The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005

Executive Summary: For over three decades, scientists have been documenting the decline of coral reef ecosystems, amid increasing recognition of their value in supporting high biological diversity and their many benefits to human society. Coral reef ecosystems are recognized for their benefits on many levels, such as supporting economies by nurturing fisheries and providing for recreational and tourism opportunities, providing substances useful for medical purposes, performing essential ecosystem services that protect against coastal erosion, and provid-ing a diversity of other, more intangible contributions to many cultures. In the past decade, the increased awareness regarding coral reefs has prompted action by governmental and non-governmental organizations, including increased funding from the U.S. Congress for conservation of these important ecosystems and creation of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF) to coordinate activities and implement conservation measures [Presidential Executive Order 13089]. Numerous partnerships forged among Federal agencies and state, local, non-governmental, academic and private partners support activities that range from basic science to systematic monitoring of ecosystem com-ponents and are conducted by government agencies, non-governmental organizations, universities, and the private sector. This report shares the results of many of these efforts in the framework of a broad assessment of the condition of coral reef ecosystems across 14 U.S. jurisdictions and Pacific Freely Associated States. This report relies heavily on quantitative, spatially-explicit data that has been collected in the recent past and comparisons with historical data, where possible. The success of this effort can be attributed to the dedication of over 160 report contributors who comprised the expert writing teams for each jurisdiction. The content of the report chapters are the result of their considerable collaborative efforts. The writing teams, which were organized by jurisdiction and comprised of experts from numerous research and management institutions, were provided a basic chapter outline and a length limit, but the content of each chapter was left entirely to their discretion. Each jurisdictional chapter in the report is structured to: 1) describe how each of the primary threats identified in the National Coral Reef Action Strategy (NCRAS) has manifested in the jurisdiction; 2) introduce ongoing monitoring and assessment activities relative to three major categories of inquiry – water quality, benthic habitats, and associated biological communities – and provide summary results in a data-rich format; and 3) highlight recent management activities that promote conservation of coral reef ecosystems.

Pacific Salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the Definition of "Species" Under the Endangered Species Act

For purposes ofthe Endangered Species Act (ESA), a "species" is defined to include "any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. "Federal agencies charged with carrying out the provisions of the ESA have struggled for over a decade to develop a consistent approach for interpreting the term "distinct population segment." This paper outlines such an approach and explains in some detail how it can be applied to ESA evaluations of anadromous Pacific salmonids. The following definition is proposed: A population (or group of populations) will be considered "distinct" (and hence a "species ")for purposes of the ESA if it represents an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: 1) It must be substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units, and 2) It must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. Isolation does not have to be absolute, but it must be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to accrue in different population units. The second criterion would be met if the population contributes substantially to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a whole. Insights into the extent of reproductive isolation can be provided by movements of tagged fish, natural recolonization rates observed in other populations, measurements of genetic differences between populations, and evaluations of the efficacy of natural barriers. Each of these methods has its limitations. Identification of physical barriers to genetic exchange can help define the geographic extent of distinct populations, but reliance on physical features alone can be misleading in the absence of supporting biological information. Physical tags provide information about the movements of individual fish but not the genetic consequences of migration. Furthermore, measurements ofc urrent straying or recolonization rates provide no direct information about the magnitude or consistency of such rates in the past. In this respect, data from protein electrophoresis or DNA analyses can be very useful because they reflect levels of gene flow that have occurred over evolutionary time scales. The best strategy is to use all available lines of evidence for or against reproductive isolation, recognizing the limitations of each and taking advantage of the often complementary nature of the different types of information. If available evidence indicates significant reproductive isolation, the next step is to determine whether the population in question is of substantial ecological/genetic importance to the species as a whole. In other words, if the population became extinct, would this event represent a significant loss to the ecological/genetic diversity of thes pecies? In making this determination, the following questions are relevant: 1) Is the population genetically distinct from other conspecific populations? 2) Does the population occupy unusual or distinctive habitat? 3) Does the population show evidence of unusual or distinctive adaptation to its environment? Several types of information are useful in addressing these questions. Again, the strengths and limitations of each should be kept in mind in making the evaluation. Phenotypic/life-history traits such as size, fecundity, and age and time of spawning may reflect local adaptations of evolutionary importance, but interpretation of these traits is complicated by their sensitivity to environmental conditions. Data from protein electrophoresis or DNA analyses provide valuable insight into theprocessofgenetic differentiation among populations but little direct information regarding the extent of adaptive genetic differences. Habitat differences suggest the possibility for local adaptations but do not prove that such adaptations exist. The framework suggested here provides a focal point for accomplishing the majorgoal of the Act-to conserve the genetic diversity of species and the ecosystems they inhabit. At the same time, it allows discretion in the listing of populations by requiring that they represent units of real evolutionary significance to the species. Further, this framework provides a means of addressing several issues of particular concern for Pacific salmon, including anadromous/nonanadromous population segments, differences in run-timing, groups of populations, introduced populations, and the role of hatchery fish.