in abundance over the past 50 to 100 years across most, if not 
all, of its range, and that the decline has recently accelerated; but, 
a precise quantification is not possible based on the limited species-
specific information.

Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors

    Although the petition presents information on at least four of the 
five ESA factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA (e.g., present 
modification of its habitat; disease and predation; inadequacy of 
regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors), the 
information presented in the petition, together with other readily 
available information in our files, regarding ocean warming (Factor E) 
is substantial enough to make a determination that a reasonable person 
conducting an impartial scientific review could conclude that this 
species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened based on this 
factor alone. As such, we focus our discussion below on ocean warming 
and subsequent warming-induced coral bleaching and mortality, and 
present our evaluation of the information regarding this factor alone 
and its impact on the extinction risk of the species. However, we note 
that in the status review for this species, we will evaluate all ESA 
section 4(a)(1) factors to determine whether any one or a combination 
of these factors are causing declines in the species or likely to 
substantially negatively affect the species such that that P. meandrina 
is either presently at risk of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors--Ocean Warming

    Information presented in the petition and other readily available 
information in our files indicate that the most important threat to P. 
meandrina across its range currently and in the future, and to the 
Indo-Pacific reef coral communities of which P. meandrina is a part, is 
ocean warming and subsequent warming-induced coral bleaching and 
mortality. Based on this information, we provide summaries of the (1) 
observed ocean warming to date; (2) projected ocean warming; (3) 
observed effects of warming-induced mass bleaching on Indo-Pacific reef 
coral communities and P. meandrina to date; and (4) projected effects 
of warming-induced mass bleaching on Indo-Pacific reef coral 
communities and P. meandrina.
    (1) Observed Ocean Warming. As described in the 2014 final rule 
listing 20 reef coral species as threatened (79 FR 53851; September 10, 
2014), we considered the International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 
Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) ``Climate Change 2013: The Physical 
Science Basis'' (IPCC, 2013) to be the best available information on 
the physical basis of ocean warming as well as future

[[Page 47596]]

projections. Thus the following section is based largely on IPCC 
(2013), supplemented by more recent information. Since the Industrial 
Revolution in the mid-19th century, the magnitude and pace of 
greenhouse gases emissions (GHGs; e.g., carbon dioxide (CO2) 
and methane) have rapidly increased, resulting in steadily higher 
atmospheric GHG concentrations, the most influential of which is 
CO2. The IPCC found that these changes have resulted in 
warming of the global climate system since the 1950s due to trapping of 
the sun's heat in the atmosphere by the GHGs (i.e., the greenhouse 
effect). With regard to global ocean warming that has already occurred, 
the IPCC determined that the upper ocean (0-700 m) warmed from 1971 to 
2010, including warming of the upper 75 m by 0.11[deg]C per decade. 
Warming varied regionally among the oceans, but all oceans warmed 
between 1971 and 2010, including the tropical and sub-tropical Indo-
Pacific (IPCC, 2013).
    IPCC (2013) was based on data collected through 2010, but overall 
global warming (oceans and land combined) and ocean warming have both 
continued at an even greater pace since then. Global temperatures 
(ocean and land combined) in 2015 and 2016 were the warmest since 
instrumental record keeping began in the 19th century (NASA, 2016). 
Ocean warming has continued, and there was more ocean warming in 2014-
2016 than any previous three-year period on record (Jewett and Romanou, 
2017). There is consensus among several different methods of monitoring 
seawater temperatures that ocean warming has continued unabated since 
2010 both globally and regionally in all of the world's oceans 
(Gleckler et al., 2016; Cheng et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2018). Between 
1998 and 2015, the greatest warming was recorded in the Southern Ocean, 
the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical 
Atlantic Ocean (Cheng, et al., 2017).
    (2) Projected Ocean Warming. IPCC's AR5 uses projected changes in 
the global climate system to model potential patterns of future climate 
based on a set of four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 
that provide a standard framework for consistently modeling future 
climate change. The RCP system is based on levels of positive 
``radiative forcing,'' defined as the net energy gain relative to the 
1986-2005 average by the year 2100 in terms of watts per square meter 
(W/m\2\); thus, higher values equate to greater warming over the time 
period. The four pathways are named RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, and RCP8.5 
(e.g., RCP2.6 = 2.6 W/m\2\ in 2100). The four pathways have atmospheric 
CO2 equivalents of 421 (RCP2.6), 538 (RCP4.5), 670 (RCP6.0), 
and 936 ppm (RCP 8.5) in 2100, and follow very different trajectories 
to reach those endpoints. Mean global warming estimates by 2100 for the 
pathways are 1.0[deg]C (RCP2.6), 1.8[deg]C (RCP4.5), 2.2[deg]C 
(RCP6.0), and 3.7[deg]C (RCP8.5). The four new pathways were developed 
with the intent of providing a wide range of total climate forcing to 
guide policy discussions and specifically include one mitigation 
pathway leading to a very low forcing level (RCP2.6), two stabilization 
pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP6), and one pathway with continued high GHG 
emissions (RCP8.5; IPCC, 2013).
    The climate change projections, including for ocean warming, ocean 
acidification, and sea level rise, in the 2014 coral final listing rule 
were based on RCP8.5 in IPCC's AR5 (IPCC, 2013). RCP8.5 assumes a 
continued status quo increase in global GHG emissions over the 21st 
century. The NMFS 2014 rule for 20 reef-building corals used RCP8.5 as 
its basis. Indeed, global energy-related CO2 emissions grew 
by approximately 10 percent, with seven of those 10 years setting new 
historic highs (IEA, 2018); and global atmospheric CO2 
concentration grew from 385 to 407 parts per million, with each year 
setting new historic highs, according to NOAA's Earth System Research 
Laboratory station on Mauna Kea, Hawaii (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/). Thus, the best available current information continues 
to support the NMFS policy that RCP8.5 is the most likely pathway in 
the future.
    RCP8.5 projects that global annual mean ocean surface temperatures 
will increase from 2013 levels by approximately 0.4-1.0[deg]C by 2030, 
approximately 0.7-2.0[deg]C by 2060, and approximately 2.0-5.0[deg]C by 
2100, further exacerbating the impacts of ocean warming on corals and 
coral reefs. In the Indo-Pacific, projected changes in annual median 
ocean surface temperatures under RCP8.5 will increase from 2013 levels 
by approximately 0.0-1.0[deg]C by 2035, 1.0-3.0[deg]C by 2065, and 2.0-
5.0[deg]C by 2100. Spatial variability in the projections consists 
mostly of larger increases in the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and the Coral 
Triangle, and lower increases in the central and eastern Indian Ocean 
and south-central Pacific. The percent ranges in the projections 
described above are for the 25 to 75 percent range confidence 
intervals, however the range of projections within the 5 to 95 percent 
range confidence intervals are considerably greater (IPCC, 2013). As 
described in detail in the RCP8.5 Projections section of the 2014 coral 
final listing rule, these global mean projections are not necessarily 
representative of ocean surface temperature conditions throughout the 
ranges and habitats of reef corals in the future, due both to spatial 
variability and to statistical range of the RCP8.5 ocean warming 
projections (79 FR 53851; September 10, 2014).
    (3) Observed Effects of Warming-induced Mass Coral Bleaching. The 
frequency, intensity, and magnitude of mass coral bleaching events has 
rapidly increased since the early 1980s, suggesting that tropical coral 
reef systems are transitioning to a new era in which the interval 
between recurrent bouts of coral bleaching is too short for a full 
recovery of mature assemblages (Hughes et al., 2018b).
    Warming-induced coral bleaching occurs when elevated seawater 
temperatures cause the expulsion of the host coral's symbiotic 
zooxanthellae in response to thermal stress. While mild to moderate 
bleaching does not necessary cause coral mortality, repeated or 
prolonged bleaching can lead to colony mortality. Many coral 
physiological processes are optimized to the local long-term seasonal 
and interannual variations in seawater temperature experienced by the 
corals, and an increase of only 1[deg]C-2[deg]C above the normal local 
seasonal maximum can induce bleaching. Bleaching is best predicted by 
using an index of accumulated thermal stress above a locally 
established threshold (Brainard et al., 2011). Most coral species are 
susceptible to bleaching, but this susceptibility varies among taxa. In 
addition, many coral species exhibit various levels of adaptation or 
acclimatization to elevated seawater temperatures. While coral 
bleaching patterns are complex, there is general agreement that thermal 
stress has led to accelerated bleaching and mass mortality during the 
past several decades. During the years 1983, 1987, 1995, 1996, 1998, 
2002, 2004, 2005, 2014, 2015, and 2016, widespread warming-induced 
coral bleaching and mortality was documented in many reef coral 
communities that P. meandrina is part of in the Indo-Pacific and the 
eastern Pacific (Jokiel and Brown, 2004; Kenyon and Brainard, 2006; 
Brainard et al., 2011; Rodgers et al., 2017; Hughes et al., 2017a, 
2018a). The bleachings of 2014-2016 were the longest, most widespread, 
and likely the most damaging coral bleaching events on record. They 
affected more coral reefs than any previous global bleaching

[[Page 47597]]

event, and were worse in some locales than ever recorded before (e.g., 
Great Barrier Reef/GBR, Kiribati, Jarvis Island). Heat stress during 
this event also caused mass bleaching in several reefs where bleaching 
had never been recorded before (e.g., northernmost GBR; Eakin, 2017).
    According to the information in the petition and other readily 
available information in our files, warming-induced bleaching and 
mortality have impacted P. meandrina, including in the Hawaiian 
archipelago and the GBR. In Hawaii, P. meandrina is one of the most 
common coral species and often dominates the forereef coral community. 
The consecutive bleaching events of 2014 and 2015 in the Hawaiian 
archipelago were unprecedented in scale, intensity, and magnitude, and 
P. meandrina was one of the most severely affected reef coral species 
(Couch et al., 2017; Rodgers et al., 2017). Surveys in late 2014 at 
multiple sites on four islands in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands 
showed 15.5 percent of P. meandrina colonies had been bleached 
(colonies that lost >50% of pigmentation). Surveys were repeated in 
2015 for post-bleaching mortality of coral species making up >1 percent 
of live coral at the 2014 survey sites. Only one site had >1 percent of 
P. meandrina in 2014, and that site had no P. meandrina in 2015 (Couch 
et al., 2017). Surveys of eight sites in Hanauma Bay on Oahu in 2015 
and 2016 found that 64 percent of P. meandrina colonies showed ``signs 
of bleaching'', and that 1.3 percent of the P. meandrina colonies 
suffered total post-bleaching mortality (Rodgers et al., 2017). Surveys 
at eight permanent monitoring sites on the west coast of the Big Island 
of Hawaii in 2015 showed a mean loss in live coral cover (all species 
combined) of 49.6 percent. Surveys of the seven sites where P. 
meandrina had been abundant before the bleaching events showed that 
77.6 percent of the P. meandrina colonies suffered total post-bleaching 
mortality (Kramer et al., 2016).
    The 2016 warming-induced bleaching event across the Indo-Pacific 
was the worst in recorded history in terms of severity and duration of 
elevated seawater temperatures and ensuing mass coral bleaching and 
mortality (Lough et al., 2018). Much of the GBR was affected by the 
elevated seawater temperatures, resulting in bleaching levels of 75-100 
percent on many of the GBR's northern reefs, and a mean reduction in 
live coral cover of 30 percent across the entire 2,300 km GBR between 
March and November 2016. In March and April 2016, a survey was 
conducted on 83 reefs spanning the central and northern GBR to 
determine the responses of 31 reef coral taxonomic groups to the 
bleaching event, including ``other Pocillopora'' (P. meandrina and P. 
verrucosa). This group was the third-most bleached of the 31 groups. A 
sub-sample of 43 of the most affected reefs was re-surveyed in November 
2016 to determine the extent of post-bleaching mortality and subsequent 
loss of live coral cover, which showed that the ``other Pocillopora'' 
group had approximately 55 percent loss of live coral cover (Hughes et 
al., 2017a, 2018a).
    Although difficulty in identification of Pocillopora species and 
lack of species-level field surveys means little of the available 
information on the impacts of warming-induced bleaching on Pocillopora 
species is specifically for P. meandrina, the family Pocilloporidae and 
the genus Pocillopora are highly susceptible to warming-induced 
bleaching relative to other reef corals. A survey of the 
susceptibilities of 40 reef coral taxa to the 1998 warming-induced mass 
bleaching event on the GBR found that three Pocilloporidae species (P. 
damicornis, Stylophora pistillata, Seriatopora hysrix) were among the 
seven most susceptible taxa (Marshal and Baird, 2000). Similarly, a 
survey of the sensitivities of 39 reef coral genera to the 1998 
bleaching event in the Indian Ocean found Pocillopora to be eighth-most 
susceptible of the 39 genera (McClanahan et al., 2007). In a study 
carried out from 1997 to 2010 on the responses of a diverse reef coral 
assemblage in Japan to bleaching events in 1998 and 2001, Pocillopora 
species fared the worst of all genera, nearly dying out in 1998 and not 
recovering by 2010 (van Woesik, et al., 2011). A meta-analysis of 
studies conducted between 1987 and 2012 at five locations in the Indo-
Pacific (Moorea, GBR, Kenya, Hawaii, and Taiwan) found that the 
absolute and relative cover of many coral genera including Pocillopora 
declined in abundance, while some genera showed no change in abundance, 
and a few genera increased in abundance (Edmunds et al., 2014).
    (4) Projected Effects of Warming-induced Mass Coral Bleaching. 
Projections of ocean warming and subsequent mass coral bleaching 
suggest these events will increase in frequency, intensity, and 
magnitude across the Indo-Pacific, including the great majority of P. 
meandrina's range. Hoeke et al. (2011) projected future changes to 
coral growth and mortality in the Hawaiian archipelago based the A1B 
scenario from the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007). This 
scenario assumes GHGs will peak in the mid-21st century then modestly 
decline as renewable energy becomes more common, and is most similar to 
RCP6.0 (IPCC, 2013). Despite the drop of GHGs in the late 21st century 
in the A1B scenario, this analysis projected precipitous declines in 
live coral cover (all reef corals combined, including P. meandrina) in 
the northwestern Hawaiian Islands between 2030 and 2050, and steady 
declines over the 21st century in the main Hawaiian Islands (Hoeke et 
al., 2011). These results illustrate the concept of ``commitment'', 
i.e., the world's oceans are currently committed to some future warming 
from the CO2 build-up already in the atmosphere, even if 
anthropogenic emissions went to zero now (IPCC, 2013). As explained 
above, for the purpose of this finding, we will assume that RCP8.5 in 
IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2013) is the most likely pathway, 
but Hoeke et al. (2011) base their analysis on the more optimistic A1B 
scenario (similar to RCP6.0). Thus, we project that conditions in the 
Hawaiian Islands in the future will be worse than projected by Hoeke et 
al. (2011).
    Projections of the responses of the world's corals and coral reefs 
ecosystems to ocean warming have been addressed recently by several 
papers that project coral responses to one or more of the IPCC's four 
pathways in the future. An analysis of the likely reef coral disease 
outbreaks resulting from ocean warming projected by RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 
concluded that both pathways are likely to cause sharply increased, but 
spatially highly variable, levels of coral disease in the future, and 
that the outbreaks would be more widespread, frequent, and severe under 
RCP8.5 than RCP4.5 (Maynard et al, 2015). An analysis of the timing and 
extent of Annual Severe Bleaching (ASB) of the world's coral reefs 
under RCP4.5 vs RCP8.5 found that the global average timing of ASB 
would be only 11 years later under RCP4.5 than RCP8.5, and that >75 
percent of all reefs still would experience ASB before 2070 under 
RCP4.5 (van Hooidonk et al, 2016). An analysis of the responses of 
coral reefs to increased warming and acidification under all four 
pathways found that only RCP2.6 would allow the current downward trend 
in coral reefs to stabilize, and that RCP4.5 would likely drive the 
elimination of most coral reefs by 2040-2050 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 
2017). Hughes et al., (2017b) analyzed the responses of coral reefs to 
RCP2.6 and to the implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement (which 
would result in a scenario roughly equivalent to RCP4.5)

[[Page 47598]]

and found that RCP2.6 would result in approximately the same amount of 
additional warming and bleaching by 2100 that has occurred over the 
last century, and that implementation of the Paris Agreement (i.e., 
RCP4.5) would lead to severe consequences for coral reefs (Hughes et 
al., 2017b), despite the fact that RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 would be even 
worse. Another analysis regarding responses of coral reefs if global 
warming is limited to 1.5[deg]C, 2.0[deg]C, or 3[deg]C (roughly 
equivalent to RCP4.5, RCP6.0, and RCP8.5) found that estimated levels 
of thermal stress would be approximately seven, 11, and 23 times, 
respectively, the level of thermal stress that these reefs have already 
experienced since 1878, and approximately two, three, and six times the 
level of thermal stress experienced in 2016 (Lough et al., 2018).
    All five analyses considered the impacts of one or both of the 
IPCC's lower emissions pathways (RCP2.6 and RCP4.5), and each analysis 
reached the same conclusion: Even these lower emissions pathways are 
likely to have more severe impacts to reef corals in the future than 
have been observed in recent years (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2017; Hughes 
et al., 2017b; Lough et al., 2018; Maynard et al, 2015; van Hooidonk et 
al, 2016), partially because the GHG emissions that have already 
occurred have irreversibly locked in a certain amount of warming due to 
``commitment,'' as described above. Indo-Pacific reef corals would 
likely be even more severely impacted by warming-induced bleaching 
events resulting from ocean warming under the other two pathways in the 
future, especially RCP8.5, as shown by two analyses (Hoegh-Guldberg et 
al., 2017b; van Hooidonk et al, 2016). Although P. meandrina has 
several life history characteristics that may buffer some of the 
effects of ocean warming (refer back to the Habitat, Range, and Life 
History section of this finding), based on the effects of warming-
induced bleaching to date on P. meandrina and its relatively high 
susceptibility to warming, the information in the petition and other 
readily available information in our files suggests this species may be 
severely affected across its range in the future by ocean warming 
projected under RCP8.5.
    Ocean Warming Summary. From the above analysis of ocean warming and 
its effects on P. meandrina and the coral reef community of which P. 
meandrina is a part, we find four key points to be relevant: (1) 
Substantial ocean warming, including in the tropical/subtropical Indo-
Pacific, has already occurred and continues to occur; (2) ocean 
warming, including in the tropical/subtropical Indo-Pacific, is 
projected to continue at an accelerated rate in the future; (3) 
substantial warming-induced mass bleaching of Indo-Pacific reef coral 
communities, including P. meandrina, has already occurred and continues 
to occur; and (4) warming-induced mass bleaching of Indo-Pacific reef 
coral communities, including P. meandrina, is projected to steadily 
increase in frequency, intensity, and magnitude in the future. In 
short, ocean warming is expected to continue to affect P. meandrina 
throughout its range in the future.

Petition Finding

    After reviewing the information presented in the petition and other 
readily available information in our files, we find that listing P. 
meandrina across its range may be warranted based on the threat of 
ocean warming alone. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) 
of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14), we will 
commence a status review of this species. During the status review, we 
will determine whether P. meandrina is in danger of extinction 
(endangered) or likely to become so (threatened) throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. If listing is warranted, we will 
publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before developing 
and publishing a final rule. If we determine that the species is in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we will list the species as endangered or 
threatened, and it will be unnecessary to determine if Hawaii 
constitutes a significant portion of the species' range. If P. 
meandrina is not proposed for listing as endangered or threatened 
throughout all of its range, we will then determine if Hawaii 
constitutes a significant portion of the species' range. If so, we will 
determine the status of P. meandrina in Hawaii, and proceed accordingly 
(79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).

Information Solicited

    To ensure that the status review is based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on 
whether P. meandrina is endangered or threatened. Specifically, we are 
soliciting information in the following areas:
    (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of P. 
meandrina throughout its range;
    (2) Historical and current condition of P. meandrina and its 
habitat;
    (3) Population density and trends of P. meandrina;
    (4) The effects of climate change, including ocean warming and 
acidification, on the distribution and condition of P. meandrina and 
other organisms in coral reef ecosystems over the short- and long-term;
    (5) The effects of other threats including dredging; coastal 
development; land-based sources of pollution, including coastal point 
source pollution, and agricultural and land use practices; disease, 
predation, the trophic effects of fishing, the aquarium trade, physical 
damage from boats and anchors, marine debris, aquatic invasive species 
on the distribution and abundance of P. meandrina over the short- and 
long- term; and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms; and
    (6) Management programs for conservation of P. meandrina, including 
mitigation measures related to any of the threats listed under (5) 
above.
    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 upon request from Lance Smith, NOAA 
IRC, NMFS/PIRO/PRD, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: September 17, 2018.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-20512 Filed 9-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P