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, 31592-31597 [2011-13549]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31592-31597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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'' (https://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'' (https://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; https://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