Overview
Title
Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of the 5-Year Review of the Island Grouper (Mycteroperca fusca)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is checking to see if a special kind of fish, called the island grouper, still needs help to stay safe, and they want people to share what they know to help decide if the fish should still be protected as much or less.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has begun a 5-year review of the island grouper, a species listed as threatened. This review is required by the Endangered Species Act to decide if the island grouper should remain on the list, be downgraded to a less critical status, or be upgraded to a more critical status. NMFS is seeking information from the public and various organizations on topics such as the biology, threats, and conservation efforts related to the species. The deadline for submitting information is March 3, 2025.
Abstract
We, NMFS, announce the initiation of the 5-year review of the threatened island grouper (Mycteroperca fusca). The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires us to conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years to determine whether a species should be removed from the list (i.e., delisted), reclassified from an endangered species to a threatened species (i.e., downlisted), or reclassified from a threatened species to an endangered species (i.e., uplisted). The determination must be based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. Therefore, we request relevant information (e.g., biology, threats, and conservation efforts) that has become available since our previous review of the species.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document published by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), announces the initiation of the 5-year review of the island grouper, also known scientifically as Mycteroperca fusca. Listed as a threatened species, this review is mandated by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to evaluate if the status of the species should be changed. The process could either lead to the grouper being removed from the list, downgraded to a less critical status, or elevated to a more critical status. The determination is to be based strictly on the most current scientific and commercial data available. NMFS is soliciting information on various aspects of the species' life and conservation from the public, scientific community, government agencies, and other stakeholders.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One major concern is that the document does not outline any financial considerations related to the 5-year review process. Without information on the budget or potential costs, it remains unclear if financial resources are being allocated wisely or favoring certain organizations over others.
Another issue is the reliance on the electronic submission of comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which could be a barrier for stakeholders who lack internet access or the technological expertise needed to navigate the system. This exclusion could result in a narrow range of input, limiting the comprehensive nature of the review.
The document also appears to caution contributors about the public accessibility of any submitted personally identifying information. However, the emphasis on the risks associated with this transparency seems insufficient, potentially dissuading or confusing individuals from participating.
Moreover, there is the use of statutory references and legal jargon—like 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)—which may not be easily comprehensible to the general public or stakeholders without a background in legal codes, further limiting engagement and contribution from non-expert parties.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this document signifies an opportunity to participate in conservation efforts by providing relevant data about the island grouper. Any changes in the species' classification could eventually influence public perception and awareness of species conservation and policy effectiveness. However, the complexities and access requirements may deter broad public involvement, potentially resulting in a missed opportunity for diverse community input.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Scientific researchers and environmental organizations may find this an opportunity to contribute their recent findings or data to influence the outcome of the review positively. On the other hand, these contributions often require transparency regarding the publication of personal or organizational information, which can pose a risk or affect the willingness to share candid insights.
Government agencies and regulatory bodies might use this process to refine conservation strategies or policy implementations based on the review's findings. However, these stakeholders would need to navigate the limitations posed by the portal submissions and ensure comprehensive representation of data.
In summary, while the review of the island grouper under the ESA presents a clear framework for assessing species classification, it also raises challenges regarding resource transparency, accessibility, and effective public engagement. Addressing these concerns could improve stakeholder participation and strengthen the review's ultimate findings and recommendations.
Issues
• The document does not specify the budget or costs associated with the 5-year review of the island grouper, leaving unclear whether any spending might be wasteful or favor certain organizations.
• The document mentions the need for electronic submission through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, but does not provide guidance for those unable to access or use the portal, making it potentially inaccessible for some stakeholders.
• Instructions for comment submission emphasize that personal identifying information will be publicly accessible but may not be clear or adequately emphasize the risks associated with submitting such information.
• The document uses statutory references (e.g., 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)) which may not be easily understandable to those unfamiliar with the legal codes, potentially limiting engagement from non-expert stakeholders.