[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31592-31597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13549]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 110516284-1286-01]
RIN 0648-XA097
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List Goliath Grouper 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
goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara) 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 action may be warranted. Accordingly, we will not
initiate a status review of the species at this time.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and related materials are available
upon request from the Chief, Protected Resources Division, Southeast
Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Barnette, NMFS Southeast
Region, 727-551-5794, or Lisa Manning, NMFS Office of Protected
Resources, 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 3, 2010, we received a petition from the WildEarth
Guardians to list goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara), Nassau grouper
(Epinephelus striatus), and speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi) as
threatened or endangered under the ESA and to designate critical
habitat for these species. Copies of this petition are available from
us (see ADDRESSES, above). Due to the scope of the WildEarth Guardians'
petition, as well as the breadth and extent of the required evaluation
and response, we are providing species-specific findings on this
petition. This finding addresses WildEarth Guardians' petition to list
goliath grouper.
On June 11, 1991, we identified goliath grouper (previously known
as jewfish) as a candidate species under the ESA (56 FR 26797). On
April 15, 2004, we announced the establishment of a species of concern
list, a description of the factors that it will consider when
identifying species of concern, and revision of the ESA candidate
species list (69 FR 19976). We transferred 25 candidate species,
including goliath grouper, to this species of concern list.
In January 2006, we completed a status report for goliath grouper
in the continental U.S. (North Carolina to the Gulf of Mexico), which
we determined met the criteria for designation as a distinct population
segment (DPS) under the ESA (NOAA, 2006). The purpose of the 2006
status report was to investigate the status of goliath grouper in the
United States relative to the criteria for including a species on the
species of concern list and in light of updated information about the
status of and threats to the continental U.S. DPS of the goliath
grouper. After evaluating the most current data, we concluded that the
continental U.S. DPS of goliath grouper had undergone significant
increases in abundance since its identification in 1991 as a candidate
species under the ESA and had become re-established throughout its
historical
[[Page 31593]]
range. Due to management actions implemented via the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), extraction of goliath
grouper by commercial and recreational fisheries was deemed to not be a
current threat to the species. While the report noted concern about the
rate of habitat loss and modification, in particular the loss of
mangrove habitat, we determined that the current habitat loss was not a
factor affecting the species' status within the continental United
States at that time. Therefore, we concluded goliath grouper no longer
met the definition of a species of concern (NOAA, 2006). As a result,
goliath grouper (i.e., the continental U.S. DPS) was removed from the
NMFS' species of concern list in 2006 (71 FR 61022).
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, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days
of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered,
the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish
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 promptly 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 shall conclude the review with a finding
as to whether, in fact, 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,
as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a ``may
be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status
review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a ``species,''
which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NOAA-U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the
phrase ``distinct population segment'' for the purposes of listing,
delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C.
1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing
regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered
as a result of any one or a combination of the following five section
4(a)(1) factors: (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;
and (5) any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species'
existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (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. In
evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition,
the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates
the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any
common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative
justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on
available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the
species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides
information regarding the status of the species over all or a
significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the
appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic
references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or
letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
Court decisions have clarified the appropriate scope and
limitations of the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding
stage, in making a determination that a petitioned 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.
We evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in
the petition including its references, and the information readily
available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we
do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us
in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and
characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be
based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific
information in our files that indicates the petition's information is
incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the
requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one
interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information
will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is
reliable and a reasonable person would conclude that it supports the
petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information
indicating that the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing
is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude
that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day
finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown
information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the
species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First we evaluate
whether the information presented in the petition, along with the
information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the
species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this
may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species'
status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to
the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic
factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at
issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial
structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical
range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential
contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the
species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic
risks and the causative
[[Page 31594]]
impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for
information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed
to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative
fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative
response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by other
organizations or agencies, such as the International Union on the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society (AFS), or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by other organizations or made under other federal or
state statutes may be informative, but such classifications alone may
not provide the sole rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the
ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such
classifications, we will evaluate the source information that the
classification is based upon, in light of the standards on extinction
risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
Goliath Grouper Species Description
The goliath grouper constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing
under the ESA. The goliath grouper is a large member of the sea bass or
serranid family found in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In the
western Atlantic, the species is distributed from Bermuda and the
Carolinas, south into the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea through the
coast of Brazil (NOAA, 2006). In the eastern Atlantic Ocean, goliath
grouper is found rarely from Senegal to Congo and the Canary Islands.
They have also been found off the coast of Mexico in the eastern
Pacific, including the Gulf of California to Peru (Smith, 1971;
Heemstra and Randall, 1993).
Mangrove habitat is thought to be the primary habitat for juvenile
goliath grouper (up to 1 m total length (TL)). Secondary and tertiary
juvenile goliath grouper habitat areas include seagrass beds and oyster
reefs. Adult goliath grouper occur either as solitary individuals or in
groups of up to 100 fish. Resident goliath grouper are often found in
significant numbers on high-relief hardbottom habitat (e.g.,
sinkholes), artificial reefs, overhangs, bridges, piers, and shipwrecks
(Heemstra and Randall, 1993). Adult goliath grouper may be found on
low-relief coral reef and hardbottom habitat; however, they typically
are not found there in great numbers (Heemstra and Randall, 1993).
Goliath grouper are a shallow-water species, typically found in
less than 50 m of water (Heemstra and Randall, 1993); however, solitary
specimens have been observed as deep as 80 m in the Gulf of Mexico and
in the Atlantic Ocean off Florida (NOAA, 2006). Juveniles appear to
prefer shallow estuarine waters 0 to 3 m in depth (Bullock and Smith,
1991). Larvae are pelagic, but their exact depth distribution is
unknown.
The goliath grouper is a long-lived and late-maturing species that
grows to an unusually large size. Bullock and Smith (1991) determined
goliath grouper longevity of more than 35 years, and Smith (1971)
determined their maximum weight could exceed 318 kg. Reproductive
maturity is reached late (~5-6 years) and at a large size (~1 m TL;
Bullock et al., 1992). Goliath grouper are thought to spawn between
June and October; however, spawning likely varies with geographic
location. Goliath grouper are opportunistic, slow-moving predators with
general diets.
Analysis of the Petition
First we evaluated whether the petition presented the information
required by 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2). The petition clearly indicates the
administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any
common name of the species involved; 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; provides
information regarding the status of the species over all or a
significant portion of its range; and 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.
The petition asserts that the goliath grouper warrants listing
throughout its range, and as an alternative, that the continental U.S.
population warrants listing under the ESA. The petitioner asserts that
the continental U.S. population, ranging from North Carolina to the
Gulf of Mexico, is most at risk of extinction as a result of threats
described in the petition.
The petition states that the goliath grouper is becoming
increasingly rare and imperiled, and that overfishing has taken a
devastating toll on the species. The petition asserts that the species'
biological constraints increase its susceptibility to adverse impacts
from fishing, and that current regulations are not safeguarding the
species from extinction. Additionally, the petition states the 2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spill event had, and continues to have, a
detrimental effect on the habitat and range of the species. Thus, the
petition states that at least four of the five causal factors in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued
existence of the goliath grouper: Present and threatened destruction,
modification, and curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for
commercial and recreational purposes; inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors, particularly the
biological constraints of the species' life history.
Information on Extinction Risk and Species Status
The petition cites classifications made by the IUCN, AFS, and
NatureServe to support its assertion that the goliath grouper is
imperiled. The IUCN classified goliath grouper as critically endangered
in 2006, a status assigned to species facing an extremely high risk of
extinction in the wild, based on: ``An observed, estimated, inferred or
suspected population size reduction of >= 80% over the last 10 years or
three generations, whichever is the longer, where the reduction or its
causes may not have ceased or may not be understood or may not be
reversible, based on actual or potential levels of exploitation,'' and
``a population size reduction of >= 80%, projected or suspected to be
met within the next 10 years or three generations, whichever is the
longer (up to a maximum of 100 years), based on actual or potential
levels of exploitation'' (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/7857/0). The background to the IUCN assessment includes
fisheries-independent and fisheries-dependent
[[Page 31595]]
data; however, the assessment concluded that information on the overall
stock status and recovery was insufficient to downgrade the previously-
assigned classification of ``critically endangered.'' The 2006
assessment notes that, ``Although the IUCN survey is for the whole
range of the species, in the Gulf of Mexico it looks like the
population is recovering nicely. The species is still at risk in the
Gulf, however, from fishing (poaching during the moratorium) and
juvenile habitat loss. But in the southeastern U.S. they are not
Critically Endangered'' (IUCN, 2006). This conclusion about the U.S.
stock is consistent with other recent evaluations conducted on the
species (e.g., NOAA, 2006).
In 2000, the AFS identified the goliath grouper as being
``conservation dependent,'' which is a category for species considered
to be ``reduced but stabilized or recovering under a continuing
conservation plan'' (Musick et al., 2000). The information upon which
this classification is based contains a list of generalized risk
factors but lacks specific information on goliath grouper's population
size or trends.
The 1998 NatureServe status review for goliath grouper concluded
that the species was ``imperiled'' (NatureServe, 1998). NatureServe's
imperiled classification is given to species that are ``at high risk of
extinction or elimination due to very restricted range, very few
populations, steep declines, or other factors.'' The NatureServe
classification provides estimates of goliath grouper's global abundance
and global short-term trend, but these estimates are outdated and/or
unsubstantiated. Further, this classification does not use currently
available data on population status indicating the species has been
steadily recovering over the past 20 years in the United States due
largely to a prohibition on goliath grouper harvest (e.g., NOAA, 2006).
In summary, the source information that the cited classifications
are based upon either does not include specific information or does not
include current information on the extinction risk or population trends
for goliath grouper throughout all or a significant portion of its
range to indicate that the petitioned actions may be warranted.
Additionally, in contrast to the petitioner's assertion that the U.S.
population is most at risk, the IUCN assessment indicates that the
goliath grouper population in the United States is recovering.
Information on Threats to the Species
We next evaluated the information in the petition and information
in our files concerning the extent and severity of threats
corresponding to the factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range
The petition cites declines in coral reef ecosystems; increasing
water pollution from coastal development and tourism; and effects from
energy development, specifically, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill
event, as threats to the species. However, the petition does not
provide any supporting information to indicate these generalized
concerns are actually negatively affecting goliath grouper. Nor does
the petition provide any information on threats to goliath grouper
habitat that is located outside the range of the continental U.S.
population.
The modification and destruction of goliath grouper habitat,
notably the elimination of juvenile mangrove habitat, may currently
have some impact on the species' abundance. Mangroves are essential
fish habitat for post-larval and juvenile goliath grouper (GMFMC,
2004). Over the past 100 years, there has been a reduction in the
amount of mangrove habitat acreage in Florida. In some areas, in
particular southeast Florida and the Florida Keys, coastal development
has dramatically reduced the amount of available mangrove habitat. The
reduction of mangrove habitat, coupled with degraded water quality, may
potentially have a negative impact on goliath grouper. Mangroves are
abundant near the current center of abundance (Ten Thousand Islands,
Florida), but have significantly declined in other areas. The
destruction or modification of mangrove habitat in these areas may
limit the rate at which goliath grouper become reestablished throughout
their historical range, because it offers less suitable habitat for
juveniles to reside. Areas outside the center of abundance (e.g.,
southeast Florida; northwest Florida) are therefore likely dependent on
adults emigrating from southwest Florida.
Of the estimated 693,360 acres of mangroves in the United States,
96 percent occur in Florida (Mendelssohn and McKee, 2000). A recent
study by Ueland (2005) determined there were an estimated 512,842 acres
of mangrove in the 14 southernmost coastal counties of Florida in 2000.
In one of the few studies that investigated long-term changes in
mangrove systems, Ueland (2005) determined that the 2000 estimate
represented a 9.0 percent total loss in mangrove habitat from his 1987
estimate of 563,388 acres. In terms of total acres amongst the 14
counties encompassed within the study, Monroe County lost the largest
amount of mangrove area (37,031 acres; 12.2 percent decline), while
Charlotte County showed an increase of 1,229 acres (5.9 percent
increase) during the 13-year period.
Though natural events such as hurricanes can result in mangrove
loss, over the past six decades, habitat modification and coastal
development in Florida have been the primary forces behind dramatic
reductions in mangrove habitat. The Everglades has lost approximately
22 percent of mangrove/marsh habitat since 1927, primarily due to
habitat modification for agricultural purposes (Foster and Smith,
2001). On Florida's east coast, the Indian River Lagoon system from St.
Lucie Inlet north to Satellite Beach has less than 8,000 acres of
mangroves, but only 1,900 are available as fisheries habitat because of
mosquito impoundments; a total of 86 percent of the mangrove areas have
been lost to fisheries since the 1940s (FL DEP, 2003). Lake Worth
Lagoon near West Palm Beach has experienced an 87 percent decrease of
its mangrove acreage over the past 40 years (FL DEP, 2003). Mangroves
appear to have been replaced by the Australian pine and/or urbanization
(FL DEP, 2003).
While habitat destruction and modification may have some impact on
the abundance of the goliath grouper, it is unlikely that it presents a
significant impact that would threaten or endanger the species, unless
extensive juvenile habitat loss occurs near the population's center of
abundance. Despite extensive habitat modification in Florida, the
species has been increasing in number over the past 20 years (NOAA,
2006). The construction of artificial reefs in both the Atlantic Ocean
and Gulf of Mexico during the past 25 years may have had a beneficial
impact on the species by presenting additional shelter and forage
opportunities for adult goliath grouper. In summary, the petition and
information in our files does not constitute substantial information
indicating the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range is an extinction risk of concern for
goliath grouper either throughout its range or in a significant portion
of its range.
Overutilization for Commercial and Recreational Purposes
The petition states that ``the primary threat to these grouper
species is overfishing, both commercially and recreationally.''
Further, it states ``these species * * * are considered overfished
[[Page 31596]]
in the southeastern Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico.'' Under
the MSFCMA, an ``overfished'' species is one where the current biomass
falls short of an identified stock threshold; thus, this classification
reflects the history of exploitation, not necessarily current harvest
rates. A species experiencing ``overfishing'' is one where the current
fishing mortality exceeds an identified management target; thus, this
classification is a current property of the fishery. Overfishing can
lead to a stock becoming overfished. The most recent Report to Congress
on the Status of U.S. Fisheries (NMFS, 2009) lists goliath grouper as
being overfished, but not undergoing overfishing in the Caribbean. The
report also states the species is not undergoing overfishing in the
South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, but its overfished status in those
regions is unknown.
Threatened or endangered status under the ESA and overfished status
under MSFCMA are based on different criteria and, thus, do not
necessarily coincide. In our 2007 status review for the Atlantic white
marlin (73 FR 843, January 4, 2008; http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/endangered%20species/pdf/2007_Atlantic_white_marlin_status_%20review.pdf), we developed a set of species-specific population
dynamics criteria to evaluate extinction risk posed by exploitation of
the species in commercial and recreational fisheries. In that status
review we stated that overfished and overfishing classifications do not
necessarily indicate that a species may warrant listing as a threatened
or endangered species because they do not necessarily have any
relationship to a species' extinction risk. To present extinction risk
to a species, overutilization would typically mean that a species has
been or is being harvested to population levels that cannot equilibrate
in response to the harvest pressure. As the harvest of goliath grouper
was prohibited in the early 1990s in both the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic EEZ, as well as Florida, and the species has demonstrated a
significant increase in abundance since that time within the
continental United States, we believe overutilization does not
currently present an extinction risk to the continental U.S.
population.
As noted above, goliath grouper is not listed as undergoing
overfishing in the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, or Caribbean.
Additional information indicates that the species continues to rebound
within the continental United States following population declines in
the 1980s and into the 1990s (NOAA, 2006). Long-term visual survey
indices document increased goliath grouper abundance throughout Florida
starting in the late 1990s, following implementation of harvest and
possession moratoriums (SEDAR, 2010).
Model results from Porch et al. (2003, 2006) further support the
conclusion that the goliath grouper population in the southeastern
United States is recovering following the prohibition of the species'
harvest. Porch et al. (2003, 2006) utilized a catch-free assessment
model to evaluate the status of goliath grouper in U.S. waters. This
model is an age-structured production model and uses known biological
information regarding a species, incorporates indices of abundance and
effort (if known, or a proxy), and other auxiliary information from
meta-analyses of stocks with similar life history characteristics
allowing for informative priors on parameters such as fishing mortality
and natural mortality rates, growth curve parameters, and
vulnerabilities. The catch-free model has a flexible model structure,
and provides management benchmarks relative to pre-exploitation levels
and projections for future years. There is no dependence upon harvest
estimates as inputs for the model. The results and benchmarks are
derived from a reconstruction of a population based upon biological
parameters and abundance indices and the results are relative to a
population assumed to be at ``near virgin'' levels.
The 2003 assessment estimated there was a 50 percent chance of
exceeding the current MSFCMA management benchmark for this species in
the southeastern United States as early as 2006, and that there was a
95 percent chance that the population might recover by 2012 (Porch et
al., 2003). Under more conservative assumptions on the effectiveness of
the moratorium on harvest that were incorporated into the 2006
assessment, recovery would not occur by 2017 (Porch et al., 2006). Or,
under more optimistic assumptions on the effects of fishing pressure on
younger age classes of goliath grouper, the model indicated a 70-80
percent chance of recovery by 2017 (Porch et al., 2006). These upward
trends in the population indicate that overutilization for commercial
or recreational purposes does not currently pose an extinction risk for
the species in the southeastern United States.
The petition also expresses concern over potential bycatch
mortality, and states ``there is a high probability that they will
suffer from barotrauma (e.g., the bends and hemorrhaging) and perish.''
However, the petition does not provide any supporting information to
indicate these generalized concerns are actually negatively affecting
goliath grouper. The MSFCMA defines bycatch to mean fish harvested in a
fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes
economic discards and regulatory discards; it does not include fish
released alive under a recreational catch and release fishery
management program. While barotrauma and bycatch mortality may be a
cause for concern for various deep-water species, goliath grouper are a
shallow-water species, and it is unlikely that barotrauma is an
extinction risk of concern for goliath grouper. In fact, tagging
studies have noted specific goliath grouper have been repeatedly caught
and released, demonstrating a low bycatch mortality rate for this
species (Eklund and Schull, 2001).
In summary, the petition and information in our files do not
present substantial information indicating that overutilization is
resulting in an extinction risk of concern for goliath grouper either
throughout or in a significant portion of its range.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition states that existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to prevent endangerment or extinction of goliath grouper.
While the petition notes the two decade-long harvest ban on goliath
grouper, it cites studies recommending further data be collected before
lifting the fishing ban.
The goliath grouper fishery expanded quickly and dramatically
through the 1980s, which required the introduction of conservation and
management measures for the species. The South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC) prohibited the spearing of goliath grouper
in March 1983 (SAFMC, 1983). In 1985, the state of Florida implemented
an 18-inch minimum size limit for goliath grouper to help prevent the
harvest of juvenile fish. However, the rapid increase in fishing effort
for goliath grouper followed by a subsequent decline in catches also
led to regulatory measures by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (GMFMC) for federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1989, the
GMFMC implemented a 50-inch (1,270-mm) total length minimum size limit
for goliath grouper (GMFMC, 1989). This measure was originally
considered conservative enough to restore the stock. However,
additional information revealed that the stock was more depleted than
previously thought, so in March 1990, the GMFMC prohibited all harvest
and possession of goliath grouper in federal waters of the Gulf of
Mexico (GMFMC, 1990). Likewise, the SAFMC prohibited
[[Page 31597]]
the harvest and possession of goliath grouper from federal waters off
North Carolina southward through Florida in November 1990 (SAFMC,
1990).
The state of Florida followed suit and prohibited the harvest and
possession of goliath grouper from state waters in 1990. Eventually,
all other coastal states from North Carolina to Texas implemented
regulations to prohibit the harvest or possession of goliath grouper.
The petition states the IUCN defines the species as critically
endangered throughout its entire range. The IUCN, however, qualifies
its assessment by stating, ``Information is needed from other locations
within its range, including the eastern Atlantic and eastern Pacific''
(IUCN, 2006). The IUCN also notes that ``Global or regional abundance
of adults is unknown'' (Ibid).
The petition fails to provide substantial information indicating
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to prevent, or are
contributing to, extinction risk for goliath grouper throughout its
range, in a significant portion of the range, or in the continental
United States. To the contrary, the petition notes the various harvest
restrictions have ``yielded some signs of recovery'' in the Gulf of
Mexico. Available information documents that there has been a history
of effective regulatory action to conserve and protect goliath grouper,
which has resulted in the species' ongoing recovery and rebuilding
within the continental United States (NOAA, 2006). While Brazil
implemented a harvest prohibition in 2002, IUCN (2006) details that
``nothing is known yet about the response to management in Brazil and
data are missing on the species from many other places in its range.''
The petition provides no information supporting the statements of
generalized threats posed by the alleged inadequacy of global
regulatory measures, and we have no information in our files suggesting
that this is an extinction risk of concern.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors
The petition states that goliath grouper is more susceptible to
extinction due to a number of biological constraints, including a
``slow rate of maturation and growth, large size, and aggregation at
specific times and sites for spawning, combined with their high
commercial value and value as a trophy fish, make them particularly
susceptible to depletion from fishers.'' However, neither the petition
nor information in our files suggests that current fishing pressure
(i.e., directed catch-and-release or incidental bycatch), including
fishing or diving pressure that may potentially disrupt spawning
aggregations, poses an extinction risk of concern for this species
throughout its range, in a significant portion of the range, or in the
continental United States. In fact, available information indicates the
U.S. population has increased over the past 20 years and become re-
established throughout its historical range (NOAA, 2006).
The petition also lists potential small population size of adult
goliath grouper and human population growth as other natural or manmade
factors contributing to goliath grouper's vulnerability, but does not
provide any supporting information to indicate these generalized
concerns are actually negatively affecting goliath grouper.
Therefore, we conclude that the petition and information in our
files do not present substantial information to suggest that other
natural or manmade factors may be causing extinction risk of concern
for goliath grouper either throughout or in a significant portion of
its range. We further conclude the petition and information in our
files do not present substantial information to suggest that any
combination of the 4(a)(1) factors discussed above may pose an
extinction risk for goliath grouper that is cause for concern.
Petition Finding
Goliath grouper are found in the western Atlantic Ocean from
Bermuda southward through the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea to
Brazil, in the eastern Atlantic off the African coast, and in the
eastern Pacific Ocean from the Gulf of California south to Peru. As
noted by the petitioners, the goliath grouper is widely ranging but is
most likely to occur in U.S. waters (Chuen and Huntsman, 2006). The
petitioner requests the species be listed throughout its range, or
alternatively that the continental U.S. population be listed. The
information presented in the petition focuses on the status of the
species in the U.S. waters where the petitioner asserts ``* * * it is
most threatened by the risk of extinction * * *.'' However, evidence in
the petition and in our files supports the conclusion that the species
is recovering in U.S. waters. The petition also fails to either present
specific information on how the cited threats are affecting goliath
grouper or does not incorporate current data regarding the improved
status of the species. After reviewing the information contained in the
petition, as well as information readily available in our files, we
conclude the petition fails to present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be
warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of all references is available upon request from
the Protected Resources Division of the NMFS Southeast Regional Office
(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: May 25, 2011.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-13549 Filed 5-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P