United States - Seafood Watch

Transcription

Black grouper, Gag grouper, Red grouper, Snowy grouper,
Yellowedge grouper, Warsaw grouper
Mycteroperca bonaci, Mycteroperca microlepis, Epinephelus morio, Epinephelus niveatus,
Epinephelus flavolimbatus, Epinephelus nigritus
Image © Diane Rome Peebles
United States
Bottom longline, Handline
May 22, 2014 (original report)
Updated June 30, 2016 (Gag South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico ONLY)
Lisa Max, Seafood Watch staff
Disclaimer: Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by
external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does
not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the
reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
2
Table of Contents
About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................................. 3
Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 17
Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under Assessment ..........................................................................................17
Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks ....................................................................................40
Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ..................................................................................................................92
Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem ..............................................................................................112
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................... 119
References ................................................................................................................................................ 120
3
About Seafood Watch®
The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of
wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the North American marketplace. Seafood
Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed,
which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure
or function of affected ecosystems. The program’s mission is to engage and empower
consumers and businesses to purchase environmentally responsible seafood fished or farmed
in ways that minimize their impact on the environment or are in a credible improvement
project with the same goal.
Each sustainability recommendation is supported by a seafood report. Each report synthesizes
and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then
evaluates this information against the program’s sustainability criteria to arrive at a
recommendation of “Best Choice,” “Good Alternative,” or “Avoid.” In producing the seafood
reports, Seafood Watch utilizes research published in academic, peer reviewed journals
whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications,
fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological
sustainability. Seafood Watch research analysts also communicate with ecologists, fisheries
and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations, when
evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are
highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch’s
sustainability recommendations and the underlying seafood reports will be updated to reflect
these changes. Both the detailed evaluation methodology and the scientific reports are
available on seafoodwatch.org.
For more information about Seafood Watch and seafood reports, please contact the Seafood
Watch program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990 or visit online at
seafoodwatch.org.
4
Guiding Principles
Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or
farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the
structure or function of affected ecosystems.
The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that capture fisheries must possess to be
considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program:






Stocks are healthy and abundant.
Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any
marine life.
The fishery minimizes bycatch.
The fishery is managed to sustain long-term productivity of all impacted species.
The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the
ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained.
Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished
species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts, or reduction
of genetic diversity.
Based on these guiding principles, Seafood Watch has developed a set of four sustainability
criteria to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation
for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Impacts on the species under assessment
Impacts on other species
Effectiveness of management
Habitat and ecosystem impacts
Each criterion includes:



Factors to evaluate and score
Evaluation guidelines to synthesize these factors and to produce a numerical score
A resulting numerical score and rating for that criterion
Once a score and rating has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood
recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ratings and the
overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood
Watch pocket guide:
1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.
5
Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in ways that cause little harm to
habitats or other wildlife.
Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or
farmed.
Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in
ways that harm other marine life or the environment.
6
Executive Summary
This report provides analyses and recommendations for six grouper species fished in the reef fish fishery
in the US Gulf of Mexico and the snapper-grouper fishery in the US South Atlantic. These species include
three shallow water groupers: gag (Mycteroperca microlepis), red grouper (Epinephelus morio) and black
grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci) (found at shallower depths than the other shallow water groupers), and
three deep water groupers: snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus), yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus
flavolimbatus), and Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus). For these species, US stocks are divided into
the US Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic stocks, except for black grouper, which is considered to be one
stock across both regions. In both regions, groupers are fished with vertical gear (handline or bandit,
also considered as handline) and bottom longline gear, with some caught using rod and reel. Across
both regions, the majority of US commercially caught grouper is landed from the Gulf of Mexico, with
3511 metric tons (MT) or 92% coming from the Gulf in 2012, and 296 MT or 8% coming from the South
Atlantic region that year. Of the grouper landed commercially in the US, the overwhelming majority
(72%) is red grouper from the Gulf, with 2727 MT landed in 2012.
Groupers have a low resiliency to fishing pressure, with all the species assessed in this report (except
gag) listed on International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)’s list of
threatened species: Warsaw grouper (critically endangered) yellowedge grouper (vulnerable), snowy
grouper (vulnerable), black grouper (near threatened) and red grouper (near threatened). The species
addressed here are long lived, having maximum ages between 29 (red grouper) and 85 (yellowedge
grouper) years. Stock assessments, regularly conducted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (GMFMC) and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) for their respective
stocks, in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as part of the Southeast Data,
Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process, indicate that some of these species are overfished (snowy
grouper in the South Atlantic and possibly gag in the Gulf of Mexico) and/or experiencing overfishing
(Warsaw grouper in the South Atlantic). Several species are in the midst of rebuilding plans as part of
their management (red and snowy groupers in the South Atlantic). Red grouper in the Gulf of Mexico is
the one species that has been successfully rebuilt in either region. Warsaw grouper harvest or
possession is banned in the South Atlantic.
Retained and bycatch species analyzed in this assessment were selected based on the number caught in
either regional fishery status or their conservation status (endangered, threatened, overfished, etc.).
Gears used for grouper fishing target a range of snapper and grouper species, and also catch other
species, resulting in large amounts of regulatory discards (groupers and snapper that are undersized,
during a closed season or overages for a given quota) as well as incidental catch. Species retained or
caught as bycatch include Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae), black sea bass
(Centropristis striata), blacknose shark (Carcharhinus acronotus) blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps),
dusky smoothhound (smooth dogfish) (Mustelus canis), giant snake eel (Ophichthus rex), golden tilefish
(Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps), gray triggerfish (Balistes capriscus), greater amberjack (Seriola
dumerili), red porgy (Pagrus pagrus), red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), scamp (Mycteroperca
7
phenax), speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi), vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens) and
yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus). Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), an endangered sea
turtle species, was caught in unacceptable numbers on Gulf of Mexico bottom longline gear, but this has
been remedied by reducing the amount of longline gear deployed in this region and is monitored by
fisheries observers. A body of research exists on discard mortality for grouper species, and there are
management measures required in the fishery to reduce mortality, including use of circle hooks,
dehooking devices and venting tools.
The assessed grouper species are increasingly subject to more stringent management, particularly in the
Gulf of Mexico where their catch is regulated by a real time Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) system, with
the majority of grouper landed (red grouper from the Gulf) commercially in the US ranking as a Sea Food
Watch (SFW) “good alternative.” All South Atlantic species ranked as "avoid" except for gag, red and
black groupers caught with handlines, which rank as "good alternative." In the Gulf of Mexico, all species
rank as “avoid” except black and red groupers caught by handline or longline, and gag grouper caught
with handlines, which rank as "good alternative." All assessed fisheries have "high impacts" on nontarget species as well as "moderately effective" management strategies, but the Gulf has a better
management score than the South Atlantic due to ongoing observer programs in the Gulf, which are
non-existent in the South Atlantic. Over both regions, ecosystem impacts to fish habitat are "low" for
handline fisheries due to lack of or minimal gear contact with the seafloor and are "moderate" for
bottom longline fisheries which may or may not contact the seafloor. Factoring into the overall
ecosystem impacts score, ecosystem based management is of "low concern" in the Gulf of Mexico and
the South Atlantic due to the establishment of several fishing restricted areas.
Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations
Stock / Fishery
Impacts on Impacts on Management Habitat and Overall
the Stock other Spp.
Ecosystem Recommendation
Red grouper
Green (3.83) Red (0.95) Yellow (3.00) Green (4.12) Good Alternative
United States Gulf of Mexico
(2.590)
- Handline
Red grouper
United States South Atlantic
(2.462)
- Handline
Red grouper
Green (3.83) Red (0.75) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.16) Good Alternative
(2.285)
- Longline, Bottom
Gag grouper
Yellow
Red (0.95) Yellow (3.00) Green (4.12) Good Alternative
United States Gulf of Mexico (3.318)
(2.502)
- Handline
Gag grouper
(2.462)
- Handline
8
Gag grouper
Yellow
Red (0.75)
- Longline, Bottom
Yellowedge grouper
Red (2.16) Red (0.95)
- Handline
Yellowedge grouper
Yellow
Red (0.75)
- Longline, Bottom
Yellowedge grouper
Red (2.16) Red (0.75)
- Longline, Bottom
Black grouper
Green (4.47) Red (2.05)
- Handline
Black grouper
Green (4.47) Red (2.12)
- Handline
Black grouper
Green (4.47) Red (1.06)
- Longline, Bottom
Snowy grouper
Red (2.16) Red (0.95)
- Handline
Snowy grouper
Red (2.16) Red (0.95)
- Handline
Snowy grouper
Red (2.16) Red (0.75)
- Longline, Bottom
Snowy grouper
Red (2.16) Red (0.75)
- Longline, Bottom
Warsaw grouper
Red (1.00) Red (2.05)
- Handline
Warsaw grouper
Red (1.00) Red (1.06)
- Longline, Bottom
Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.16) Avoid (2.204)
Yellow (2.45) Green (4.12) Avoid (2.133)
Yellow (3.00) Green (4.12) Good Alternative
(3.264)
Yellow (2.45) Green (4.12) Good Alternative
(3.129)
Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.16) Good Alternative
(2.590)
9
Scoring Guide
Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing
operations have no significant impact.
Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores

Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch
Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and
no Critical scores, and does not meet the criteria for Best Choice (above)

Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management
Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern, or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical
scores.
2
Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid
recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).
10
Introduction
Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation
This report addresses US handline and longline fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic
for six grouper species. The species covered are: red grouper (Epinephelus morio), gag (Mycteroperca
microlepis), black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci), yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus flavolimbatus),
snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus) and Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus).
Overview of the species and management bodies
The groupers covered within this report are generally long lived, large bodied, protogynous (individuals
function first as females then some portion of the population transforms into males), and reach sexual
maturity between three and nine years of age (Fitzhugh et al. 2006b) (Parker & Mays 1998) (SAFMC
2012). The maximum age of these groupers range from 29 years for red grouper (Lombardi-Carlson et al.
2008) to 85 years for yellowedge grouper (Cook et al. 2009). They range in maximum size from 18.6 kg
for yellowedge grouper to 263 kg for Warsaw grouper. Though fecundity is unknown for most grouper
species, studies have shown some species are prolific spawners, producing over one million eggs per
spawn (SEDAR 2013d) (Sedberry et al. 2006) (Wyanski et al. 2000) (SEDAR 2006) (SEDAR 2010a) (SEDAR
2011). However, many grouper species have a slow population doubling time, ranging from 4.5-14 years
(SEDAR 2013d) (Sedberry et al. 2006) (Wyanski et al. 2000) (SEDAR 2006 )(SEDAR 2010a) (SEDAR 2011).
Furthermore, many grouper species are relatively sedentary, making seasonal migrations to specific
spawning sites where they form spawning aggregations, significantly increasing their susceptibility to
fishing pressure. Grouper species vary in their spawning periods (SEDAR 2013d) (Sedberry et al. 2006)
(Wyanski et al. 2000) (SEDAR 2006) (SEDAR 2010a) (SEDAR 2011). Of the groupers covered in this
Seafood Watch report, black grouper are generally found from 10 to 20 meters, red and gag from 20 to
50 meters, Warsaw from 70 to 110 meters, snowy and yellowedge from 100 to 200 meters (SAFMC
2012). Additional information for the assessed grouper species can be found in the following summary
table:
Table 1: Grouper species life history information.
Species
Home
Spawning
Peak
Mean
Maximum Maximum Maximum Age at
Size at
range or
period
spawning
depth
age
maturity
period
caught
migration
length
weight
(cm)
(kg)
maturity
(cm)
Gag
Large
Jan - May
Mar - April
20-50
26
145
37
2-3
62
Red
Small
Feb - June
April
30-45
25
125
23
3-5
49-59
11
Black
Small
Jan - April
Feb - April
10-20
33
152
unknown
5
83
Snowy
Unknown
Jan - Oct
May - Aug
100-200
40
122
30
5
54
Warsaw
Unknown
May
May
70-110
41
230
263
unknown
unknown
Yellowedge
Unknown
Feb - Nov
Mar - Sept
100-200
85
114
19
9
57
In the Gulf of Mexico, the six groupers covered in this report are managed under the Reef Fish Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) along with 25 other species (other groupers, snappers, tilefishes, jacks, a
wrasse and a trigger fish) managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC).
Whereas in the South Atlantic, they are managed under the Snapper-Grouper FMP along with 54 other
species with a wider variety of life history traits (other groupers, snappers, tilefishes, jacks, triggerfish,
sea basses, porgies, grunts and a wrasse) managed by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
(SAFMC). Gulf of Mexico black grouper is now managed as a combined Gulf of Mexico/South Atlantic
stock under the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish and Snapper-Grouper FMP (NMFS 2013).
Under Amendment 29 to the Reef Fish FMP (as of 1/1/2010), the GMFMC manages Gulf grouper and
tilefish under an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program with 5 shared categories with strict reporting
requirements (gag grouper, red grouper, other shallow water groupers, deep water groupers and
tilefish). The total quota for each species is determined by annual catch limits allocated between
commercial and recreational fisherman. Black grouper is included in the "other shallow water grouper"
category, and snowy, yellowedge and Warsaw are included in the "deep water grouper"
category. Other management measures for the Gulf reef fish fishery include gear and fishing location
restrictions to reduce bycatch, minimum size limits to protect immature fish and commercial and
recreational area closures to protect spawning groupers.
The SAFMC manages the snapper-grouper complex via a limited access fishery including transferable
and non-transferable permits with overall species quotas determined by annual catch limits. Other
management measures for the snapper-grouper fishery include minimum size limits to prevent harvest
of immature fish, gear restrictions to reduce bycatch and protect habitat, seasonal closures to protect
shallow water grouper during their spawning season and eight “marine protected areas” closed to
fishing or possession of snapper and grouper, to protect the population and habitat of long-lived deep
water snapper-grouper species.
Production Statistics
US grouper commercial production is dominated by the Gulf of Mexico, and to a lesser extent the South
Atlantic region (See Figures 1-3). In 2011, the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish fishery landed more than nine
times the amount of grouper biomass landed in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery, largely due
12
to the high landings of red grouper in the Gulf. While red grouper, and to a lesser extent yellowedge
grouper, are the predominant species caught in the Gulf, gag is the predominant species caught in the
South Atlantic. In both regions, catches of shallow water grouper exceed those of deep water species,
with deep water grouper catch dominated by snowy grouper in the South Atlantic and yellowedge in the
Gulf of Mexico. In both regions, recreational landings of grouper species are high, and in some cases
may exceed commercial landings, as is the case with gag grouper landings in the Gulf of Mexico. Seafood
Watch (SFW) does not assess the sustainability of recreational fisheries, but does factor recreational
fishing into Criteria 1 assessment of fish stocks and their corresponding fishing mortality.
Figure 1: Total South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico grouper catch 1986-2012 (combined catch of gag, black, red,
Warsaw, snowy and yellowedge), from NMFS, Annual Commercial Landing Statistics, downloaded May 2014
13
Figure 2: Gulf of Mexico grouper catch by species 1986-2012, from NMFS, Annual Commercial Landing Statistics,
downloaded May 2014
Figure 3: South Atlantic grouper catch by species 1982-2012, from NMFS, Annual Commercial Landing Statistics,
downloaded May 2014
14
Internationally, grouper production is increasing (see Figure 4). Whether this is a real effect or an effect
of an increasing number of countries reporting production to FAO is unknown. We do note that the total
US grouper production reported in FAO is lower than reported by NMFS.
Figure 4: Global Grouper Production 1950-2009 (From FAO)
For the species covered in this report, global production information is variable, though all of these
species occur in US waters, south through the Caribbean into Brazilian waters. According to the FAO,
large red grouper fisheries existed in Brazil and Cuba (with a small fishery in the Dominican Republic),
but as of 2005, production of red grouper in these countries fell to zero. FAO reports only US fisheries
for gag, black grouper, snowy grouper, Warsaw grouper and yellowedge, but reports much lower
tonnage than NMFS reports for most of these species (FAO 2013).
Importance to the US/North American market
The largest importer of grouper to the US is Mexico, with 2011 imports exceeding those from other
countries (namely Panama and Costa Rica) by at least a factor of 12 (NMFS 2013d)(See Figures 5 and
6). Also in 2011, grouper imports from Mexico exceeded the combined production of the South Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico for the species covered in this report. While the species composition of the Mexican
catch is not reported in NMFS commercial fishery statistics database (nor does FAO list Mexican caught
grouper by species), it is higly likely that species caught include those caught by the US in the Gulf of
15
Mexico (those included in this report), as their range extends through Mexican waters.
Figure 5: Total grouper imports to the US from 1991 to 2012. Downloaded in April 2013 from NMFS Foreign Trade
database
16
Figure 6: Grouper imports to the US from the top 10 grouper exporting countries (Mexico, Panama, Brazil,
Columbia, India, Ecuador, Indonesia, Nicaragua, China, Costa Rica) from 1991 to 2012. Downloaded in April 2013
from NMFS Foreign Trade database
Common and market names
Mycteroperca microlepis (gag grouper): market names are gag, grouper; vernacular names are velvet
rockfish, small-scaled rockfish, charcoal belly
Epinephelus morio (red grouper): market name is grouper; vernacular name is cherna americana, negre,
Mycteroperca bonaci (black grouper): market name is grouper; vernacular names are rockfish, marbled
rockfish, runner, springer, blackfin grouper
Hyporthodus flavolimbatus (yellowedge grouper): market name is grouper; vernacular name
is yellowfinned grouper
Epinephelus niveatus (snowy grouper): market name is grouper; vernacular name is spotted grouper,
snowflake
Epinephelus nigritus (Warsaw grouper): market name is grouper; vernacular names are black jewfish,
black grouper
(FDA 2012)
Primary product forms
Grouper are sold both as whole fish and fillets in fresh and frozen forms.
17
Assessment
This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria
for Fisheries, available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.
Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under Assessment
This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The
inherent vulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored when abundance is unknown.
The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing
mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:



Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern
Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern
Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.
Criterion 1 Summary
BLACK GROUPER
Region / Method
Handline
Longline, Bottom
Handline
GAG GROUPER
Region / Method
Handline
Longline, Bottom
Handline
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00:High
4.00:Low
Concern
1.00:High
4.00:Low
Concern
1.00:High
4.00:Low
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
5.00:Very Low
Concern
5.00:Very Low
Concern
5.00:Very Low
Concern
Inherent
Stock Status Fishing
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00:High
3.00:Moderate 3.67:Low
Concern
Concern
1.00:High
3.00:Moderate 3.67:Low
Concern
Concern
1.00:High
4.00:Low
3.67:Low
Concern
Concern
Subscore
Green (4.472)
Green (4.472)
Green (4.472)
Subscore
Yellow (3.318)
Yellow (3.318)
Green (3.831)
18
RED GROUPER
Region / Method
Handline
Longline, Bottom
Handline
SNOWY GROUPER
Region / Method
Handline
Longline, Bottom
Handline
Longline, Bottom
WARSAW GROUPER
Region / Method
Handline
Longline, Bottom
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
Region / Method
Longline, Bottom
Handline
Longline, Bottom
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00:High
4.00:Low
Concern
1.00:High
4.00:Low
Concern
1.00:High
4.00:Low
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
3.67:Low
Concern
3.67:Low
Concern
3.67:Low
Concern
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00:High
2.00:High
Concern
1.00:High
2.00:High
Concern
1.00:High
2.00:High
Concern
1.00:High
2.00:High
Concern
Fishing
Subscore
Mortality
2.33:Moderate Red (2.159)
Concern
Concern
Concern
Concern
Inherent
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00:High
1.00:Very High 1.00:High
Concern
Concern
1.00:High
1.00:Very High 1.00:High
Concern
Concern
Subscore
Green (3.831)
Green (3.831)
Green (3.831)
Subscore
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
Inherent
Subscore
Vulnerability
Mortality
1.00:High
3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow (2.644)
Concern
Concern
1.00:High
2.00:High
Concern
Concern
1.00:High
2.00:High
Concern
Concern
19
Criterion 1 Assessment
Factor 1.1 — Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring guidelines



Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history
characteristics that make it resilient to fishing (e.g., early maturing (<5 years), short lived (< 10
years), small maximum size, and low on food chain).
Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history
characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing (e.g., moderate
age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum
size, and middle of food chain).
High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history
characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing (e.g., long lived (>25 years), late
maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top predator).
Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to
fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth
rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding,
or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.
Factor 1.2 — Abundance
Scoring guidelines





5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level
(e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY)) or near virgin biomass.
4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not
overfished.
3 (Moderate Concern)—Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent
vulnerability to fishing.
2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is
unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.
1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring guidelines


5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below
fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, (FMSY)), OR fishery does not target species and its
contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing
mortality).
3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable
level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect
20



species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the
population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being
caught).
2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing
mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is
depleted, reasonable management is in place.
1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR
fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.
0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to
curtail overfishing.
BLACK GROUPER
United States GULF OF MEXICO, Handline
United States GULF OF MEXICO, Longline, Bottom
United States South Atlantic, Handline
1.00
High
The FishBase Inherent Vulnerability score for black grouper is 63 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al.
2005), corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Black grouper is a slow growing,
large bodied predatory species, known to live over 30 years. It is a "protogynous hermaphrodite"
(shifting from male to female) (SAFMC 2012).
4.00
Low Concern
According to the 2010 stock assessment (which factored in the effects of commerical and recreational
fishing on the stock), black grouper is not considered overfished in the South Atlantic and/or the Gulf of
Mexico. This assessment uses a biomass proxy of SSB2008/SSBF30%SPR = 1.40 (SSB = spawning stock
biomass) (SEDAR 2010a) for its model (see Figure 7). There is an update stock assessment for the Florida
Gulf and Atlantic stocks scheduled for 2014, but no larger regional assessments are currently scheduled
21
(SEDAR 2013).
Although IUCN lists black grouper as "near threatened" (Ferreira et al. 2008), SFW scores this species as
"low concern" because the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico stock assessment (which is more recent)
found that it is not overfished.
Rationale:
Figure 7: Proxies for B/BMSY and F/FMSY for the black grouper stock (South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico) through
2008 based on model results presented in the 2010 stock assessment (SEDAR 19).
Black grouper in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are now considered one stock, though they will
be managed regionally (with each region having its own catch levels under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) in the South Atlantic and the Reef Fish FMP in the Gulf of Mexico). The US
black grouper stock occurs primarily in the Florida Keys (the northern portion of their range) (SEDAR
2010a), with a large portion of the US population protected by the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary’s Tortugas Ecological Reserves and Dry Tortugas National Park’s Research Natural Area.
22
5.00
Very Low Concern
According to the 2010 stock assessment and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) current
stock status information, black grouper in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico is not currently
experiencing overfishing (SEDAR 2010a). This determination is based on the most recent stock
assessment (2010) which factored in the effects of both commercial and recreational fishing on the
stock. The stock assessment found an exploitation status (Fcurrent/MFMT) (MFMT = Maximum Fishing
Mortality Threshold) of 0.50. Because maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is unknown, F30%SPR (F = fishing
mortality, SPR = spawning potential ratio) was used as a proxy for MFMT (or FMSY) in the assessment
model (see Figure 8) (SEDAR 2010a).
The majority of black grouper's fishing mortality occurs in South Florida, particularly in the Florida Keys
(SEDAR 2010a) where a large portion of the stock is protected by the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary’s Tortugas Ecological Reserves and Dry Tortugas National Park’s Research Natural Area.
Data from the 2010 stock assessment show that black grouper's fishing mortality is dominated by the
recreational fishery, with commerical handline and longline fisheries responsible for only 9% of the total
fishing mortality on this species in 2008 (see Figure 8) (SEDAR 2010a). We note that the stock
assessment accounted for historical errors in catch data from the 1980s and 1990s, when gag was often
landed as black grouper.
Black grouper fishing mortality scores as "very low concern" because the proxy is below the reference
point and because a large proportion of its habitat is protected from fishing.
23
Rationale
Figure 8: Black Grouper fishing mortality. This figure is taken from the 2010 SEDAR stock assessment.
GAG GROUPER
United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline
United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom
1.00
High
The FishBase inherent vulnerability score for gag grouper is 68 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al.
2005), corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Gag is a slow growing, large
bodied "protogynous hermaphrodite" species (shifting from females to males at approximately 11 years
of age) and lives up to 30 years. It forms spawning aggregations, with females spawning multiple times
per year, releasing 60,000 and 1.7 million eggs per spawn. (NMFS 2014a)
24
3.00
Moderate Concern
4.00
Low Concern
The last stock assessment for gag grouper in the South Atlantic region was conducted in 2006 and
updated in 2014. The 2014 update includes data through 2012. Abundance of gag grouper declined until
the mid-1980's and has since been relatively stable, fluctuating around the minimum standing stock
threshold (MSST) reference point, with an upturn in abundance in recent years. The assessment
indicates that it is highly likely that the 2012 spawning stock biomass (the amount of fish capable of
reproducing) is above MSST, indicating the population is not depleted/overfished. Spawning stock
biomass is estimated to be near the target level, the biomass at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY), but it
is uncertain if it is above the target level. Spawning stock biomass is expected to decline after 2012, due
to poor recruitment (amount of new fish entering the fishery) during 2010 and 2011 {SEDAR 2014b}.
Since it is uncertain if abundance is above the target level and abundance is expected to decline, we
have awarded a low concern score.
3.67
Low Concern
In the Gulf of Mexico, recreational fishing is responsible for the majority of gag fishing
mortality (GMFMC 2011b). According to NMFS 2014 1st Quarter Status of US Fisheries report, gag
grouper in the Gulf of Mexico is experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2013) and has been since the 2009
update stock assessment that indicated a fishing mortality ratio, FCURRENT/MFMT (F/FMSY proxy) of
2.47 (SEDAR 2012).
However, according to the 2014 SEDAR assessment (completed prior to the release of 2014 1st Quarter
status update), the Gulf of Mexico gag stock is no longer experiencing overfishing (see Figure 10), with a
FCURRENT /MFMT (2010-2012) of 0.77 for the preferred population model and a FCURRENT /MFMT of 0.32 for
the alternative model (SEDAR 2014). This change in status is attributed to the rebuilding plan's lowered
gag quotas (begun in 2009) and the commercial and recreational IFQ system (begun in 2010). Due to
information in the new stock assessment that indicates an end to overfishing, fishing mortality scores as
25
"low concern."
Rationale
Figure 10: Predicted fishing mortality rate and associated 95% asymptotic intervals. Horizontal lines represent
FSPR30% (orange line) and FMSY (red line) benchmarks for SSB-combined (the preferred stock assessment
model). Taken from SEDAR 33: Gulf of Mexico Gag 2014 stock assessment.
Due to overfishing, NMFS reduced the 2009 gag quota by 41%. This reduction was insufficient to end
overfishing, so in 2011 interim measures were set which further reduced the commercial quota and
reduced the recreational gag season (GMFMC 2011b). Also in 2011, Amendment 32 to the Reef Fish
FMP was approved. Effective in 2012, Amendment 32 implemented a 10 year rebuilding plan for gag,
reduced the gag size limit to lower the amount of regulatory discard mortality, adjusted the commercial
gag and shallow-water grouper quota to account for incidental dead gag discards when fishing for other
shallow water groupers, set recreational bag limits and closed seasons, adjusted multi-use IFQ shares in
the grouper Individual Fishing Quota program and set other management measures (GMFMC 2011a).
26
3.67
Low Concern
The 2014 stock assessment for South Atlantic gag grouper indicated that the average fishing mortality
for the years 2010-2012 exceeded the target level of fishing at maximum sustainable yield (F/FMSY =
1.23), indicating that overfishing was occurring (SEDAR 2014b). However, The South Atlantic Council’s
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) noted that the fishing mortality rate for 2012, and the
projected fishing mortality rate in 2013 based on the actual landings, suggested that overfishing did not
occur in 2012 and 2013. Additionally, following the 2014 assessment managers took action to revise the
annual catch limit for gag grouper for the 2015-2019 fishing years to ensure that overfishing does not
occur in the future (80 FR 31880). NOAA Fisheries currently considers gag grouper in the South Atlantic
to no longer be experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2015), but a new assessment has yet to be completed.
Gag grouper are commonly targeted by commercial fishers using vertical lines, as well as by divers, and
by headboat and private recreational fishers using vertical lines. 380,252 lbs of gag grouper were caught
in the commercial fishery and 177,606 lbs were caught in the recreational fishery in the South Atlantic in
2014 (NMFS 2015a) (NMFS 2015b). Due to recent suggestion that overfishing on South Atlantic gag
grouper is no longer occurring, we have rated this factor a "low concern".
RED GROUPER
1.00
High
The FishBase Inherent Vulnerability score for red grouper is 63 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al.
2005), corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Red grouper is a slow growing,
large bodied top predator species that lives up to 29 years, reaching maturity between four and six
years of age. It is "protogynous hermaphrodite", shifting from female to male between the ages of
seven and 15. Red grouper spawn frequently throughout their reproductive season, which is estimated
at almost 26 times per year. (NMFS 2014b)
27
4.00
Low Concern
Red grouper is listed as "near threatened" by IUCN. (Garcia-Moliner & Eklund 2004)(Froese and Pauly
2000).
The 2009 Gulf of Mexico red grouper update stock assessment (based on commercial and recreational
impacts to the stock) indicated that its stock had declined from 2005 levels, although the stock was not
overfished. This decline was attributed to a 2005 episodic mortality event (most likely due to red
tide) resulting in approximately 20% mortality, in addition to normal, natural and fishing mortalities
(GMFMC 2011). According to the 2009 assessment, the ratio of spawning stock biomass to the spawning
stock biomass at MSY (SSB/SSBMSY) was 1.28, indicating that the stock was not overfished, and is slightly
below the level needed to produce optimum yield in the fishery (SEDAR 2009).
Previously, NMFS declared Gulf of Mexico red grouper overfished in a 1999 stock assessment (as of
1997) and again in the 2002 assessment. Due to this, NMFS implemented a Gulf of Mexico red grouper
rebuilding plan in 2004, reducing landings by 9.4% (GMFMC 2008). A benchmark stock assessment is
scheduled for Gulf of Mexico red grouper in 2014 (SEDAR 2013).
Although red grouper is not overfished in the Gulf of Mexico, its stock status scores as "low concern"
rather than "very low concern" due to the age of the stock assessment.
4.00
Low Concern
Red grouper is listed as "near threatened" by IUCN. (Garcia-Moliner & Eklund 2004)(Froese and Pauly
2000).
According to the NMFS 4th Quarter 2013 Status of US Fisheries report, red grouper is not overfished
(but is rebuidling, and in the 2nd year of a 10 year plan) in the South Atlantic with a B/BMSY proxy = 0.79.
The most recent South Atlantic red grouper stock assessment (2010) is out of date, describing the stock
as overfished (SEDAR 2010). Red grouper's South Altantic stock status scores as "low concern" because
the stock is not considered overfished, but an up-to-date stock assessment is lacking.
To remedy the overfished state, the NMFS specified a species specific ACL for red grouper (previously
there was a joint ACL for gag, red grouper and black grouper). A red grouper rebuilding plan was issued
(SAFMC 2011) and finalized in June 2012 via Amendment 24 to the FMP for the South Atlantic snappergrouper fishery (77 FR 34254). NMFS states that this plan has an 81 percent probability of rebuilding the
stock in 10years (NMFS-SERO 2012).
28
3.67
Low Concern
According to the 4th quarter NMFS Status of US Fisheries report, red grouper in the South Atlantic is in
the second year of a 10 year rebuidling plan and is not experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2013). The most
recent South Atlantic red grouper stock assessment (completed in 2010 and based on both commercial
and recreational fishing data up to and including 2008) is out of date, and found the stock to
be experiencing overfishing (F/FMSY = 1.35) (see Figure 11) (SEDAR 2010)(SAFMC 2011). Fishing mortality
scores as "low concern" because the stock is not currently experiencing overfishing and the stock
assessment is out of date.
Rationale
Figure 11: The overfishing ratio for red grouper from 1976 to 2008 for the South Atlantic. The stock is undergoing
overfishing when the F/FMSY is greater than one (SAFMC 2011).
29
3.67
Low Concern
The 2009 Gulf of Mexico red grouper update stock assessment (based on commercial and recreational
fishing impacts to the stock) indicated that its stock had declined from 2005 levels, although the stock
was neither overfished or undergoing overfishing. This decline was attributed to a 2005 episodic
mortality event resulting in approximately 20% mortality, in addition to normal, natural, and fishing
mortalities (GMFMC 2011). According to the 2009 assessment, overfishing was not occurring
(Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.80) (SEDAR 2009). A benchmark Gulf of Mexico red grouper stock assessment is
scheduled for 2014 (SEDAR 2013). According to the 2009 assessment, the breakdown of fishing
mortality by gear type in 2008 was: commercial handline 0.052; commercial longline 0.097; and
recreational 0.033 (SEDAR 2009).
For 2014, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) eliminated seasonal closures for all shallow
water groupers (except for gag) in Florida Gulf state waters. The GMFMC likewise eliminated the closed
season within 20 fathoms. Red grouper do not migrate to spawn like other species in this management
group and show a weak trend of increasing size with depth; thus this management action may likely
result in increased fishing mortality from the recreational sector, which tends to fish shallower
compared to the commercial sector (R. Ellis, pers. comm. 2014). Due to uncertainties created by this
new legislation, red grouper fishing mortality for the Gulf of Mexico scores as "low concern" rather than
"very low concern."
Rationale:
Previously, NMFS declared Gulf of Mexico red grouper overfished and experiencing overfishing in a 1999
stock assessment (as of 1997) and again in the 2002 assessment. Due to this, NMFS implemented a Gulf
of Mexico red grouper rebuilding plan in 2004 (now completed), reducing landings by 9.4% (GMFMC
2008).
30
SNOWY GROUPER
United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom
1.00
High
The FishBase inherent vulnerability score for snowy grouper is 64 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al.
2005), corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Snowy grouper is a slow growing,
long-lived species, with a maximum recorded age of 40 years. It is a "protogynous hermaphrodite"
(shifting from female to male). Information on fecundity of this species is lacking. (SAFMC 2012)
2.00
High Concern
Snowy grouper is listed as "vulnerable" by IUCN (Thierry et al. 2008)(Froese and Pauly 2000).
According to NMFS, it is unknown if snowy grouper in the Gulf of Mexico are overfished or experiencing
overfishing (NMFS 2013). There has been no Gulf of Mexico stock assessment for this species.
Due to its IUCN status and its unknown overfished status, snowy grouper's stock status scores as "high
concern."
2.00
High Concern
Snowy grouper is listed as "vulnerable" by IUCN (Thierry et al. 2008) (Froese and Pauly 2000).
31
According to the 2013 stock assessment (based on commercial and recreational fishery impacts), snowy
grouper is overfished with an SSB below SSB at MSY (SSB2012/SSBMSY = 0.49) (SEDAR 2013d) (see Figures
12 and 13). The fishery is in its eigth year of a 34 year rebuilding plan (NMFS 2013).
Due to its overfished status, snowy grouper's stock status in the South Atlantic scores as "high concern."
Rationale
Figure 12: Top panel: Estimated total biomass (metric tons) of snowy grouper in the South Atlantic at
the start of each year. Horizontal dashed line indicates BMSY. Bottom panel: Estimated spawning stock
(population fecundity) at time of peak spawning. Figure is from the 2013 SEDAR 36 stock assessment.
32
Figure 13: Estimated time series for the South Atlantic snowy grouper stock relative to benchmarks.
Solid line indicates estimates from the stock assessment model base run (Beaufort Assessment Model);
dashed lines represent median values; gray error bands indicate 5th and 95th percentiles. Top panel:
spawning biomass relative to the minimum stock size threshold (MSST). Bottom panel: spawning
biomass relative to SSBMSY.
33
2.33
Moderate Concern
According to NMFS, it is unknown if snowy grouper in the Gulf of Mexico is overfished or experiencing
overfishing (NMFS 2013). There has been no Gulf of Mexico stock assessment for this species. Snowy
grouper in the Gulf of Mexico are primarily fished using longlines and rod & reel. Of the 65.7 MT landed
commercially in 2011, 38.2 MT were landed by longline and 14.1 MT were landed by rod and
reel. Starting in 2010, snowy grouper in the Gulf of Mexico has been managed under the deep water
grouper IFQ program. In 2010, snowy grouper landings represented 21.3% of all deep water grouper
landed (59.4% of the total 2010 deep water grouper quota was met), and in 2011, it represented 18.6%
of all deep water grouper landed (76.3% of the total deep water grouper quota was met) (GMFMC
2013a) (NMFS 2013b).
Due to its unknown overfishing status and unknown effects of management strategies and regulations
on this species, snowy grouper's fishing mortality in the Gulf of Mexico scores as "moderate concern."
2.33
Moderate Concern
According to the 2013 stock assessment (based on commercial and recreational fishing impacts), snowy
grouper in the South Atlantic is no longer experiencing overfishing, with current fishing mortality (F20102012) below fishing mortality at MSY (FMSY) (F2010–2012/FMSY = 0.59) (SEDAR 2013d) (see Figure X9). There is
significant uncertainty around this estimate; 76% of the model results support the ‘not overfishing’
determination (SEDAR 2013d). The assessment states that the estimated fishing rate exceeded the
maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) (represented by FMSY) in 2012 (when the recreational fleet
exceeded its quota), but because the assessment is based on a three year geometric mean rather than
the most recent year of data, the stock is considered not overfished (SEDAR 2013d). Based on the stock
fluctuating below and above FMSY, fishing mortality scores as "moderate concern."
34
Rationale
Figure 14: Estimated fishing mortality (F) relative to fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) for the
South Atlantic snowy grouper stock relative to benchmarks. Solid line indicates estimates from the stock
assessment base model run (Beaufort Assessment Model); dashed lines represent median values; gray error bands
indicate 5th and 95th percentiles.
WARSAW GROUPER
1.00
High
The FishBase inherent vulnerability score for Warsaw grouper is 68 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et
al. 2005), corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Warsaw grouper is a slow
growing, very large-bodied species, reaching the highest maximum age (41 years) and largest size of any
of the groupers covered in this report (230 cm, 263 kg). Fecundity of this species is unknown. (SAFMC
2012)
35
1.00
Very High Concern
Warsaw grouper has been listed by IUCN as "critically endangered" since 2006 (IUCN 2006). Warsaw
grouper has been on the candidate list for Endangered Species Act Listing since 1999 (64 FR 33466) and
NMFS placed it on the Species of Concern list in 2004 due to potential population decline and threats
from fishing and bycatch (69 FR 19975). In 2010, a petition to list Warsaw grouper under Endangered
Species Act (ESA) was denied (69 FR 59690) with the rationale that the "Warsaw grouper has always
been too uncommonly captured in fisheries for data on landings or weight of fish landed to be a reliable
indicator of population status and trends."
Warsaw grouper's overfished status in the Gulf of Mexico is unknown because no stock assessments
have been conducted (NMFS 2013).
Due to to its IUCN status and its unknown overfished status, Warsaw grouper's stock status in the Gulf
of Mexico scores as "very high concern."
1.00
High Concern
NMFS listed Warsaw grouper's overfishing status in the Gulf of Mexico as unknown, the stock has not
been assessed (NMFS 2013).
Starting in 2010, Warsaw grouper in the Gulf of Mexico has been managed under the deep water
grouper IFQ program. Due to flexibility measures built into the IFQ program, Warsaw grouper (and
speckled hind) can be landed under the shallow water grouper IFQ once a fisherman's deep water IFQ
allocation has been reached (NMFS 2013a). In 2010, Warsaw grouper landings represented 9.8% of all
deep water grouper landed (59.4% of the total 2010 deep water grouper quota was met) and, in 2011, it
represented 5.8% of all deep water grouper landed (76.3% of the total deep water grouper quota was
met) (NMFS 2013a)(NMFS 2013b). We note that of the deepwater groupers, Warsaw grouper is in least
demand (GMFMC 2012) so is likely not as highly targeted as other species.
According to the Federal Register notice rejecting ESA listing for this species, management actions have
36
significantly reduced landings for Warsaw grouper in the Gulf of Mexico (69 FR 59690). In the IFQ
program's first year (2010), landings for this species reached a low point, and have increased in
subsequent years (2010: 28.6 MT, 2011: 33.7 MT 2012: 47.5 MT)(NMFS 2014d). Although fishing effort
is managed, SFW rates fishing mortality for Warsaw grouper as "high concern" because this species is
listed as "critically endangered" by IUCN, fishing mortality is unknown, and it is unknown if management
to curtail overfishing is effective.
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
1.00
High
The FishBase inherent vulnerability score for yellowedge grouper is 66 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung
et al. 2005), corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Yellowedge grouper is a
slow-growing long-lived species (with maximum age recorded at 85 years). It is a "protogynous
hermaphrodite" (shifting from female to male). Information on fecundity is lacking for this species.
(SAFMC 2012)
3.00
Moderate Concern
Yellowedge grouper is listed as "vulnerable" by IUCN (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Ferreira & Peres 2008).
Stock assessments for Gulf of Mexico yellowedge grouper were carried out in 2002 (determined
inconclusive) and in 2011. The 2011 assessment (based on commercial and recreational impacts to the
stock) concluded that the stock was not overfished. According to the stock assessment, the most
realistic range estimate for B/BMSY (using a SPR of 30% as a proxy for MSY and based on spawning stock
biomass in 2009 relative to the minimum stock size threshold) was 0.96 to 1.36 (SEDAR 2011).
There were high degrees of uncertainty among the numerous model outputs in the stock assessment,
with results indicating that the stock could be close to overfished (SEDAR 2011). For the preferred
outcome (which resulted in the stock not being overfished), the stock assessment modeled biomass
37
with the less conservative SPR30% as a proxy for MSY rather than the more conservative SPR40%. Choosing
SPR40% would have led to an "overfished" determination. Due to the very high vulnerability of this
species to fishing mortality, SPR40% may have been a more appropriate MSY proxy. Independent reviews
of the stock assessment discussed the choice of SPR percentage as a management decision, such that
setting SPR at the more conservative 40% assumes a lower biological risk that the stock will be
overfished (Cook 2011)(Medley 2011)(Sparholt 2011).
The next stock assessment is tentatively scheduled for 2015 (SEDAR 2013).
Yellowedge grouper's stock status in the Gulf of Mexico scores as "moderate concern" rather than "low"
or "very low concern" because of uncertainties over the overfished status and the use of the less
conservative SPR30% as an MSY proxy in the stock assessment.
2.00
High Concern
Yellowedge grouper is listed as "vulnerable" by IUCN (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Ferreira & Peres
2008).According to the NMFS 4th Quarter Status of US Fisheries Report, the South Atlantic yellowedge
grouper stock's overfished status is unknown (NMFS 2013).
The last stock assessment that included yellowedge grouper (SEDAR 4) is out of date, and was
completed in 2004 based on data through 2002. It used a static SPR value of 48% based on age data
from the Gulf of Mexico population and size-based reproductive data from the South Atlantic (SEDAR
2004). There are no plans to conduct future stock assessments of yellowedge grouper in the South
Atlantic region (SEDAR 2013).
Due to yellowedge grouper's IUCN status and an ”unknown” overfished status, stock status scores as
"high concern."
2.33
Moderate Concern
Stock assessments for Gulf of Mexico yellowedge grouper were carried out in 2002 (determined
inconclusive) and in 2011. The 2011 assessment (based on commercial and recreational impacts to the
stock), concluded that the stock was not experiencing overfishing. According to the stock assessment,
38
the most realistic range estimate for F/FMSY (using a SPR of 30% as a proxy for MSY based on the average
fishing mortality between 2007 and 2009 relative to the MFMT) was 0.78 to 1.30. (SEDAR 2011)
However, there were high degrees of uncertainty among the numerous model outputs, with results
indicating that the stock could be experiencing overfishing (SEDAR 2011). For the preferred outcome
(which resulted in overfishing not occurring), the stock assessment modeled fishing mortality with both
the less conservative SPR30% as a proxy for MSY rather than the more conservative SPR40%. Choosing
SPR40% would have led to an “overfishing” determination. Due to the high vulnerability of this species to
fishing mortality, SPR40% may have been a more appropriate MSY proxy. Independent reviews of the
stock assessment discussed the choice of SPR percentage as a management decision, such that setting
SPR at the more conservative 40% assumes a lower biological risk for overfishing the stock (Cook
2011)(Medley 2011)(Sparholt 2011).
The next stock assessment is tentatively scheduled for 2015 (SEDAR 2013).
Due to uncertainty in the F/FMSY estimation and the choice of SPR30% rather than SPR40% as an MSY proxy,
fishing mortality scores as "moderate concern" rather than "low concern" or "very low concern." As of
2010, commercial (but not recreational) fishing mortality to the yellowedge grouper stock is managed
under a multi-species deepwater grouper IFQ program which currently also includes Warsaw, snowy
and speckled hind (GMFMC 2012). Recreational mortality to the yellowedge grouper stock is considered
to be low (SEDAR 2011).
2.33
Moderate Concern
According to NMFS, the yellowedge grouper stock in the South Atlantic region is not experiencing
overfishing but F is unestimated (NMFS 2013). The last stock assessment that included yellowedge
grouper is out of date (SEDAR 4) and was completed in 2004 based on data through 2002 (SEDAR 2004).
There are no future plans to assess the South Atlantic stock of this species (SEDAR 2013).
Commercial catches of yellowedge grouper in the South Atlantic region are currently low, with 0.2 MT
handline landings and 0.1 MT rod and reel landings in 2011 and no longline landings in 2010 or 2011
(NMFS 2013b) due to Amendment 17B, which prohibited deepwater grouper harvest at depths
exceeding 240 ft. (73 m) in order to decrease the fishing mortality of Warsaw grouper and speckled
hind. In May 2012, NMFS removed this deepwater prohibition of yellowedge grouper catch. NMFS does
not expect much of an increase in yellowedge grouper deep longline catch as a result of this
management action (77 FR 27375).
39
Yellowedge grouper fishing mortality in the South Atlantic scores as "moderate concern" because,
although this stock may be depleted (overfished status is unknown), fishing mortality is low.
40
Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks
All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the
species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all
fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include
discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing.
To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch
species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0 to 1), which evaluates the amount
of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2
rating is determined as follows:



Subscore >3.2=Green or Low Concern
Subscore >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
Subscore <=2.2=Red or High Concern
Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.
Criterion 2 Summary
Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section.
Black Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline
Subscore:: 2.159
Discard Rate:
0.95
Species
RED PORGY
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
SNOWY GROUPER
1.00: High
SCAMP
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
3.00: Low
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: Medium 2.00: High
Concern
GAG GROUPER
GRAY TRIGGERFISH
RED SNAPPER
2.00: High
Concern
2.051
Fishing
Mortality
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.709
2.159
2.159
2.644
3.318
2.709
41
GREATER AMBERJACK
RED GROUPER
BLACK GROUPER
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
2.00: Medium 5.00: Very
Low Concern
1.00: High
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.318
3.67: Low
Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.831
Black Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom
Subscore:: 1.414
Discard Rate:
0.75
C2 Rate:
Species
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
4.472
5.000
5.000
1.061
Fishing
Mortality
BLACKNOSE SHARK
1.00: High
Concern
LOGGERHEAD TURTLE
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
SPECKLED HIND
1.00: High
1.00: Very
2.33:
High Concern Moderate
Concern
DUSKY SMOOTHHOUND (SMOOTH 1.00: High
2.00: High
2.33:
DOGFISH)
Concern
Moderate
Concern
GIANT SNAKE EEL
1.00: High
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
SNOWY GROUPER
1.00: High
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
BLUELINE TILEFISH
2.00: Medium 3.00:
2.33:
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
1.00: High
3.00:
2.33:
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
GAG GROUPER
1.00: High
3.00:
3.67: Low
Moderate
Concern
Concern
RED GROUPER
1.00: High
4.00: Low
3.67: Low
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.414
1.526
1.526
2.159
2.159
2.159
2.644
2.644
3.318
3.831
42
BLACK GROUPER
GOLDEN TILEFISH
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
Black Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Handline
Subscore:: 2.236
Discard Rate:
0.95
Species
GAG GROUPER
GRAY TRIGGERFISH
RED PORGY
SCAMP
BLACK SEA BASS
RED GROUPER
ATLANTIC SHARPNOSE SHARK
BLACK GROUPER
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
Species
WARSAW GROUPER
RED PORGY
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
3.00: Low
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
3.00: Low
4.00: Low
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
2.00: Medium 4.00: Low
Concern
1.00: High
5.00: Very
Low Concern
Gag Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.95
5.00: Very
4.472
Low Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
Fishing
Mortality
3.67: Low
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
5.0: Very Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
4.472
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
2.124
3.831
2.644
2.709
3.318
3.831
4.284
4.472
4.472
5.000
0.950
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
Subscore
1.000
2.159
43
SNOWY GROUPER
1.00: High
SCAMP
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
3.00: Low
2.00: High
Concern
Concern
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
1.00: High
5.00: Very
Low Concern
GAG GROUPER
GRAY TRIGGERFISH
RED SNAPPER
GREATER AMBERJACK
RED GROUPER
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
2.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.159
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.709
WARSAW GROUPER
BLACKNOSE SHARK
LOGGERHEAD TURTLE
SPECKLED HIND
2.709
3.318
0.750
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
Subscore
1.00: High
1.526
DOGFISH)
GIANT SNAKE EEL
3.318
3.67: Low
3.831
Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
Gag Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.75
C2 Rate:
Species
2.644
1.00: High
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: Very
2.33:
Concern
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
1.000
1.414
1.526
2.159
2.159
44
SNOWY GROUPER
1.00: High
BLUELINE TILEFISH
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
Low Concern
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
GAG GROUPER
RED GROUPER
GOLDEN TILEFISH
2.00: High
Concern
Gag Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Handline
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.95
Species
WARSAW GROUPER
GAG GROUPER
SNOWY GROUPER
1.00: High
GRAY TRIGGERFISH
3.00: Low
RED PORGY
SCAMP
RED GROUPER
2.00: High
Concern
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
2.159
2.644
2.644
3.318
3.67: Low
3.831
Concern
3.67: Low
4.284
Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
0.950
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.831
1.000
3.831
2.159
2.159
2.644
2.709
3.318
4.284
45
BLACK SEA BASS
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
3.00: Low
4.00: Low
Concern
Concern
1.00: High
5.00: Very
Low Concern
Red Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.95
Species
WARSAW GROUPER
RED PORGY
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
SNOWY GROUPER
1.00: High
SCAMP
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
3.00: Low
2.00: High
Concern
Concern
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
1.00: High
5.00: Very
Low Concern
GAG GROUPER
GRAY TRIGGERFISH
RED SNAPPER
GREATER AMBERJACK
RED GROUPER
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
5.00: Very
4.472
Low Concern
5.00: Very
4.472
Low Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
2.00: High
Concern
0.950
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.709
1.000
2.159
2.159
2.644
3.318
2.709
3.318
3.67: Low
3.831
Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
46
Red Rrouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.75
C2 Rate:
Species
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
0.750
Fishing
Mortality
WARSAW GROUPER
1.00: High
Concern
BLACKNOSE SHARK
1.00: High
Concern
LOGGERHEAD TURTLE
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
SPECKLED HIND
1.00: High
1.00: Very
2.33:
Concern
2.00: High
2.33:
DOGFISH)
Concern
Moderate
Concern
GIANT SNAKE EEL
1.00: High
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
SNOWY GROUPER
1.00: High
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
BLUELINE TILEFISH
2.00: Medium 3.00:
2.33:
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
1.00: High
3.00:
2.33:
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
GAG GROUPER
1.00: High
3.00:
3.67: Low
Moderate
Concern
Concern
RED GROUPER
1.00: High
4.00: Low
3.67: Low
Concern
Concern
3.67: Low
Low Concern Concern
GOLDEN TILEFISH
5.00: Very
Low Concern Low Concern
Subscore
1.000
1.414
1.526
1.526
2.159
2.159
2.159
2.644
2.644
3.3182
3.831
4.284
5.000
47
Red Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Handline
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.95
Species
WARSAW GROUPER
GAG GROUPER
SNOWY GROUPER
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
1.00: High
GRAY TRIGGERFISH
3.00: Low
RED PORGY
SCAMP
RED GROUPER
BLACK SEA BASS
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
2.00: High
Concern
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
3.00: Low
4.00: Low
Concern
Concern
1.00: High
5.00: Very
Low Concern
Snowy Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.95
Species
WARSAW GROUPER
RED PORGY
C2 Rate:
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.831
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
0.950
1.000
3.831
2.159
2.159
2.644
2.709
3.318
4.284
4.472
4.472
5.000
0.950
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
Subscore
1.000
2.159
48
SNOWY GROUPER
1.00: High
SCAMP
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
3.00: Low
2.00: High
Concern
Concern
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
1.00: High
5.00: Very
Low Concern
GAG GROUPER
GRAY TRIGGERFISH
RED SNAPPER
GREATER AMBERJACK
RED GROUPER
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
2.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.159
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.709
WARSAW GROUPER
BLACKNOSE SHARK
LOGGERHEAD TURTLE
SPECKLED HIND
2.709
3.318
0.750
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
Subscore
1.00: High
1.526
DOGFISH)
GIANT SNAKE EEL
3.318
3.67: Low
3.831
Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
Snowy Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.75
C2 Rate:
Species
2.644
1.00: High
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: Very
2.33:
Concern
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
1.000
1.414
1.526
2.159
2.159
49
SNOWY GROUPER
1.00: High
BLUELINE TILEFISH
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
Low Concern
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
GAG GROUPER
RED GROUPER
GOLDEN TILEFISH
2.00: High
Concern
Snowy Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Handline
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.95
Species
WARSAW GROUPER
GAG GROUPER
SNOWY GROUPER
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
GRAY TRIGGERFISH
RED PORGY
SCAMP
RED GROUPER
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.644
2.644
3.318
3.67: Low
3.831
Concern
3.67: Low
4.284
Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
2.159
0.950
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
3.00: Low
3.00:
2.33:
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
3.67: Low
Concern
Concern
2.00: Medium 3.00: Medium 3.67: Low
Concern
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
3.67: Low
Concern
Concern
3.67: Low
Low Concern Concern
Subscore
1.000
3.831
2.159
2.159
2.644
2.709
3.318
3.831
4.284
50
BLACK SEA BASS
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
3.00: Low
4.00: Low
Concern
Concern
1.00: High
5.00: Very
Low Concern
5.00: Very
4.472
Low Concern
5.00: Very
4.472
Low Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
Snowy Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.75
C2 Rate:
Species
SPECKLED HIND
WARSAW GROUPER
BLACKNOSE SHARK
SNOWY GROUPER
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
BLUELINE TILEFISH
GOLDEN TILEFISH
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
2.00: Medium 3.00:
2.33:
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
3.67: Low
Low Concern Concern
5.00: Very
Warsaw Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline
Subscore:: 2.159
Discard Rate:
0.95
Species
WARSAW GROUPER
RED PORGY
SNOWY GROUPER
0.750
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
Subscore
1.000
1.000
1.414
2.159
2.159
2.644
4.284
5.000
2.051
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
Subscore
1.000
2.159
2.159
51
SCAMP
GAG GROUPER
GRAY TRIGGERFISH
RED SNAPPER
GREATER AMBERJACK
RED GROUPER
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
3.00: Low
2.00: High
Concern
Concern
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
1.00: High
5.00: Very
Low Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.664
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.709
WARSAW GROUPER
BLACKNOSE SHARK
LOGGERHEAD TURTLE
SPECKLED HIND
2.709
3.318
3.67: Low
3.831
Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
Warsaw Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom
Subscore:: 1.414
Discard Rate:
0.75
C2 Rate:
Species
3.318
1.061
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
Subscore
1.00: High
1.526
DOGFISH)
GIANT SNAKE EEL
1.00: High
SNOWY GROUPER
1.00: High
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: Very
2.33:
Concern
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
1.000
1.414
1.526
2.159
2.159
2.159
52
BLUELINE TILEFISH
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
GAG GROUPER
RED GROUPER
GOLDEN TILEFISH
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
Low Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.644
2.644
3.318
3.67: Low
3.831
Concern
3.67: Low
4.284
Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
Yellowedge Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.75
C2 Rate: 0.750
Species
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
Fishing
Mortality
WARSAW GROUPER
1.00: High
Concern
BLACKNOSE SHARK
1.00: High
Concern
LOGGERHEAD TURTLE
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
SPECKLED HIND
1.00: High
1.00: Very
2.33:
Concern
2.00: High
2.33:
DOGFISH)
Concern
Moderate
Concern
GIANT SNAKE EEL
1.00: High
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
SNOWY GROUPER
1.00: High
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
BLUELINE TILEFISH
2.00: Medium 3.00:
2.33:
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
1.00: High
3.00:
2.33:
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
Subscore
1.000
1.414
1.526
1.526
2.159
2.159
2.159
2.644
2.644
53
GAG GROUPER
RED GROUPER
GOLDEN TILEFISH
1.00: High
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
Low Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
3.831
Concern
3.67: Low
4.284
Concern
5.00: Very
5.000
Low Concern
Yellowedge Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Handline
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.95
C2 Rate:
Species
WARSAW GROUPER
GAG GROUPER
SNOWY GROUPER
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
1.00: High
GRAY TRIGGERFISH
3.00: Low
RED PORGY
SCAMP
RED GROUPER
BLACK SEA BASS
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
2.00: High
Concern
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: Medium 3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
4.00: Low
Concern
Low Concern
3.00: Low
4.00: Low
Concern
Concern
1.00: High
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.318
0.950
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
Subscore
3.67: Low
Concern
3.67: Low
Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
5.00: Very
Low Concern
3.831
1.000
3.831
2.159
2.159
2.644
2.709
3.318
4.284
4.472
4.472
5.000
54
Yellowedge Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom
Subscore:: 1.000
Discard Rate:
0.75
C2 Rate: 0.750
Species
SPECKLED HIND
WARSAW GROUPER
BLACKNOSE SHARK
SNOWY GROUPER
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER
BLUELINE TILEFISH
GOLDEN TILEFISH
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
1.00: Very
High Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
2.00: High
2.33:
Concern
Moderate
Concern
2.00: Medium 3.00:
2.33:
Moderate
Moderate
Concern
Concern
3.67: Low
Low Concern Concern
5.00: Very
Subscore
1.000
1.000
1.414
2.159
2.159
2.644
4.284
5.000
Due to the way observer data are collected (the number of individual fish rather than the weight of
bycatch is recorded while catch is recorded by weight), it is not possible to determine bycatch ratios for
any of the fisheries under consideration, nor is it possible to quantitatively determine which bycatch
species should be included in this section according to the SFW guidelines. However, observer data were
used to qualitatively determine bycatch species for each region. Details on observer coverage are
provided in the discussion for Criteria 3.2, Bycatch Management. Please note that black grouper in both
regions is caught at shallower depths than the other 5 grouper species assessed in this report. The
deeper water species, namely Warsaw grouper, are not included as bycatch for black grouper.
55
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
United States , Longline, Bottom
2.00
Medium
Inherent Vulnerability = 48 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005)
5.00
Very Low Concern
According to the 2013 stock assessment, Atlantic sharpnose shark is not overfished. The stock
assessment uses a biomass proxy of spawning stock fecundity (SSF) and estimated SSF2011/SSFMSY as
ranging from 1.01 to 2.88 (SEDAR 2013c). The assessment reports an 85%–99% probability that the
stock is not overfished (SEDAR 2013c).
56
2.3 - Fishing Mortality
3.67
Low Concern
According to the 2013 stock assessment it is not clear if the Atlantic sharpnose shark stock (across the
US Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region) is experiencing overfishing with current fishing
mortality (F2011) compared to fishing mortality at MSY (FMSY) ranging from F2011/FMSY=0.03 to 0.57 (SEDAR
2013c). The probability of overfishing not occurring in 2011 was >50% in three cases and ranged
between 54 and 67% (SEDAR 2013c), justifying the fishing mortality score of "low concern."
Bycatch is a significant source of mortality to Atlantic sharpnose shark, but the species is not overfished
and is likely not experiencing overfishing (so current bycatch mortality of this species is considered
acceptable). Between July 2006 and December 2009, reef fish observers covering 1,503 longline sets
recorded 2142 individuals caught (20 were kept) on reef fish longline gear in this region (Scott-Denton
et al. 2011). According to the 2013 Update to the US National Bycatch report, an estimated 25,910.76
individuals were caught in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish bottom longline fishery (NMFS 2013f). The report
does not cite the data they based this estimate on. This estimate constitutes 40% of the total bycatch of
Atlantic sharpnose shark across the Southeast region (spanning the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic) (NMFS 2013f).
3.67
Low Concern
According to the 2013 stock assessment, it is not clear if the Atlantic sharpnose shark stock (across the
mortality (F2011) compared to FMSY ranging from F2011/FMSY=0.03 to 0.57 (SEDAR 2013c). The probability
of overfishing not occurring in 2011 was >50% in three cases and ranged between 54 and 67% (SEDAR
2013c), justifying the fishing mortality score of "low concern."
acceptable). A pilot snapper-grouper fishery observer program over three fishing seasons (316 observer
days over 2007-8, 2008-9, 20010-11) (representing a small subset of all fishing trips) recorded 506
individuals caught on handline gear in the South Atlantic (Helies and Jamison 2013). According to the
2013 Update to the National Bycatch report, an estimated 9,479 individuals were caught in the South
57
Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery between 2006 and 2010 (NMFS 2013f). The origin of these data
(whether from observer or logbook data) is not cited in the report.
3.67
Low Concern
acceptable). According to the 2013 National Bycatch report, an estimate of 3,166.03 individuals (with a
coefficent of variation (CV) = 0.95) were caught in the South Altantic snapper-grouper bottom longline
fishery based on data from 2006 to 2010 (NMFS 2013f). These data are likely based on logbook data
(observer data on this fishery is not available (NMFS 2011), and the report does not specify what data
sources were used to derive each estimate) (NMFS 2011).
3.67
Low Concern
Bycatch is a significant source of mortality for Atlantic sharpnose shark, but the species is not overfished
acceptable). A pilot snapper-grouper fishery observer program over three fishing seasons (316 observer
days over 2007-8, 2008-9, 20010-11, representing a small subset of all fishing trips) recorded 506
individuals caught on handline gear in the South Atlantic (Helies and Jamison 2013). According to the
2013 Update to the National Bycatch report, an estimated 9,479 individuals were caught in the South
Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery between 2006 and 2010 (NMFS 2013f). The origin of these data
(whether from observer or logbook data) is not cited in the report.
58
Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate
0.75
> 100%
The bait+discards/landings ratio is 111%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 1,503
longline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).
0.95
20%–40%
The bait+discards/landings ratio is 24%. This ratio is based on observer count data from 59 vertical line
snapper-grouper fishery trips over 316 days, covering the region extending from southern North
Carolina to northern Florida (Helies and Jamison 2013).
0.75
> 100%
The discards+bait/landings ratio cannot be calculated for the South Atlantic longline snapper-grouper
fishery due to the low number of fishing vessels reporting (NMFS 2011). Given the similarities in gear
and catch between this region and the Gulf of Mexico longline reef fishery, SFW uses the ratio
calculated for the Gulf of Mexico (111%) as a substitute.
0.95
20%–40%
59
BLACK GROUPER- See discussion in Criterion 1
BLACK SEA BASS
3.00
Low
4.00
Low Concern
The 2011 black sea bass assessment for the US South Atlantic population was updated in 2013. The
spawning stock biomass (abundance of mature fish) is estimated to be 103% that needed to produce
the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and 166% of MSST (minimum standing stock (spawning biomass)
threshold), indicating the population had recovered and was no longer overfished. There was a high
amount of uncertainty around this estimate based largely on the influence of high recruitment rates
(fish entering the fishery) between 2008 and 2012, which may artificially inflate the biomass estimate
(SEDAR 2013a). SFW has, therefore, awarded a “low” and not a “very low concern” score.
3.67
Very Low Concern
The 2013 updated assessment indicates that overfishing of this black sea bass population occurred from
1991-2010, though there was a high degree of uncertainty around the fishing mortality estimates.
60
However, in recent years (2011-2012), fishing mortality has fallen to below sustainable levels and is
currently at 66% of the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). The assessment indicates
that it is highly likely that current fishing levels on black sea bass are sustainable, with only a 7% chance
that overfishing is still occurring. As well, the handline fishery only accounts for around 10% of the
catches or fishing mortality {SEDAR 2013a}. We have therefore awarded a score of very low concern.
A pilot snapper-grouper fishery observer study, which sampled a limited number of handline trips over 3
seasons recorded 1302 black sea bass caught (316 observer days over 2007-8, 2008-9 and 2010-11;
representing a small subset of all fishing trips) (Helies and Jamison 2013).
0.95
20%–40%
BLACKNOSE SHARK
1.00
High
Inherent Vulnerability = 70 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005).
61
2.00
High Concern
NMFS lists the overfished status of blacknose shark in the Gulf of Mexico as unknown (NMFS 2013). The
2011 stock assessment for this region provided biomass refererence points based on spawning stock
fecundity (SSF2005/SSFMSY = 0.48) and described the population as overfished (SEDAR 2011e). This species
is listed as near threatened by IUCN (Morgan et al. 2009).
2.00
High Concern
NMFS lists blacknose shark in the South Atlantic as overfished with a
(B/BMSY proxy: SSF2005/SSFMSY ranges from 0.43 - 0.60) (SEDAR 2011a)(NMFS 2013). It is in the fourth
year of an 18 year rebuilding plan (NMFS 2013). This species is listed as near threatened by IUCN
(Morgan et al. 2009).
1.00
High Concern
According to the NMFS, the overfishing status for blacknose shark in the Gulf of Mexico is unknown
(NMFS 2013), however the 2011 stock assessment describes this population as experiencing overfishing
with F2005/FMSY as 3.43 (SEDAR 2011e). Based on limited observer data on selected longline trips (n =
1,503 sets) between 2006 and 2009, 816 blacknose sharks were caught (with 6 kept) in the Gulf of
Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). The 2013 Update to the US National Bycatch Report estimated that
31,885.77 individuals (coefficient of variation (CV) = 2.97) were caught as bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico
reef fish bottom longline fishery (NMFS 2013f), which constitutes 80% of the bycatch mortality of this
species across the South Atlantic region (including the South Altantic and Gulf of Mexico). The report
does not cite the data source used to generate these estimates.
62
1.00
High Concern
According to the NMFS, blacknose shark in the South Atlantic is experiencing overfishing, with the most
recent stock assessment estimating fishing mortality of F2005/FMSY=2.12-5.68 (SEDAR 2011a). There is
inadequate data to determine bycatch in the longline snapper-grouper fishery in this region (NMFS
2011).
0.75
> 100%
0.75
> 100%
and catch between this region and the Gulf of Mexico longline reef fishery, we use the ratio calculated
for the Gulf of Mexico (111%) as a substitute.
BLUELINE TILEFISH
63
2.00
Medium
The inherent vulnerability of blueline tilefish, Caulolatilus microps, was assessed based on seven
productivity attributes (Table 2). Blueline tilefish scored an average of 2.333 which corresponds to a
moderate inherent vulnerability.
Rationale:
The www.fishbase.org vulnerability score was 58 out of 100 {Froese and Pauly 2000}{Cheung et al.
2005}. This represents high inherent vulnerability, however the life history attributes do not support this
score, therefore a moderate score is used.
Table 2: Inherent Vulnerability characteristics of blueline tilefish.
Productivity attribute
Average age at maturity
Average maximum age
Fecundity
Average size at maturity
Average maximum size
Reproductive strategy
Trophic Level
Average Score
Blueline tilefish
3 yrs
43 yrs
2.2-13 million eggs/yr
33.8-38.7cm TL (females)
90 cm TL
Broadcast Spawner
3.8 ± 0.6 SE
Score
3
1
N/A
3
3
3
1
2.333
Source
SEDAR 2013e
SEDAR 2013e
SEDAR 2013e
SEDAR 2013e
SEDAR 2013e
SEDAR 2013e
Froese and Pauly 2000
3.00
Moderate Concern
There has been no stock assessment for blueline tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico and its overfished status is
unknown. However, its stock was discussed in the golden tilefish assessment (it was determined that
adequate data was unavailable for an assessment of this species), and annual catch per unit effort
(CPUE) was provided through 2009. No trend in CPUE values was detected over time (SEDAR 2011c).
64
3.00
Moderate Concern
There is no stock assessment for blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic region so its overfished status is
unknown. However, there is a benchmark assessment underway in 2013 {SEDAR 2013}. Preliminary
documents with CPUE data show that this metric has fluctuated, but overall has declined over time.
2.33
Moderate Concern
There has been no stock assessment for blueline tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico and it is unknown
whether this species is experiencing overfishing. However, its stock was discussed in the golden tilefish
assessment, as these two species comprise the majority of landings for the Gulf tilefish quota
(IFQ). Blueline tilefish catch (largely caught by longline) has fluctuated, but generally increased over
time (SEDAR 2011c). A deepwater species, blueline tilefish is a major bycatch species of the yellowedge
grouper fishery, with fisherman reporting 3,000 lbs. of blueline tilefish caught for every 10,000 lbs. of
yellowedge grouper caught (SEDAR 2011c). Between July 2006 and December 2009, reef fish observers
covering 1,503 longline sets recorded 3591 blueline tilefish as caught (1767 were kept) (Scott-Denton et
al. 2011). According to limited logbook data, for the 13 longline trips reporting discards between 2002
and 2009, a total of 3498 blueline tilefish were discarded (SEDAR 2011c). Discarded blueline tilefish are
assumed to have 100% mortality (SEDAR 2011c).
2.33
Moderate Concern
There is no stock assessment for blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic region so whether this species is
experiencing overfishing is unknown. However, there is a benchmark assessment underway in 2013.
There are inadequate data to determine bycatch in the longline snapper-grouper fishery in this region
{NMFS 2011}.
65
0.75
> 100%
0.75
> 100%
DUSKY SMOOTHHOUND (SMOOTH DOGFISH)
1.00
High
2.00
High Concern
66
There is no stock assessment for smooth dogfish so its overfished status is unknown. However, there is
a benchmark assessment scheduled for 2014 (SEDAR 2013). This species is listed as "near threatened"
by IUCN (Conrath 2005).
2.33
Moderate Concern
There is no stock assessment for smooth dogfish so it is unknown whether it is experiencing overfishing.
A benchmark assessment is scheduled for 2014 (SEDAR 2013) Based on observer data from 1,503 reef
fish longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico between July 2006 and December 2009, 1284 smooth dogfish
were caught (only 1 was kept), 96% of those caught were classified as "normal," rather than "stressed"
(Scott-Denton et al. 2011). Bycatch mortality studies are not available for this species. Due to moderate
management aimed at reducing bycatch species, SFW rates this sub-criterion as “moderate
concern.” Relevant management practices include mandatory use of circle hooks, dehooking devices,
and venting tools (NMFS 2008).
0.75
> 100%
GAG GROUPER- See discussion in Criterion 1
67
GIANT SNAKE EEL
1.00
High
2.00
High Concern
There is no stock assessment for giant/king snake eel in the Gulf of Mexico (nor is a future assessment
scheduled), thus, the overfished status of this species is unknown.
Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality
2.33
Moderate Concern
There is no stock assessment for giant/king snake eel in the Gulf of Mexico (nor is a future assessment
scheduled), thus, it is unknown if this species is experiencing overfishing. Based on observer data from
1,503 reef fish longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico between July 2006 and December 2009,
1573 giant/king snake eels were caught (only 2 were kept), and 88% of those caught were classified as
"normal" rather than "stressed" (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). Due to moderate management aimed at
reducing bycatch species, SFW rates this subcriterion as “moderate concern.” Relevant management
practices include mandatory use of circle hooks, dehooking devices, and venting tools (NMFS 2008).
68
0.75
> 100%
GOLDEN TILEFISH
2.00
Medium
The inherent vulnerability of golden tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaelonticeps, was assessed based on seven
productivity attributes (Table 3). Golden tilefish scored an average of 2.0 which corresponds to a
moderate inherent vulnerability.
Rationale:
The www.fishbase.org vulnerability score was 60 out of 100 {Froese and Pauly 2000}{Cheung et al.
2005}. This represents high inherent vulnerability, however the life history attributes do not support this
score, therefore a moderate score is used.
Table 3: Inherent Vulnerability characteristics for golden tilefish.
Productivity attribute
Average age at maturity
Average maximum age
Fecundity
Average size at maturity
Average maximum size
Reproductive strategy
Trophic Level
Average Score
Golden Tilefish
2-3 yrs
40 yrs
2.3 million eggs/yr
48-66 cm TL (females)
112 cm TL
Broadcast Spawner
3.5 ± 0.4 SE
Score
3
1
N/A
2
2
3
1
2
Source
SEDAR 2013b/c
SEDAR 2013b/c
Grimes et al. 1988
Grimes et al. 1988
Nitschke 2006
Grimes et al. 1988
Froese and Pauly 2000
69
5.00
Very Low Concern
In the Gulf of Mexico, tilefish/golden tilefish is not overfished (B/BMSY proxy: SSBcurrent/MSST ranges
from 2.26 to 2.30) (SEDAR 2011c).
5.00
Very Low Concern
According to the most recent stock assessment and NMFS, golden tilefish in the South Atlantic is not
overfished (B/BMSY proxy: SSBcurrent/MSST = 2.14 (SEDAR 2011b)(NMFS 2013).
5.00
Very Low Concern
In the Gulf of Mexico, tilefish/golden tilefish is not experiencing overfishing, with an Fcurrent/MFMT
(F/FMSY proxy) of 0.49-0.78 (SEDAR 2011c). Golden tilefish landings peaked in the late 1980s and have
fluctuated ever since (SEDAR 2011c). Based on reef fish observer data on commercial longline vessels
covering 1503 sets between July 2006 and December 2009, 2199 golden tilefish were caught (2130 were
kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). Limited commercial logbook data from 11 longline trips reporting
discards between 2002 and 2009 reported 3509 golden tilefish discarded (SEDAR 2011c). Discarded
golden tilefish are assumed to have 100% mortality (SEDAR 2011c).
5.00
Very Low Concern
According to the most recent stock assessment and NMFS stock status update, golden tilefish in the
South Atlantic is not experiencing overfishing and has an F/FMSY of 0.36 (SEDAR 2011b)(NMFS 2013).
70
0.75
> 100%
0.75
> 100%
and catch between this region and the Gulf of Mexico longline reef fishery, SFW uses the ratio
calculated for the Gulf of Mexico (111%) as a substitute.
GRAY TRIGGERFISH
3.00
Low
71
2.00
High Concern
According to the 2011 update stock assessment (to the 2006 benchmark assessment, which found that
gray triggerfish was overfished) gray triggerfish in the Gulf of Mexico is still overfished
(B/BMSY proxy: SSBcurrent/MSST = 0.53) (GMFMC 2012b). The NMFS 2013 4th Quarter Stock Status update
lists the B/BMSY proxy at a much lower value of 0.04 (NMFS 2013). It is in year six of a six year rebuilding
plan (NMFS 2013). In recent years, gray triggerfish has had lower than normal recruitment (GMFMC
2012b).
3.00
Moderate Concern
There is no stock assessment for gray triggerfish in the South Atlantic region, thus, its overfished status
is unknown. However, there is a benchmark assessment underway in 2013 (SEDAR 2013). Preliminary
documents with CPUE data show fluctuation over time, with a sharp increase in recent years (20092011) (NMFS-SEFSC 2013a).
3.67
Low Concern
According to the NMFS 4th Quarter 2013 Stock Status update, gray triggerfish in the Gulf of Mexico is no
longer experiencing overfishing in year 6 of a 6 year rebuilding plan (NMFS 2013) so fishing
mortality scores as "low concern" for this species. The most recent overfishing ratio for this species is
from the 2011 update stock assessment (an update to the 2006 benchmark assessment), which found
that gray triggerfish in the Gulf of Mexico was experiencing overfishing with an Fcurrent/MFMT (F/FMSY
proxy) of 1.04 (GMFMC 2012b). Reef fish observer data from vertical line trips covering 1116 sea
days/7391 sets from July 2006 to December 2009, recorded 809 gray triggerfish caught (751 kept)
(Scott-Denton et al. 2011).
72
2.33
Moderate Concern
There is no stock assessment for gray triggerfish in the South Atlantic region, but according to NMFS 4th
Quarter Stock Status Update this stock is not experiencing overfishing. There is a benchmark assessment
underway in 2014 (originally scheduled for 2013). Based on pilot observer data collected over three
seasons (2007-8, 2008-9, 2010-11) covering 316 observer days, 4936 gray triggerfish were recorded
caught (4875 kept) (Helies and Jamison 2013). Gray triggerfish was the third most common species
caught on these trips (Helies and Jamison 2013).
0.95
20%–40%
handline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).
0.95
20%–40%
snapper-grouper fishery trips over 316 days covering the region extending from southern North Carolina
to northern Florida (Helies and Jamison 2013).
73
GREATER AMBERJACK
2.00
Medium
3.00
Moderate Concern
According to the results of 2014 stock assessment, greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico is slightly
overfished, although the review panel did not agree on an overfished status for this stock due to
concerns over the assessment models used (SEDAR 2014a). Estimates from all three stock assessment
models for 2012 greater amberjack biomass relative to its biomass at MSY (B2012/BMSY) (1.140, 1.039
and 0.906) do not exceed the minimum stock size threshold (MSST) of 75% BMSY (i.e., do not indicate
that the stock is overfished) (SEDAR 2014a). Stock status is scored as “moderate concern” due to
concerns about the stock assessment raised by the review panel, as well as uncertainties in the
underlying data on discards used in the stock assessment (SEDAR 2014a).
Greater amberjack is in year 12 of a 10 year rebuilding plan in the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS 2014c).
3.67
Low Concern
According to the results of 2014 stock assessment, greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico is not likely
experiencing overfishing, although the review panel did not agree on an overfishing status for this stock
due to concerns over the assessment models used (SEDAR 2014a). The 2014 assessment found that
fishing mortality has steadily decreased over the last several years. Estimates of current fishing
74
mortality relative to fishing mortality at MSY (F/FMSY) range from 0.45-0.55, indicating that the stock is
not likely experiencing overfishing (SEDAR 2014a).
Reef fish observers on vertical-line trips covering 1116 sea days/7391 sets from July 2006 to December
2009, recorded 613 greater amberjack caught (171 kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).
Due to uncertainty over the overfishing status in the 2014 stock assessment, greater amberjack's fishing
mortality scores as "low concern" rather than "very low concern."
0.95
20%–40%
LOGGERHEAD TURTLE
1.00
High
Inherent Vulnerability is automatically rated as high for all sea turtle species.
1.00
Very High Concern
Worldwide, loggerhead sea turtle populations are in decline. Under the US Endangered Species Act
(ESA), loggerhead sea turtles are divided into distinct population segments (DPSs), five of which are
75
listed as endangered and four as threatened (NMFS 2013e). Loggerheads in the Gulf of Mexico are part
of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, which listed as threatened under ESA (NMFS 2013e). In
the northern Gulf of Mexico, nest abundance (a measure of population health), declined by almost half
from 1994 to 2010 (Lamont et al. 2012). In 2013, NMFS proposed that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean
DPS is critical habitat for loggerhead sea turtles (78 FR 43005).
2.33
Moderate Concern
Bottom longline gear is known to adversely affect sea turtles via hooking, entanglement, trailing line,
and forced submergence. Captured sea turtles can be released alive or may be found dead upon
retrieval of the gear as a result of forced submergence (NMFS 2009b). According to a 2009 NMFS report,
loggerhead turtle take in the Gulf of Mexico bottom longline reef fishery exceeded the number
authorized by a 2005 NMFS Biological Opinion (BO) issued under the ESA (85 loggerheads over 3 yrs).
The fishery took an estimated 714 loggerheads between July 2006 and December 2008 (the 95 %
confidence interval was 296.9 – 1,720.5) (NMFS 2009a) (See Table 4). The 2009 BO provides an estimate
of 519 takes with 314 of those as mortalities (See Table 1) (NMFS 2009b). These takes occurred despite
the 2006 management measures to reduce sea turtle take established through Amendment 18A of the
Gulf of Mexico Reef FMP (established due to the 2005 BO), which required reef fishery vessels to have
sea turtle release gear and instructions for how to use it onboard (NMFS 2011). Due to the excessive
take, NMFS formulated a new BO in 2009 (NMFS 2009b), and to reduce take to an acceptable level from
the status quo (see table for anticipated future takes), NMFS instituted management strategies via
Amendment 31 to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fishery FMP in April 2010. This amendment includes several
measures aimed at reducing turtle hooking and entanglements, including a prohibition on bottom
longline gears within the 35-fathom contour in the Gulf of Mexico (east of Cape San Blas, FL), a
reduction in vessels holding reef fish permits via an endorsement program for those vessels landing at
least 40,000lbs (18.1 MT) of reef fish per annum and a limit of 1,000 hooks onboard reef fish longline
vessels, with a maximum of 750 hooks rigged for fishing at any time (75 FR 21512). Preliminary data
suggest that these actions have successfully reduced sea turtle takes in the reef fish fishery. For 2009,
before the Amendment 31 restrictions were fully implemented, an estimated 48.5 loggerhead turtles
were taken in the reef fish bottom longline fishery (95% CI 22.5-104.4) (NMFS 2010). Total interaction
estimates for 2011 and 2012 are not publically available, but are anticipated to be lower still. (J. Lee,
pers. Comm.).
Due to effective bycatch management in the longline reef fish fishery, specifically aimed at reducing
loggerhead sea turtle take, fishing mortality for loggerheads is scored as "moderate concern."
76
Rationale:
Table 4: Status Quo and Anticipated Annual Loggerhead Sea Turtle Captures on Reef Fish Bottom Longlines in the
Gulf of Mexico under the Proposed Action in the 2009 NMFS BO.
0.75
> 100%
RED GROUPER- see discussion in Criterion 1
RED PORGY
1.00
High
77
2.00
High Concern
There has been no stock assessment for red porgy in the Gulf of Mexico and its overfished status is
unknown.
2.00
High Concern
Red porgy in the South Atlantic is overfished (SSB2011/SSBMSY = 0.47) (SEDAR 2012a). It is in year 13 of an
18 year rebuilding plan (NMFS 2013). Biomass estimates suggest that the stock is recovering,
with SSB/SSBMSY increasing from 0.19 in 1998 to the most recent value of 0.47 (SEDAR 2012a).
2.33
Moderate Concern
There has been no stock assessment for red porgy in the Gulf of Mexico and it is unknown whether or
not it is experiencing overfishing. Reef fish observers on vertical line trips covering 1116 sea days/7391
sets from July 2006 to December 2009, recorded 6120 red porgy caught (5971 kept) (Scott-Denton et al.
2011).
3.67
Low Concern
Red porgy in the South Atlantic is not experiencing overfishing (F2009−2011/FMSY = 0.64), but is rebuilding
(SEDAR 2012a). Estimates suggest that the stock has generally been exploited below FMSY since the late
78
1990s (SEDAR 2012a). Pilot observer data from the vertical line fishery in this region, covering 316 sea
days over 3 seasons (2007-8, 2008-9, 2010-11) recorded red porgy as the second highest caught species,
and the primary discard species, with 5705 caught (3452 kept) (Helies and Jamison 2013).
0.95
20%–40%
0.95
20%–40%
RED SNAPPER
2.00
Medium
79
2.00
High Concern
Red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is overfished (SBB/MSST = 0.18) and is in year 13 of a 32 year
rebuilding plan (NMFS 2013). The SBB/MSST value currently listed by NMFS is from the 2009 stock
assessment. According to the model used in the most recent stock assessment (completed in June
2013), red snapper biomass and spawning biomass have been increasing since the late 1980s after
decreasing from the 1880s to early 1900s and steeply decreasing from the 1940s through the 1970s
(SEDAR 2013b).
3.67
Low Concern
Red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is not experiencing overfishing, but is rebuilding (NMFS 2013). In the
2013 stock assessment all fishing mortality rates explored in the models resulted in nearly constant
fishing mortality during the projection interval, none of which indicated overfishing (SEDAR 2013b). Reef
fish observers on vertical line trips covering 1116 sea days/7391 sets from July 2006 to December 2009,
recorded 27669 red snapper caught (17992 kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). On these observer trips,
red snapper had the highest catch rate as well as the highest discard rate of any species.
0.95
20%–40%
80
SCAMP
2.00
Medium
Fishbase assigns a high vulnerability to fishing score (68/100) to scamp {Froese and Pauly 2000}{Cheung
et al. 2005}. However, based on the life history attribute method, Scamp are only considered to have a
medium vulnerability (see detailed rationale section). Scamp reach sexual maturity by 3 years of age and
16 in. (41 cm) in length. They have been recorded to live to an age of 21 years, and may live to as many
as 30 years. They can grow to a length of 43 in. (110 cm). {SAFMC 2014c}. Scamp spawn thousands of
pelagic eggs in offshore waters from April to May. They are high-level predators and will eat crabs,
shrimp, and other fish whole {Froese and Pauly 2000}{SAFMC 2014}. The International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers scamp to be a species of "Least Concern" {Rocha et al. 2008}.
Because of this Least Concern designation, we have rated vulnerability of Scamp based on the life
history attribute method rather than the Fishbase score. The SFW method results in a score of 1.83,
which corresponds to moderate inherent vulnerability.
3.00
Moderate Concern
There is no stock assessment for scamp in the Gulf of Mexico and it is unknown if it is overfished {NMFS
2014c} so it is rated as "moderate concern".
81
3.00
Moderate Concern
Scamp populations in the South Atlantic have not been formally assessed since 1998, but have recently
been listed in a core group of species to be regularly assessed starting in 2015 {Carmichael 2013}. The
National Marine Fisheries Service considers the status of scamp to be unknown {NMFS 2014c}. The
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers scamp to be a species of "Least
Concern" {Rocha et al. 2008}. Because the status of scamp is unknown and they have a medium
vulnerability to fishing, we have rated this factor "moderate concern".
2.33
Moderate Concern
There is no stock assessment for scamp in the Gulf of Mexico and it is unknown if it is experiencing
overfishing. Reef fish observers on vertical line trips covering 1116 sea days/7391 sets from July 2006 to
December 2009, recorded 1002 scamp caught (898 kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).
3.67
Low Concern
There is no stock assessment for scamp in the South Atlantic, but scamp is not experiencing overfishing
(no fishing mortality metric is available) (NMFS 2013). Pilot observer data from the vertical line fishery in
this region, covering 316 sea days over 3 seasons (2007-8, 2008-9, 2010-11) recorded scamp as the
fourth highest caught species, and the third most discarded species with 2276 caught (1745 kept)
(Helies and Jamison 2013).
82
0.95
20%–40%
0.95
20%–40%
SNOWY GROUPER- See discussion in Criterion 1
SPECKLED HIND
1.00
High
83
1.00
Very High Concern
There has been no stock assessment for speckled hind in the Gulf of Mexico, so it is unknown if this
species is overfished in this region. Speckled hind is listed as "critically endangered" by IUCN (IUCN
2006), warranting a score of "very high concern" for this criterion.
1.00
Very High Concern
There was a stock assessment for speckled hind in the South Atlantic in 2004. According to NMFS it is
unknown whether speckled hind is overfished in this region. (NMFS 2013) Speckled hind is listed as
"critically endangered" by IUCN (IUCN 2006), warranting a score of "very high concern" for this
criterion.
2.33
Moderate Concern
There has been no stock assessment for speckled hind in the Gulf of Mexico, so it is unknown if this
species is experiencing overfishing in this region. Fishing for speckled hind is regulated as part of the
deep water grouper IFQ program. However, speckled hind can also be landed under the shallow water
grouper IFQ category when a shareholder's deep water grouper allocation has been used (GMFMC
2014). There are recreational fishing limits for speckled hind to limit fishing mortality of this species (one
speckled hind is permitted per vessel as part of the four grouper bag limit) (GMFMC 2014).
Based on reef fish observer data on commercial longline vessels covering 1503 sets between July 2006
and December 2009, 492 speckled hind were caught (453 were kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).
Fishing mortality for speckled hind in the Gulf of Mexico scores as "moderate concern" due to speckled
84
hind's uncertain population status and the unknown effectiveness of existing fishing regulations for this
species (commercial and recreational).
1.00
High Concern
There was a stock assessment for speckled hind in 2004 for the South Atlantic region. NMFS lists this
species as experiencing overfishing in this region (NMFS 2013) and prohibits its harvest or possession in
federal waters (SAFMC 2013).
0.75
> 100%
0.75
> 100%
85
VERMILION SNAPPER
2.00
Medium
5.00
Very Low Concern
Vermilion snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is not overfished (B/BMSY proxy: SSB2010/SSBSPR30% = 1.55) (SEDAR
2011d).
4.00
Low Concern
Vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is not overfished (SSB2011/MSST = 1.26 and SSB2011/SSBMSY =
0.98) according to the primary model used in the most recent stock assessment, the Beaufort
Assessment Model (SEDAR 2012b). However, another of the stock assessment models based on a mixed
Monte Carlo/Bootstrap procedure, resulted in an overfished condition on 25% of its runs
(SEDAR 2012b). Results from the stock assessment suggest that the spawning stock has generally
declined throughout the full assessment period (1946–2011) with the 2011 spawning stock estimate
being the lowest value in the time series, slightly below SSBMSY but above MSST (SEDAR 2012b). These
trends show the stock decreasing over time, warranting a score of "low concern" rather than "very low
concern" for this criterion.
86
5.00
Very Low Concern
Vermilion snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is not experiencing overfishing (F2010/FSPR30%=0.61) (SEDAR
2011d). Reef fish observers on vertical line trips covering 1116 sea days/7391 sets from July 2006 to
December 2009, recorded 26045 vermilion snapper caught (23240 kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). On
these trips, vermilion snapper was the second most frequently caught species.
5.00
Very Low Concern
Vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is not experiencing overfishing (F2009−2011/FMSY = 0.67) (SEDAR
2012b).As a result of the recent stock assessment, the SAFMC proposed increasing the total annual
catch limit for vermilion snapper by 306,000 lbs. (whole weight) to 1,372,000 lbs. (ww) in 2013;
eliminating the 4-month recreational seasonal closure originally implemented to help end overfishing;
and reducing the vermilion trip limit in an effort to extend the split-season commercial fishery. Pilot
observer data from the vertical line fishery in this region, covering 316 sea days over 3 seasons (2007-8,
2008-9, 2010-11) recorded vermilion snapper as the primary species caught, and the second most
discarded species with 17695 caught (15899 kept) (Helies and Jamison 2013).
0.95
20%–40%
87
0.95
20%–40%
WARSAW GROUPER
1.00
High
The fishbase inherent vulnerability score for Warsaw grouper is 68 {Froese and Pauly 2000}{Cheung et
al. 2005}, corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Warsaw grouper is a slowgrowing, very large-bodied species, reaching the highest maximum age (41 years) and largest size of any
of the groupers covered in this report (230 cm, 263 kg). Fecundity of this species is unknown. {SAFMC
2012}
1.00
Very High Concern
Warsaw grouper has been listed by IUCN as "critically endangered" since 2006 (IUCN 2006). Warsaw
grouper has been on the candidate list for ESA listing since 1999 (64 FR 33466) and NMFS placed it on
the "Species of Concern" list in 2004 due to potential population decline and threats from fishing and
bycatch (69 FR 19975). In 2010, a petition to list Warsaw grouper under ESA was denied (69 FR 59690)
with the rationale that "Warsaw grouper has always been too uncommonly captured in fisheries for
data on landings or weight of fish landed to be a reliable indicator of population status and trends."
Warsaw grouper's overfished status is listed as "unknown" in the US South Atlantic region and
B/BMSY has not been estimated (NMFS 2013). The most recent stock assessment that considered Warsaw
88
grouper was in 2004 (SEDAR 4). SEDAR 4 found that commercial and recreational data available were
insufficient to proceed with a stock assessment for the species due to data limitations, and data were
insufficient to calculate CPUE indices across fishery sectors (SEDAR 2004). Due to to its IUCN status and
its unknown overfished status, Warsaw grouper's stock status in the Gulf of Mexico scores as "very high
concern."
1.00
High Concern
NMFS lists Warsaw grouper in the US South Atlantic as undergoing overfishing (NMFS 2013). The fishery
is closed to commercial harvest in state and federal waters and its possession is prohibited in federal
waters (SAFMC 2013). Recreational bag limits exist in state waters for Warsaw grouper.
Due to concerns about bycatch fishing mortality of Warsaw grouper in the South Atlantic while targeting
other species, NMFS implemented Amendment 17B in 2010, prohibiting the harvest of Warsaw grouper
and speckled hind in federal waters and prohibiting the harvest of snowy grouper, blueline tilefish,
yellowedge grouper, misty grouper, queen snapper, and silk snapper beyond 240 ft depth (NMFS-SERO
2010). Due to data indicating that this closure did not significantly reduce bycatch (while causing
significant socio-economic hardship), the 240 ft. restriction was removed in May 2012 (77 FR
27375). Currently under development, Amendment 17 proposes spatial closures in the South Atlantic
aimed at reducing bycatch mortality for Warsaw grouper and speckled hind (NMFS-SERO 2012).
According to the Federal Register notice rejecting the ESA listing for this species, management actions
have significantly reduced landings for Warsaw grouper in the South Atlantic (69 FR 59690). Although
commercial harvest is banned and possession in federal waters is prohibited, SFW rates fishing mortality
for Warsaw grouper as "high concern" because this species is listed as "critically endangered" by IUCN,
fishing mortality (as a result of bycatch) is unknown and it is unknown if management to curtail
overfishing is effective.
89
0.95
20%–40%
0.75
> 100%
YELLOWEDGE GROUPER- See discussion in Criterion 1
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
1.00
High
90
5.00
Very Low Concern
Yellowtail snapper in the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico is not overfished (B/BMSY = 2.70)(NMFS
2013).
5.00
Very Low Concern
Assessed as one population by the state of Florida through the SEDAR stock assessment process,
yellowtail snapper in the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico is not experiencing overfishing, with an
F/FMSY of 0.76 (FWC 2012). According to the 2011 national bycatch report (based on commercial logbook
data from 2005-6), an estimated 129,459.39 yellowtail snapper were caught as bycatch in the South
Atlantic snapper-grouper handline fishery, and 280,020.06 in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish handline
fishery (NMFS 2011).
91
0.95
20%–40%
0.95
20%–40%
92
Criterion 3: Management effectiveness
Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of
non-retained species (bycatch strategy).
The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is
determined as follows:



Score>3.2 = Green or Low Concern
Score>2.2 and <=3.2 = Yellow or Moderate Concern
Score<=2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor
3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern
Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy
(Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical
Criterion 3 Summary
Region / Method
Management of
Retained Species
United States GULF OF
MEXICO
Handline
United States GULF OF
MEXICO
Longline, Bottom
United States Gulf of
Mexico
Handline
Mexico
Longline, Bottom
United States South
Atlantic
Handline
United States South
Atlantic
Longline, Bottom
United States South
Atlantic
Handline
3.000
Management of Overall
Non-Retained
Recommendation
Species
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
3.000
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
3.000
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
3.000
3.000
Yellow(3.000)
3.000
2.000
Yellow(2.449)
3.000
2.000
Yellow(2.449)
3.000
2.000
Yellow(2.449)
93
Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy
Scoring Guidelines
Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scientific
Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track
Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as”ineffective,” ‘”moderately effective,” or”highly
effective.”






5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as”highly effective” for all seven subfactors considered.
4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly
effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ”moderately effective.”
3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least”moderately effective.”
2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for”moderately effective” for Management
Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated”ineffective.”
1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of
Species of Concern rated”ineffective.”
0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery
catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal,
unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.
Factor 3.1 Summary
Factor 3.1: Management of fishing impacts on retained species
Region / Method
Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce
Track
Inclusion
United States GULF OF Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately Highly
MEXICO
Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective
Handline
United States GULF OF Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately Highly
MEXICO
Longline, Bottom
Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately Highly
Mexico
Handline
Mexico
Longline, Bottom
United States South
Atlantic
Handline
United States South
Atlantic
Longline, Bottom
United States South
Atlantic
Handline
94
Factor 3.1 Assessment
Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation
Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management
goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effective rating,
there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been
successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.
2.00
Moderately Effective
The GMFMC has conducted scientifically based stock assessments and continually amended the Reef
Fish FMP (instituted in 1984) to end overfishing of the most commercially important species, namely the
shallow water groupers: gag (which has been overfished on and off since the 1970s and maycurrently be
overfished) and red grouper (which has rebuilt and is no longer overfished or experiencing
overfishing). Management measures instituted by amendments have included rebuilding programs,
annual catch limits allocated between commercial and recreational fisheries, gear restrictions, minimum
size limits on shallow water grouper species (for example, red grouper's minimum size limit is set at 20
inches, the L50 of maturity). Additional measures include area closures to protect spawning sites and,
most recently, an IFQ system with a strict reporting program. There are no mimimum size limits for
deep water grouper species due to the high likelihood of lethal barotrauma during capture (see Table 5).
A concise summary of each amendment made to the FMP is given in a 2012 GMFMC document
(GMFMC 2012a).
Protected areas are part of the GMFMC's management strategy (see Figure 15 for a map of marine
protected areas (MPAs) in the Gulf). The GMFMC designated essential fish habitat (EFH) in 2005,
including seven Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC), where either all fishing is prohibited
(Tortugas, north and south), or certain gears, including longlines, are prohibited (McGrail Bank, Pulley
Ridge, Stetson Bank, West and East Flower Garden Banks) (70 FR 76216).
Problematic for rebuilding and maintaining grouper stocks is the infrequency of quantitative stock
assessments, namely for the deep water groupers, plus the lack of information on regulatory discards of
these species (and other bycatch) and the lack of accountability in the recreational fishery. The
infrequent stock assessment of the deep water groupers is due partly to a lack of sufficient data, likely
caused by low population size (pers. comm. R. Ellis). Due to these challenges, this criterion is scored as
moderately effective.
95
Rationale
Table 5: Commercial and recreational minimum size limits for grouper species in the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic (as of 10/16/2013)
Figure 15: Protected Areas in the Gulf of Mexico
96
2.00
The SAFMC has conducted scientifically based stock assessments and continually amended the SnapperGrouper FMP (instituted in 1983) to end overfishing of grouper species (gag, red, black, snowy, Warsaw
have all experienced overfishing). Management measures instituted by amendments have included
rebuilding plans, annual catch limits (allocated between the commercial and recreational fisheries),
minimum size limits (see Table 5 above), gear restrictions, seasonal closures to protect spawning
aggregations, limits on the number of available commercial fishing permits and MPAs that are closed to
or restrict fishing (see Figures 16 and 17 for maps of protected areas in this region). Red and snowy are
overfished and currently in rebuilding plans, though Warsaw is experiencing overfishing and does not
have a rebuilding plan. There is a concise summary of each amendment made to the FMP on the SAFMC
website. (SAFMC 2013c)
Currently (via Amendment 17 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP), the SAFMC is reevaluating the eight deep
water MPAs designated in 2009 (via Amendment 14 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP) to protect deep
water grouper and snapper. This process is investigating the addition of new MPAs and/or modifying
the current set in order to decrease bycatch and end overfishing of Warsaw grouper and speckled
hind—both currently managed under a harvest prohibition—as the current set has been criticised for
lack of effectiveness protecting these species (Farmer & Karnauskas 2013). Warsaw grouper and
speckled hind co-occur with other deep water groupers covered in this report (namely snowy and
yellowedge) (Farmer et al. 2011), thus, it is possible that the current set of MPAs may not be well
designed to protect these species either.
Currently, the Oculina Bank Habitat of Particular Concern (HAPC) and experimental closed area protects
grouper habitat by restricting longline gear (and other bottom damaging gears) throughout the 300
mi2 HAPC and by restricting all fishing in the 92 mi2closed area. (SAFMC 2013c) Coral HAPC areas are
currently being expanded via Coral Amendment 8.
Problematic for rebuilding and maintaining grouper stocks is the infrequency of quantitative stock
assessments, the lack of information on regulatory discards of these species (and other bycatch)
because observer coverage is lacking, and the lack of accountability in the recreational fishery. Due to
these challenges, this criterion is scored as “moderately effective.”
97
Rationale
Figure 16: Map of MPAs off the East Coast of Florida (under the jurisdiction of the SAFMC).
98
Figure 17: Map of MPAs off North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia (under the jurisdiction of the SAFMC).
99
Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern
Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild
overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their
likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high
likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to
minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.
2.00
Rebuilding plans are in place (or have been completed successfully) for the most commercially valuable
grouper species, namely gag and red grouper. This criterion scores as “moderate effective”
because vulnerable deep water groupers, namely Warsaw (listed as critically endangered by IUCN),
and snowy groupers (listed as vulnerable by IUCN), are unassessed and have "unknown" overfished and
overfishing statuses (NMFS 2013). Thus, they are not eligible for rebuilding plans (even if it is widely
held that Warsaw grouper is depleted throughout its range).
2.00
Rebuilding plans are in place for grouper species listed as "overfished" (not for those experiencing
"overfishing"); snowy grouper is in year 8 of a 34 year plan and red grouper is in year 1 of a 10 year
plan. Warsaw grouper, listed as critically endangered by IUCN, is experiencing overfishing, but has an
unknown overfished status (its MSY has not been estimated) and is currently closed to fishing (NMFS
2013). Regulatory discards of Warsaw grouper (and overfished groupers) may be occurring, but due to a
lack of observer coverage, the severity of this problem is unquantified.
100
Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring
Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population
and the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments
must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population
status.
2.00
Stock assessments are carried out with greater frequencies and with more rigor for the more
commercially valuable grouper species; gag had 4 yrs between the last assessment and the current one
(2009 to 2013), red grouper will have 5 years between the last assessment and the future one (2009 to
2014), black grouper will have 5 years between the last assessment and the future one (2009 to 2014),
yellowedge grouper has only been assessed twice (2002 and 2010), snowy and Warsaw groupers have
never been assessed. (SEDAR 2013) Gag, red grouper, black grouper and yellowedge grouper
assessments have used fishery dependent and independent data.
2.00
Stock assessments are carried out for most of the grouper species evaluated here, but with low
frequency. Red grouper has been listed as overfished since its 2009 stock assessment and no future
assessment is scheduled. Gag, which formerly was experiencing overfishing, was assessed in 2006 and
updated in 2014 (8 years later). Black grouper was assessed in 2009 and a larger regional update is not
scheduled, but a state level assessment for Florida stocks is scheduled for 2014. Snowy grouper has
been listed overfished since its last stock assessment in 2004, and is currently under assessment in
2013, eight years later. Warsaw grouper has never had a stock assessment, but is currently closed to
fishing. Yellowedge grouper has never been assessed, but catch of this species is very low in the South
Atlantic region. (SEDAR 2013)
Stock assessments for snowy, black, gag, red have used both fishery dependent and independent data.
101
Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice
Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific
recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating
is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.
3.00
Highly Effective
GMFMC follows scientific advice set out by their Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), particularly
for commercially important, overfished species (GMFMC 2011b).
3.00
Highly Effective
SAFMC follows scientific advice as set out by their Science and Statistical Committee (SSC).
Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations
Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly
Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.
2.00
Since 2006, commercial vessels fishing under the Gulf Reef Fish FMP are required to have satellite
communication vessel monitoring systems (VMS) (NMFS-SERO 2007). Grouper species catch, relative to
their quotas, are monitored in real time via the online IFQ reporting system, which is maintained by the
NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO) (NMFS-SERO 2013c). A recent study of enforcement under the
102
IFQ program suggests that compliance has increased although levels of non-compliance remain
substantial, and increased dockside enforcement is necessary (Porter et al. 2013).
2.00
Under Amendment 30 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, the SAFMC is proposing that all commercial vessels
that fish for these species be equipped with satellite communication VMS in order to improve
enforcement, increase scientific knowledge and promote better management. Currently, there is no
VMS in the SAFMC jurisdiction, with exception of rock shrimp. In terms of enforcement, the council
states that VMSs would be particularly useful to help enforce fishing area restrictions (SAFMC 2013b).
Currently, quota enforcement relies on mandatory trip report forms reporting catch for all snappergrouper vessels.
Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record
Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable
levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is
given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of
species overtime.
2.00
The newest measures enacted by management, namely the new IFQ system, have not been in place
long enough to result in the long-term maintenance of grouper stock abundance, given the long-lived
and slow reproductive rates of these species. However, the 2009 red grouper stock assessment
indicated that the population has generally increased from 1986 levels and, while it decreased from the
2006 assessment levels, the stock is at 86% of its target and is above the overfished threshold (SEDAR
2009).
103
2.00
Measures enacted by management may not have been in place long enough to result in the long-term
maintenance of grouper stock abundance, given the long-lived and slow reproductive rates of these
species. Of the grouper species with rebuilding plans, snowy (in year 8 of a 34 year plan) has not
recovered, and red grouper is only in year 1 of a 10 year plan. (NMFS 2013) Harvest of Warsaw grouper
(listed as critically endangered by IUCN) has been prohibited in federal waters since 2010 (NMFS-SERO
2010) and it is unlikely that this prohibition has yet to have a measureable effect on its population size.
Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion
Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are
individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the
management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given
if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.
3.00
Highly Effective
The GMFMC developed a strategic communication plan in 2011 aimed at increasing stakeholder
involvement through outreach and education strategies, and to develop a system to evaluate the
effectiveness of its communication tactics. (GMFMC 2011c)
The Gulf Council currently involves public stakeholders via public hearings on all proposed rule changes,
at public testimonies, informal question and answer sessions, in person and via the web at Council
meetings (where final actions are taken). Stakeholder can also provide public comment to NMFS and the
Gulf Council before a rule is approved. Stakeholders also serve on Council advisory panels and
committees (such as the Science and Statistical Committee). (GMFMC 2013b). Select stakeholders are
also involved in the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process.
104
3.00
Highly Effective
The SAFMC currently involves stakeholders, via public hearings, on all proposed rule changes and at
public testimonies at Council meetings (where final actions are taken). Stakeholder can also provide
public comment to NMFS before a rule is approved. Stakeholders also serve on Council panels and
committees. (SAFMC 2013c)
Factor 3.2: Bycatch Management Strategy
Scoring Guidelines
Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following of
Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations. Each is rated as ”ineffective,” ”moderately effective,"
or ”highly effective.” Unless reason exists to rank Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following Scientific
Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations differently, these ranks are the same as in 3.1.
 5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as”highly effective” for all four subfactors considered.
 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy rated”highly effective” and all other subfactors rated
at least”moderately effective.”
 3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rate at least”moderately effective.”
 2 (High Concern) — Meets standards for”moderately effective” for Management Strategy but
some other factors rated”ineffective.”
 1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy is rated”ineffective.”
 0 (Critical)—No bycatch management exists even when overfished, depleted, endangered or
threatened species are known to be regular components of bycatch and are substantially
impacted by the fishery.
Criterion 3.2 Summary
Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species
Region / Method
Strategy
Research
Moderately Moderately
Handline
Effective
Effective
Longline, Bottom
Effective
Effective
Handline
Effective
Effective
Advice
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Enforce
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
105
Longline, Bottom
Handline
Longline, Bottom
Handline
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Ineffective
Ineffective
Ineffective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Ineffective
Ineffective
Ineffective
Criterion 3.2 Assessment
3.2.0 - All Species Retained?
0.00
No
According to limited observer data recorded between 2006 and 2009 (representing approximately 1% of
the total fishery covering 1116 vertical line sea days or 237 trips and 675 longline sea days or 61 trips),
discarded bycatch (including regulatory discards) made up 26% of the individual fish captured by vertical
line and 51% of the individual fish captured by longline (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). The majority of
discarded fish (>80%) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011) are regulatory discards of undersized groupers and
snappers and also include regulation sized fish when IFQs (including multi-species IFQs) are
reached. The majority of discarded fish are released alive: of those, 35% released from the vertical line
fishery and 42% from the longline fishery had signs of barotrauma (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).
0.00
No
According to the 2011 US Bycatch Report, discard estimates cannot be made for the South Atlantic
longline snapper-grouper fishery because too few discard reports were submitted by longline
vessels. (NMFS 2011)
106
0.00
No
An NMFS funded, pilot observer program for the vertical line snapper-grouper fishery (from 2007
through 2011, covering 59 trips or 316 observer days over a region extending from southern North
Carolina to northern Florida) found that of trips sampled, 19% of the individual fish caught were
discarded. The primary discarded species were red porgy, vermilion snapper and black sea bass (Helies
and Jamison 2013).
3.2.0 - Critical?
0.00
No
Bycatch management exists, and is explained in subsequent answers.
Subfactor 3.2.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation
Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the
fishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly
Effective rating, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures
in place to minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation
measures, etc.).
2.00
Several management measures are in place to reduce regulatory and incidental bycatch of targeted
grouper species, including flexibility measures in the Gulf grouper IFQ program to allow landings across
categories (NMFS 2013a), reductions in size limits of some species (GMFMC 2011a) and mandatory use
of circle hooks, dehooking devices, and venting tools (NMFS 2008). Circle hooks have been shown to
reduce gut hookings in target as well as non-target species; gut hooking is more likely to result in
bleeding than jaw hooking (Bacheler & Buckel 2004).
In 2009, a BO was released for the Gulf of Mexico's reef fish fishery; it included several reasonable and
107
prudent measures (RPMs) to minimize impacts on protected species (specifically sea turtles and
smalltooth sawfish)(NMFS 2009a). These RPMs “require NMFS to: (1) avoid and minimize take through
outreach and education; (2) minimize future gear impacts through research; and (3) monitor the
frequency, magnitude, and impact of incidental take” (NMFS 2014a). A recent update to the 2009 BO
demonstrates that significant progress has been made on six terms and conditions from the 2009 BO
including training and education on the handling of sea turtles, fishery interactions with protected
species, bycatch reporting, stock assessments, and improved observer coverage, (NMFS 2014c).
Observer coverage began in 2005 for Gulf of Mexico fisheries (NMFS 2014e) and, in 2012, no protected
species were caught on a subset of observer covered trips using bottom longline gear to target
deepwater reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico. This subset included observations from the Shark Bottom
Longline Observer Program covering the reef fish fishery, but did not include trips from the Reef Fish
Observer Program (Gulak et al. 2013).
Overall, the management strategy and implementation for bycatch species is moderately effective.
2.00
Due to excessive bycatch or "take" of federally listed, endangered loggerhead sea turtles (over 800 over
a 30 month period)(NMFS 2009a) in the bottom longline component of the Gulf of Mexico reef fishery,
the GMFMC instituted large changes to the fishery, via interim measures in 2009 and permanent
measures in 2010. These measures reduced the longline fleet by almost 80%, seasonally banned the use
of longline gear across a large portion of the Gulf, restricted the number of hooks allowed on board
longline vessels and continued monitoring the fishery for incidental sea turtle takes (NMFS 2009b). No
recent data are available on the loggerhead sea turtle take by Gulf reef fish longliners, but it seems likely
that this take is reduced given the post 2009-2010 reductions in longline effort.
According to limited observer data recorded between 2006 and 2009, discarded bycatch (including
regulatory discards) made up 26% of the individual fish captured by vertical line and 51% of the
individual fish captured by longline (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). The majority of discarded fish (>80%)
(Scott-Denton et al. 2011) are regulatory discards of undersized groupers and snappers and also include
regulation sized fish when IFQs (including multi-species IFQs) are reached. The majority of discarded fish
are released alive: of those, 35% released from the vertical line fishery and 42% from the longline
fishery had signs of barotrauma (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). Several management measures are in place
to reduce regulatory and incidental bycatch of targeted grouper species, including flexibility measures in
the Gulf grouper IFQ program to allow landings across categories (NMFS 2013a), reductions in size limits
of some species (GMFMC 2011a) and mandatory use of circle hooks, dehooking devices, and venting
tools (NMFS 2008). Circle hooks have been shown to reduce gut hookings in target and non-target
species; gut hooking is more likely to result in bleeding than jaw hooking (Bacheler & Buckel 2004).
108
2.00
Current bycatch management strategies in the South Atlantic include requirements for de-hooking
devices (Amendment 16, 2009) and non-stainless circle hooks (Amendment 17A, 2010) to reduce
discard mortality (SAFMC 2013c). Circle hooks have been shown to reduce gut hookings in target and
non-target species; gut hooking is more likely to result in bleeding than jaw hooking (Bacheler & Buckel
2004).
Overall the management strategy and implementation for bycatch species is “moderately effective.”
Subfactor 3.2.2 – Scientific Research and Monitoring
Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of
bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating,
assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an
adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are
being met.
2.00
The reef fish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is monitored by two observer programs, the Reef Fishery
Observer Program (RFOP), which monitors vertical line (handline) and bottom longline trips, and the
Shark Bottom Long Line Fishery Observer Program (SBLOP), which monitors bottom longline
trips. Combining coverage from these programs, observer coverage is 5.3% for vertical line gears and
7.1% for bottom longline (Table 6) (NMFS 2014e). Target coverage for this fishery is 2% (NMFS 2013g),
so observer coverage is above the target.
SEFSC collects logbook information on landed catch from 100% of commercial vessels and 20% of them
are randomly subsampled to report all discards. In addition, a form specific for those fish discarded was
implemented in 2001, to obtain better information on fish not landed. Underreporting is suspected in
this self reporting program, and compliance is difficult to estimate because vessels can submit a report
109
of "no discards" (NMFS 2011).
Although observer coverage meets and exceeds its target, this criterion scores as "moderately
effective" because the high discard rate and the discard of highly vulnerable species in this fishery
warrant increased observer coverage and because logbook data on discards are suspect.
Rationale
Table 6: Number of sea days observed, the total sea days fished and the percent observer coverage in
the reef fish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. SBLOP (Shark Bottom Long Line Observer Program), RFOP
(Reef Fish Observer Program). (NMFS 2014e)
Gear Type
SBLOP
RFOP
Industry
Percent Coverage
Bottom Longline
240
196
6,133
7.1%
Vertical Line
n/a
1,247.8
23,349
5.3%
Total
240
1,443.8
29,482
5.7%
0.00
Ineffective
Discard data for the bottom longline snapper-grouper fishery are collected by the SEFSC through the
coastal logbook program from 20% of vessels. These vessels are not required to report discards of target
species. Underreporting is suspected in this self reporting program, and compliance is difficult to
estimate because vessels can submit a report of "no discards." According to the National Bycatch
Report, a discard estimate cannot be calculated for this fishery because so few vessels report
discards (less than 5 trips reported in 2005-6). Due to potential high bycatch, NMFS recommended, as a
high priority, that this fishery implement an observer program for fish species and protected species
(marine mammals and sea turtles). (NMFS 2011)
0.00
Ineffective
NMFS-SEFSC collects logbook information on landed catch from 100% of commercial vessels and 20% of
them are randomly subsampled to report all discards. Since 2001, a separate form is required to be
completed by all commercial vessels with reef fish permits describing those fish discarded at sea, which
110
includes the fish's disposition (discard condition), estimated weight, the number of fish, and reason for
discard. Underreporting is suspected in this self reporting program, and compliance is difficult to
estimate because vessels can submit a report of "no discards." NMFS has recommended, as a high
priority (due to potential high bycatch), that this fishery implement an observer program for fish species
and protected species (marine mammals and sea turtles) (NMFS 2011). NMFS funded a pilot observer
program for the snapper-grouper bandit gear fishery (which includes handlines), encompassing 200 sea
days of observation from January 2007 to December 2011 (Helies and Jamison 2013).
This criterion scores as ineffective because there is no observer coverage in this fishery where bycatch
of depleted and protected species is a concern, and logbook data are insufficient.
Subfactor 3.2.3 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice
Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific
recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating
is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.
3.00
Highly Effective
In 2009, after observer data indicated that the longline component of the Gulf of Mexico reef fishery
exceeded the number of incidental takes of endangered loggerhead sea turtles allowed by the 2005 BO
under the ESA, NMFS acted swiftly to reduce turtle bycatch by enacting several measures restricting the
use of longline gear in the region (NMFS 2009b), effectively shifting the commercial reef fishery to
vertical gear.
In 2008, in order to reduce mortality of discarded fish, NMFS followed scientific advice and required all
commercial and recreational fishers targeting reef fish to possess and use unhooking and venting tools
and circle hooks (NMFS 2008).
Although observer coverage is low, scientific advice related to bycatch has been followed for the Gulf
reef fish Fishery, so this Scientific Advice is scored as ‘highly effective.’
111
3.00
Highly Effective
SAFMC follows scientific advice as set out by their SSC, so Scientific Advice is scored as "highly
effective."
3.2.4 - Enforcement
2.00
Since 2006 commercial vessels fishing under the Gulf Reef Fish FMP are required to have satellite
communication vessel monitoring systems (VMS) (NMFS-SERO 2007). Grouper species catch, relative to
their quotas, are monitored in real time via the online IFQ reporting system, which is maintained by the
NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO) (NMFS-SERO 2013c). A recent study of enforcement under the
IFQ program suggests that compliance has increased, although levels of non-compliance remain
substantial and increased dockside enforcement is necessary (Porter et al. 2013). Enforcement in the
Gulf of Mexico Reef fishery is "moderately effective."
0.00
Ineffective
Under Amendment 30 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, the SAFMC is proposing that all commercial vessels
that fish for these species be equipped with satellite communication VMS in order to improve
enforcement, increase scientific knowledge, and promote better management. In terms of
enforcement, the council states that VMSs would be particularly useful to help enforce fishing area
restrictions (SAFMC 2013b). Currently, quota enforcement relies on mandatory trip report forms that
report catch for all snapper-grouper vessels. Due to the lack of current enforcement mechanisms, this
criterion is scored as “ineffective.”
112
Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem
This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if
there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and
food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles are also evaluated.
EBFM aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the
environment.
The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation
of gear impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating is
determined as follows:



Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern
Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern
Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.
Criterion 4 Summary
Region / Method
Handline
Longline, Bottom
Handline
Longline, Bottom
Handline
Longline, Bottom
Handline
Gear Type and Mitigation of EBFM
Substrate
Gear Impacts
4.00:Very Low 0.25:Minimal 4.00:Low
Concern
Mitigation
Concern
2.00:Moderate 0.50:Moderate 4.00:Low
Concern
Mitigation
Concern
Concern
Mitigation
Concern
Concern
Mitigation
Concern
Concern
Mitigation
Concern
Concern
Mitigation
Concern
Concern
Mitigation
Concern
Factor 4.1 – Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate
Scoring Guidelines


5 (None)—Fishing gear does not contact the bottom
4 (Very Low)—Vertical line gear
Overall Recomm.
Green (4.123)
Yellow (3.162)
Green (4.123)
Yellow (3.162)
Green (4.123)
Yellow (3.162)
Green (4.123)
113




3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g., gillnet,
bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand
habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally (<25% of the time) or
purse seine known to commonly contact bottom
2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats.
Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine
except on mud/sand
1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats
(e.g., cobble or boulder)
0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and
maerl)
Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is
uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.
4.00
Very Low Concern
Handlines make minimal contact with the substrate.
2.00
Moderate Concern
Bottom longlines may be fished on the substrate or in the water column. Due to the affiliation of the
assessed grouper species (red, black, gag, snowy, yellowedge, Warsaw) with rocky reef and hardbottom
habitat, it is likely that longlines are used over these types of habitats. There is no information available
on longline gear interaction with the substrate in either the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery or
the Gulf of Mexico reef fishery.
4.00
Very Low Concern
Handlines make minimal contact with the substrate.
114
2.00
Moderate Concern
Bottom longlines may be fished on the substrate or in the water column. Due to the affiliation of the
assessed grouper species (red, black, gag, snowy, yellowedge, Warsaw) with rocky reef and hardbottom
habitat, it is likely that longlines are used over these types of habitats. There is no information available
on longline gear interaction with the substrate in either the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery or
the Gulf of Mexico reef fishery.
Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts
Scoring Guidelines




+1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing
(>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to
seafloor and modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective
combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.
+0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures
in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from
fishing.
+0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but
other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively
being reduced.
0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats.
United States, Longline, Bottom
0.50
Moderate Mitigation
Longline restrictions in the Gulf of Mexico region which mitigate potential gear impacts include:
reductions in the number of reef fish longline vessels by aproximately 80%, limits on the number of
hooks which can be fished at once, and restrictions to outside the 35 fathom depth contour from June
to August, via Amendment 31 in 2010, which aimed to mitigate loggerhead sea turtle bycatch, but also
served to mitigate the effects of longline gear on the benthos (75 FR 21512). Additional restrictions
include prohibitions of longline gear in designated Essential Fish Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern (EFH-HAPC), via EFH Amendment 3 in 2005 (70 FR 76216), and year-round restrictions to
outside the 50 fathom depth contour west of Cape San Blas, Florida and the 20 fathom depth contour
east of Cape San Blas, via Amendment 1 in 1990. (GMFMC 1989)
115
0.25
Minimal Mitigation
Mitigation of gear impacts scores as "minimal" to reflect the presence of MPAs in the region. See
Criteria 3 as well as 4.3 for detailed discussions on habitat protection.
0.50
Moderate Mitigation
reductions in the number of reef fish longline vessels by approximately 80%, limits on the number of
hooks which can be fished at once, and restrictions to outside the 35 fathom depth contour from June
to August, via Amendment 31 in 2010, aimed to mitigate loggerhead sea turtle bycatch, but also served
to mitigate the effects of longline gear on the benthos (75 FR 21512). Additional restrictions include
prohibitions of longline gear in designated Essential Fish Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
(EFH-HAPC), via EFH Amendment 3 in 2005 (70 FR 76216), and year-round restrictions to outside the 50
fathom depth contour west of Cape San Blas, Florida and the 20 fathom depth contour east of Cape San
Blas, via Amendment 1 in 1990 (GMFMC 1989).
0.25
Minimal Mitigation
0.50
Moderate Mitigation
reductions in the number of reef fish longline vessels by approximately 80%, limits on the number of
hooks which can be fished at once and restrictions to outside the 35 fathom depth contour from June to
August, via Amendment 31 in 2010 aimed to mitigate loggerhead sea turtle bycatch, but also served to
mitigate the effects of longline gear on the benthos (75 FR 21512). Additionaly restrictions include
prohibitions of longline gear in designated Essential Fish Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
(EFH-HAPC), via EFH Amendment 3 in 2005 (70 FR 76216), and year-round restrictions to outside the 50
116
fathom depth contour west of Cape San Blas, Florida and the 20 fathom depth contour east of Cape San
Blas, via Amendment 1 in 1990 (GMFMC 1989).
0.50
Moderate Mitigation
Longline restrictions in the South Atlantic region which mitigate potential gear impact include depth
limitations (only allowed in depths of 50 fathoms or more and only north of St. Lucie Inlet,
Florida), vessel limits (vessels with longline gear onboard may only possess deepwater species),
protected areas limits (longline gear cannot be used in the deep water Oculina Habitat Area of Particular
Concern (HAPC) located approximately 15 nautical miles off the coast of Ft. Pierce, Florida), and a
longline endorsement program for the golden tile fish sector of the snapper-grouper fishery which
serves to restrict longline effort across the the snapper-grouper fishery in general (SAFMC 2013c). In
addition, coral HAPCs are currently being expanded through Coral Amendment 8 to the Coral, Coral
Reefs, and Live/Hardbottom Habitats FMP.
0.25
Minimal Mitigation
Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
Scoring Guidelines



5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles
and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of
fishery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels
to provide food to predators).
4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are
in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the
ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery
supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used.
3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the
ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of
these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are
possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts.
117


2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem
and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.
1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or FADs in the fishery is having serious
negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other
detrimental impacts to the food web.
4.00
Low Concern
Groupers are species of "exceptional importance" serving as mid-level to apex predators and ecosystem
engineers. Studies have shown that groupers can have direct and indirect cascading effects on food
webs (Stallings 2008) and may represent an important biocontrol for invasive lionfish in the regions of
interest (Mumby et al. 2011). Species such as red grouper are ecosystem engineers, excavating holes in
bays and shallow coastal areas as juveniles and in deeper areas where they expose underlying rock
structures as adults (Coleman et al. 2010). Yellowedge groupers have been observed using burrows, but
it is unknown if they excavate them (Jones et al. 1989).
Taking the ecosystem roles of fish in the Reef Fish FMP into account, the GMFMC designated Essential
Fish Habitat (EFH) in 2005, including seven Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) where either all
fishing is prohibited (Tortugas, north and south), or certain gears, including longlines, are prohibited
(McGrail Bank, Pulley Ridge, Stetson Bank, West and East Flower Garden Banks) (70 FR 76216).
Current EBFM efforts in the Gulf include NOAAs Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) program
(Schirripa et al. 2012) and FWC's West Florida Shelf modeling efforts.
4.00
Low Concern
Groupers are species of "exceptional importance" serving as mid-level to apex predators and ecosystem
engineers. Studies have shown that groupers can have direct and indirect cascading effects on food
webs (Stallings 2008) and may represent an important biocontrol for invasive lionfish in the regions of
interest (Mumby et al. 2011). Species such as red grouper are ecosystem engineers, excavating holes in
bays and shallow coastal areas as juveniles and in deeper areas where they expose underlying rock
structures as adults (Coleman et al. 2010). Yellowedge groupers have been observed using burrows, but
118
it is unknown if they excavate them (Jones et al. 1989).
Under Amendment 14 to the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan, eight marine protected areas
were established in 2009 to protect a portion of the long-lived, "deep water" snapper and grouper
species. Currently, under proposed Amendment 17 to the FMP, alternative configurations and extents
of these eight MPAs are under consideration, specifically to protect Warsaw grouper and speckled hind
(SAFMC 2013e). The Oculina Bank HAPC and experimental closed area protects grouper habitat by
restricting longline gear (and other bottom damaging gears) throughout the 300 mi2 HAPC and by
restricting all fishing in the 92 mi2 closed area (SAFMC 2013c).
119
Acknowledgements
Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its
seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely
responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
Seafood Watch® would like to thank Robert Ellis of Florida State University, Helen TakadeHeumacher of the Environmental Defense Fund, Linda Anne Lombardi of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and two anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this
report for scientific accuracy.
Updates
South Atlantic gag fishing mortality (Criterion 1.3) was updated on 30 June 2016 to “low
concern” from “high concern” because overfishing is no longer occurring on this stock. This
resulted in an overall score and rating change for handlines (the only gear type assessed in the
South Atlantic); an increase to 2.462 (Good Alternative) from 2.093 (Avoid).
Gulf of Mexico gag abundance (Criterion 1.2) was updated on 30 June 2016 to “moderate
concern” from “high concern” because NMFS no longer considers this stock overfished, but the
stock assessment models suggests that the stock may still be overfished. This resulted in overall
score changes for both gear types, but no color rating changes. The overall handline score
increased to 2.502 (Good Alternative) from 2.375 (Good Alternative) and the overall longline
score increased to 2.204 (Avoid) from 2.095 (Avoid).
The remainder of this report is unchanged from the 2014 report.
120
References
(FR) "Endangered and Threatened Species; Establishment of Species of Concern List, Addition of Species
to Species of Concern List, Description of Factors for Identifying Species of Concern, and Revision of
Candidate Species List Under the Endangered Species Act" 69 Federal Register 73 (April 15, 2004),
pp.19975-19979. Available at:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/SOC/Revised%20SOC%20webpage%202010/fr69-19975.pdf
(FR) “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Warsaw
Grouper as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)" 69 Federal Register 187
(September 28 2010), pp.59690. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-09-28/pdf/201024334.pdf
(FR) "Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico Essential Fish Habitat
Amendment" 70 Federal Register 246 (23 December 2005) pp. 76216-76220. Available at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-12-23/pdf/05-24416.pdf
(FR) "Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of
Mexico; Amendment 31" 75 Federal Register 79 (26 April 2010) pp. 21512-21520. Available at:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2008-0310-0577
(FR) "Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the
Southern Atlantic States; Snapper-Grouper Management Measures" 77 Federal Register 91 (10 May
2012) pp. 27374-27380. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-10/html/201211307.htm
(FR) "Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper- Grouper Fishery Off the
Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 24" 77 Federal Register 112 (11 June 2012), pp. 34254-34260.
Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-06-11/pdf/2012-14137.pdf
(FR) "Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean Loggerhead Sea Turtle Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and Determination Regarding Critical
Habitat for the North Pacific Ocean Loggerhead DPS" 78 Federal Register 138 (18 July 2013), pp. 43005 43054. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/18/2013-17204/endangeredand-threatened-species-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-the-northwest-atlantic-ocean
(FR) “Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the
Southern Atlantic States; Regulatory Amendment 22” 80 Federal Register 107, pp. 31880-31884.
Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/04/2015-13592/fisheries-of-thecaribbean-gulf-of-mexico-and-south-atlantic-snapper-grouper-fishery-off-the
Bacheler, N.M., and Buckel, J.A. 2004. Does hook type influence the catch rate, size, and injury of
grouper in a North Carolina commercial fishery? Fisheries Research 69: 303-311.
121
Bertoncini, A.A., Choat, J.H., Craig, M.T., Ferreira, B.P. & Rocha, L. Mycteroperca microlepis. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Carmichael, J. 2013. SEDAR stock assessment productivity and long-term South Atlantic assessment
planning. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, August 2013. Availalbe at:
http://safmc.net/meetings/pdf/A2_SEDARProductivitySAFMC.pdf
Cheung, W.W.L., Pitcher, T.J. and Pauly, D. 2005. A fuzzy logic expert system to estimate intrinsic
extinction vulnerabilities of marine fishes to fishing. Biol. Conserv. 124:97-111.
Coleman, F.C., Koenig, C.C., Scanlon, K.M., Heppell, S., and Miller, M.W. 2010. Benthic Habitat
Modification through Excavation by Red Grouper, Epinephelus morio, in the Northeastern Gulf of
Mexico. The Open Fish Science Journal 3:1-15. Available at:
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tofishsj/articles/V003/1TOFISHSJ.pdf
Conrath, C. 2005. Mustelus canis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.
www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 25 July 2013.
Cook, M., and Hendon, M. 2010. Yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus flavolimbatus) age, growth and
reproduction from the northern Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service Southeastern
Fisheries Science Center. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S22_DW_08.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
Cook, R. 2011. Reviewer’s Report of SEDAR 22 Assessment Review Workshop (RW) of Gulf of Mexico
Yellowedge Grouper and Tilefish. Center for Independent Experts. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Sedar_Workshops.jsp?WorkshopNum=22
Cook, M., Fitzhugh, G.R., and Franks, J.S. 2009. Validation of yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus
flavolimatus, age using nuclear bomb-produced radiocarbon. Environmental Biology of Fishes 86: 461472.n Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S22_RD04_cook%20et%20al%202009.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
R. Ellis, personal communication, June 2014
FAO. 2013. Global Capture Production. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/globalcapture-production/en
Farmer, N.A., and Karnauskas, M. 2013. Spatial Distribution and Conservation of Speckled Hind and
Warsaw Grouper in the Atlantic Ocean off the Southeastern U.S. PLoS ONE 8(11): e78682.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078682
Farmer, N.A., Malinowski, R.P., and McGovern, M.F. 2010. Species groupings for management of the
Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery. SERO-LAPP-2010-03.
122
Farmer, N.A., Mehta, N.K., Reichert, M.J.M., and Stephen, J.A. 2011. Species groupings for management
of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Unit. SEROLAPP-2010-06: Appendix O
FDA. 2012. FDA Seafood List. Available at:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/search_seafood/index.cfm
Ferreira, B.P. & Peres, M.B. 2008. Hyporthodus flavolimbatus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 03 April 2013. Available at:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/64400/0
Ferreira, B.P., Rocha, L., Gaspar, A.L.B., Sadovy, Y. & Craig, M. 2008. Mycteroperca bonaci. In: IUCN
2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 18 July
2013. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/132724/0
Fitzhugh, G.R., Lyon, H.M., Walling, W.T., Levins, C.F. and Lombardi-Carlson, L.A. 2006a. An update of
Gulf of Mexico red grouper reproductive data and parameters for SEDAR 12. SEDAR 12-DW-04. Available
at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S12%20DW04%20reproduction.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
Fitzhugh, G.R., Lyon, H.M., Walling, W.T., Levins, C.F. and Lombardi-Carlson, L.A. 2006. Update of gag
(Mycteroperca microlepis) reproductive parameters: Eastern Gulf of Mexico, SEDAR 10 Data Workshop.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. SEDAR 10-DW-03. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S10DW03%20GULF OF
MEXICOreproduction.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
Froese, R. and Pauly, D. Editors. 2000. FishBase 2000: concepts, design and data sources. ICLARM, Los
Baños, Laguna, Philippines. 344 p.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2012. The 2012 Stock Assessment Report for
Yellowtail Snapper in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/YTS_FWC_SAR.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
Garcia-Moliner, G., and Eklund, A.M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group). 2004. Epinephelus morio. In:
IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on
02 April 2013.
GMFMC. 1989. Amendment Number 1 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan. Available at:
http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/RF%20Amend-01%20Final%201989-08rescan.pdf
GMFMC. 2008. Final Reef Fish Amendment 30b: Gag – End Overfishing and Set Management Thresholds
and Targets; Red Grouper – Set Optimum Yield Tac and Management Measures, Time/Area Closures;
and Federal Regulatory Compliance. October 2008. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
(GMFMC), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 462 pp. Available at
123
http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/Final%20Amendment%2030B%2010_10_08.
pdf
GMFMC. 2011. Final regulatory amendment to set 2011-2015 total allowable catch and adjust bag limit
for red grouper: including environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and regulatory
flexibility act analysis.
GMFMC. 2011a. Amendment Guide: Reef Fish Amendment 32 Gag and Red Grouper. Available at:
http://www.gulfcouncil.org/docs/amendments/Amendment%2032%20Amendment%20Guide%20Bookl
et%2011-2-11.pdf
GMFMC. 2011b. Final Reef Fish Amendment 32: Gag grouper - Rebuilding plan, annual catch limits,
management measures, Red grouper - annual catch limits, management measures, grouper
accountability measures. rev. 10/21/2011. Available at:
http://www.gulfcouncil.org/docs/amendments/Final%20RF32_EIS_October_21_2011[2].pdf
GMFMC. 2011c. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Five-Year Strategic Communications Plan.
8/31/2011. Available at:
http://safmc.net/images/pdf/Attach11_GulfCouncilStrategic_Communications_Plan_Final_Draft.pdf
GMFMC. 2012. 2011 Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota Annual Report. Available
at:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/ifq/documents/pdfs/2011_gt_annualreport_final.pdf
GMFMC. 2012a. Scoping Document for Amendment 28 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef
Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico. August 2012.
GMFMC. 2012b. Modifications to the Gray Triggerfish Rebuilding Plan Including Adjustments to the
Annual Catch Limits & Annual Catch Targets for the Commercial & Recreational Sector: Public Hearing
Draft of Amendment 37 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of
Mexico.
GMFMC. 2013. Frequently Asked Questions for the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper and Grouper-Tilefish
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Programs. Available at:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/ifq/documents/pdfs/gulf_reef_fish_ifq_faqs_may2013.
pdf
GMFMC. 2013a. Commercial Quotas/Catch Allowances (all years). Updated July 2, 2014. Available at:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/ifq/documents/pdfs/commercialquotascatchallowance
table.pdf
GMFMC. 2013b. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Administrative Handbook. June 2013.
Available at:
http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/Administrative%20Handbook.pdf
124
GMFMC. 2014. Fishing regulations (website). Available at:
http://www.gulfcouncil.org/fishing_regulations/index.php
Grimes, C. B., C. F. Idelberger, K. W. Able, and S. C. Turner. 1988. The reproductive biology of tilefish,
Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Goode and Bean, from the United States Mid-Atlantic Bight, and the
effects of fishing on the breeding system. Fish. Bull., U.S. 86(4):745-776. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/labs/panama/library/CG88FB2.pdf
Gulak, S.J.B., Enzenauer, M.P. and Carlson, J.K. 2013. Characterization of the Shark and Reef Fish Bottom
Longline Fisheries. 2012. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-652. 42 p. available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/labs/panama/documents/observer_documents/bottom_longline/NMFSSEFSC-652.pdf
Heemstra, P. C. and Randall, J.E. (1993). "Groupers of the world. (Family Serranidae, Subfamily
Epinephelinae). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the grouper, rock cod, hind, coral grouper and
lyretail species known to date." FAO Fish.Synops., FAO species catalogue 16(125). Available at:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/t0540e/t0540e00.pdf
Helies F.C., and Jamison, J.L. 2013. Continuation of Catch Characterization and Discards within the
Snapper-Grouper Vertical Hook-and-Line Fishery of the South Atlantic United States. Gulf & South
Atlantic Fisheries Foundation. Available at: http://www.gulfsouthfoundation.org/uploads/113_final.pdf
Ng Wai Chuen & Huntsman, G. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group). 2006. Hyporthodus nigritus. In:
IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. Downloaded on 17 July 2013. Available
at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/7860/0
Jones, R.S., Gutherz, E.J., Nelson, W.R., Matlock, G.C. 1989. Burrow utilization by yellowedge grouper,
Epinephelus flavolimbatus in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Biology of Fishes 26: 277284. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S22_RD07_jones1989EBF_v26.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
Lamont M.M., Carthy, R.R., Fujisaki, I. 2012. Declining reproductive parameters highlight conservation
needs for loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Chelonian Conservation
Biology 11: 190–196. Available at: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2744/CCB-1006.1
Lombardi-Carlson, L.A., Fitzhugh, G., Palmer, C., Gardner, C., Farsky, R. and Ortiz, M. 2008. Regional size,
age, and growth differences of red grouper (Epinephelus morio) along the west coast of Florida. Fisheries
Research 91: 239-251. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783607003463
Medley. 2011. Reviewer’s Report of SEDAR 22 Assessment Review Workshop (RW) of Gulf of Mexico
Yellowedge Grouper and Tilefish. Center for Independent Experts. Available at:
Morgan, M., Carlson, J., Kyne, P.M., and Lessa, R. 2009. Carcharhinus acronotus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 25 July 2013.
125
Mumby P.J., A.R. Harborne and Brumbaugh D.R. 2011. Grouper as a Natural Biocontrol of Invasive
Lionfish. PLoS ONE 6(6): e21510. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021510
Nitschke, P. 2006. Tilefish. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US. Available at:
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/og/tile/
NMFS. 2006. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion: The Continued
Authorization of Snapper-Grouper Fishing in the U.S. South Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as
Managed under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan (SGFMP) of the South Atlantic Region,
including Amendment 13C to the SGFMP. Available at:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/Fishery%20Biops/02124%20SG%2013C%20SER%20BiOp.pdf
NMFS. 2008. New Regulations Requiring Circle Hooks, Dehooking Devices, and Venting Tools for Gulf of
Mexico Reef Fish Effective June 1, 2008 Frequently Asked Questions March 2008. Available online at:
http://archive.news-press.com/assets/pdf/A4140374812.PDF
NMFS. 2009a. Estimated Takes of Sea Turtles in the Bottom Longline Portion of the Gulf of Mexico Reef
Fish Fishery July 2006 through December 2008 Based on Observer Data. NMFS Southeast Fisheries
Science Center Contribution PRD-08/09-07. Available at:
http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/BB%202009-04/B%20-%203(d)%20GULF OF
MEXICO%20Sea%20Turtle%20Takes.pdf
NMFS. 2009b. Endangered Species Act -Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion: The Continued
Authorization of Reef Fish Fishing under the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan
(RFFMP), including Amendment 31, and a Rulemaking to Reduce Sea Turtle Bycatch in the Eastern Gulf
Bottom Longline Component of the Fishery.
NMFS. 2010. Annual report on the implementation on the terms and conditions of the 2009 Biological
Opinion for the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish fishery. 26pp. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/species/turtles/2009BIOPGULF OF MEXICOReefFish.pdf
NMFS. 2011. U.S. National Bycatch Report [W. A. Karp, L. L. Desfosse, S. G. Brooke, Editors]. U.S. Dep.
Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-117E, 508 p. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/bycatch_nationalreport.htm
NMFS. 2013. Fourth Quarter Update: Stock status summary for FSSI and non-FSSI stocks. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2013/fourth/Q4%202013%20Stock%20Status%20Tabl
es.pdf
NMFS. 2013a. Frequently Asked Questions for the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper and Grouper-Tilefish
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Programs. Available at:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/ifq/documents/pdfs/gulf_reef_fish_ifq_faqs_may2013.
pdf
126
NMFS. 2013b. Annual Commercial Landings by Gear Type. Accessed July 1, 2013. Available at:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/landings-by-gear/index
NMFS. 2013c. Fishwatch: Vermilion Snapper. Available at:
http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/snapper/species_pages/vermillion_snapper.htm
NMFS. 2013d. U.S. Foreign Trade Data. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/trade/
NMFS. 2013e. Office of Protected Resources. Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta). website updated July
18, 2013. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm
NMFS. 2013f. U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 1 [L.R. Benaka, C. Rilling, E.E. Seney, H.
Winarsoo Editors]. U.S. Dep. Commer., U.S. Dep. Commer., 57 p. Available at:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/Observer-Program/bycatch-report/NBR_FirstEditionUpdate1.pdf
NMFS. 2013g. National Observer Program Annual Report – FY 2012, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/SPO127, 38 p. available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer-home/reports/nopannualreports/
NMFS. 2014. Species Information System Public Portal. Accessed on April 1, 2014.
NMFS. 2014a. Fishwatch: Gag Grouper. Available at:
http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/grouper/species_pages/grouper_gag.htm
NMFS. 2014b. Fishwatch: Red Grouper. Available at:
http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/grouper/species_pages/grouper_red.htm
NMFS. 2014c. First Quarter Update: Stock status summary for FSSI and non-FSSI stocks. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2014/first/q1_2014_stock_st
atus_tables.pdf
NMFS. 2014d. Annual Commercial Landings by Gear Type. Accessed June 13, 2014. Available at:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/landings-by-gear/index
NMFS. 2014e. Annual Report for 2012 on the Implementation of the Terms and Conditions of the 2009
Biological Opinion for the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery.
NMFS. 2015. Fourth Quarter Update: Stock status summary for FSSI and non-FSSI stocks. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/status_updates.html
NMFS. 2015a. Commercial Fisheries Statistics. National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index
NMFS 2015b. Recreational Fisheries Statistics. NOAA Office of Science and Technology. Available at:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/
127
NMFS-SEFSC. 2013. Standardized catch rates of U.S. blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps) from
commercial logbook longline data. SEDAR32-DW17. SEDAR, North Charleston, SC. 13 pp. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR32_DW17_SFB_3.4.2013_FINAL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
NMFS-SEFSC. 2013a. Standardized catch rates of U.S. gray triggerfish (Balistes capriscus) from
commercial logbook data. SEDAR32-DW10. SEDAR, North Charleston, SC. 17 pp. available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR32_DW10_SFB_3.4.2013_FINAL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
NMFS-SERO. 2007. Vessel Monitoring System Program Gulf of Mexico Commercial Reef Fish Frequently
Asked Questions Revised April 2007.
NMFS-SERO. 2010. Southeast Fishery Bulletin FB10-112: NOAA Will Publish a Final Rule to Establish
Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures for Nine South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Species.
December 30, 2010. Available at: http://safmc.net/Library/pdf/FBAmendment17BFinalRule122910.pdf
NMFS -SERO. 2012. Southeast Fishery Bulletin. June 11, 2012. FB12-043. Available at:
http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yxRytxrA%2Frk%3D&tabid=313
NMFS-SERO. 2013. Distribution of Speckled Hind and Warsaw Grouper in the U.S. South Atlantic. SEROLAPP-2012-08. Updated January 31, 2013. Available at:
http://safmc.net/Meetings/SSCMeeting/SSCBBOctober2012/A15_RA17_SHWG.pdf
NMFS - SERO. 2013a. Historical South Atlantic Commercial Landings. Updated May 30, 2013. Available
at:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/acl_monitoring/commercial_sa/historical/index.html
NMFS-SERO. 2013c. Individual Fishing Quota Online System - Gulf Reef Fish v2.1.2. Available
at:https://ifq.sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ifqgt/main.html#
Parker, R. O., Jr. and Mays R.W. 1998. "Southeastern U.S. deepwater reef fish assemblages, habitat
characteristics, catches, and life history summaries." NOAA Technical Report 138: 41. Available at:
http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/tr138.pdf
Porter, R.D., Jylkka, Z. and Swanson, G. 2013. Enforcement and compliance trends under IFQ
management in the Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish fishery. Marine Policy 38: 45-53. Available at:
http://www.nefmc.org/issues/enforce/cte_mtg_docs/120628/MarPol%20in%20press%202012%20KStC
yr%206-25-12.pdf
Rocha, L., McGovern, J.C., Craig, M.T., Choat, J.H., Ferreira, B., Bertoncini, A.A. & Craig, M. 2008.
Mycteroperca phenax. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Available at:
SAFMC. 2011. Amendment 24 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the
South Atlantic Region with Environmental Assessment, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis,
128
Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. Available at:
http://safmc.net/Library/pdf/SGAmend24.pdf
SAFMC. 2012. South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report.
October 12, 2012. Available at:
http://safmc.net/Meetings/SSCMeeting/SSCBBOctober2012/A25_SAFEDraft2012_SASnapGrp.pdf
SAFMC. 2013. South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Complex Commercial Regulations. Updated July 1, 2013.
Available at: http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=LdIOVo7Y07g%3D&tabid=248
SAFMC. 2013a. Regulatory Amendment 15 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper
Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, Yellowtail Snapper and Shallow Water Groupers. Available at:
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/s_atl/sg/2013/reg_am15/documents/pdfs/sa_reg_am
end15_final.pdf
SAFMC. 2013b. Amendment 30 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the
South Atlantic Region, Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) for Vessels Harvesting Snapper-Grouper
Species.
SAFMC. 2013c. SAFMC website. Available at: http://www.safmc.net/
SAFMC. 2013d. News Release: Council Approves Measures to Increase Catch Limits for Vermilion
Snapper. Available at:
http://www.safmc.net/News/NewsReleases/NR_SAFMC_MarchMeeting031213.pdf
SAFMC. 2013e. Regulatory Amendment 17 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper
Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Marine Protected Areas). Available at:
http://safmc.net/sites/default/files/meetings/pdf/Council/12-2013/SG/SGA5f_SGRegAm17ScopingDoc_v2_112213ComMotions.pdf
SAFMC. 2014. Scamp. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Available
at:http://safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/Scamp
Schirripa, M.J., Allee, B., Cross, S., Kelbe, C., Rost Parsons, A. 2012. Progress towards an integrated
ecosystem assessment for the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA white paper available at:
http://www.noaa.gov/iea/Assets/iea/gulf/SCRS-12-082_Schirripa.pdf
Personal communication, Elizabeth Scott-Denton, Reef Fish Observer Program Coordinator, NMFS
Southeast Regional Office, June 5, 2014
Scott-Denton, E., P. F. Cryer, J. P. Gocke, M. R. Harrelson, D. L. Kinsella, J. R. Pulver, R. C. Smith and
Williams J.A. 2011. Descriptions of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico reef fish bottom longline and vertical longline
fisheries based on observer data. Marine Fisheries Review 73:1–26. Available at:
http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/mfr732/mfr7321.pdf
129
SEDAR. 2004. Stock Assessment of the Deepwater Snapper-Grouper Complex in the South Atlantic.
SEDAR 4 Stock Assessment Report 1. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR4FinalSAR%20200606.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2006. SEDAR 10: Stock Assessment Report. South Atlantic Gag Grouper. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S10_SAR1_SA_Gag_updated_ALL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2007. SEDAR 13: Stock Assessment Report Small Coastal Shark Complex, Atlantic Sharpnose,
Blacknose, Bonnethead, and Finetooth Shark. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SAR_complete_2.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2009. SEDAR 12: Stock Assessment of Red Grouper in the Gulf of Mexico, SEDAR Update
Assessment. August 3, 2009. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/Red_Grouper_2009_Assessment_Update_Report.pdf?id=
DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2009a. SEDAR 12: Stock Assessment of Gag in the Gulf of Mexico, SEDAR Update Assessment.
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/Gag_2009_Assessment_Update_Report.pdf?id=DOCUMEN
T
SEDAR. 2010. SEDAR 19: Stock Assessment Report, South Atlantic Red Grouper. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/Red_grouper_SAR_FINAL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2010a. SEDAR 19: Stock Assessment Report, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Black Grouper.
Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/Black_SAR_FINAL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2011. SEDAR 22: Stock Assessment Report, Gulf of Mexico Yellowedge Grouper. August 2011.
Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/YEG_final_SAR.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2011a. SEDAR 21: Stock Assessment Report HMS Atlantic Blacknose Shark. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/Atl_Blacknose_SAR.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2011b. SEDAR 25: Stock Assessment Report South Atlantic Tilefish. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR25_TilefishSAR.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2011c. SEDAR 22: Stock Assessment Report Gulf of Mexico Tilefish. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/tilefish_SAR_FINAL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2011d. SEDAR 9. Update Stock Assessment Report Gulf of Mexico Vermilion Snapper. Available
at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/2011%20SEDAR%209%20Update%20Assessment%20for%
20Gulf%20of%20Mexico%20Vermilion%20Snapper.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2011e. SEDAR 21: Stock Assessment Report HMS Gulf of Mexico Blacknose Shark. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/Gulf of Mexico_Blacknose_SAR.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
130
SEDAR. 2011f. SEDAR 9: Stock Assessment Update Report, Gulf of Mexico Greater Amberjack. Available
online at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%209%20GAJ%20Stock%20Assessment%20Update
%20Including%20Appendices%20I-III.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2012. SEDAR 33: Gulf of Mexico Gag Terms of Reference, Approved 23 October 2012. Available
at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S33_Gag%20Benchmark%20TORs%20v%203_final.pdf?id=
DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2012a. Stock Assessment of Red Porgy of the Southeastern United States - Update Assessment.
Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR01_red.porgy.2012update.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2012b. SEDAR 17: Stock Assessment of Vermilion Snapper off the Southeastern United States.
Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR17_vermilion_snapper_2012update.pdf?id=DOCUM
ENT
SEDAR. 2013. SEDAR Assessment Projects as of May 17, 2013. Available at
http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=iSkQuBbR63o%3d&tabid=423
SEDAR. 2013a. SEDAR 25: Stock Assessment of Black Sea Bass of
the Southeastern United States - SEDAR Update Assessment (Update to SEDAR 25). Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/01bsb-update2013Revised4-5_FINAL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2013b. SEDAR 31: Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Stock Assessment Report. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%2031%20SAR%20Gulf%20Red%20Snapper_sizereduced.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2013c. SEDAR 34: Stock Assessment Report, HMS Atlantic Sharpnose Shark. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S34_ATSH_SAR.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2013d. SEDAR 36: South Atlantic Snowy Grouper Stock Assessment Report, Revised January 13,
2014. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S36_Std_SA_SnowyGrouper_SAR_Final_1.10.2014.pdf?id=
DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2013e. SEDAR 32: Stock Assessment Report, South Atlantic Blueline Tilefish. 378 p. Available at:
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S32_SA-BLT_SAR_FINAL_11.26.2013.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR. 2014. SEDAR 33: Gulf of Mexico Gag Stock Assessment Report. SEDAR, North Charleston SC. 609
pp. Available online at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Sedar_Workshops.jsp?WorkshopNum=33
131
SEDAR. 2014a. SEDAR 33: Gulf of Mexico Greater Amberjack Stock Assessment Report. SEDAR, North
Charleston SC. 490 pp. Available online at:
SEDAR. 2014b. Stock Assessment of Gag in the Southeastern United States, SEDAR Update Assessment.
Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at:
http://sedarweb.org/2014-update-sedar-10-south-atlantic-gag-grouper
Sedberry, G.R., Pashuk O., Wyanski D.M., Stephen J.A. and Weinbach P. 2006. Spawning locations for
Atlantic reef fishes off the Southeastern U.S. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 57: 463- 514.
Shapiro, D. Y. 1987. Reproduction in groupers. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries
management. J. J. Polovina and S. Ralston. Boulder, CO, Westview Press: 295-328.
Sparholt, H. 2011. SEDAR 22 Review Workshop of Gulf of Mexico Yellowedge Grouper and Tilefish.
Center for Independent Experts. Available at:
Stallings, C.D. 2008. Indirect Effects of an Exploited Predator on Recruitment of Coral Reef Fishes.
Ecology 89(8): 2090-2095. Available at:
http://www.marinelab.fsu.edu/faculty/papers/Stallings%202008%20-E%20indirect%20effects%20of%20an%20exploited%20predator%20on%20recruitment%20of%20coral%2
0reef%20fishes.pdf
Thierry, C., Sadovy, Y., Choat, J.H., Bertoncini, A.A., Rocha, L., Ferreira, B. and Craig, M. 2008.
Hyporthodus niveatus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.
www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 04 April 2013. Available at:
Wyanski D.M., White D.B. and Barans C.A. 2000. Growth, population age structure and aspects of the
reproductive biology of snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus, off North Carolina and South Carolina.
Fishery Bulletin 98:199-218.

United States - Seafood Watch

Transcription

Similar documents

10699 Gulf Blvd, Treasure Island, FL

Welcome to Mexico

View PDF file

Poster - Taller de creación literaria

2006 Black and Brown Unity-An Alliance for Justice and Human Rights

“El Blanco Licor de la diosa Mayahuel” (The White Liquor of

TEPOZTLÁN, MEXICO

Presentación de PowerPoint

info link