Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Threatened Status for Island Grouper (Mycteroperca fusca) and Endangered Status for Gulf Grouper (Mycteroperca jordani) Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 57314-57331 [2015-23502]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 184 (Wednesday, September 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57314-57331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23502]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 150527481-5834-01]
RIN 0648-XD971


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed 
Threatened Status for Island Grouper (Mycteroperca fusca) and 
Endangered Status for Gulf Grouper (Mycteroperca jordani) Under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA)

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month findings; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce 12-month findings and listing 
determinations on a petition to list the gulf grouper (Mycteroperca 
jordani) and the island grouper (Mycteroperca fusca) as threatened or 
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have completed 
comprehensive status reviews for these two marine fish species in 
response to a petition submitted by WildEarth Guardians. After 
reviewing the best scientific and commercial data available, we have 
determined that the gulf grouper is currently in danger of extinction 
throughout its range and, therefore, meets the definition of an 
endangered species. After reviewing the best scientific and commercial 
data available, we have also determined that the island grouper is not 
currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, but is likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future. Therefore, we conclude that the island grouper meets the 
definition of a threatened species. We are soliciting information that 
may be relevant to inform the final determinations for these two 
species.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by November 23, 
2015. Public hearing requests must be made by November 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by the 
code NOAA-NMFS-2015-0071, by either of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0071. Click the ``Comment Now'' icon, 
complete the required fields. Enter or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to, Ron Salz, NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 
20910, USA.
    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. All comments received are a part of the public 
record and will generally be posted for public viewing on https://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. We will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in 
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    You can obtain the petition, status review reports, proposed rule, 
and list of references electronically on our NMFS Web site at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Salz, NMFS, Office of Protected 
Resources (OPR), (301) 427-8171 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, OPR, (301) 427-
8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians 
to list 81 marine species or subpopulations as threatened or endangered 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This petition included species 
from many different taxonomic groups, and we prepared our 90-day 
findings in batches by taxonomic group. We found that the petitioned 
actions may be warranted for 24 of the species and 3 of the 
subpopulations and announced the initiation of status reviews for each 
of the 24 species and 3 subpopulations (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 
78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 
9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, February 24, 2014). This 
document addresses the 12-month findings for two of these species: Gulf 
grouper (Mycteroperca jordani) and island grouper (Mycteroperca fusca). 
The status of the findings and relevant Federal Register notices for 
the other 21 species and 3 subpopulations can be found on our Web site 
at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.
    We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened 
or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this 
determination, we consider first whether a group of organisms 
constitutes a ``species'' under the ESA, then whether the status of the 
species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. 
Section 3 of the ESA defines a ``species'' to include ``any subspecies 
of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of 
any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when 
mature.'' On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted a policy describing 
what constitutes a distinct population segment (DPS) of a taxonomic 
species (the DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722). The DPS Policy identified two 
elements that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The 
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of 
the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the 
significance of the population segment to the remainder of the species 
(or subspecies) to which it belongs. As stated in the DPS Policy, 
Congress expressed its expectation that the Services would exercise 
authority with regard to DPSs sparingly and only when the biological 
evidence indicates such action is warranted. Based on the scientific 
information available, we determined that the gulf grouper 
(Mycteroperca jordani) and the island grouper (Mycteroperca fusca) are 
both ``species'' under the ESA. There is nothing in the scientific 
literature indicating that either of these species should be further 
divided into subspecies or DPSs.
    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as one ``which is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' We interpret an 
``endangered species'' to be one that is presently in danger of 
extinction. A ``threatened species,'' on

[[Page 57315]]

the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In 
other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and 
endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of 
extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future 
(threatened).
    When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened 
under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term ``foreseeable 
future.'' It is appropriate to interpret ``foreseeable future'' as the 
horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the 
species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers 
the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability 
of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the 
reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events 
on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may 
be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are 
available, or which operate across different time scales, the 
foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number 
of years.
    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any 
species is endangered or threatened due to any one or a combination of 
the following five threat factors: The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting 
its continued existence. We are also required to make listing 
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available, after conducting a review of the species' status and after 
taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign nation 
to protect the species.
    In assessing extinction risk of these two species, we considered 
the demographic viability factors developed by McElhany et al. (2000) 
and the risk matrix approach developed by Wainwright and Kope (1999) to 
organize and summarize extinction risk considerations. The approach of 
considering demographic risk factors to help frame the consideration of 
extinction risk has been used in many of our status reviews (see https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species for links to these reviews). In this 
approach, the collective condition of individual populations is 
considered at the species level according to four demographic viability 
factors: Abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/
connectivity, and diversity. These viability factors reflect concepts 
that are well-founded in conservation biology and that individually and 
collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk.
    Scientific conclusions about the overall risk of extinction faced 
by the gulf grouper and the island grouper under present conditions and 
in the foreseeable future are based on our evaluation of the species' 
demographic risks and section 4(a)(1) threat factors. Our assessment of 
overall extinction risk considered the likelihood and contribution of 
each particular factor, synergies among contributing factors, and the 
cumulative impact of all demographic risks and threats on the species.
    We then assess efforts being made to protect the species, to 
determine if these conservation efforts are adequate to mitigate the 
existing threats. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, 
when making a listing determination for a species, to take into 
consideration those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign 
nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to 
protect the species.
    Status reviews for the gulf grouper and the island grouper were 
conducted by NMFS OPR staff and an in-house contractor. In order to 
complete the status reviews, we compiled the best available information 
on the species' biology, ecology, life history, threats, and 
conservation status from information contained in the petition, our 
files, a comprehensive literature search, and consultation with 
experts. We also considered information submitted by the public in 
response to our petition findings. Draft status review reports were 
also submitted to independent peer reviewers; comments and information 
received from peer reviewers were addressed and incorporated as 
appropriate before finalizing the draft reports. The gulf grouper and 
island grouper status review reports are available on our Web site (see 
ADDRESSES section). Below we summarize information from these reports 
and the status of each species.

Status Reviews

Gulf Grouper

    The following section describes our analysis of the status of the 
gulf grouper, Mycteroperca jordani.
Species Description
    The gulf grouper (Jenkins and Evermann 1889) is a large, heavy-
bodied grouper with rounded preopercle and moderate sized scales (Smith 
1971). They have a comparatively elongated and compressed body shape 
with body depth much less than their head length (Jenkins and Evermann 
1889, Heemstra and Randall 1993). The dorsal fin has 11 spines and 16 
to 17 rays, with the posterior margin rounded (Heemstra and Randall 
1993). The anal fin has 3 spines and 10 to 11 rays; and the gill rakers 
range from 21 to 26, not counting rudiments (Heemstra and Randall 
1993). Juvenile gulf grouper are greyish-brown with large, dark grey 
oblong blotches on the dorsal part of the body and fins (Heemstra and 
Randall 1993). Female adults are generally dark brown to grey, but they 
can assume a juvenile pattern when disturbed or excited. Larger adult 
males develop a white margin along the pectoral fin, with the medial 
fin developing a narrow white edge (Heemstra and Randall 1993). In 
spawning aggregations, breeding individuals exhibit conspicuous dark 
lines radiating from the eye (Sala et al. 2003). Gulf grouper can grow 
up to 150 cm (in total length), 91 kg (in weight), and 48 years 
(Heemstra and Randall 1993, Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008). Gulf grouper 
are considered voracious, solitary predators, though little is known 
about their diet or feeding behavior.
Reproductive Biology and Spawning Behavior
    Gulf grouper are a protogynous hermaphroditic fish, meaning they 
mature as females and, later in life, transition into males. Gulf 
grouper mature as females at an estimated six to seven years of age 
(Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008). Gulf grouper are believed to transition 
from female to male based upon their size (size-advantage model) 
(Bhandari et al. 2006, Zhou and Gui 2010). The size-advantage model 
theorizes that if it is advantageous for one sex to reproduce at a 
small size and the other sex to reproduce at a larger size, then the 
individual should change sex at some point in life (Ghiselin 1969, 
Bhandari et al. 2006). Larger female grouper produce substantially more 
and higher quality eggs than smaller females. Although not studied 
directly in gulf grouper, an eight-year-old female Mycteroperca 
produces approximately 60 times the number of eggs that a five-year-old 
female produces (Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008). For males, larger size is 
advantageous when competing with other males for reproduction 
opportunities with females at spawning aggregation sites (Domeier and 
Colin 1997).

[[Page 57316]]

    Gulf grouper are transient aggregate spawners. Domeier and Colin 
(1997) defined spawning aggregations as ``a group of conspecific fish 
gathered for the purpose of spawning, with fish densities or numbers 
significantly higher than those found in the area of aggregation during 
the non-reproductive periods.'' Spawning aggregations are further 
categorized as either ``resident'' or ``transient'' depending upon 
aggregation criteria. Transient spawning aggregations typically (1) 
draw individuals from a relatively large area (individuals travel days 
to weeks to gather), (2) occur during a very specific time of year (one 
or two months), (3) persist for only a few-day period, and (4) do not 
occur year-round (Domeier and Colin 1997). Transient aggregate species 
are often large sized predators that are not known to spawn outside of 
aggregations (Domeier and Colin 1997).
    The location and timing of gulf grouper spawning aggregations may 
depend upon tidal influences on egg or larvae distribution (Domeier and 
Colin 1997, Cherubin et al. 2011). All known spawning aggregation sites 
for gulf grouper, current and historical, are found in the Gulf of 
California (GOC) (Sala et al. 2004, S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a, 
Moreno-Baez 2010). The GOC, with its length and combinations of basins, 
islands, and sills, has large tides (up to 4 m) and fast tidal currents 
(up to 1.5 m/sec) which peak during the full moon (Filonov and 
Lav[iacute]n 2003). Gulf grouper are found on predictable spawning 
aggregation locations before and during the full moon in May (Sala et 
al. 2004). Their spawning aggregation sites consist of rocky reef 
(gorgonians and black coral) seamounts with abrupt relief habitat at 20 
to 35 m depths. Adult gulf grouper form spawning aggregations of 40 or 
more individuals in areas larger than 1,000 m\2\ (Aburto-Oropeza et al. 
2008). Based upon three observed spawning aggregations, gulf grouper 
spawning aggregation density was estimated at 220 fish/ha with fish 
sizes ranging from 100 to 150 cm total length (Sala et al. 2003). Along 
the Pacific coast, spawning aggregation sites for gulf groupers are an 
unknown, though the size of the historical gulf grouper fisheries 
suggests that spawning aggregation sites may have been present.
Population Structure, Distribution, Abundance and Habitat
    The gulf grouper resides in the subtropical eastern Pacific Ocean 
and Gulf of California from 32.84[deg] N. (La Jolla, California, United 
States) to 23.22[deg] N. (Mazatl[aacute]n, Sinaloa, Mexico) (Heemstra 
and Randall 1993). The overall range distribution for gulf grouper is 
considered restricted, defined as less than 800,000 km\2\ (Morris et 
al. 2000). Gulf grouper habitat requirements vary throughout life. 
Groupers in general pass through a pelagic larvae phase (20-50 days) 
during which they settle into rocky, coastal reefs (Aburto-Oropeza et 
al. 2008). After this phase, they acquire juvenile characteristics 
while they settle into shallow, coastal habitats (e.g. Sargassum beds, 
seagrass areas, mangroves, and estuaries); this nursery stage can last 
up to two years. Adult gulf grouper predominately use rocky reefs and 
kelp beds of depths from five to 30 meters (Heemstra and Randall 1993) 
and deeper (30 to 45 m) during the summer (Moreno-Ba[eacute]z 2010). 
During the spawning season, gulf grouper will aggregate in rocky reefs 
in depths from 20 to 35 m (Sala et al. 2003).
    Historical and current gulf grouper population abundance is 
unknown. Estimated trends in gulf grouper abundance are based primarily 
on limited fisheries catch data and anecdotal reports. The available 
information indicates that gulf grouper were once a dominant species in 
rocky-reef fish communities in terms of biomass, before stocks 
collapsed in the early 1970s (S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a). In the 
1930s, California fishermen reported gulf grouper as being abundant in 
Mexican waters between Bah[iacute]a Tortugas and Bah[iacute]a 
Magdalena, and this species represented an important component of the 
commercial fishery south of the U.S.-Mexico border (Croaker 1937, Fitch 
1949). Combined landings of gulf grouper and broomtail grouper for the 
California commercial fishery peaked in the early 1950s at 376 metric 
tons (mt), declined to around 100-150 mt between the late 1950s until 
the late 1960s, after which the grouper fishery completely crashed to 
near zero landings by 1970 (California Department of Fish and 
Wildlife--https://libraries.ucsd.edu/apps/ceo/fishbull/). In 1976, the 
California Department of Fish and Game adopted no-take prohibitions for 
broomtail grouper and gulf grouper that are still in effect today.
    In the GOC, gulf grouper accounted for a significant proportion of 
the commercial landings weight in the mid-20th century. In 1960, gulf 
grouper represented approximately 45 percent of the artisanal fishery 
in the GOC (Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008). Based on anecdotal accounts, 
boats from El Club de Vuelos sport fishing resort in Loreto (Mexico) 
landed an estimated 63 mt of gulf grouper during a 2-month period in 
1962 (S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a). By comparison, only an 
estimated 58 mt of gulf grouper were harvested from 2006 through 2012 
throughout the species' entire range. The El Club de Vuelos boats 
fished at the Punta Lobos and San Bruno seamounts, both probable 
spawning aggregation sites at that time. There are also anecdotal 
reports from the 1940s and 1950s of fishermen using dynamite to capture 
large numbers of gulf grouper at the San Bruno seamount (S[aacute]enz-
Arroyo et al. 2005a). S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. (2005a) conducted over 
30 dives from 2001 through 2004 during the gulf grouper spawning season 
at sites that were recommended by the original fishermen from El Club 
de Vuelos. During these dives, only three gulf grouper were observed, 
all at the Punta Lobos seamount. In 2002 and 2003, a biologist fished 
the San Bruno seamount during the spawning aggregation season and was 
only able to capture one gulf grouper (S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 
2005a). Since official Mexican fishery landings data at the species 
level are only available since 2007, these data fail to encapsulate the 
major decline in GOC gulf grouper abundance, which likely started in 
the mid-20th century.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Gulf Grouper
    Available information regarding current, historical, and potential 
future threats to the gulf grouper was thoroughly reviewed (Dennis 
2015). We summarize information regarding threats below according to 
three (out of five) factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA: 
``Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
its Habitat or Range''; ``Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, 
Scientific, or Educational Purposes''; and ``Inadequacy of Existing 
Regulatory Mechanisms.'' We found very little information regarding 
potential threats that fall into the section 4(a)(1) categories of 
either ``Disease and Predation'' or ``Other Natural or Manmade 
Factors.'' These subjects are data poor, but there are no serious or 
known concerns raised under these threat categories with respect to 
gulf grouper extinction risk; therefore, we do not discuss these 
categories further here. See Dennis (2015) for additional discussion of 
all ESA section 4(a)(1) threat categories.
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its 
Habitat or Range
    Since the beginning of the 20th century, human population growth 
and development has resulted in the loss and degradation of coastal 
habitats throughout the gulf grouper's range. Continued loss or 
degradation of these habitats represents a potential threat to

[[Page 57317]]

the species. The terrestrial habitat surrounding the GOC is mostly arid 
to semi-arid with rivers feeding the estuaries and marine waters with 
sediments and fresh water. Originating in these dry environments, the 
rivers and estuaries are of limited supply and great importance. There 
are ten major rivers that provide freshwater, sediment, and nutrient 
inputs to the GOC. These rivers have been extensively dammed, exploited 
for agricultural uses, and polluted from agricultural and urban runoff. 
As a result, the coastal habitats bordering the GOC have been reduced 
and degraded, while nearshore salinities, which ecosystems have evolved 
for, have changed. The R[iacute]o Colorado is the largest watershed 
flowing into the GOC, representing over two-thirds of the GOC's 
watershed acreage. Historically, 16.4 million acre-feet of water flowed 
annually into the GOC from the R[iacute]o Colorado (Goodfriend and 
Flessa 1997, Bureau of Reclamation 2012). Today the river rarely flows 
to the GOC due to the cumulative effects of two large dam projects 
(Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam) and major water diversions. Increased 
anthropogenic nitrogen from sewage, agricultural, and shrimp farming 
sources are directly utilized by macroalgae, creating more frequent 
blooms and corresponding anoxia throughout coastal habitats in the GOC 
(Pi[ntilde][oacute]n-Gimate et al. 2009). Juvenile gulf grouper reside 
in these coastal habitats (such as Sargassum and seagrass beds, 
mangroves, and other kinds of estuary habitats) during the first few 
years of life, and are susceptible to these environmental changes 
(Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008).
    Shrimp aquaculture began in the GOC in the early 1980s. The 
production of cultivated shrimp in the GOC has increased tremendously 
over the past 30 years: 35 mt in 1985; 15,867 mt in 1995; 33,480 mt in 
2000; and 125,609 mt in 2009 (Gillett 2008, SEPESCA-BC Web page https://www.sepescabc.gob.mx/x/estadisticas/). Shrimp farms can negatively 
impact gulf grouper through direct loss of habitat and through habitat 
degradation. The conversion of natural saltmarshes and mangrove forests 
into shrimp farms can result in the direct loss of nursery areas for 
juvenile gulf grouper (P[aacute]ez-Osuna 2001). In the northern GOC, an 
estimated 95 percent of mangrove forests are impacted by shrimp farms 
(Glenn et al. 2006). GOC shrimp ponds stock between 60,000 to 200,000 
shrimp per hectare, and require a daily water exchange of three to six 
percent (P[aacute]ez-Osuna et al. 1998, P[aacute]ez-Osuna et al. 2003). 
During water exchanges, organic matter from unconsumed shrimp food, 
detritus, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and bacteria is flushed into the 
GOC through discharge channels (Barraza-Guardado et al. 2013). Shrimp 
farm effluents contribute 10.2 percent of the nitrogen and 3.3 percent 
of the phosphorus inputs into the GOC (Miranda et al. 2009). Adding 
these organic materials into the marine habitat, which is already 
receiving effluents from other anthropogenic sources, deteriorates 
water quality through oxygen depletion, light reduction, increased 
salinity, increased chlorophyll and bacteria levels, and changes in 
benthic macrofauna, resulting in possible eutrophication (P[aacute]ez-
Osuna 2001, Barraza-Guardado et al. 2013). For example, the Altata-
Ensenada del Pabell[oacute]n lagoon receives effluent from shrimp 
farms, intensive agriculture (i.e., sugar cane), and sewage from local 
cities, leading to phytoplankton blooms, anoxia, and fish kill events 
(P[aacute]ez-Osuna 1999). The combined effects of shrimp farm effluents 
(and other sources of anthropogenic nutrient loading) with climate 
change may result in an increased incidence of hypoxia due to enhanced 
ocean stratification, decreased oxygen solubility, increased 
metabolism, and increased production of organic matter (Rabalais et al. 
2009). Shrimp farm effluents also typically contain antibiotics which 
are used in large quantities to preemptively treat bacterial diseases 
(Kautsky et al. 2000).
    Effluents from agricultural areas and aquaculture facilities also 
contribute to harmful algal blooms in the GOC. Red tides, which are 
produced by a planktonic dinoflagellate (Prorocentrum minimum), were 
first reported in the GOC in 1990. Between 1990 and 2003, 13 red tide 
events occurred, with six occurring in shrimp ponds and seven occurring 
near aquaculture and agricultural areas (Sierra-Beltr[aacute]n et al. 
2005). Most recently, a red tide occurred in January 2015 near San 
Felipe, Baja California that resulted in fish, bird, and marine mammal 
mortalities.
    GOC reefs are predominantly rocky, with a coral component in the 
south, which shifts to kelp (brown algae) in the north (Squires 1959). 
Reef habitats support a wide diversity and high density of marine life, 
including gulf grouper, and are particularly sensitive to anthropogenic 
threats. Both direct (e.g., fishing with dynamite, dredging) and 
indirect (e.g., anthropogenic nutrients, climate change) activities 
have had a detrimental impact on the reefs within the gulf grouper's 
range. In the past, dynamite was often used for fishing on reefs, which 
has resulted in permanent damage to gulf grouper spawning habitat 
(Lozano-Montes et al. 2008). Development of the GOC region has resulted 
in more dredging activities (Zamora-Arroyo et al. 2005) and increased 
nutrient loading into the marine ecosystem, resulting in algal growth 
and hypoxic waters that can degrade and kill coral (Kline et al. 2006). 
The effects of climate change can lead to coral loss and degradation 
through bleaching and mortality events from elevated ocean 
temperatures, loss of structural integrity, and ocean acidification. 
During the 1997-1998 El Ni[ntilde]o event, sea surface temperature 
anomalies of greater than 1.5 [deg]C occurred from July 1997 through 
January 1998. Coral bleaching was extensive throughout the southern 
GOC: Over 30 percent of live coral cover was bleached, of which, nearly 
70 percent died within a few months (Bonilla 2001). Though the 1997-
1998 coral bleaching event was related to El Ni[ntilde]o, similar 
impacts may be expected in the future due to increasing ocean 
temperatures associated with climate change.
    The impact of anthropogenic activities on GOC marine habitats will 
likely increase in the future based on projected human population 
growth and development in this region. Population growth in the GOC 
region is expected to continue at a high rate with approximately 
150,000 new residents per year (Source: https://www.conapo.gob.mx/es/CONAPO/Proyecciones_Datos). The Mexican federal government has placed a 
major emphasis on tourism and trade development throughout the GOC. 
Beginning in 2008, the first paved highway along the Sonoran GOC coast 
was constructed from Puerto Pe[ntilde]asco to Mexicali (population 
689,775) (Wilder et al. 2012b). In Puerto Pe[ntilde]asco, the 
construction of a new marina with associated breakwaters and facilities 
for cruise liners has started and is expected to be completed in 2015. 
With improved accessibility by land and sea, Puerto Pe[ntilde]asco is 
currently undergoing a construction boom, with two major resorts adding 
over 100,000 rooms via hotels and condominiums along with golf courses 
and 22 small-scale desalination plants (Wilder et al. 2012b). Two 
hundred kilometers south in Puerto Libertad, the Liberty Cove resort 
has been approved for 60,000 dwellings, golf courses, a race track, and 
a marina. Another project, the Escalera N[aacute]utica del Mar de 
Cort[eacute]s y Riviera Maya, will construct 29 new marinas throughout 
the GOC with facilities to accommodate cruise ships and 60,000 boats 
annually (Wilder et al. 2012b).

[[Page 57318]]

Another purpose of the improved ports is to increase trade. For 
example, after dredging its harbor in 2013, the Port of Guaymas became 
the second largest Mexican port and is capable of handling vessels up 
to 130,000 tons, while increasing its port capacity from 8 to 30 
million tons of cargo.
    Increased development and infrastructure will result in increased 
energy and water needs. To meet these needs there are plans to greatly 
expand tidal power and desalination plant capacity in the region. The 
GOC is considered one of the best tidal power locations in the world 
due to its large tides and proximity to urban areas. Two GOC tidal 
power site locations have been identified and are in the early stages 
of planning: Bah[iacute]a de Adair and Canal del Infiernillo. 
Environmental impacts from tidal power include habitat loss, increased 
turbidity, mobilization of contaminants, and changes in the 
morphodynamics of the seabed (Gill 2005, Neill et al. 2009). Plans for 
expanding tourism in the GOC often include construction of desalination 
plants (Wilder et al. 2012b). Desalination plants impact the 
environment by both their very substantial power requirements and the 
wastewater discharges, which include brine plumes (at twice the 
salinity of marine waters), antiscalents, coagulants, heavy metals, and 
membrane preservatives that get released into the marine environment 
(Roberts et al. 2010). Marine organisms can also get trapped in 
desalination intake systems (Wilder et al. 2012a). All of this 
increased development in and around the GOC is anticipated to have 
negative effects on the GOC environment as a whole, and thus, on gulf 
grouper habitat within that environment.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    Gulf grouper are a highly prized commercial and recreational fish 
species due to their large size and palatability. Gulf grouper also 
exhibit the following life history traits and behavioral 
characteristics that increase the species' vulnerability to fishery 
overutilization: Slow growth, late maturation, large size, protogynous 
hermaphroditism, long life-span, and the formation of transient 
spawning aggregations (Sadovy 1994). In protogynous hermaphrodites, the 
largest individuals are, in order, terminal males, individuals 
undergoing sexual transition, and the largest, most fecund females who 
are next in line for sexual transition. Since fishers selectively 
harvest the largest individuals, these groups are removed at a high 
rate, leading to decreased productivity of a population. In one study 
of the artisanal fishery of Bah[iacute]a de Los Angeles, nearly 99 
percent of gulf grouper landed from 2002-2003 were immature fish 
(Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008). These data suggest that large, mature 
gulf grouper have been mostly removed from the population.
    Spawning aggregations sites are particularly vulnerable to 
overfishing because they occur at predictable places and times and they 
contain fish at a much higher than normal density (Domeier and Colin 
1997). Many fishermen base their fishing activities upon the movement 
patterns of target species, and knowledge of spawning aggregation sites 
is highly advantageous (Sadovy et al. 1994, Moreno-B[aacute]ez et al. 
2012). Gulf grouper spawning aggregation sites within the GOC (e.g. 
Punta Lobos and San Bruno seamounts) have disappeared after periods of 
heavy exploitation (S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a). The reduction or 
complete loss of additional spawning aggregations due to overfishing 
represents a continued threat to the gulf grouper.
    Commercial landings of gulf grouper from the Pacific Ocean (U.S. 
vessels fishing in Mexican waters) peaked in the early 1950s, followed 
by a population decline to near commercial extinction by 1970. In 1976, 
California declared the gulf grouper a prohibited species. Based on 
recent fishery independent surveys and fisheries data, the gulf grouper 
is still considered a very rare occurrence in the Pacific Ocean.
    Time series fisheries catch and effort data available for gulf 
grouper in the GOC are sparse. Official Mexican fisheries statistics 
did not include artisanal landings until 1988 (only commercial were 
included prior to that date), and species level information specific to 
gulf grouper are only available since 2007. Currently, gulf grouper 
represent less than one percent of the artisanal fishery in the GOC. 
However, recent gulf grouper landings can be misinterpreted, leading 
one to incorrectly conclude that the gulf grouper is a naturally rare 
species. Anecdotal information based on Local Fishermen Knowledge (LFK) 
indicates that gulf grouper were once abundant in the GOC and 
represented approximately 45 percent of the artisanal fishery landings 
weight in 1960 (S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a). Studies of LFK in 
the GOC indicate sharp declines in gulf grouper abundance over the past 
50 years (Sala et al. 2004, S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a and 2005b, 
Lozano-Montes et al. 2008, and Moreno-B[aacute]ez et al. 2010 and 
2012). S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. (2005a and 2005b) interviewed 108 
fishermen from 11 fishing communities in the central GOC. Fishermen 
were asked to recall their best day's catch of gulf grouper, heaviest 
fish caught, and years of these catches. For best day's catch, catches 
decreased significantly over time: 25 fish daily in the 1940s and 
1950s; 10-12 fish daily in the 1960s; and 1-2 fish daily in the 1990s. 
For heaviest gulf grouper caught, weight per fish decreased 
significantly from >= 80 kg from the 1940s through the 1960s to 60 kg 
by 2000. Among age groups, 96 percent of the oldest (>= 55 years old) 
and 90 percent of the middle-aged (31-54 years old) fishermen had 
captured gulf grouper, while only 45 percent of the young fishermen 
(15-30 years old) had. When asked whether or not they considered the 
gulf grouper depleted, 85 percent of the oldest considered them 
depleted, compared to 56 percent of the middle-aged, and 10 percent of 
the young fishermen (S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a and 2005b). Sala 
et al. (2004) interviewed 63 fishermen (ages 25 to 67) from four 
fishing villages along the southern GOC. They found that the relative 
importance of gulf grouper as a target species and the maximum size of 
gulf grouper caught both declined markedly from the 1970s to 2000.
    Gulf grouper are highly prized by recreational anglers, although 
data from this fishery sector are sparse and the impact of recreational 
fishing on this species is largely unknown. Based on anecdotal 
information, recreational anglers caught large numbers of gulf grouper 
in the 1950s and 1960s and likely targeted known spawning aggregation 
sites in the GOC (S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a). During a two-month 
period in 1962, anglers from El Club de Vuelos sport fishing resort 
harvested an estimated 63 mt of gulf grouper (S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et 
al. 2005a). More recently, Cudney-Bueno et al. (2009) reported finding 
a large sport fishing derby targeting gulf grouper in 2004 within the 
no-take zone of the Reserva de la Biosfera Isla San Pedro 
Mart[iacute]r.
    In addition to overutilization by direct harvest, gulf grouper are 
indirectly harvested as bycatch in commercial shrimp trawls 
(Ram[iacute]rez et al. 2012) and illegal totoaba (Totoaba macdonaldi) 
fisheries (Moreno-B[aacute]ez et al. 2012). In 2012, commercial shrimp 
trawlers harvested 42,310 mt of shrimp in the GOC. Mexican shrimp 
fisheries are not required to use bycatch reduction devices (BRDs), and 
recent studies estimated the bycatch ratio (bycatch: shrimp) at 6.1:1 
(85.9 percent bycatch rate; 2003-2009) in the central GOC

[[Page 57319]]

(Meltzer 2012) and 10.2:1 (91.1 percent bycatch rate; 1992-2004) in the 
southern GOC (Madrid-Vera et al. 2007). The totoaba, currently ESA-
listed as endangered, are currently harvested via gill nets in the 
northern GOC for their swim bladders, which garner $8,500 per kg (CIRVA 
2014). Although it is unknown whether or not this totoaba fishery is 
also harvesting gulf grouper, this fishery is currently using the same 
fishing ports (i.e., San Felipe, Golfo de Santa Clara, and Puerto 
Pe[ntilde]asco) and harvest methods (i.e., gill nets) being used to 
capture gulf grouper (Moreno-B[aacute]ez et al. 2012). Estimates of 
bycatch specific to gulf grouper in the GOC shrimp trawl fishery and 
the illegal totoaba fishery are not available.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    In Mexico, the Comisi[oacute]n Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca 
(CONAPESCA) has the authority to implement fishing regulations (https://www.conapescasandiego.org/contenido.cfm?cont=regulations), which are 
enforced by the Mexican Navy. Traditional fisheries regulations aimed 
at controlling catch and effort of gulf grouper in Mexican waters are 
scarce. Commercial fishing permits are only available to Mexican 
nationals and require a concession (either a cooperative or private 
business). Commercial permits are awarded per vessel for two to five 
year durations and specify species (or species group) targeted, fishing 
area, and fishing method or gears. Recreational fishing is allowed by 
national or foreign individuals through a single, non-renewable, non-
transferrable permit. In ocean waters and estuaries, a retention limit 
of ten fish is allowed per angler per day, of which only two can be 
gulf grouper. Rubber-band, spring, or pneumatic harpoons are allowed 
during recreational skin diving.
    Several marine protected areas (MPAs) have been established in 
Mexico within the gulf grouper's range. MPAs cover nearly one fifth of 
the GOC's surface area, including 101,838 hectares designated as ``no-
take'' areas (Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2011). Despite the establishment of 
multiple MPAs throughout the GOC over the past few decades, overall 
protection of fisheries resources is still inadequate for the recovery 
of overexploited stocks. The lack of management plans, effective 
regulations, and necessary resources to operationalize and enforce MPAs 
in the GOC significantly undermines their conservation benefits 
(Cudney-Bueno et al. 2009, Rife et al. 2013, Cinti et al. 2014). The 
large majority of the areas covered by GOC MPAs are still actively 
fished year-round with little or no regulations limiting harvest 
(Rodr[iacute]guez-Quiroz et al. 2010, Moreno-B[aacute]ez et al. 2012). 
The lack of adequate enforcement is a chronic and pervasive problem for 
several MPAs within the GOC. For example, one study of the Reserva de 
la Biosfera Isla San Pedro Mart[iacute]r, conducted from 2003 through 
2008, found that 39 percent of the time sport and commercial fishermen 
were fishing in the 900 hectare core no-take zone, including a large 
sport fishing derby targeting gulf grouper in 2004 (Cudney-Bueno et al. 
2009).
    With the exception of the Parque Nacional Cabo Pulmo, fish species 
diversity and biomass have not increased within designated GOC MPAs 
(Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2011). The Parque Nacional Cabo Pulmo, located 
on the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula, was established 
in 1995 to protect the large coral communities found there (Aburto-
Oropeza et al. 2011). The park includes a 2,501 hectare no-take reserve 
(35 percent of the total park area). In a ten-year study, fish species 
richness and biomass significantly increased from 1999 to 2009, and 
previous studies have found gulf grouper inhabit park waters (Aburto-
Oropeza et al. 2011). The conservation benefits of Cabo Pulmo are 
threatened by development from the tourist industry, as several large-
scale resorts have recently been proposed for this area.
    In the U.S., the California Fish and Game Commission adopted a 
regulation prohibiting the take or possession of gulf grouper in 1976 
(Title 14, Section 28.12). This regulation went into effect on March 1, 
1977, and remains in effect today.
Extinction Risk Assessment
    Gulf grouper are particularly susceptible to overfishing due to a 
combination of life history traits and behavioral characteristics 
(Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012). Biological factors that likely 
increase the gulf grouper's intrinsic vulnerability to overfishing 
include large size, late onset of reproductive maturity, slow growth 
rate, and long life-span. As a protogynous hermaphrodite, the gulf 
grouper may be even more susceptible to fishing which, through 
selective removal of males, could reduce reproductive capacity. As a 
transient aggregate spawner, gulf grouper are highly susceptible to 
fishing overutilization due to the predictability of their locations in 
time and space. Once a year, adult gulf grouper aggregate for 
reproduction at a known time (full moon in May), at known locations 
(particular reefs and seamounts), at higher than normal densities. Some 
historical gulf grouper spawning aggregation sites have completely 
disappeared following heavy harvest (e.g. Punta Lobos and San Bruno 
seamounts) (S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a). An analysis of 2002 and 
2003 harvest data from Bah[iacute]a de Los Angeles showed that 99 
percent of the gulf grouper harvested were immature-sized fish, 
demonstrating the lack of reproductive age fish (Aburto-Oropeza et al. 
2008). Overall, the combination of high harvest rates at known spawning 
aggregation sites and the trait of protogynous hermaphroditism 
significantly impacts gulf grouper productivity. Finally, gulf grouper 
have a small geographic range, which may restrict their ability to move 
and adapt to environmental changes (Morris et al. 2000).
    Based upon the best available cumulative information from fisheries 
statistics, LFK, anecdotal reports, and grey literature, we conclude 
that gulf grouper abundance has severely declined since the mid-20th 
century due primarily to direct harvest by commercial and artisanal 
fisheries (Sala et al. 2004, S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a, Aburto-
Oropeza et al. 2008). The primary signs of population decline are: (1) 
Sharp reductions in harvest volumes, (2) significant decrease in 
average size and weight of harvested fish, (3) reduced spatial 
distribution and likely range contraction, and (4) extirpations or 
reductions of spawning aggregations (S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a, 
Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008). In the GOC, gulf grouper were once 
abundant and represented approximately 45 percent of the artisanal 
fishery in 1960, but declined to 10 percent by the 1970s, and are now 
less than 1 percent of the fishery (S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a). 
The sharp decrease in harvest levels since the 1970s was not due to 
decreased fishing effort (fishing effort has generally increased) or 
new protective regulations (which are of limited benefit), but rather 
was due to a decline in gulf grouper abundance. Commercial landings of 
gulf grouper from the Pacific Ocean (U.S. vessels fishing in Mexican 
waters) peaked in the early 1950s, before the population declined to 
near commercial extinction by 1970. Based on recent fishery independent 
surveys and fisheries data, the gulf grouper has not recovered and is 
still considered a very rare occurrence in the Pacific Ocean portion of 
its range. Outside of a known population in Bah[iacute]a Magdalena 
(Octavio Aburto-Oropeza, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, pers.

[[Page 57320]]

comm., 2014), there is no published evidence of gulf grouper still 
persisting along the Pacific coast of the Baja California peninsula. 
Current gulf grouper distribution appears to be much more limited than 
their historical range (S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a). In the 
1930s, some irruptions of gulf groupers occurred along the San Diego 
coastline (Hubbs 1948); but there are no records of any occurring in 
this area since that time.
    In addition to direct harvest, other potential threats to gulf 
grouper abundance include bycatch in the commercial shrimp and illegal 
totoaba fisheries, habitat degradation and loss from a variety of 
sources, and climate change. However, there are no studies directly 
linking these factors to the decline in gulf grouper abundance. 
Although the cumulative impact of these threats may be significant, the 
information available does not allow for an accurate assessment of the 
relative magnitude or contribution of these threats to gulf grouper 
extinction risk.
    Due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, there is 
no reason to expect the primary threat to gulf grouper from fisheries 
direct harvest will diminish. Traditional fisheries regulations aimed 
at controlling gulf grouper catch and directed fishing effort in 
Mexican waters are very limited. While several MPAs have been 
established in the GOC in recent years, the lack of management plans, 
effective regulations, and necessary resources to operationalize and 
enforce these MPAs significantly undermines their conservation benefit 
(Cudney-Bueno et al. 2009, Rife et al. 2013, Cinti et al. 2014). With 
the exception of the Parque Nacional Cabo Pulmo, fish species diversity 
and biomass have not increased since the establishment of GOC MPAs 
(Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2011). The conservation benefits of Cabo Pulmo 
are currently threatened by large-scale development projects. Since 
1976, the state of California has prohibited the take or possession of 
gulf grouper. However, this restriction only applies within California 
waters, which represent a very small portion of the species' historical 
range and may no longer be part of the gulf grouper's current range. 
Gulf grouper can still be harvested and landed in Mexico by U.S. 
fishing vessels.
    The gulf grouper was once considered abundant, but is now 
considered rare (Jenkins and Evermann 1889, Croker 1937, and 
S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 2005a). Direct harvest is the major reason 
for gulf grouper decline (Sala et al. 2004, S[aacute]enz-Arroyo et al. 
2005a, Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008) and, due to the lack of protective 
regulations in Mexico (no meaningful quotas nor protective regulations 
for gulf grouper), there is no reason to expect fishing to be a 
diminishing threat. Moreover, gulf grouper are intrinsically vulnerable 
to overfishing due to life history traits, including large size, late 
onset of reproductive maturity, protogynous hermaphrodite life history, 
transient aggregate spawning, slow growth rate, long life-span, and 
restricted geographic range (Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012). Sharp 
decreases in harvest levels observed since the 1970s are not due to 
decreased fishing effort (fishing effort has generally increased) or 
new protective regulations (which are of limited benefit), but rather 
are due to a decline in gulf grouper abundance. Though a series of MPAs 
have been set up in the GOC, only one, Cabo Pulmo, has an enforced no-
take marine zone, and it is the only protected marine zone in the GOC 
that has seen improved marine fish life diversity and density over the 
past decade (Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2011); therefore, the MPAs are not 
anticipated to lead to a significant increase in gulf grouper 
abundance.
Protective Efforts
    In 2005, Mexico established the [Aacute]rea de Refugio Vaquita 
Marina located in the northern GOC to protect and conserve the 
critically endangered vaquita (Phocoena sinus) by prohibiting gill net 
and trammel net use (SEMARNAT 2008). This prohibition is not directly 
designed to protect gulf grouper, but gill nets and trammel nets are 
two of the more common gulf grouper harvest methods, so the prohibition 
could have the potential to benefit gulf grouper as well. However, 
bycatch of vaquita in the illegal gill net fishery for the endangered 
totoaba has continued within this MPA after implementation. In 2015, 
the Mexican federal government increased its efforts to protect vaquita 
by expanding the [Aacute]rea de Refugio Vaquita Marina six-fold to 
approximately 8,000 square kilometers. For the next two years, gill 
nets and long lines will be prohibited within the MPA; and fishermen 
from the nearby towns of San Felipe (Baja California, Mexico) and Golfo 
de Santa Clara (Sonora, Mexico) will be financially compensated for 
changing their harvest methods. Enforcement by the Mexican Navy will be 
increased with the additional use of enforcement boats, light aircraft, 
and drones. These new conservation measures could result in decreased 
fishing pressure on gulf grouper. However, these new measures are 
temporary, and there is no long-term commitment of funds for 
enforcement or financial compensation of displaced fishermen. There are 
also large uncertainties associated with the effectiveness of the 
proposed enhanced enforcement measures given pervasive non-compliance 
with Mexican fisheries regulations and the economic incentives created 
by the extremely high valued illegal totoaba fishery.
    We did not identify any other conservation efforts to protect and 
recover gulf grouper that are either underway but not yet fully 
implemented, or are only planned. Our evaluation of the conservation 
efforts identified lead us to conclude that current conservation 
efforts cannot be considered effective measures for significantly 
reducing the current gulf grouper extinction risk.
Proposed Determination
    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, 
as summarized here and in Dennis (2015), and consideration of efforts 
being made to protect the species, we conclude that the gulf grouper, 
Mycteroperca jordani, is currently at high risk of extinction 
throughout its range. We therefore propose to list this species as 
endangered under the ESA.

Island Grouper

    The following section describes our analysis of the status of the 
island grouper, Mycteroperca fusca.
Species Description
    The island grouper was first described under the name Serranus 
fuscus by Lowe (1836) based on specimens from Madeira, Portugal. 
Diagnostic features of the island grouper include an oblong and 
compressed body with depth less than head length, lower jaw extending 
well in front of upper jaw, dorsal fin with 11 spines and 14-16 rays, 
anal fin with 3 spines and 10-12 rays with rounded margin, and caudal-
fin rear margin truncate (juveniles) to concave (adults) (Heemstra and 
Randall 1993). Adults are brownish or dark grey, with irregular pale 
blotches and spots and a prominent maxillary streak. Under stress this 
pattern may be reversed so that the head and body are pale with 
irregular dark markings. Juveniles are mottled greenish-brown with 
prominent white spots on head and body, white streaks on median fins, 
with hyaline golden pectoral fins (Craig et al. 2011). The color 
pattern of mature females from the Canary Islands suggests sexual 
dichromatism (i.e., males and females differ in color) (Bustos 2008). A 
large proportion of sexually active females have yellow pigmentation 
(dorsal fins

[[Page 57321]]

and/or chest, ventral or uniformly throughout), while males are 
uniformly brown (Bustos 2008). This species is also known to display a 
yellow (xanthic) color phase (Wirtz 2007), and a few uniformly golden 
island grouper have been reported from Madeira (Heemstra and Randall 
1993).
    For many years island grouper were confused with another closely 
related species, Mycteroperca rubra. Based primarily on differences in 
gill raker counts, Heemstra (1991) established that the species found 
in the Atlantic Macaronesian region (from the Azores to Cape Verde) was 
M. fusca (with 20-24 lower limb gill rakers), with the distribution of 
M. rubra (with 28-31 lower limb gill rakers) being limited to the west 
coast of Africa and the Mediterranean Sea (Heemstra and Randall 1993).
    The island grouper is a slow-growing, long-lived species which can 
attain maximum sizes of at least 86 cm total length (TL) and 7.8 kg 
(Bustos 2008, Bustos et al. 2010). Longevity of island grouper is 
estimated to be between 30 and 40 years (Bustos (2008, Bustos et al. 
2009). The instantaneous rate of natural mortality estimated for island 
grouper is between 0.146 and 0.158 per year (Bustos 2008). Island 
grouper length at age was described by Bustos (2008) from commercial 
catches off Gran Canaria and Fuerteventura (Canary Islands) between 
January 2004 and December 2005. Von Bertalanffy growth model parameters 
were as follows: L[infin] = 898 mm; k = 0.062 per year; and 
t0 = -3.83 years. Only 22 percent of the island grouper 
sampled were older than ten years, and the oldest fish in this study 
was around 20 years old, 50 percent less than the maximum age estimated 
by Bustos (2008). Significant differences were found between males (n = 
35) and females (n = 153) for mean age (males 10.3 years versus females 
7.1 years), L[infin] (males 952 mm versus females 888 mm), and growth 
rate k (males 0.053 per year versus females 0.063 per year) (Bustos 
2008).
    While slow growth after the first few years is typical for 
Mycteroperca, the island grouper is particularly slow-growing when 
compared to closely related species. On average, over 28 percent of 
island grouper growth was achieved by the second year; by the fourth 
year this species attains lengths of approximately half of the maximum 
length observed. In general, growth within the genus Mycteroperca tends 
to be faster in the early stages of life, slowing down considerably in 
later stages (Bullock and Murphy 1994, Manickchand-Heileman and Phillip 
2000, Strelcheck et al. 2003). Consequently, the von Bertalanffy model 
typically does not describe the growth of Mycteroperca spp. properly 
for the first few years of life, as evidenced by relatively large 
negative t0 values.
    The island grouper is a nectobenthic (i.e., free-swimming, bottom 
oriented) macrocarnivore that preys on fish, crustaceans, and 
cephalopods (Harmelin-Vivien et al. 2001, Bustos 2008). Island grouper 
are considered mobile hunters and have been observed actively exploring 
their territories for prey (Bustos 2008).
Reproductive Biology and Spawning Behavior
    Bustos et al. (2010) studied the pattern of sexual development and 
reproductive characteristics of island grouper in the Canary Islands 
based on samples of commercially harvested fish. Island grouper are a 
protogynous hermaphroditic fish. Results of histological analyses and 
demographic structure suggest a monandric protogynous sexual pattern, 
where males develop only through sex change (Bustos 2010). The length 
at which 50 percent of the population reaches sexual maturity was 
estimated at 335 mm total length (TL), or about 4 years old. Of the 
females over 398 mm TL (5-6 years old), 95 percent were considered to 
be mature. Island grouper sexual transition occurs between 428-725 mm 
TL, with 50 percent of females transformed into males at around 678 mm 
TL (Bustos 2010). The presence of females in the larger size categories 
(up to 725 mm TL) implies that the conversion (female to male) is not 
essential in all individuals. The overall sex ratio of males to females 
(1:4.9) and the sex ratio of males to mature females (1:3.4) were both 
significantly different from 1:1 (Bustos 2010).
    In the Canary Islands, reproduction is initiated in February, when 
water temperatures are around 18[deg] C, and continues through August 
or September when temperatures peak around 24-26 [deg]C (Bustos et al. 
2010). The central period of spawning, as defined by months when 50 
percent or more of females are in vitellogenesis (i.e., yolk 
deposition), is from April to July (Bustos et al. 2010). The formation 
of spawning aggregations is a common trait among groupers (Sadovy de 
Mitcheson et al. 2008). Although there are no published studies on 
island grouper reproductive behavior, spawning aggregations have been 
reported through personal communication (J.P. Barreiros, UAC/IMAR in 
Rocha et al. 2008) from two locations in the Azores.
Population Structure, Distribution, Abundance and Habitat
    The island grouper is a subtropical species (40[deg] N-10[deg] N) 
that is endemic to volcanic archipelagos of Macaronesia: Canary Islands 
(Spain), Madeira and Azores (Portugal), and Cape Verde (Heemstra and 
Randall 1993). The Canary Islands are located between 27[deg] and 
29[deg] N latitude and 13[deg] and 18[deg] W longitude at a minimum 
distance of 100 km and maximum distance of 450 km off the coast of 
Morocco. The Canary Islands archipelago is formed by seven main 
islands, with 1,379 km of coastline, a total land area of 7,447 km\2\, 
and a human population size of approximately 2.1 million (Popescu and 
Ortega-Gras 2013). The Madeira archipelago is located from 32[deg] 37' 
to 32[deg] 52' N latitude and 16[deg] 39' to 17[deg] 15' W longitude, 
754 km from the coast of Africa and 964 km southwest of Lisbon. The 
archipelago consists of the two main inhabited islands (Madeira and 
Porto Santo), with an estimated combined human population of 268,000, 
and five uninhabited islands (Desertas and Selvagens Islands). The 
Madeira archipelago has 153 km of mostly rocky and steep coastline, and 
a total land area of 801 km\2\. The Azores archipelago is located 
between 37[deg] and 40[deg] N latitude and 24[deg] and 32[deg] W 
longitude, about 1,500 km west of Lisbon and 1,900 km southeast of 
Newfoundland. It is composed of nine islands and some small islets 
(Harmelin-Vivien et al. 2001), with 667 km of coastline, a total land 
area of 2,333 km\2\, and a human population size of approximately 
246,000. The Cape Verde archipelago is located between 14[deg] and 
17[deg] N latitude and 22[deg] and 25[deg] W longitude, due west of 
Senegal, off the west coast of Africa. It is composed of ten islands 
(of which nine are inhabited) and eight islets, with 1,020 km of 
coastline, a total land area of 4,033 km\2\, and a human population 
size of approximately 531,000. There are no confirmed reports of island 
grouper off the coast of West Africa, although ichthyofauna studies are 
lacking in this region. One specimen was caught by a spearfisherman off 
Israel's coast (Heemstra et al. 2010), but there are no data confirming 
the existence of an island grouper population in the Mediterranean.
    The island grouper is a demersal species that is found 
predominantly near rocky or sandy-rocky sea-beds (Heemstra and Randall 
1993). Studies have shown a positive correlation between island grouper 
abundance and structural complexity, algal cover (Bustos 2008), and 
upright seaweed

[[Page 57322]]

cover (Sangil et al. 2013b). The habitat requirements of larval and 
juvenile island grouper are not well-studied. All groupers pass through 
a pelagic larval phase, lasting between 20-50 days, during which they 
can actively swim (Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008). After the larval phase, 
groupers acquire juvenile characteristics during which they settle into 
shallow, coastal nursery habitats (e.g., Sargassum beds, seagrass 
areas, mangroves, and estuaries); this nursery stage can last up to two 
years.
    The overall range distribution for island grouper is considered 
restricted, defined as less than 800,000 km\2\ (Morris et al. 2000). 
The seafloor bathymetry around the Macaronesian Islands is typically 
abrupt with a narrow contiguous shelf and a steep slope plunging to 
depths of more than 1,000 meters. As a result, viable habitat for 
demersal species such as the island grouper is considerably smaller 
than on continental shores, limiting the abundance of these populations 
(Diogo and Pereira 2013a, Popescu and Ortega-Gras 2013). Based on a 
wide range of sources, Morris et al. (2000) classified the island 
grouper as having a ``narrow depth range'' defined as occurrence at 
depths typically less than 20-30 m. Although island grouper have 
occasionally been reported at greater depths (e.g., 50 m by Heemstra 
and Randall 1993; 150 m by Bustos 2008; and 200 m by Craig et al. 
2011), based on the majority of observations, it is assumed that their 
normal distribution in the water column is at depths less than 30 m.
    Historical and current island grouper population abundance is 
unknown. Available information on island grouper distribution and 
abundance is primarily from Underwater Visual Census (UVC) studies 
conducted at various locations throughout the species' range. There is 
a considerable amount of variation in island grouper mean densities 
reported in the literature. Island grouper were reported as being very 
rare (0.03-0.10 fish/100 m\2\) in two UVC studies of benthic fish 
communities in the Azores (Harmelin-Vivien et al. 2001, Bertoncini et 
al. 2010). Compared to the Azores, a relatively higher mean density of 
island grouper (0.825 fish/100 m\2\) was reported from a single study 
in Cape Verde (Freitas 2012). However, since sampling was conducted 
within the only operationalized MPA in Cape Verde, on the uninhabited 
island of Santa Luzia (UNDP 2010), island grouper mean density from 
this study may not be representative of more heavily fished areas 
throughout the archipelago. Based on limited information, island 
grouper appear to be rare around Madeira Island, with the possible 
exception of within the Garajau Marine Reserve (Ribeiro et al. 2005, 
Ribeiro 2008). Island grouper mean densities were highly variable in 
studies conducted around the Canary Islands. The highest mean densities 
were reported around the lightly fished, remote island of El Hierro and 
within the designated marine reserves of La Graciosa (Chinijo Islands) 
and La Palma. Island grouper were generally reported as being very rare 
on the more populous and heavily fished Canary Islands of Gran Canaria 
and Tenerife.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Island Grouper
    Available information regarding current, historical, and potential 
future threats to the island grouper was thoroughly reviewed (Salz 
2015). We summarize information regarding threats below according to 
three (out of five) factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA: 
``Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
its Habitat or Range''; ``Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, 
Scientific, or Educational Purposes''; and ``Inadequacy of Existing 
Regulatory Mechanisms.'' We found very little information regarding 
potential threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors ``Disease and 
Predation'' or ``Other Natural or Manmade Factors.'' These areas are 
data poor, but there are no serious or known concerns raised under 
these threat categories with respect to island grouper extinction risk; 
therefore, we do not discuss these categories further here. See Salz 
(2015) for a more detailed discussion of all ESA section 4(a)(1) threat 
categories.
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its 
Habitat or Range
    Demersal fish populations around volcanic islands may be 
particularly vulnerable to habitat related threats, as they are 
typically confined to a narrow band within a few kilometers from shore 
due to the surrounding bathymetry. Various human activities throughout 
the Macaronesian region can negatively impact near-shore, rocky marine 
habitats occupied by island grouper. Increased anthropogenic pressure 
on the more densely populated Macaronesian Islands (Madeira Island, and 
Tenerife and Gran Canaria in the Canary Islands) has resulted in 
continuous modification and degradation of inshore habitats, placing 
new and unprecedented demands on coastal marine resources (Hajagos and 
Van Tassell 2001, Ribeiro 2008). Potential threats to island grouper 
habitat include ecosystem changes driven by overfishing, dynamite 
fishing, physical alteration of the coast, pollution, the effects of 
global climate change, and the introduction of invasive species.
    The island grouper is primarily found near the ocean bottom in 
areas with high structural complexity (or ``roughness'') and benthic 
cover (Bustos 2008, Monteiro et al. 2008, Sangil et al. 2013b). Canopy-
forming macroalgae are a principal engineer organism on shallow rocky 
bottoms, providing the necessary habitat complexity and benthic cover 
to support and maintain equilibrium of natural assemblages 
(Hern[aacute]ndez et al. 2008, Clemente et al. 2010, Sangil et al. 
2013b). Canopy-forming macroalgae may also ameliorate the effects of a 
range of disturbances on understory assemblages, thus enhancing the 
resistance of associated systems (Bertocci et al. 2014). The loss of 
canopy-forming macroalgae, and consequent increased environmental 
stress on associated organisms, could result in drastic reduction or 
local extinction of understory species unable to survive harsh 
environmental conditions without the protective canopy (Bertocci et al. 
2014). In the Canary Islands, the natural balance between seaweeds, 
herbivores, and predators has been disturbed due to the fishing 
depletion of predators (e.g., sparids and labrids) of the sea urchin 
(Diadema africanum), the most important herbivore of sublittoral rocky 
bottoms (Hern[aacute]ndez et al. 2008, Clemente et al. 2011). This has 
resulted in an ecosystem imbalance whereby sea urchin populations have 
increased, while cover of upright seaweeds and canopy-forming 
macroalgae have decreased (Tuya et al. 2004, Hernandez et al. 2008, 
Clemente et al. 2011, Riera et al. 2014). Seaweed beds have declined 
throughout much of the Canary Islands archipelago and are now found in 
abundance only in restricted fishing areas, remote islands, or areas 
where prevailing winds and currents limit fishing pressure (Sangil et 
al. 2013b). Steady declines in benthic cover of the canopy-forming 
brown macroalgae (Fucus spiralis and Cystoseira spp.) in the Canary 
Islands have been linked to growing sea urchin populations in 
combination with rising sea surface temperatures (Hern[aacute]ndez et 
al. 2008). Population declines and increased fragmentation of the 
endemic red alga (Gelidium canariense) have also been observed in 
Tenerife and Gran Canaria during the last 20 years (Bouza et al. 2006). 
These studies suggest that, in addition to the direct impact of fishery 
removals of island grouper, fishing can

[[Page 57323]]

initiate trophic cascades that may modify and degrade island grouper 
habitats or preferred microhabitats.
    Large-scale coastal development began in the Canary Islands in the 
early 1970s to meet the needs of a growing tourist industry (Hajagos 
and Van Tassell 2001). Similarly, the Madeira Island coast has been 
extensively armored and developed in the past two decades (Ribeiro 
2008). Artificial harbors, marinas, beaches, ripraps, rubble mounds, 
and hotels were constructed on these islands, with few environmental 
precautions, resulting in massive alterations to the shoreline and 
siltation of nearshore benthic communities (Hajagos and Van Tassell 
2001). Baseline (pre-development) studies of the near-shore marine 
communities in these heavily developed areas are lacking and, 
therefore, the impacts of these habitat changes on marine fish 
populations in general, and the island grouper in particular, are 
largely unknown.
    Pollution from a variety of sources also threatens marine 
ecosystems in the Macaronesian region. In the Canary Islands, land-
based sources of pollution include organic and inorganic pollutants 
from developed areas and farms (mainly banana and tomato), brine 
releases from desalination plants, and thermal pollution from power 
plants (Riera et al. 2014). Other sources include nitrogenous waste 
from aquaculture, pollution derived from ship traffic, and extraction 
of construction materials from the seabed (Riera et al. 2014). In the 
Canary Islands, sharp declines in red alga (Gracilaria cervicornis) 
coverage over the last 10 years have been linked to coastal pollution 
from desalination plants and sewage from pipelines (Riera et al. 2014). 
On the island of Madeira, pollution from raw sewage discharges, sand 
mining, and sediment run-off severely decreases water clarity, which 
affects algae production (Ribeiro 2008). The direct impacts of 
different pollution sources on demersal fish populations in the 
Macaronesian region are not well-studied. The presence of continuous 
coastal currents around islands in this region likely facilitates the 
dispersion of pollutants (Riera et al. 2014). Thus, while localized 
impacts may be acute near highly concentrated point sources, broader 
and long lasting impacts of coastal pollution in this region have not 
been identified.
    Certain changes are likely to occur in the world's oceans due to 
long-term changes in global mean temperature and possible anthropogenic 
impacts that could pose potential future threats to island grouper 
habitats. Warmer oceanographic conditions associated with climate 
change (combined with overfishing) have likely contributed to the sea 
urchin population increase discussed above (Hern[aacute]ndez et al. 
2010). In addition, Brito et al. (2005) found 24 out of the 30 new 
records of littoral bony fishes reported between 1991 and 2005 from two 
Canary Island marine reserves (La Graciosa in Chinijo Islands and La 
Restinga in El Hierro) were species with tropical origins. The 
emergence of tropical species in subtropical latitudes has also been 
reported in Madeira and the Azores (Brito et al. 2005). However, the 
impact of progressive tropicalization of Macaronesian marine ecosystems 
on island grouper survival is widely unknown.
    The introduction of invasive species through aquaculture poses a 
potential threat to island grouper. Total production of marine finfish 
in open-net cages increased in the Canary Islands from 1,685 mt in 2001 
to 7,900 mt in 2009 (APROMAR 2012). A massive escape event occurred at 
an aquaculture operation on La Palma between December 2009 and January 
2010 resulting in the accidental release of 1.5 million fish (90 
percent European sea bass and 10 percent sea bream) into the wild 
(Toledo-Guedes et al. 2014). As an opportunistic, high trophic level, 
piscivorous species, non-native European sea bass could be competing 
with native species such as the island grouper (Toledo-Guedes et al. 
2009). Toledo-Guedes et al. (2012) found evidence of gonadal maturation 
occurring in the wild in escaped male and female European sea bass in 
the Canary Islands. The combination of suitable biotic and non-biotic 
conditions, high frequency of escape events (Toledo-Guedes et al. 
2009), and overutilization of native fish assemblages (Tuya et al. 
2006a) could facilitate establishment of self-reproducing non-native 
European sea bass populations within the island grouper's range. 
However, studies indicating that aquaculture escape events have 
resulted in a decline in island grouper abundance are lacking.
    The introduction of invasive species through ship ballast water is 
also a potential threat to the island grouper. Approximately 30,000 
commercial vessels enter Canarian harbors each year, mostly in Gran 
Canaria and Tenerife (ISTAC 2013 in Riera et al. 2014). The African 
hind (Cephalopholis taeniops) is an invasive species from Guinea (West 
Africa) that is thought to have arrived in the Canary Islands in 
ballast water (Riera et al. 2014). Stable populations of this predatory 
fish may have already established in the port cities of Las Palmas and 
Santa Cruz (Riera et al. 2014). However, as with the European sea bass, 
there are no studies indicating that the invasive African hind has 
negatively impacted native fish populations.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    Island grouper are highly susceptible to overfishing due to their 
limited range and a combination of life history characteristics 
including very slow growth, late maturation, large size, and long life 
span (Bustos 2008, Bustos et al. 2009, Saavedra 2011, Diogo and Pereira 
2013a). Saavedra (2011) used a scale developed by the Food and 
Agriculture Organization (FAO) to characterize fishing vulnerability of 
target species in the Canary Islands. Input parameters used for this 
scale included age at maturity, longevity, ratio of natural to total 
mortality, growth rate, sexual strategy, and sex ratio. Island grouper 
vulnerability was rated as either ``high'' or ``very high'' for all six 
parameters individually, and ``very high'' overall. Certain behavioral 
traits, which are common in groupers, may also add to this species' 
vulnerability to fishing. Territoriality, site specificity, and the 
formation of spawning aggregations often result in groupers being an 
easy target for fishermen (Randall and Heemstra 1991, Domeier and Colin 
1997), although these traits have not been studied or well documented 
in the island grouper. Spawning aggregations, in particular, are highly 
vulnerable to fishing due to their spatial and temporal predictability 
and to the large increase in catchability that often occurs when fish 
aggregate (Sadovy and Domeier 2005). Although information on island 
grouper spawning aggregations is lacking, there are documented examples 
of sharp population declines resulting from fisheries specifically 
targeting aggregations of other grouper species (Colin 1992, Sala et 
al. 2001, Hamilton and Matawai 2006, Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012). 
The economic value of island grouper is also a factor that likely 
contributes to overutilization of this species. The island grouper is 
highly prized by commercial and artisanal fishermen for the quality of 
their flesh and typically fetch high market prices (Heemstra and 
Randall 1993, Ribeiro 2008).
    In protogynous hermaphrodites, such as the island grouper, the 
largest individuals are, in order, terminal males, individuals 
undergoing sexual transition, and the largest females next in line for 
sexual transition. Selective

[[Page 57324]]

removal of these groups at high rates can lead to decreased 
productivity of a population. Island grouper may be particularly 
vulnerable to over-fishing due to the reduction in the species' 
potential reproductive capacity caused by the decrease in the number of 
males in the population (Huntsman and Schaaf 1994, Bustos et al. 2010). 
As the relative numbers of terminal males fall, females may have 
difficulty finding a terminal male to spawn with even if some remain 
(Hawkins and Roberts 2003). In addition, sexual transition takes time 
and energy, including energy expended on social interactions and 
competition among females vying for dominance. Since removal of 
terminal males by fishing will result in more sexual transitions, 
overall population fitness may be negatively impacted.
    Historical commercial and artisanal fisheries data are not 
available to evaluate long-term trends in island grouper landings, 
directed effort, or catch rates over time. The limited landings data 
available for more recent years indicate that island grouper are 
currently a very minor component of commercial and artisanal fisheries 
throughout its range. The nearshore demersal fishery in the Canary 
Islands is artisanal, consisting primarily of small boats (Saavedra 
2011). Fishing methods used to catch demersal species include hook and 
line, fish traps, trammel nets, and gill nets (Bustos et al. 2009). 
Significant declines in populations of tunas and other pelagics since 
the 1970s have contributed to the increased pressure on coastal 
demersal species (Moreno-Herrero 2011). In addition, in the 1980s the 
Moroccan government restricted European Union vessel access to the 
Canary-Saharan Bank fishing grounds, resulting in a shift in fishing 
effort by the Canary artisanal fleet to coastal species (Pascual-
Fernandez and Diaz 1991 in Moreno-Herrero 2011). While landings volume 
of demersal species in the Canary Islands are relatively small compared 
to landings of pelagic species, these resources often have high 
economic value (i.e., price per pound) as well as cultural value. In 
2011, demersal fish species accounted for 16.7 percent of the total 
fishery landings weight but 33.2 percent of the landing value in the 
Canary Islands (Popescu and Ortega-Gras 2013). Canary Islands landings 
data prior to 2006 are only available from one port (Puerto de Mogan on 
Gran Canaria), and effort data are not available at all. Solari et al. 
(2003) reported landings of island grouper in the multi-species trap 
fishery from Puerto de Mogan for the period 1989-1999. Average monthly 
landings (for months with data available) of island grouper were 46 
fish. Detailed monthly data were not available to assess trends in 
island grouper landings over time. Island grouper accounted for about 
2.3 percent of the total catch in numbers of fish over this time 
period. Given their relatively large size and market price, it is 
likely that the proportional contribution of island grouper to the 
landings weight and value in the Gran Canaria trap fishery is 
considerably greater. Bustos et al. (2009) found very few island 
grouper greater than ten years old in commercial catches from Gran 
Canaria and Fuerteventura between January 2004 and December 2005. For a 
species with a life-span between 30-40 years, these results suggest 
that the island grouper is experiencing a high rate of fishing 
mortality in the more populated areas within the Canary Islands 
archipelago.
    Island grouper are considered an important component of the small 
artisanal fishery on El Hierro, where fish traps are banned and 
demersal species are mainly caught with hook-and-line gears 
(Falc[oacute]n et al. 2007a). Falc[oacute]n et al. (2007c) compared 
demersal species landings on El Hierro Island in the period before and 
after implementation of the La Restinga Marine Reserve. From 1990-1995 
(before implementation) a total of 700 island grouper were landed 
(116.7 fish per year). From 1997-2005 (after implementation) a total of 
1,239 island grouper were landed (137.7 fish per year). Over the entire 
period (1990-2005), island grouper were the 9th most abundant species 
landed in numbers of fish.
    In the Azores archipelago, the bottom longline and handline 
artisanal fishery for demersal species accounts for a significant 
portion of the total fishery landings, and is by far the highest valued 
fishery (Morato 2012). Annual landings by this fishery sector are 
consistently around 4,000 mt from 2000 through 2010 (Morato 2012). By 
comparison, reported landings of island grouper for the Azores 
archipelago were less than 1 mt for every year from 2001-2013 (INE 
2015). Official data from the Portugal National Institute of Statistics 
(INE) indicates a sharp and steady decline in combined ``grouper'' 
landings in the Azores from a high of 99 mt in 2003 to a low of 26 mt 
in 2013. The combined grouper category includes species of Epinephelus 
and Mycteroperca. Although island grouper landings account for a very 
minor component of combined grouper landings, this declining trend 
suggests that groupers, in general, are being overfished, which would 
likely have negative implications for the island grouper. Without 
effort data, it is not possible to say definitively that the decrease 
in landings is due to a decline in population abundance. However, total 
demersal species landings in the Azores are consistently around 4,000 
mt during the period when combined grouper landings declined 
precipitously, which suggests that directed fishing effort for demersal 
species did not decline.
    The Cape Verde artisanal fishery typically lands between 4,000 mt 
and 5,000 mt of fish annually, of which about 1,000 mt are demersal 
species (PRAO--CV 2012). Since 1992, the Cape Verde National Institute 
for Fisheries Development (INDP) has compiled data on fishing catch and 
effort for the more important artisanal fishery target species (Medina 
et al. 2007). However, as a small component of the total catch, island 
grouper are not one of the species monitored or reported in INDP 
official statistics (Albertino Martins, personal communication). A 
recent assessment of mackerel scad (Decapterus macarellus), bigeye scad 
(Selar crumenophthalmus), and black spot picarel (Spicara melanurus) 
indicates that stocks of commercially important small pelagics are 
either fully exploited or overexploited in Cape Verde (DeAlteris 2012). 
Continued overfishing of these stocks could result in added fishing 
pressure on demersal species in Cape Verde. In Madeira, demersal 
species account for less than one percent of total fisheries landings 
(Morato 2012). Reported landings of island grouper in Madeira are less 
than 1 mt per year for all years from 2000-2013 (INE 2015).
    Island grouper are also targeted in recreational and subsistence 
fisheries, and there are indications that these sectors are expanding 
rapidly in some parts of the species' range. Recreational fishing 
pressure has increased in the past few decades as a direct result of 
human population growth and a growing tourism sector (Sangil et al. 
2013b). For example, the number of recreational spearfishing licenses 
sold in S[atilde]o Miguel Island (Azores) increased from 138 in 1995 to 
717 in 2011; and the number of recreational fishing licenses sold in 
the Canary Islands more than doubled from 48,000 in 2005 to 116,000 in 
2011 (Diogo and Pereira 2013a, Castro 2014). There are also indications 
that Spain's economic crisis and growing unemployment have resulted in 
increased levels of subsistence fishing and poaching in the Canary 
Islands (Moreno-Herrero 2011). In Cape Verde, subsistence catches have 
shown an increasing trend in recent years, suggesting increased 
dependence on

[[Page 57325]]

fish as a source of food, and possibly related to declines in 
agricultural production due to climate change induced droughts 
(Trindade-Santos et al. 2013).
    Recreational and subsistence fishery landings data are lacking, as 
there are no monitoring programs for these fishery sectors throughout 
the Macaronesian Islands. Jimenez-Alvarado (2010, in Saavedra 2011) 
estimated total recreational fishery landings in the Canary Islands 
based on license sales by fishing mode, number of recreational fishing 
vessels, and limited recreational catch and effort survey data. Results 
suggest that recreational fisheries have a significant impact on fish 
populations, and on three islands (Gran Canaria, Gomera, and 
Fuerteventura) recreational landings of benthic-demersal species likely 
exceed artisanal fishery landings. Although species level recreational 
landings data are not available, this study indicates that the Canary 
Islands recreational fishery likely has an impact on island grouper 
abundance.
    Diogo and Pereira (2013a) conducted a characterization study of 
spearfishing activity in Ponta Delgada, the capital of S[atilde]o 
Miguel Island, the most populated island in the Azores archipelago. 
From August 2001 through May 2002, they recorded data from 220 
spearfishing trips (out of an estimated 281 total spearfishing trips 
taken). A total of nine island grouper were captured throughout the 
study period. By weight, island grouper accounted for less than one 
percent of the total biomass of finfish captured with spear guns in the 
survey. The mean length of island groupers captured (38 cm TL) was only 
slightly larger than the size at first maturity. Results from this 
survey, in general, suggest that abundances of species vulnerable to 
fishing (including island grouper) within the study site have been 
significantly reduced due to heavy fishing pressure (Diogo and Pereira 
2013a).
    Diogo and Pereira (2013b) also studied impacts of recreational boat 
fishing on demersal fish species off the Azores islands of Faial and 
Pico from 2004-2005. No island grouper catch were reported in a creel 
survey of 87 angler trips, and only 3 dusky grouper (E. marginatus) 
were reported. Diogo and Pereira (2013b) estimated the annual landings 
of all species by the recreational boat fishery on these two islands to 
be around 163 mt, which represents about 40 percent of the artisanal 
fishery landing weight in these areas. These results suggest that the 
impact of the recreational boat fishery on demersal fish communities in 
the Azores may be substantial. The absence of island grouper in the 
recreational fishing survey is consistent with UVC studies indicating 
the rareness of this species in the Azores (Harmelin-Vivien et al. 
2001, Bertoncini et al. 2010).
    Without basic fisheries time series data (e.g., catch, effort, 
sizes, and gears), it is difficult to quantitatively assess the impact 
of artisanal and recreational fishing on island grouper abundance. A 
few studies have demonstrated the negative impact of fishing by 
correlating relative fishing pressure with measures of island grouper 
abundance based on UVC sampling at different locations. Tuya et al. 
(2006a) found that, in the Canary Islands, island grouper mean density 
and mean biomass were significantly higher on islands with the lowest 
fishing pressure and lowest population density (El Hierro and Chinijo 
Islands) compared to other islands within the archipelago. Similar 
results were found for the dusky grouper, suggesting that human 
intervention in the Canary Islands has negatively impacted abundance of 
these large, slow growing species, with low population turnover rates.
    Tuya et al. (2006b) compared island grouper mean densities on El 
Hierro and the Chinijo Islands across sites with varying levels of 
protection from fishing: RI = no-take zone; ZA = reserve buffer zone, 
with only recreational fishing allowed for grouper species; and AV = 
outside reserve, with recreational and commercial fishing permitted, 
except fish traps, which are banned throughout these islands. A 
``reserve effect'' (i.e., higher abundance within than outside the 
reserve boundary) was not evident for island grouper within the El 
Hierro Restinga Reserve: i.e., no statistically significant differences 
were found in mean density between the no-take zone, the buffer zone, 
and the fishing area outside the reserve. A ``reserve effect'' was 
found within the Chinijo Islands La Graciosa Reserve: i.e., island 
grouper mean densities were statistically larger within the reserve 
(both RI and ZA zones) than in neighboring sites outside the reserve 
(AV zone). Bustos (2008) also found evidence for a ``reserve effect'' 
within La Graciosa, and she observed no island grouper in the two areas 
sampled outside the La Graciosa Reserve boundary.
    Sangil et al. (2013a) studied the relationship between fishing 
pressure and conservation status at sites around La Palma Island 
(Canary Islands). Fishing effort data were collected from boat-based 
and shore-based surveys conducted twice per month for one full year at 
fishing access sites around the island. Effort data included number and 
location of deployed fish traps, active fishing boats (commercial and 
recreational), shore based fishermen, and spearfishermen. The following 
biological parameters were used as indicators of conservation status: 
Percentage of seaweed cover; mean density of the sea urchin; mean 
biomass of sea urchin predators; mean biomass of combined grouper 
species (E. marginatus, M. fusca, Serranus atricauda); and mean biomass 
of the Mediterranean parrotfish (Sparisoma cretense), a highly prized 
fishing resource and indicator of fish stock status. Data were 
collected in 2009 using a UVC point-count method at 51 sites (nine 
transects per site) around the island. The correlation between fishing 
pressure and each biological parameter, including combined grouper 
biomass, was high and negative. Sampled locations with the highest 
combined grouper mean biomass corresponded with areas of lowest fishing 
pressure--i.e., inside the La Palma MPA, particularly within the no-
take portion, where all fishing activity is prohibited. The overall 
mean grouper biomass across all sites was 303.1 g/100 m\2\, compared to 
569.9 g/100 m\2\ within the limited fishing MPA area, and 2,401.5 g/100 
m\2\ within the no-take area. Grouper were virtually absent from the 
heavily fished areas just to the north of the MPA and on the eastern 
side of the island. Although this study did not provide mean biomass 
data for groupers at the species level, island grouper accounted for 
approximately one-third of the total biomass of the three grouper 
species combined (Sangil et al. 2013b).
    Ribeiro (2008) found higher density and larger mean size of island 
grouper within the protected Garajau Marine Reserve (GMR) on Madeira 
Island compared to nearby unprotected areas with similar habitat types. 
She attributed these differences to the regulations prohibiting all 
fishing in the GMR. Before it was designated a marine reserve, the GMR 
area was subjected to heavy fishing pressure from amateur fishermen 
using explosives, gill nets, and spears (Ribeiro 2008).
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    The nearshore demersal fisheries throughout the Macaronesian 
Islands region are lightly regulated. Although these fisheries are 
primarily small-scale and artisanal, the cumulative impact on fish 
populations can be substantial, particularly for a species such as the 
island grouper, with a restricted range and high vulnerability to 
overexploitation. There are no commercial catch quotas, daily bag

[[Page 57326]]

limits, or seasonal closures in place for island grouper in any part of 
their range. The Canary Islands is the only archipelago with a minimum 
size limit for this species, and enforcement does not appear adequate 
to address non-compliance with this regulation. Gear restrictions 
(e.g., bans on fish traps, gill nets, bottom longlines, and SCUBA) are 
in place for demersal fisheries in some areas and the use of explosives 
is widely prohibited. However, the effectiveness of gear restrictions 
is substantially reduced by inadequate enforcement, as well as a shift 
in fishing effort to other (legal) methods of capturing demersal 
species. There is some indication that banning fish traps has had a 
positive impact on island grouper abundance in the Canary Islands, 
although this ban only applies to two sparsely populated regions within 
the archipelago. Overall, it appears that current fishing regulations 
are inadequate for addressing the direct threat to island grouper from 
fisheries overutilization. Current regulations are also likely 
inadequate to control overfishing of the main sea urchin predators, 
which, based on recent studies from the Canary Islands, has resulted in 
a trophic cascade that has modified and degraded island grouper 
habitat.
    In recent decades, no-take MPAs have received increased attention 
as a conservation tool aimed at protecting vulnerable fish populations 
(Halpern and Warner 2002). For some grouper species, increased fish 
density and size within no-take reserves may increase reproductive 
potential by promoting the occurrence of spawning aggregations 
(Sanchez-Lizaso et al. 2000). The ``reserve effect'' on island grouper 
abundance (i.e., higher abundance within than outside the reserve 
boundary) was reported for one reserve on Madeira Island and two 
reserves in the Canary Islands archipelago. However, overall, the 
system of MPAs throughout the Macaronesian Islands is likely inadequate 
to protect island grouper from the threat of fishing overutilization. 
No-take zones account for only a small fraction of the total area 
covered by MPAs within the island grouper's range, as most areas still 
allow some types of fishing. In the Azores, Madeira, and Canary Islands 
archipelagos, there are only five no-take marine reserves, which occupy 
a total area of 28 km\2\ (Fenberg et al. 2012). Given their small size 
and physical isolation from one another, no-take zones may lack the 
connectivity to allow the flow of larval and juvenile fish across 
islands and archipelagos within the region (Mart[iacute]n-Garc[iacute]a 
et al. 2015). There are also no MPAs or time-area closures designed 
specifically to protect island grouper during spawning periods, and 
little is known about the timing, location, or frequency of spawning 
aggregations for this species.
Extinction Risk Assessment
    In determining an appropriate foreseeable future timeframe for the 
island grouper extinction risk assessment, we considered both the life 
history of the species and whether we could project the impact of 
threats or demographic risk factors through time. We chose 40 years as 
the foreseeable future timeframe for island grouper. Threats to island 
grouper can potentially have long-lasting impacts, given the species' 
very slow growth rate, late maturation, and long maximum life span. 
However, considering the limited information available to predict the 
impacts from threats in the future, we felt 40 years was the most 
appropriate foreseeable future timeframe for island grouper.
    Data from UVC sampling and fisheries landings indicate that the 
island grouper is rare throughout much of its limited range and very 
rare in some areas subjected to heavy fishing pressure. Of the 85 
grouper species assessed by Morris et al. (2000), the island grouper 
was one out of only four species characterized as having both a 
``restricted'' overall range and a ``narrow'' depth range. Although 
there are no population abundance estimates available for island 
grouper, low and decreased density combined with a highly restricted 
range indicate that small population size is likely a risk factor for 
this species, which could be disproportionally affected by coastal 
development or a stochastic catastrophic event. Demographic viability 
factors related to growth rate and productivity are also likely to 
contribute to the extinction risk based on the following island grouper 
life history characteristics: Slow growth, late maturation, low 
population turnover rate, large size, and long life span (Bustos 2008). 
While slow growth after the first few years is typical for species of 
Mycteroperca, the island grouper is one of the slowest growing species 
within this genus (Bustos et al. 2009).
    Although information on spatial structure, connectivity, and 
dispersal characteristics specific to island grouper is sparse, it is 
somewhat likely that these factors represent a demographic viability 
risk to this species. Island grouper are rare in many areas studied, 
and the few documented areas with relatively higher abundance are small 
and patchily distributed throughout the species' range. Typical of 
archipelago ecosystems, the Macaronesian Islands are highly fragmented, 
as geographic distances, bathymetry, and other physical factors result 
in various degrees of isolation between islands and local populations 
of demersal fish species (Medina et al. 2007). Given their geographic 
distribution and narrow depth ranges, it is likely that island grouper 
are inherently susceptible to fragmentation, and this risk factor could 
be exacerbated by further population declines. Because there is 
insufficient information on genetic diversity, this demographic 
viability criterion presents an unknown likelihood of contributing to 
the island grouper's extinction risk.
    The island grouper's intrinsic vulnerability to fishing is very 
high (Saavedra 2011, Diogo and Pereira 2013a). Demographic viability 
risk factors related to the island grouper's growth rate, productivity, 
spatial structure, and range size all contribute to this species' 
vulnerability to fishing overexploitation (Bustos 2008, Bustos et al. 
2009, Saavedra 2011, Diogo and Pereira 2013a). As a protogynous 
hermaphrodite, the island grouper may be even more susceptible to 
fishing, which, through selective removal of males, could reduce 
reproductive capacity (Huntsman and Schaaf 1994, Bustos et al. 2010). 
Certain behavioral traits (i.e., territoriality, site specificity, and 
spawning aggregations), which are common among groupers, often result 
in grouper species being an easy target for fishermen (Randall and 
Heemstra 1991, Domeier and Colin 1997). Although not well-studied in 
the island grouper, these traits may add to the fishing vulnerability 
of this species. The economic value of the island grouper is also a 
factor that likely contributes to overutilization of this species. 
Groupers are highly prized by commercial and artisanal fishermen for 
the quality of their flesh, and most species (including island grouper) 
fetch high market prices (Heemstra and Randall 1993, Ribeiro 2008).
    Historical fisheries data are not available to evaluate long-term 
trends in island grouper landings, directed effort, or catch rates over 
time. The limited commercial and artisanal catch data available 
indicate that, in recent years, island grouper landings have been 
relatively small, and this species is currently a very minor component 
of commercial and artisanal fisheries throughout its range. The small 
contribution to recent fisheries landings is consistent with abundance 
information suggesting the island grouper is generally a rare species.

[[Page 57327]]

Although fishing intensity is highly variable between islands, there 
are indications that artisanal fishing pressure for demersal species, 
in general, is relatively high in many areas throughout the island 
groupers' range. The depleted status of commercially important stocks 
of tunas and small pelagics in the Macaronesian region has also likely 
contributed to the increased fishing pressure on coastal demersal 
species in recent years (Moreno-Herrero 2011, DeAlteris 2012).
    Several studies have demonstrated a strong negative correlation 
between island grouper abundance and level of fishing pressure (Tuya et 
al. 2006a, Bustos 2008, Ribeiro 2008, Sangil et al. 2013a, Sangil et 
al. 2013b). These results suggest that fisheries overexploitation has 
negatively impacted island grouper abundance, and some heavily fished 
areas have likely experienced a sharp decline. This is particularly 
concerning for a rare species with a limited range and high intrinsic 
vulnerability to the effects of overfishing due to certain life history 
and behavioral traits. The lack of baseline abundance information and a 
time series of fishery dependent data, combined with limitations of the 
available studies, make it difficult to quantitatively assess the 
impact of this threat on island grouper abundance or species' survival. 
However, based on the cumulative information available, we conclude 
that there is a reasonable likelihood that artisanal fishing 
overutilization contributes to the island grouper's risk of extinction 
in a significant way. There are also indications that rapidly expanding 
recreational fisheries contribute significantly to the overutilization 
of island grouper in some parts of the species' range.
    Current fishing regulations designed to limit catch and effort are 
inadequate for addressing the direct threat to island grouper from 
fishing overutilization. In general, there are few restrictions placed 
on demersal fisheries throughout the island grouper's range. In areas 
where regulations (e.g., size limits and gear restrictions) do exist, 
their effectiveness is likely reduced by lack of enforcement and 
relatively high levels of non-compliance. A well-designed system of no-
take MPAs may be better suited than traditional fishing regulations for 
addressing the threat of fishing to highly vulnerable, nearshore 
demersal species. The ``reserve effect'' on island grouper abundance 
(i.e., higher abundance within than outside the reserve boundary) was 
reported for one reserve on Madeira Island and two reserves in the 
Canary Islands archipelago. However, no-take zones account for only a 
small fraction of the total area covered by MPAs within the island 
grouper's range, as most MPAs still allow some types of fishing. Given 
their small size, physical isolation from one another, and insufficient 
enforcement, the currently established marine reserves are likely 
inadequate to protect island grouper from the current and future threat 
of fishing overutilization. Overall, we conclude that there is a 
reasonable likelihood that the lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms 
and enforcement represent threats to the island grouper that contribute 
significantly to this species' extinction risk.
    Due to the species' preferred depth range and the surrounding 
volcanic island bathymetry, island grouper habitat is typically 
confined to a narrow band within a few kilometers from shore. Close 
proximity to the shore increases the risk of habitat modification from 
human activities within the coastal zone, particularly on the more 
densely populated Macaronesian Islands. Potential threats to island 
grouper habitat include: Declines in benthic cover (i.e., seaweeds and 
macroalgae) due to overfishing of key sea urchin predators; physical 
alteration and armoring of the coast; destructive fishing practices; 
pollution; and the effects of global climate change (see section 
``Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Habitat or Range'' for more details). While these ecosystem 
disturbances are well documented, studies linking habitat related 
threats to declines in island grouper abundance are lacking. Although 
the cumulative impact of anthropogenic threats has likely modified some 
portion of the island grouper's habitat, there is not enough scientific 
information available to support a conclusion that habitat associated 
changes contribute to the extinction risk of this species in a 
significant way. The introduction of invasive species from aquaculture 
escape events and ship ballast water also poses a potential threat to 
island grouper through increased competition for limited resources 
(e.g., food, shelter) and the possible spread of diseases and 
parasites. However, as with habitat related threats, there is not 
enough scientific information available to support a conclusion that 
threats related to invasive species contribute to the island grouper's 
extinction risk in a significant way.
    In summary, the island grouper exhibits demographic risk factors 
related to abundance, growth rate and productivity, and spatial 
structure and connectivity. In addition, there is a reasonable 
likelihood that the operative threats of fishing overutilization and 
the lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms contribute significantly to 
the island grouper's risk of extinction.
Protective Efforts
    We evaluated conservation efforts to protect and recover island 
grouper that are either underway but not yet fully implemented, or are 
only planned. As part of the European Union (EU), the Azores, Madeira, 
and Canary Islands archipelagos are influenced by EU conservation 
initiatives and directives. In 2008, the EU adopted the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive (MSFD) in order to achieve Good Environmental 
Status (GES) through ecosystem-based management in EU waters by 2020. 
To comply with the MSFD, member states must ensure that their 
biological and physical marine features adhere to the specific 
qualitative descriptors of GES for the maintenance of biological 
diversity, habitat quality, and sustainable harvest levels of fish and 
shellfish stocks (Fenberg et al. 2012). The establishment of a coherent 
network of MPAs is the only mandated measure of the MSFD. The emphasis 
on MPAs and biodiversity in the MSFD reinforces previously established 
commitments in the European Biodiversity Strategy and obligations under 
the international Convention on Biological Diversity (Bellas 2014). The 
adoption of the EU's MSFD policy demonstrates a general willingness to 
achieve long-term protection of Europe's marine ecosystems, but whether 
the political will is strong enough in the Macaronesian Islands to 
achieve its objectives remains to be seen (Santos et al. 2014).
    The Portuguese government approved two MSFD strategies in 2012, one 
for the continental EEZ and one for the extended continental shelf; but 
no MSFD strategy has yet been approved by the autonomous governments of 
the Azores and Madeira archipelagos (Santos et al. 2014). In Spain, the 
MSFD has resulted in passage of the 2010 Law on the Protection of the 
Marine Environment (LPME). The LPME provides a general legal framework 
for the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources, as well 
as specific language regarding the creation and management of a Spanish 
network of MPAs, including some within the Canary Islands (Bellas 
2014). Four proposed Canary Islands MPAs are currently waiting to be 
approved by the Spanish government: One on the north coast of La 
Gomera, two in Tenerife, and one on the east coast of Gran Canaria

[[Page 57328]]

(Riera et al. 2014). However, previous attempts to establish new MPAs 
in the Canary Islands have often been stalled or abandoned due to 
stakeholder opposition, political infeasibility, and lack of funding 
(Chuenpagdee et al. 2013). For example, the regional island government 
of Tenerife has been promoting the creation of MPAs on the island since 
2004. Two proposed MPAs were finally approved in 2010--six years after 
initial planning started--but to date neither one has been implemented.
    A joint United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Global 
Environment Facility (GEF) project titled ``Consolidation of Cape 
Verde's Protected Areas System'' was initiated in 2010 in an effort to 
strengthen and expand Cape Verde's national system of terrestrial and 
marine protected areas (UNDP 2013). Project objectives include: (1) 
Consolidation, expansion, and operationalization of existing MPAs on 
the islands of Sal and Boavista for the protection of fisheries 
resources, (2) building the national capacity for MPA management 
through new management sectors and authorities, and (3) promotion of 
participatory approaches in the management and conservation of the 
endemic biodiversity of Cape Verde. The project is expected to add 
41,214 ha of terrestrial and marine protected areas (i.e., a 38 percent 
expansion over the existing baseline).
    Other regional, local and grassroots efforts are underway to 
conserve and protect marine resources in the Macaronesian Islands. 
Local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and regional governments in 
the Canary Islands are promoting the creation of Micro Areas 
Ecotur[iacute]sticas Litorales (MAELs). Due to their small scale, MAELs 
are less demanding on public funding, typically less contentious, and 
follow a different legal model compared to larger scale MPAs (Riera et 
al. 2014). A well-designed and enforced network of MAELs could provide 
additional conservation benefit to demersal fish populations in the 
Canary Islands. The Canarias por una Costa Viva program is a 
partnership among NGOs, universities, and local and regional 
governments. Costa Viva program objectives include studying the impacts 
of human population pressures on the coastal environment, increasing 
marine environmental education and awareness, promoting and 
facilitating stakeholder involvement in marine resource management, and 
collaborating with government agencies in the sustainable use of Canary 
Islands marine resources. The Azores University SMARTPARKS program 
(Planning and Management System for Small Islands Protected Areas) is 
aimed at facilitating the development of sustainable protected areas in 
the Azores through active involvement of stakeholders, promotion of 
economic and cultural activities compatible with nature conservation, 
and innovative planning and management of protected areas at the island 
scale (Fonseca et al. 2014).
    In summary, there are several conservation initiatives that are 
either underway but not yet fully implemented or are still in the 
planning phase that could potentially provide conservation benefits to 
the marine ecosystems within the island grouper range. However, there 
are still major uncertainties regarding whether or not these 
initiatives will be fully implemented, operationalized, and adequately 
enforced. There are also uncertainties associated with the 
effectiveness of these efforts in reducing the island grouper 
extinction risk. Large-scale programs, such as the EU's MSFD, often 
have broad, general objectives for improving marine stewardship which 
may or may not include specific measures needed for protecting a 
particular species at risk. Regional, local and grassroots efforts may 
face fewer legal, political, and social hurdles in terms of 
implementation as compared to larger scale national programs. However, 
smaller scale programs, such as MAELs, may be limited in their 
effectiveness for species protection due to their small geographic size 
and inadequate resources for long-term management and enforcement of 
conservation measures. We conclude that given large uncertainties 
associated with implementation, enforcement, and effectiveness, the 
conservation efforts identified cannot be considered reasonably likely 
to significantly reduce the current island grouper extinction risk.
Proposed Determination
    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, 
as summarized here and in Salz (2015), and consideration of protective 
efforts being made to protect the species, we find that the island 
grouper (Mycteroperca fusca) is at a moderate risk of extinction. The 
nature of the threats and demographic risks identified, taking into 
account the uncertainty associated with the threats and risks, does not 
demonstrate the species is presently in danger of extinction; and 
therefore, it does not meet the definition of an endangered species. 
However, the current threats to island grouper from fishing 
overutilization and inadequate regulatory mechanisms are likely to 
continue in the future, further exacerbating the demographic risk 
factors associated with abundance, growth rate and productivity, and 
spatial structure and connectivity. We conclude that both the species' 
current risk of extinction and the best available information on the 
extent of, and trends in, the major threats affecting this species make 
it likely this species will become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future (defined as 40 years) throughout its range. We 
therefore propose to list it as threatened under the ESA.

Effects of Listing

    Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); 
concurrent designation of critical habitat, if prudent and determinable 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); Federal agency requirements to consult with 
NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions do not 
jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction 
of critical habitat should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); and 
prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species' 
plight through listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and 
state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals. The 
main effects of this rule if finalized as proposed for gulf grouper are 
prohibitions on take, including export, import, and use in foreign 
commerce.

Identifying Section 7 Conference and Consultation Requirements

    Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS 
regulations require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 
1536(a)(4)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations also require Federal 
agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat of 
those species. It is unlikely that listing the gulf grouper under the 
ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations, because at 
present this species is only known to occur outside of the United 
States and is unlikely to be affected by Federal actions. Although

[[Page 57329]]

the gulf grouper's historical range includes parts of Southern 
California, there are no recent records indicating that this species 
still exists in U.S. waters.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 
1532(5)) as: (1) Specific areas within the geographical area occupied 
by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on 
which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to 
the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special 
management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside 
the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed 
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation 
of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and 
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing 
under the ESA is no longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent prudent and 
determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the 
listing of a species. However, critical habitat shall not be designated 
in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 
424.12(h)). We can designate critical habitat in areas in the United 
States currently unoccupied by the species, if the area(s) are 
determined by the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the 
species. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) specify that we shall 
designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical range 
presently occupied by the species only when the designation limited to 
its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species.
    The best available scientific and commercial information does not 
indicate that U.S. waters provide any specific essential biological or 
physical function for the gulf grouper. U.S. waters account for a very 
small portion on the northern limit of the gulf grouper's historical 
range, and may no longer be part of the species' current range. Based 
on the best available information, we have not identified unoccupied 
areas in U.S. waters that are currently essential to the conservation 
of gulf grouper. Therefore, based on the available information, we do 
not intend to designate critical habitat for gulf grouper.
    The island grouper occurs entirely outside of the United States. 
Therefore, we cannot designate critical habitat for island grouper.

Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of 
Section 9 of the ESA

    On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS published a policy (59 FR 34272) that 
requires us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time 
a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. Because we are 
proposing to list the gulf grouper as endangered, all of the 
prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA will apply to this species. 
These include prohibitions against the import, export, use in foreign 
commerce, or ``take'' of the species. These prohibitions apply to all 
persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including in 
the United States, its territorial sea, or on the high seas. Take is 
defined as ``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.'' The 
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effects of 
this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species' 
range. Activities that we believe could result in a violation of 
section 9 prohibitions for this species include, but are not limited 
to, the following:
    (1) Possessing, delivering, transporting, or shipping any 
individual or part (dead or alive) taken in violation of section 
9(a)(1);
    (2) Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in 
interstate or foreign commerce any individual or part, in the course of 
a commercial activity;
    (3) Selling or offering for sale in interstate commerce any part, 
except antique articles at least 100 years old;
    (4) Importing or exporting any individual or part; and
    (5) Harming captive animals by, among other things, injuring or 
killing a captive animal, through experimental or potentially injurious 
care or conducting research or sexual breeding activities on captive 
animals, outside the bounds of normal animal husbandry practices. 
Experimental or potentially injurious care or procedures and research 
or sexual breeding activities of gulf grouper may, depending on the 
circumstances, be authorized under an ESA 10(a)(1)(A) permit for 
scientific research or the enhancement of the propagation or survival 
of the species.

Identification of Those Activities That Would Not Constitute a 
Violation of Section 9 of the ESA

    We will identify, to the extent known at the time of the final 
rule, specific activities involving gulf grouper that will not be 
considered likely to result in a violation of section 9 of the ESA. 
Although not binding, we are considering the following actions, 
depending on the circumstances, as not being prohibited by ESA section 
9:
    (1) Take authorized by, and carried out in accordance with the 
terms and conditions of, an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by 
NMFS for purposes of scientific research or the enhancement of the 
propagation or survival of the species; and
    (2) Continued possession of parts that were in possession at the 
time of listing. Such parts may be non-commercially exported or 
imported; however the importer or exporter must be able to provide 
evidence to show that the parts meet the criteria of ESA section 
9(b)(1) (i.e., held in a controlled environment at the time of listing, 
in a non-commercial activity).
    Section 11(f) of the ESA gives NMFS authority to promulgate 
regulations that may be appropriate to enforce the ESA. NMFS may 
promulgate future regulations to regulate trade or holding of gulf 
grouper, if necessary. NMFS will provide the public with the 
opportunity to comment on future proposed regulations.

Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the ESA

    We are proposing to list the island grouper as a threatened 
species. In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) leaves it 
to the Secretary's discretion whether, and to what extent, to extend 
the section 9(a) ``take'' prohibitions to the species, and authorizes 
us to issue regulations necessary and advisable for the conservation of 
the species. Thus, we have flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor 
protective regulations, taking into account the effectiveness of 
available conservation measures. The 4(d) protective regulations may 
prohibit, with respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts 
which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered 
species. These 9(a) prohibitions apply to all individuals, 
organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Since the 
island grouper occurs entirely outside of the United States, and is not 
commercially traded with the United States, extending the section 9(a) 
``take'' prohibitions to this species will not result in added 
conservation benefits or species protection. Therefore, we do not 
intend to issue section 4(d) regulations for the island grouper.

[[Page 57330]]

Public Comments Solicited

    To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
to list two species will be as accurate and effective as possible, we 
are soliciting comments and information from the public, other 
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, 
and any other interested parties on information in the status review 
and proposed rule. Comments are encouraged on these proposals (See 
DATES and ADDRESSES). We must base our final determination on the best 
available scientific and commercial information when making listing 
determinations. We cannot, for example, consider the economic effects 
of a listing determination. Final promulgation of any regulation(s) on 
these species' listing proposals will take into consideration the 
comments and any additional information we receive, and such 
communications may lead to a final regulation that differs from this 
proposal or result in a withdrawal of this listing proposal. We 
particularly seek:
    (1) Information concerning the threats to either of the two species 
proposed for listing;
    (2) Taxonomic information on either of these species;
    (3) Biological information (life history, genetics, population 
connectivity, etc.) on either of these species;
    (4) Efforts being made to protect either of these species 
throughout their current ranges;
    (5) Information on the commercial trade of either of these species; 
and
    (6) Historical and current distribution and abundance and trends 
for either of these species.
    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.

Role of Peer Review

    In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued 
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing a 
minimum peer review standard. Similarly, a joint NMFS/FWS policy (59 FR 
34270; July 1, 1994) requires us to solicit independent expert review 
from qualified specialists, concurrent with the public comment period. 
The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. We 
solicited and received peer review comments on each of the status 
review reports, including from: three marine scientists with expertise 
on the gulf grouper, and three marine scientists with expertise on the 
island grouper. Peer reviewer comments for each species are 
incorporated into the draft status review reports and this 12-month 
finding.

References

    A complete list of the references used in this proposed rule is 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 
1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to 
the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6).

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. 
In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive 
Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed 
rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism 
assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the 
Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful 
dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this proposed 
rule will be given to the relevant governmental agencies in the 
countries in which these two species occur, and they will be invited to 
comment. We will confer with the U.S. Department of State to ensure 
appropriate notice is given to foreign nations within the range of both 
species. As the process continues, we intend to continue engaging in 
informal and formal contacts through the U.S. State Department, giving 
careful consideration to all written and oral comments received.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Transportation.

50 CFR Part 224

    Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened 
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Transportation.

    Dated: September 14, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 
are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

    1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, Sec.  223.201-202 
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 
Sec.  223.206(d)(9).

    2. In Sec.  223.102, in paragraph (e), the table is amended by 
adding an entry for ``Grouper, island'' under Fishes in alphabetical 
order by common name to read as follows:


Sec.  223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 57331]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Species \1\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Citation(s) for listing
                                                                  Description of listed       determination(s)       Critical habitat      ESA rules
             Common name                    Scientific name               entity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fishes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                       * * * * * *
Grouper, island......................  Mycteroperca fusca......  Entire species.........  [Insert Federal Register                 NA                 NA
                                                                                           citation], 9/23/2015.
 
                                                                      * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and
  evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

* * * * *

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

    3. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

    4. In Sec.  224.101, in paragraph (h), the table is amended by 
adding an entry for ``Grouper, gulf'' under Fishes in alphabetical 
order by common name to read as follows:


Sec.  224.101  Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Species \1\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Citation(s) for listing
                                                                  Description of listed       determination(s)       Critical habitat      ESA rules
             Common name                    Scientific name               entity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fishes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Grouper, gulf........................  Mycteroperca jordani....  Entire species.........  [Insert Federal Register                 NA                 NA
                                                                                           citation], 9/23/2015.
 
                                                                      * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and
  evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-23502 Filed 9-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P