Mu on Snapper - Seafood Watch

Transcription

AND
Mu on Snapper
Lutjanus analis
© Diane Rome Peebles
United States: Gulf of Mexico, United States: Southeast Atlan c
Handline, Bo om longlines, Diver
August 1, 2016
The Safina Center Seafood Analysts
Disclaimer
Seafood Watch and The Safina Center strive to ensure that all our Seafood Reports and recommenda ons
contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at the me of publica on. All
our reports are peer-reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scien sts with exper se in ecology,
fisheries science or aquaculture.Scien fic review, however, does not cons tute an endorsement of the Seafood
Watch program or of The Safina Center or their recommenda ons on the part of the reviewing
scien sts.Seafood Watch and The Safina Center are solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this
report. We always welcome addi onal or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch
and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Founda on and
other funders.
Table of Contents
2
3
4
5
6
6
8
11
Table of Contents
About The Safina Center
About Seafood Watch
Guiding Principles
Summary
Final Seafood Recommendations
Introduction
Assessment
11
15
26
34
Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment
Criterion 2: Impacts on other species
Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness
Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem
38
39
46
52
Acknowledgements
References
Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species
Appendix B: Review Schedule
2
About The Safina Center
The Safina Center (formerly Blue Ocean Ins tute) translates scien fic informa on into language people can
understand and serves as a unique voice of hope, guidance, and encouragement. The Safina Center (TSC) works
through science, art, and literature to inspire solu ons and a deeper connec on with nature, especially the sea.
Our mission is to inspire more people to ac vely engage as well-informed and highly mo vated cons tuents for
conserva on.
Led by conserva on pioneer and MacArthur fellow, Dr. Carl Safina, we show how nature, community, the
economy and prospects for peace are all intertwined. Through Safina’s books, essays, public speaking, PBS
television series, our Fellows program and Sustainable Seafood program, we seek to inspire people to make
be er choices.
The Safina Center was founded in 2003 by Dr. Carl Safina and was built on three decades of research, wri ng
and policy work by Dr. Safina.
The Safina Center’s Sustainable Seafood Program
The Center’s founders created the first seafood guide in 1998. Our online seafood guide now encompasses over
160-wild-caught species. All peer-reviewed seafood reports are transparent, authorita ve, easy to understand
and use. Seafood ra ngs and full reports are available on our website under Seafood choices . tsc’s
sustainable seafood program helps consumers, retailers, chefs and health professionals discover the
connec on between human health, a healthy ocean, fishing and sustainable seafood.
Our online guide to sustainable seafood is based on scien fic ra ngs for more than 160 wild-caught seafood
species and provides simple guidelines. Through our expanded partnership with the Monterey Bay
Aquarium, our guide now includes seafood ra ngs from both The Safina Center and the Seafood Watch®
program.
We partner with Whole Foods Market (WFM) to help educate their seafood suppliers and staff, and provide
our scien fic seafood ra ngs for WFM stores in the US and UK.
Through our partnership with Chefs Collabora ve, we created Green Chefs/Blue Ocean, a free,
interac ve, online sustainable seafood course for chefs and culinary professionals.
Our website features tutorials, videos, blogs, links and discussions of the key issues such as mercury in
seafood, bycatch, overfishing, etc.
Check out our Fellows Program, learn more about our Sustainable Seafood Program and Carl Safina’s current
work at www.sa nacenter.org .
The Safina Center is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organiza on based in the School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences
at Stony Brook University, Long Island, NY. www.sa nacenter.org admin@sa nacenter.org |
631.632.3763
3
About Seafood Watch
Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and
farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable
seafood as origina ng from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase produc on
in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes
its science-based recommenda ons available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be
downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean
conserva on issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.
Each sustainability recommenda on on the regional pocket guides 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 informa on against the program’s conserva on ethic to arrive at a recommenda on of “Best
Choices,” “Good Alterna ves” or “Avoid.” The detailed evalua on methodology is available upon request. In
producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed
journals whenever possible. Other sources of informa on include government technical publica ons, fishery
management plans and suppor ng documents, and other scien fic reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood
Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scien sts, and
members of industry and conserva on organiza ons when evalua ng fisheries and aquaculture prac ces.
Capture fisheries and aquaculture prac ces are highly dynamic; as the scien fic informa on on each species
changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommenda ons and the underlying Seafood Reports will be
updated to reflect these changes.
Par es interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture prac ces and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are
welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more informa on about Seafood Watch® and
Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877229-9990.
4
Guiding Principles
The Safina Center and Seafood Watch define sustainable seafood as origina ng from sources, whether fished1
or farmed, that can maintain or increase produc on in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or
func on of affected ecosystems.
Based on this principle, Seafood Watch and the Safina Center have developed four sustainability criteria for
evalua ng wild-catch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:
How does fishing affect the species under assessment?
How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species?
How effec ve is the fishery’s management?
How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?
Each criterion includes:
Factors to evaluate and score
Guidelines for integra ng these factors to produce a numerical score and ra ng
Once a ra ng has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommenda on. Criteria ra ngs and
the overall recommenda on are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket
guide and the Safina Center’s online guide:
Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause li le harm to habitats or other wildlife.
Good Alterna ve/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught.
Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other marine
life or the environment.
1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates
5
Summary
This report provides recommenda ons for mu on snapper (Lutjanus analis) captured in the U.S. Gulf of
Mexico and Southeast Atlan c. Mu on snapper are caught with handlines and by divers using spears in both
regions, as well as with bo om longlines in the Gulf of Mexico. The majority of the catches come from the Gulf
of Mexico fisheries, which compose 87% of commercial U.S. landings.
Mu on snapper are found in the Western Atlan c from Massachuse s to Brazil, and in the Gulf of Mexico
they are found most commonly in and near Florida waters. Adults are typically found inshore, associated with
reefs, hard structure, mangroves, and sea grass; offshore spawning aggrega ons form from February to June.
Although poten ally vulnerable to overfishing, mu on snapper fishing mortality is rela vely low, and
abundance is high and has steadily increased since the mid-1990s.
The handline, diver, and longline fisheries catch some other snapper and grouper species, most of which are
abundant. But the Gulf bo om longline fishery incidentally captures overfished blacknose sharks and
threatened loggerhead turtles, resul ng in poten ally severe impacts to these species.
Mu on snapper is jointly managed as a single stock by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlan c fishery
management councils. Managers have put in place several regula ons including an annual catch limit and
minimum size limit, and have made efforts to decrease turtle bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico bo om longline
fishery.
The handline and diver fisheries have limited contact with bo om substrates, while bo om longlines can cause
moderate damage to bo om habitats. Managers are working toward the development of ecosystem-based
management policies, and these fisheries are not expected to have nega ve effects on the Gulf and Southeast
ecosystems.
Overall, mu on snapper caught in the handline and diver fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Atlan c
are rated Green/Best Choice due the combina on of targe ng of abundant species, li le bycatch, highly
effec ve management, and minimal impacts to bo om habitats. Mu on snapper caught in the Gulf of Mexico
bo om longline fishery is rated Yellow/Good Alterna ve due to concern over the bycatch of blacknose sharks
and threatened loggerhead sea turtles, and moderate impacts to bo om habitats.
6
Final Seafood Recommenda ons
CRITERION 2:
CRITERION 1: IMPACTS ON CRITERION 3:
CRITERION 4:
IMPACTS ON OTHER
MANAGEMENT HABITAT AND OVERALL
SPECIES/FISHERY THE SPECIES SPECIES
EFFECTIVENESS ECOSYSTEM RECOMMENDATION
Mu on snapper
United States
Gulf of Mexico,
Handline
Green (5.000) Yellow (2.511) Green (3.464)
Green (3.571) Best Choice (3.530)
Mu on snapper Green (5.000) Green (3.152) Green (3.464)
United States
Southeast
Atlan c, Handline
Mu on snapper Green (5.000) Red (1.144)
United States
Gulf of Mexico,
Bo om longlines
Yellow (2.739) Good Alterna ve
(2.714)
Green (3.464)
Mu on snapper
United States
Gulf of Mexico,
Diver
Green (5.000) Green (3.831) Green (4.000)
Mu on snapper
United States
Southeast
Atlan c, Diver
Green (5.000) Green (3.831) Green (4.000)
Scoring Guide
Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing
opera ons 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 Cri cal scores
Good Alterna ve/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, 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
Cri cal scores
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 Cri cal scores.
2
Because effec ve management is an essen al component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommenda on for
any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).
7
Introduc on
Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommenda on
This report assesses the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Atlan c fisheries for mu on snapper (Lutjanus
analis). Mu on snapper is jointly managed within mixed reef-fish fisheries across the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlan c. The majority of commercial catches come from Florida, with minor catches reported from South and
North Carolina, and limited catches elsewhere. This assessment covers mu on snapper caught with bo om
longlines, handlines, and by divers using spears.
Species Overview
Mu on snapper (Lutjanus analis) are found in the Western Atlan c from Massachuse s to the coast of Brazil,
including throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, but are most abundant in the An lles, Bahamas, and
southern Florida (Carpenter 2002). In the U.S., mu on snapper are jointly managed within two fisheries: the
Gulf of Mexico reef-fish fishery and the Southeast Atlan c snapper-grouper fishery, with the Florida Keys
represen ng the boundary between regions. Catches north of Florida are uncommon (NMFS 2015a), and
mu on snapper are therefore not managed in the mid-Atlan c or North Atlan c regions. Mu on snapper
gene c studies suggest that there is a single popula on across the South Atlan c and Gulf of Mexico regions
(Shulzitski et al. 2009) (SEDAR 2015a).
Mu on snapper belongs to the family Lutjanidae, which are marine fish that are commonly referred to as
“snappers.” Mu on snapper is typically found in inshore habitats to a depth of 70 m, associated with coral
reefs, rocky bo oms, sea grass beds, and mangroves (Anderson 1967) (GMFMC 2015a). It reaches sexual
maturity at approximately 52 cm in length and grows to a maximum size of 94 cm; the oldest reported mu on
snapper is 40 years old (SEDAR 2008a). Mu on snapper forms seasonal offshore spawning aggrega ons,
making it poten ally vulnerable to exploita on (Graham et al. 2008). But fishing closures have been put in
place in some areas to protect mu on snapper spawning aggrega ons, and there is evidence to suggest that
this has improved produc vity (Burton et al. 2005).
Produc on Sta s cs
Handline gear is the primary method of commercial capture for mu on snapper in the South Atlan c, but
approximately 5% of the catches come from diver-based methods. In the Gulf of Mexico, 60% of mu on
snapper are caught using bo om longlines, 36% are caught using handlines, and about 2% are caught by diverbased methods (NMFS 2015a). Most mu on snapper are captured on trips that target other species in the
fishery, such as red grouper in the Gulf of Mexico (TIP 2015).
Between 2004 and 2013, 87% of all mu on snapper in the U.S. commercial fishery were landed on the west
coast of Florida, followed by 11% from eastern Florida, and <2% from South and North Carolina (NMFS
2015a). Total commercial landings ranged from 129,000 lbs to 354,000 lbs between 1995 and 2014 (NMFS
2015a). The commercial fishery is centered around the Florida Keys in the Gulf of Mexico, and extends from
Florida to North Carolina in the South Atlan c (SEDAR 2015a). Between 2009 and 2014, mu on snapper
annual total dollar value increased from $284,000 to $529,000 (NMFS 2015a). The majority of mu on snapper
landings come from the recrea onal fishery in the South Atlan c (Figure 1), whereas the recrea onal and
commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico report comparable catches (Figure 2) (NMFS 2015b). A yearly
average of 511,000 lbs of mu on snapper was caught in U.S. recrea onal fisheries from 2005–2014 (NMFS
2015a).
8
Figure 1 Landings of mu on snapper from the South Atlan c, 1985-2015. Landings are given in wet weight.
Commercial landings are in red solid, recrea onal landings in blue dashed.
Figure 2 Landings of mu on snapper from the Gulf of Mexico, 1985-2015. Landings are given in wet weight.
Commercial landings are in red solid, recrea onal landings in blue dashed.
Importance to the US/North American market.
Mu on snapper may be imported from the Caribbean, but specific data on this species are not available.
Around 15,000 lbs of “snapper” are imported into the U.S. each year (2012 and 2013, (NOAA 2013)). No
snapper have been recently exported from the U.S. (2009–2014, (NOAA 2015b)); therefore, product caught in
the U.S. is sold in the U.S. market.
Common and market names.
Other names for mu on snapper include mu on fish, mu onfish, king snapper, virgin snapper, pargo colorado,
pargo criollo, pargo mulato, and sama (Froese and Pauly 2015). In Puerto Rico, mu on snapper is frequently
confused with and marketed as silk snapper (Bene et al. 2002).
9
Primary product forms
Fillets are marketed fresh or frozen (SEDAR 2007) and smoked (Berry & Burch 1979).
10
Assessment
This sec on assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) rela ve to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries,
available at h p://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 ra ng 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 ra ng 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
Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cri cal
Criterion 1 Summary
MUTTON SNAPPER
Region / Method
Inherent
Vulnerability
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Score
United States/Gulf of Mexico
Handline
Medium
5.00: Very Low
Concern
5.00: Very Low
Concern
Green
(5.000)
United States/Southeast Atlan c
Handline
Medium
5.00: Very Low
Concern
5.00: Very Low
Concern
Green
(5.000)
United States/Gulf of Mexico
Bo om longlines
Medium
5.00: Very Low
Concern
5.00: Very Low
Concern
Green
(5.000)
United States/Gulf of Mexico Diver
Medium
5.00: Very Low
Concern
5.00: Very Low
Concern
Green
(5.000)
United States/Southeast Atlan c
Diver
Medium
5.00: Very Low
Concern
5.00: Very Low
Concern
Green
(5.000)
Criterion 1 Assessment
SCORING GUIDELINES
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteris cs
that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing).
Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history
characteris cs that make it neither par cularly 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 characteris cs
that make is par cularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low
reproduc on 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, spa al behaviors (e.g., schooling,
aggrega ng for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduc on) and
geographic range.
11
Factor 1.2 - Abundance
5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the popula on is above target abundance level (e.g.,
biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.
4 (Low Concern)—Popula on 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)—Popula on 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)—Popula on is listed as threatened or endangered.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
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 contribu on 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 species, but its
contribu on to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the popula on is healthy
and the species has a low suscep bility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).
2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctua ng around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is
unknown and species has a moderate-high suscep bility 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 (Cri cal)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail
overfishing.
MUTTON SNAPPER
UNITED STATES/GULF OF MEXICO, HANDLINE
UNITED STATES/SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC, HANDLINE
UNITED STATES/GULF OF MEXICO, BOTTOM LONGLINES
UNITED STATES/GULF OF MEXICO, DIVER
UNITED STATES/SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC, DIVER
Medium
Mu on snapper (Lutjanus analis) has a medium vulnerability to fishing (55 out of 100 FishBase ra ng)
(Froese and Pauly 2015). It is a medium-sized snapper with an olive-green color, yellow-to-reddish fins, a blue
line below the eye, and a dark spot under the second dorsal fin (Anderson 1967) (GMFMC 2015a).
Es mates of length at sexual maturity vary from 31 to 57 cm total length (TL) among regions, with a 41 cm
TL es mate from southern Florida and the Florida Keys (Claro 1981) (Barbieri and Colvocoresses 2003)
(Freitas et al. 2011). It can grow up to a maximum of 94 cm in length; the oldest reported mu on snapper is
40 years old (SEDAR 2008a). This snapper is found in the Western Atlan c from Massachuse s to the coast
of Brazil, including throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, but is most abundant in the An lles,
Bahamas, and southern Florida (Carpenter 2002). Several analyses of connec vity and gene c distribu on
indicate a single, homogenous popula on that extends across the Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Atlan c
(Faunce et al. 2007) (Shulzitski et al. 2009) (Carson et al. 2011). Mu on snapper is typically found in inshore
habitats to a depth of 70 m, associated with coral reefs, rocky bo oms, sea grass beds, and mangroves (Allen
1985) (GMFMC 2015a). Mu on snapper feeds on fish, crustaceans, squid, and gastropods (Burton 2002).
This species is known to form offshore spawning aggrega
ons from February to June (Burton et al. 2005), at
12
depths of 20–40 m near shelf breaks over rocky or coral rubble bo oms (SEDAR 2007). This behavior
increases their vulnerability to fishing, and may poten ally increase the likelihood of ex rpa on where fishers
target these aggrega ons (De Mitcheson et al. 2008) (Graham et al. 2008).
Very Low Concern
The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature considers mu on snapper to be a Vulnerable species
(Huntsman 1996). In the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, mu on snapper is managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries
Management Council (GMFMC) under the Reef Fish Management Plan; in the U.S. South Atlan c, it is
managed by the South Atlan c Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC) under the Snapper-Grouper
Complex. Mu on snapper in the southeast Atlan c, eastern Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean are
considered to be a single popula on, centered in South Florida (Carson et al. 2011) (Shulzitski et al. 2009).
There may be various sub-popula ons of mu on snapper that have different demographics (Carson et al.
2011). The most recent stock assessment for South Atlan c and Gulf of Mexico mu on snapper indicates
that, as of 2013, the species is not overfished and abundance is above the target level or the biomass at
maximum sustainable yield proxy (B/B M SY proxy of 1.13) (NOAA 2015a). Abundance of mu on snapper has
increased since the mid-1990s (SEDAR 2015a). Because the current mu on snapper popula on is healthy,
this results in a score of “very low” concern.
Ra onale:
Figure 3 Trajectories of total mu on snapper biomass, spawning biomass, and exploitable biomass in metric
tons. From SEDAR 2015a.
13
Very Low Concern
Mu on snapper in the South Atlan c and Gulf of Mexico is not subject to overfishing (NOAA 2015a). The
most recent stock assessment es mates the mean total fishing mortality for 2011 to 2013 (0.12) to be well
below the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield proxy (0.18) (SEDAR 2015a). Mu on snapper are
commonly targeted by commercial fishers using longlines and ver cal hook and line, and by headboats and
private recrea onal fishers using ver cal hook and line gear. In 2014, commercial fisheries landed 200,965 lbs
of mu on snapper (NMFS 2015a), and 432,897 lbs of mu on snapper were landed by recrea onal fisheries
(NMFS 2015b) in the South Atlan c and Gulf of Mexico combined. Between 2004 and 2013, approximately
87% of all commercial landings came from the Gulf of Mexico, and 13% from the South Atlan c, where
commercial catches have been surpassed by the recrea onal fishery (NMFS 2015a) (NMFS 2015b). Because
of recent es mates of low fishing mortality, we have awarded mu on snapper a score of “very low” concern.
Ra onale:
Figure 4 Mu on snapper fishing mortality from age 3 fish. The black line represents data from the most
recent 2015 assessment update, while the red dashed line represents data from the previous 2008
assessment (SEDAR 2015a)
14
Criterion 2: Impacts on other species
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 mul plied
by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and
bait use rela ve to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 ra ng is determined as follows:
Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cr cal
Criterion 2 Summary
Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the text in this Criterion 2 sec on; for the remainder of
the species assessments, see Appendix A.
MUTTON SNAPPER - UNITED STATES/GULF OF MEXICO - BOTTOM LONGLINES
Score:
Subscore:
1.526
Discard Rate:
0.75
1.144
Species
Inherent Vulnerability Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Loggerhead turtle
High
1.00:Very High
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
Red (1.526)
Blacknose shark
High
2.00:High Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
Red (2.159)
Scamp
Medium
3.00:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(2.644)
Gag grouper
High
3.00:Moderate
Concern
5.00:Very Low
Concern
Green
(3.873)
Red grouper
High
4.00:Low Concern
5.00:Very Low
Concern
Green
(4.472)
MUTTON SNAPPER - UNITED STATES/GULF OF MEXICO - DIVER
Subscore:
3.831
Discard Rate:
1.00
Species
Hogfish
High
4.00:Low Concern
MUTTON SNAPPER - UNITED STATES/GULF OF MEXICO - HANDLINE
Subscore:
2.644
Discard Rate:
0.95
Score:
3.831
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
3.67:Low Concern
Green
(3.831)
Score:
2.511
Species
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Scamp
Medium
3.00:Moderate
Concern
2.33:Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(2.644)
Gag grouper
High
3.00:Moderate
Concern
5.00:Very Low
Concern
Green
(3.873)
Red grouper
High
4.00:Low
Concern
15
5.00:Very Low
Green
Yellowtail snapper
Medium
5.00:Very Low
Concern
MUTTON SNAPPER - UNITED STATES/SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC - DIVER
Subscore:
3.831
Discard Rate:
1.00
Species
Gag grouper
High
Greater amberjack
Medium
Concern
(4.472)
5.00:Very Low
Concern
Green
(5.000)
Score:
3.831
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
4.00:Low Concern
3.67:Low Concern
Green
(3.831)
4.00:Low Concern
3.67:Low Concern
Green
(3.831)
MUTTON SNAPPER - UNITED STATES/SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC - HANDLINE
Score:
Subscore:
3.318
Discard Rate:
0.95
3.152
Species
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Scamp
Medium
3.00:Moderate
Concern
3.67:Low Concern
Green
(3.318)
Vermilion snapper
Medium
4.00:Low Concern
3.67:Low Concern
Green
(3.831)
Gag grouper
High
4.00:Low Concern
3.67:Low Concern
Green
(3.831)
Red grouper
High
4.00:Low Concern
3.67:Low Concern
Green
(3.831)
Greater amberjack
Medium
4.00:Low Concern
3.67:Low Concern
Green
(3.831)
Yellowtail snapper
Medium
5.00:Very Low
Concern
5.00:Very Low
Concern
Green
(5.000)
The Gulf of Mexico mu on snapper handline and longline fisheries capture and discard red grouper, gag,
scamp, and yellowtail snapper (handline only). Red grouper, gag, and yellowtail snapper are all being fished at
sustainable levels, but informa on on the status of scamp is limited. Addi onally, the longline fishery has
substan al interac ons with loggerhead turtle and blacknose shark, which are the lowest scoring species for
this fishery. Loggerhead turtle is endangered; recent restric ons are likely to reduce poten al bycatch
interac ons, although this has not been defini vely demonstrated. Blacknose shark is poten ally overfished,
and fishing mortality on this species is uncertain. The total discards to landings ra o for the handline fishery is
34%, and between 96% and 111% for the longline fishery. The Gulf of Mexico diver fishery primarily targets
hogfish {NMFS 2015a}, with small, opportunis c catches of other reef fish species. Hogfish is believed to be
rela vely abundant in the Gulf of Mexico. Bycatch/discards in this fishery are expected to be minor. Data used
to determine Gulf of Mexico species caught with mu on snapper include Trip Interview Program (TIP),
commercial dealer reports, and scien fic literature (which include two compiled, observer program synthesis
studies: {Sco -Denton et al. 2011} and {Sco -Denton & Williams 2013}).
In the Southeast Atlan c, commercial handline fisheries target red grouper, vermilion snapper, scamp, gag,
and yellowtail snapper, along with small catches of greater amberjack. Fishing mortality on all of these species
is considered sustainable. Discards in the South Atlan c handline fishery are moderate. Red grouper is the
most commonly discarded species (250% discards to landings ra o), primarily because of catch of undersized
individuals. The diver fishery in the South Atlan c targets gag and greater amberjack {ACCSP 2015}, both of
which are healthy. Bycatch in the diver fishery is typically very low. Data used to determine South Atlan c
species caught with mu on snapper include Trip Interview Program (TIP), commercial dealer reports, and
scien fic literature (which include several pilot observer program studies: {GSAFFI 2008}, {GSAFFI 2010} and
{GSAFFI 2013}).
16
SCORING GUIDELINES
(same as Factor 1.1 above)
Gag grouper
UNITED STATES/GULF OF MEXICO, BOTTOM LONGLINE
High
FishBase has assigned a high vulnerability ra ng (68 out of 100) to gag grouper (Froese and Pauly 2015). Gag
grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis) is a large grouper with brownish-gray colora ons and dark markings on
the back and sides. It can reach 145 cm in length. Gag grouper is a protogynous hermaphrodite, reaching
sexual maturity as a female at approximately 50 cm in length and then later metamorphosing into a
male. Adult gag grouper are found associated with coral reefs and rocky ledges from North Carolina to the
Yucatan Peninsula and throughout the Gulf of Mexico, where it feeds on smaller fish, crustaceans, and squid
(Froese and Pauly 2015) (GMFMC 2015a). Spawning takes place in February along the South Atlan c coast
and from January to March in the Gulf of Mexico; during these mes, spawning aggrega ons form (Brule et
al. 2003). Juveniles aggregate in shallow sea grass beds (Casey et al. 2007) (Switzer et al. 2012).
Moderate Concern
The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature considers gag grouper to be a species of least concern
(Bertoncini et al. 2008). Gag grouper in the Gulf of Mexico is managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries
Management Council under the Reef Fish Management Plan, and the most recent stock assessment was
published in 2014 (SEDAR 2014a). This assessment published two es mates of spawning stock biomass: one
that used female fish only and produced an es mate of spawning stock biomass at twice the limit reference
point (SSBfemales /MSST = 2.05 (SEDAR 2014a)), and another that used combined female and male fish and
produced an es mate of combined spawning stock as below the limit reference point (SSBcombined/MSST =
0.496 (SEDAR 2014a)). The first es mate (females only) indicates that this stock is not overfished, but the
assessment review panel recommended using the second es mate (combined females and males) because
this is the more conserva ve es mate and does indicate that the stock is overfished (SEDAR 2014a). NOAA
Fisheries reports Gulf of Mexico gag grouper as not overfished (NOAA 2015a), which is based on the 2014
assessment but uses the less conserva ve es mate. Given the vastly different abundance es mates and
uncertainty as to which es mate is more appropriate, we have rated abundance a “moderate” concern.
UNITED STATES/SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC , HANDLINE
UNITED STATES/SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC , DIVER
Low Concern
17
The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature considers gag grouper to be a species of “least
concern” (Bertoncini et al. 2008). Gag grouper along the South Atlan c Coast is managed by the South
Atlan c Fisheries Management Council under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery. The most recent stock
assessment es mates South Atlan c gag grouper spawning stock biomass as above the minimum stock size
threshold (SSB/MSST = 1.13) as of 2012, indica ng that the popula on is not overfished (SEDAR
2014b). There is high confidence in this es mate, with 97.5% of model runs indica ng that the popula on is
not overfished (SEDAR 2014b). Spawning stock biomass was found to be near but just below the target level
of biomass at maximum sustainable yield (SSB/SSBMSY = 0.97, (SEDAR 2014b)). But the assessment
indicated that abundance was projected to decline a er 2012, due to poor recruitment in 2010–2011.
Because the South Atlan c gag grouper popula on is not overfished but abundance is below the target level
and poten ally declining, we have awarded a “low” concern score.
Very Low Concern
Gag grouper is commonly targeted by commercial fishers using ver cal lines and longlines, and by headboat
and private recrea onal fishers using ver cal lines. The Na onal Marine Fisheries Service reports that
687,655 lbs of gag grouper were caught in the commercial fishery (NMFS 2015a), and 926,510 lbs were
caught in the recrea onal fishery in the Gulf of Mexico in 2014 (NMFS 2015b). The most recent assessment
for Gulf of Mexico gag grouper indicates that fishing mortality is below the fishing mortality at maximum
sustainable yield (F/F M SY = 0.765); therefore, gag grouper is not experiencing overfishing (SEDAR 2014a)
(NOAA 2015a). The assessment also indicated that fishing mortality has declined substan ally from peak
levels in 2008 (SEDAR 2014a). Because it is highly likely that overfishing is not occurring, this factor is scored
“very low” concern.
Low Concern
The 2014 stock assessment for South Atlan c gag grouper indicated that the average fishing mortality for the
years 2010–2012 exceeded the target level of fishing at maximum sustainable yield (F/F M SY = 1.23), indica ng
that overfishing was occurring (SEDAR 2014b). But the South Atlan c Council’s Scien fic and Sta s cal
Commi ee (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. Addi onally,
a er the 2014 assessment, managers took ac on 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 (Federal Register 2015).
NOAA Fisheries currently considers gag grouper in the South Atlan c to no longer be experiencing
overfishing (NOAA 2015a), but a new assessment has yet to be completed. Gag grouper is commonly
targeted by commercial fishers using ver cal lines, divers, and by headboat and private recrea onal fishers
using ver cal lines. In 2014, the commercial fishery caught 380,252 lbs of gag grouper, and 177,606 lbs were
caught in the recrea onal fishery in the South Atlan c (NMFS 2015a) (NMFS 2015b). Due to recent
sugges ons that overfishing on South Atlan c gag grouper is no longer occurring, we have rated this factor a
“low” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
20-40%
Discards are typically low in handline fisheries (Kelleher 2005). Based on observer data collected from 2006 to
2011, the total discards/landings ra o for the Gulf of Mexico reef-fish fishery is 33%–34% (Sco -Denton et al.
2011) (Sco -Denton and Williams 2013). Discard to landings ra os for the five most commonly discarded
species were: red grouper, 41%; gag grouper, 40%; red snapper, 24%; red porgy, 20%; and vermilion snapper,
18
5% (Sco -Denton et al. 2011).
> 100%
Discards are high in the Gulf of Mexico longline fishery. Based on observer data from 2006 through 2009, the
discards/landings ra o was 111% (Sco -Denton et al. 2011). Observer data from 2010-2011 indicated a
slightly smaller discard/landings ra o of 96% (Sco -Denton and Williams 2013), but given the limited
observer coverage, this factor is conserva vely rated at >100%.
20-40%
Commercial discards in the snapper-grouper fishery in the Southeast Atlan c are moderate. The total
discards/landings ra o for the fishery was 23.2% between 2007 and 2011 (GSAFFI 2013). A large propor on
of the discards are undersized discards (GSAFFI 2008). Discard/landings ra os of some commonly discarded
species in a pilot observer program in the commercial fishery were: red grouper, 250%; red snapper, 45%; and
vermillion snapper, 17% (GSAFFI 2010).
< 20%
Discard mortality is low when diver-based methods are used (<5%), with discards resul ng from the
unintended catch of undersized individual fish (Frisch et al. 2012).
Scamp
Medium
FishBase has assigned a high vulnerability ra ng (68 out of 100) to scamp (Froese and Pauly 2015), but its life
history, including early maturity and high fecundity, suggests a medium vulnerability to fishing (see
Ra onale). Scamp (Mycteroperca phenax) is a medium-sized grouper with variable colora on ranging from
pale grayish-brown to dark brown and dark spots on the sides, ranging in size up to 107 cm (Heemstra and
Randall 1993) (Froese and Pauly 2015). Scamp is a protogynous hermaphrodite, reaching sexual maturity as
a female and then metamorphosing into a male. It has been recorded to live 21 years (Matheson et al. 1986)
but may live for as many as 30 years. Juvenile scamp are found inshore associated with mangroves, je es,
and piers, while adult scamp are found over rocky or coral bo oms at depths of 30–100 m (Heemstra &
Randall 1993).
Spawning typically takes place from March through May (Harris et al. 2002) (GMFMC 2015a). Scamp are
found from North Carolina to the coast of Venezuela, and throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean,
feeding on smaller fish, squid, and crustaceans (Heemstra and Randall 1993) (GMFMC 2015a).
Ra onale:
Table 1: Results from Seafood Watch fish vulnerability rubric (SFW criteria document, p. 4). A ribute scores
can range from 1 to 3, with higher scores signifying more resilient life-history a ributes.
Vulnerability a ribute
Category
Score
19
Average age at maturity
5-15 years
2
Average maximum age
>25 years
1
Fecundity
>100 eggs
N/A
Average max size
100-300 cm
2
Average size at maturity
40-200 cm
2
Reproduc ve strategy
Broadcast spawner
3
Trophic level
>3.25
1
Average Score
Medium Vulnerability
1.83
Species with average a ribute scores between 1.80 and 2.43 are deemed to have a “medium” vulnerability.
Moderate Concern
The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature considers scamp to be a species of least concern
(Rocha et al. 2008). Scamp in the Gulf of Mexico is managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management
Council under the Shallow Water Grouper Complex. There is no formal stock assessment for this species, and
its status is listed as unknown by NOAA Fisheries (NOAA 2015a). Due to the combina on of medium
inherent vulnerability from Criterion 2.1 and the unknown abundance of this popula on, we have ranked Gulf
of Mexico scamp abundance as “moderate” concern.
Moderate Concern
The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature considers scamp to be a species of least concern
(Rocha et al. 2008). Scamp along the South Atlan c Coast is managed by the South Atlan c Fisheries
Management Council under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery, and the last stock assessment for this species was
published in 1998 (Manooch et al. 1998). Spawning poten al ra o (SPR) of scamp was thought to be
between 35% and 52% of an unfished level, based on commercial and recrea onal landings and a range of
likely natural mortality values, indica ng a recovering popula on (Manooch et al. 1998) (Po s & Brennan
2001). Recent stock status updates from NOAA Fisheries list South Atlan c scamp abundance as “unknown”
(NOAA 2015a). Due to the lack of a recent stock assessment and medium vulnerability, we have rated
abundance as a “moderate” concern.
Moderate Concern
Fishing mortality for Gulf of Mexico “shallow-water groupers,” which include scamp, is listed as unknown by
NOAA Fisheries (NOAA 2015a), and there is no formal stock assessment for this species. Scamp is commonly
targeted by commercial fishers using ver cal lines or longlines, by headboats, and by private recrea onal
fishers using ver cal lines. Commercial landings of scamp for the Gulf of Mexico were 191,736 lbs in 2014
(NMFS 2015a); recrea onal landings were not available for this species. Due to the lack of stock assessment
and unknown fishing mortality, we have rated fishing mortality as “moderate” concern.
20
Low Concern
Scamp in the South Atlan c region is not considered subject to overfishing (NOAA 2015a), although the most
recent formal stock assessment and fishing mortality es mate was published in 1998 (Manooch et al. 1998).
Scamp is commonly targeted by commercial fishers, headboats, and private recrea onal fishers using ver cal
lines, but it likely makes up <6% of all landings on trips that catch mu on snapper (TIP 2015). Scamp landings
in 2014 for the South Atlan c were 170,998 lbs and 58,794 lbs for the commercial and recrea onal fisheries,
respec vely (NMFS 2015a) (NMFS 2015b). Between 2012 and 2015, scamp landings have not exceeded 62%
of the established annual catch limit (NOAA SERO 2016a). We have awarded a score of “low” concern due to
the lack of a recent stock assessment, although there are low catches of scamp along with mu on snapper.
20-40%
> 100%
20-40%
Loggerhead turtle
High
Inherent vulnerability is automa cally rated as high for marine turtles because they are long-lived and do not
reproduce un l late in life. Loggerhead turtle does not reach sexual maturity un l 35 years old. Adults can
grow to 1 meter (3 ) in length and weigh 113 kg (250 lbs) (NMFS 2008) and (USFWS 2008).
21
Very High Concern
Loggerhead turtles are divided into nine dis nct popula on segments (DPS) worldwide, of which four are
threatened and the other five are endangered (Federal Register 2011). The Gulf of Mexico popula on of
loggerheads is grouped into the Northwest Atlan c DPS and is listed as threatened (Hardy et al. 2014). This
DPS is subdivided into four recovery units within the Northern Atlan c and Gulf of Mexico (NMFS 2008)
(USFWS 2008). Nest counts, used to es mate popula on abundance, declined by 40% between 1998 and
2007 and increased in more recent years (Phillips et al. 2014) (pers. comm., Allen Foley 2015). But accurate
abundance es mates are difficult to obtain for highly migratory species with complex life histories like
loggerhead turtle (Hardy et al. 2014). In 2014, the Na onal Marine Fisheries Service designated 38 cri cal
habitat areas used by loggerhead turtles within the Northwest Atlan c DPS (Federal Register 2014).
Moderate Concern
Loggerhead is the most abundant turtle in Gulf of Mexico waters, but the largest threat to popula on
stability as of 2009 was incidental bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico bo om longline reef fish fishery (Conant et
al. 2009). In 2009, the Na onal Marine Fisheries Service reported that, during a two-and-a-half year period
ending in late 2008, there were an es mated 715 loggerhead catches (NMFS 2009) in the longline fishery,
which greatly exceeded the yearly incidental catches of loggerheads allowed (85 individuals over 3 years).
Because of uncertain es mates of popula on size and natural mortality rates, in addi on to large variance in
bycatch mortality es mates, the total contribu on to mortality by the bo om longline fishery is unknown
(NOAA SERO 2009).
A er the 2009 es mate of loggerhead catches in the bo om longline fishery, the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries
Management Council developed an amendment to reduce sea turtle bycatch in the fishery (GMFMC 2009).
The new measures, which were implemented in 2010, reduced the total number of longline hooks used in the
fishery, limited permits for longline fishing, and ins tuted seasonal closures (Federal Register 2010). Crude
es mates of loggerhead nest counts have increased in recent years, but it is unclear if this is a direct result of
reduced fishing mortality (pers. comm., Allen Foley 2016).
No commercial mu on snapper are reported for longline fisheries in the Gulf outside of Florida, so the fishery
is most likely to interact with the NW Atlan c Peninsular Florida and Dry Tortugas loggerhead recovery units
(NMFS 2008) and (USFWS 2008). Intense red grouper fishing using bo om longlines overlaps with offshore
resident loggerheads year-round (Hardy et al. 2014), resul ng in the possibility of incidental take of
loggerheads in the fishery.
Because of past high catches of loggerhead turtles in the bo om longline reef fish fishery, but no ng that
recent measures have been taken to address the issue, we have awarded a score of “moderate” concern.
> 100%
Greater amberjack
22
Medium
FishBase has assigned a medium vulnerability ra ng (54 out of 100) to greater amberjack (Froese and Pauly
2015). Greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) is a large, widely distributed jack, belonging to the family
Carangidae, with a streamlined body, forked caudal fin, bluish-gray to olive colora on, and a prominent dark
stripe running from the eye to the base of the second dorsal fin (Berry and Burch 1979) (Manooch and
Haimovici 1983) (GMFMC 2015a). Greater amberjack can live to at least 17 years (Manooch and Po s
1997); reaches sexual maturity at approximately 75–90 cm in length (SEDAR 2008b), with 50% reaching
sexual maturity at 1.3 years (Harris et al. 2007); and can grow up to a size of 190 cm and 81 kg (Froese and
Pauly 2015). Greater amberjacks are found worldwide in tropical and temperate oceans, including the East
Coast of the U.S., Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean (Manooch and Po s 1997). Adult greater amberjack are
found associated with the seaward sides of coral reefs, also with rocky reefs, wrecks, and oil pla orms,
ranging in depths from 18–73 m, while juveniles may be found in shallower water or associated with floa ng
algae and debris (Berry and Burch 1979) (GMFMC 2015a). Spawning takes place in the summer and the eggs
are pelagic. Greater amberjack feeds on fish, squid, and crustaceans (Manooch and Haimovici 1983)
(Carpenter 2002).
Low Concern
Greater amberjack along the South Atlan c Coast is managed by the South Atlan c Fisheries Management
Council under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery. The most recent stock assessment indicated that greater
amberjack in the South Atlan c was not overfished as of 2006, with abundance well above the limit reference
point (B/M SST = 1.46) and near the target level of biomass at maximum sustainable yield (B/BM SY = 1.10)
(SEDAR 2008b). Because of the healthy abundance of this popula on in 2006, but the lack of a more recent
stock assessment, we have awarded “low” concern for the abundance of South Atlan c greater amberjack.
Low Concern
NOAA Fisheries lists greater amberjack along the South Atlan c Coast as not subject to overfishing (NOAA
2015a). In the most recent stock assessment, fishing mortality was es mated to be 53% of the target level of
fishing at maximum sustainable yield (F/F M SY = 0.53 (SEDAR 2008b)), and fishing mortality had consistently
declined from 1999 to 2006. Greater amberjack is commonly targeted by commercial and recrea onal fishers
using ver cal lines, and by divers using spears. Landings for the South Atlan c were 615,986 lbs for the
commercial fishery and 709,290 lbs for the recrea onal fishery in 2014, with the majority of landings from
the east coast of Florida (NMFS 2015a) (NMFS 2015b). Because of the low fishing mortality es mate from
2006 but the lack of a more recent stock assessment, we have awarded “low” concern for fishing mortality of
South Atlan c greater amberjack.
20-40%
23
< 20%
Hogfish
High
FishBase has assigned a high vulnerability ra ng (67 out of 100) to hogfish (Froese and Pauly 2015). Hogfish
(Lachnolaimus maximus) is a large wrasse with variable colora on from gray to pink to mo led brownish red,
reaching a maximum length of 91 cm (Froese and Pauly 2015). Hogfish is recognized by three elongated,
filamentous spines on the first dorsal fin, a dark spot at the base of the second dorsal fin, and elongated
filaments on the upper and lower margins of the caudal fin. It is a monandric protogynous hermaphrodite
(i.e., some of the solely juvenile females may change into terminal males), reaches sexual maturity at
approximately 20 cm (females), and metamorphoses into males at approximately 35 cm or 3–5 years old.
Hogfish are associated with coral reefs, rocky ledges, and wrecks to a depth of 30 m from North Carolina to
the Gulf of Mexico, Bermuda, and northern South America, where they feed on clams, snails, urchins, and
other invertebrates (Froese and Pauly 2015) (GMFMC 2015e).
Low Concern
The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature has assessed hogfish as vulnerable globally (Choat et
al. 2010). A more recent assessment (2013) has been conducted for the U.S. hogfish popula ons (Cooper et
al. 2013). This assessment indicated that the Western Florida (Eastern Gulf of Mexico) popula on was not
overfished, and that abundance was well above the target abundance level or biomass at maximum
sustainable yield (B/B M SY = of 3.50). There is concern over the abundance of the East Florida/Florida Keys
popula on, a small propor on of which extends into the Gulf of Mexico management region (Cooper et al.
2013). Because the Western Florida hogfish popula on is not likely to be overfished with high abundance
es mates, abundance is rated as a "low” concern.
Low Concern
Hogfish in the Gulf of Mexico is unlikely to be experiencing overfishing. Fishing mortality is es mated to be
well below the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (F/F M SY = 0.408) (Cooper et al. 2013). But
uncertainty around the data used in the assessment leads to some uncertainty around the fishing mortality
es mate (Cooper et al. 2013). Hogfish are commonly targeted by both commercial and recrea onal fishers
using spears, ver cal hook and line gear, and pots/traps. Recrea onal catches by spearfishing were a majority
of all hogfish landings in 2012. Landings of hogfish by recrea onal fishers in Western Florida in 2012 were
es mated to be 42,549 lbs using hook and line and 128,530 lbs using spearfishing (Cooper et al. 2013).
Landings of hogfish by commercial fishers were 45,841 lbs in 2014 and 239,260 lbs by recrea onal fishers
(NMFS 2015a) (NMFS 2015b). Since it is probable that fishing mortality on Gulf of Mexico hogfish is below a
sustainable level, this results in a ra ng of “low” concern.
24
< 20%
25
Criterion 3: Management Effec veness
Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of nonretained species (bycatch strategy).
The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 ra ng is determined
as follows:
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
Ra ng is Cri cal if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor
3.2) ra ngs are Cri cal.
Criterion 3 Summary
Region / Method
Harvest Strategy Bycatch Strategy Score
United States / Gulf of Mexico / Bo om longlines
Low concern
Moderate concern
Green (3.464)
United States / Gulf of Mexico / Handline
Low concern
Moderate concern
Green (3.464)
United States / Gulf of Mexico / Diver
Low concern
All retained
Green (4.000)
United States / Southeast Atlan c / Handline
Low concern
Moderate concern
Green (3.464)
United States / Southeast Atlan c / Diver
Low concern
All retained
Green (4.000)
Mu on snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Atlan c is considered well managed. Management
measures for mu on snapper and other species caught in the fishery include annual catch limits, bag limits,
and size limits. Commercial ACLs are not rou nely met or exceeded for mu on snapper, and a recent 2015
stock assessment indicates that the popula on is healthy. Research and track record are scored as “moderately
effec ve,” while other measures such as the following of scien fic advice and stakeholder inclusion are scored
as “highly effec ve.” Discards in the handline fisheries can exceed 20%, and in the longline fisheries they may
exceed 100%. Addi onally, the longline fishery catches threatened loggerhead sea turtles. There are several
bycatch measures in place, but their effec veness is uncertain.
SCORING GUIDELINES
Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy
Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scien fic
Research/Monitoring, Following of Scien fic Advice, Enforcement of Regula ons, Management Track Record,
and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffec ve,’ ‘moderately effec ve,’ or ‘highly effec ve.’
5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effec ve’ for all seven subfactors considered
4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effec ve’ and all
other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effec ve.’
3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effec ve.’
2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effec ve’ for Management Strategy and
Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffec ve.’
1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of
Concern rated ‘ineffec ve.’
0 (Cri cal)—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.
26
Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy
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
Mexico / Bo om longlines
Highly N/A
Effec ve
Moderately Highly Highly
Effec ve
Effec ve Effec ve
Moderately Highly
Effec ve
Effec ve
Mexico / Handline
Highly N/A
Effec ve
Effec ve
Effec ve Effec ve
Moderately Highly
Effec ve
Effec ve
Mexico / Diver
Highly N/A
Effec ve
Effec ve
Effec ve Effec ve
Moderately Highly
Effec ve
Effec ve
United States / Southeast
Atlan c / Handline
Highly N/A
Effec ve
Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately Highly
Effec ve
Effec ve Effec ve
Effec ve
Effec ve
United States / Southeast
Atlan c / Diver
Highly N/A
Effec ve
Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately Highly
Effec ve
Effec ve Effec ve
Effec ve
Effec ve
Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementa on
Considera ons: 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 effec ve ra ng, there must
be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at
maintaining/rebuilding species.
UNITED STATES / GULF OF MEXICO, BOTTOM LONGLINES
UNITED STATES / GULF OF MEXICO, HANDLINE
UNITED STATES / GULF OF MEXICO, DIVER
UNITED STATES / SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC, HANDLINE
UNITED STATES / SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC, DIVER
Highly Effec ve
In the U.S., there is considered to be a single popula on of mu on snapper. In federal waters, mu on snapper
is jointly managed by the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlan c Fishery Management Councils within the
Reef Fish or Snapper-Grouper fisheries, respec vely (SEDAR 2015a). State agencies manage mu on snapper
in nearshore waters. The total Annual Catch Limit (ACL) was at 203,000 lbs for mu on snapper between
2012 and 2014, and only 44% to 56% of the ACL was landed (NOAA SERO 2015). Addi onal regula ons in
federal and state waters include aggregate snapper bag limits and minimum size limits (GMFMC 2015b).
Mu on snapper is not overfished or experiencing overfishing (SEDAR 2008a) (NOAA 2015a). There is some
indica on that mu on snapper was previously overfished in the Florida Keys region (Ault et al. 2005), but
protec ons in the Dry Tortugas Ecological Reserve have allowed spawning aggrega ons to increase (Jeffrey et
al. 2012), sugges ng that the species is being effec vely managed. Further, the Reef Fish Management
Commi ee in the Gulf of Mexico recently discussed plans to create addi onal regula ons specific to mu on
snapper spawning aggrega ons (GMFMC 2015c).
Several other species are caught along with mu on snapper, including red grouper, scamp, gag, and yellowtail
snapper, as well as greater amberjack and vermilion snapper in the South Atlan c (ACCSP 2015). These
species are also managed through bag, size, and catch limits, and most are at healthy abundances.
Because effec ve management strategies are in place, a score of “highly effec ve” is awarded.
Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern
Considera ons: 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
27
likelihood of success? To achieve a ra ng of Highly Effec ve, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood
of success in an appropriate meframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize
mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.
N/A
In the Gulf of Mexico, no depleted, endangered, or threatened species are commonly targeted or retained
with mu on snapper. But li le is known about the popula on size and fishing pressure related to scamp,
which is targeted by the handline and longline fisheries and frequently caught with mu on snapper (Sco Denton and Williams 2013) (NOAA 2015a). Because of the targe ng of healthy popula ons, a score of N/A
was awarded.
N/A
The diver fishery in the Gulf of Mexico primarily targets hogfish (NMFS 2015a). Mu on snapper is generally
an incidental catch. No overfished, threatened, or endangered species are caught in this fishery in significant
amounts, so a score of N/A was awarded.
N/A
Mu on snapper is landed in the South Atlan c in Florida, where the handline fishery catches red grouper,
vermillion snapper, scamp, gag, greater amberjack, and yellowtail snapper (ACCSP 2015). None of these
species is overfished, threatened, or endangered, so this factor is rated N/A.
N/A
The diver fishery in the South Atlan c targets gag and greater amberjack; mu on snapper makes up less than
5% of the catch (ACCSP 2015). No overfished, threatened, or endangered species are caught in this fishery in
significant amounts, so a score of N/A was awarded.
Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scien fic Research and Monitoring
Considera ons: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the popula on and
the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, popula on assessments must be
conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the popula on status.
Moderately Effec ve
Available data for mu on snapper come from dealer reports (commercial catches), a small observer program,
dockside interviews of fishers, and visual surveys (Stebbins et al. 2009) (NMFS 2015b) (SEDAR 2015a).
Observer data for the Gulf of Mexico includes catch per unit effort (CPUE), species composi on, sizes, and
fate (Sco -Denton et al. 2011). In the South Atlan c there have only been a few preliminary observer studies
(GSAFFI 2008) (GSAFFI 2010) (GSAFFI 2013). Mu on snapper was first assessed in 2008 as a single stock.
At the me, it was not overfished or experiencing overfishing (SEDAR 2008a). The most recent 2015 stock
update included newly acquired data that helped to improve indices such as maturity (SEDAR 2015a), and
found that mu on snapper abundance and fishing status had not changed. Many of the other species caught
28
in the fishery have been assessed, but some have not been assessed in several years (e.g., South Atlan c red
grouper and greater amberjack) and some species are considered data-limited (e.g., scamp). Because of the
infrequent stock assessments for several targeted species in this fishery, scien fic research and monitoring is
rated “moderately effec ve.”
Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scien fic Advice
Considera ons: How o en (always, some mes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scien fic
recommenda ons/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effec ve ra ng is
given if managers nearly always follow scien fic advice.
Highly Effec ve
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Scien fic and Sta s cal Commi ee advises managers on
acceptable biological catch, annual catch limits, and accountability measures (GMFMC 2015a). There is no
evidence that managers do not follow scien fic recommenda ons, resul ng in a score of “highly effec ve.”
Highly Effec ve
The South Atlan c Fishery Management Council Scien fic and Sta s cal Commi ee advises managers on
acceptable biological catch, annual catch limits, and accountability measures (SAFMC 2014). There is no
evidence to suggest that managers do not follow scien fic recommenda ons, resul ng in a score of “highly
effec ve.”
Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regula ons
Considera ons: Do fishermen comply with regula ons, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly
Effec ve ra ng, there must be regular enforcement of regula ons and verifica on of compliance.
Highly Effec ve
Mu on snapper commercial annual catch limits (ACLs) in the Gulf of Mexico are monitored through paper
logbooks, electronic repor ng by dealers, Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMSs), and observers. Addi onally, a
pilot study is underway to assess the feasibility of the use of e-logbooks for reef fish bycatch (NMFS 2015c).
Catches of mu on snapper catches and catches of other targeted and retained species in the fishery have
regularly remained below established ACLs (NOAA SERO 2015). Enforcement is therefore rated as “highly
effec ve.”
Commercial annual catch limits (ACLs) for mu on snapper and other species in the Southeast Atlan c are
monitored through paper logbooks and electronic repor ng (NMFS 2015c), but no Vessel Monitoring System
(VMS) or observer program currently exists (SAFMC 2014). ACLs for some species (e.g., gag grouper and
vermillion snapper) were exceeded in the past; however, in the most recent years, ACLs for most species in
the fishery have not been met or exceeded. An improved dealer repor ng amendment was implemented
in 2014 (SAFMC 2014) and a pilot study is underway to assess the feasibility of the use of e-logbooks (NMFS
2015c). Enforcement is rated as “moderately effec ve.”
29
Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record
Considera ons: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining popula ons at sustainable
levels or a history of failing to maintain popula ons at sustainable levels? A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if
measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species
over me.
Mu on snapper is managed within the Reef Fish Management Plan, which was enacted in 1984 and
encompasses 42 species. Amendments over me have led to management measures that include annual
catch limits, minimum sizes, bag limits, and use of circle hooks (Sauls and Ayala 2012) (Sco -Denton et al.
2011). Mu on snapper abundance is high and the popula on is not considered overfished or experiencing
overfishing (SEDAR 2015a). Several other species managed within this fishery (e.g., red grouper and yellowtail
snapper) are also considered healthy, but there is moderate concern about the abundance of gag grouper
(SEDAR 2014a), and scamp has not been assessed (NOAA 2015a). This results in a “moderately effec ve”
track record ra ng.
Mu on snapper is managed within the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan, which was enacted in
1983 and includes 60 species. Amendments over me have led to management measures that include annual
catch limits, minimum sizes, bag limits, and use of circle hooks (Hawk 2012) (SAFMC 2014). Mu on snapper
abundance is high and the popula on is not overfished or experiencing overfishing (NOAA 2015a). In the past,
overfishing has occurred on other species caught in the fishery, such as red grouper and gag grouper, but
managers have taken ac ons to address these concerns. We have awarded a score of “moderately effec ve”
for track record.
Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion
Considera ons: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are
individuals/groups/organiza ons that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the
management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conserva on groups, etc.). A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if the
management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.
Highly Effec ve
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council posts dra regula on no ces for public viewing, has public
comment periods for all proposed regula ons, and holds regular public mee ngs. Stakeholder inclusion is
therefore rated as “highly effec ve.”
Highly Effec ve
The South Atlan c Fishery Management Council posts dra regula on no ces for public viewing, has
public comment periods for all proposed regula ons, and holds regular public mee ngs. Stakeholder inclusion
is therefore rated as “highly effec ve.”
30
Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy
FACTOR 3.2: BYCATCH STRATEGY
Region / Method
All
Kept Cri cal Strategy
Research
Advice
Enforce
United States / Gulf of Mexico /
Bo om longlines
No
No
Moderately
Effec ve
Moderately
Effec ve
Highly
Effec ve
Highly
Effec ve
Handline
No
No
Moderately
Effec ve
Moderately
Effec ve
Highly
Effec ve
Highly
Effec ve
Diver
Yes
No
Moderately
Effec ve
Moderately
Effec ve
Highly
Effec ve
Moderately
Effec ve
United States / Southeast Atlan c / No
Handline
United States / Southeast Atlan c / Yes
Diver
Subfactor 3.2. 1 – Management Strategy and Implementa on
Considera ons: 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 Effec ve
ra ng, 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 mi ga on measures, etc.).
Red grouper and gag are the most commonly discarded species in commercial longline fisheries that catch
mu on snapper in the Gulf of Mexico (Sco -Denton et al. 2011) (Sco -Denton and Williams 2013). Discards
in this fishery are high. Addi onally, the longline fishery may be a significant source of mortality to
loggerhead turtles, whose range off the west Florida shelf overlaps with an ac ve fishery for red grouper
(Hardy et al. 2014). Management quickly responded to reports of high loggerhead bycatch in 2009 (Hardy et
al. 2014), and immediately implemented several precau onary measures to reduce accidental catches,
including seasonal closures, a reduc on in hook usage, and permi ng for longline vessels (NMFS 2009).
These measures led to a significant reduc on in longline fishing, and are likely to help in the restora on
efforts for loggerhead turtles (pers. comm., Allen Foley 2015) (Hardy et al. 2014). Longline vessels are
required to use non-stainless steel circle hooks and have de-hooking tools aboard to minimize bycatch
mortality (GMFMC 2015b). The effec veness of circle hooks as a bycatch management tool remains
uncertain and further study is required. Some studies have indicated that circle hooks have reduced bycatch
and bycatch mortality of some species, but other studies have been inconclusive (Sauls and Ayala 2012)
(Garner et al. 2014). Overall bycatch management is considered “moderately effec ve.”
The most common discards in the commercial handline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico are red snapper,
vermillion snapper, red grouper, and gag grouper (Sco -Denton et al. 2011). Changes to regula ons, such as
the introduc on of Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) in 2007, were implemented partly to reduce bycatch
associated with “derby” fishing situa ons (NOAA 2011). There are regulatory requirements in place to reduce
mortality to incidentally caught sawfish and sea turtles (NOAA 2011), such as the required use of nonstainless steel circle hooks and mandated de-hooking tools aboard to minimize bycatch mortality (GMFMC
2015b). The effec veness of circle hooks as a bycatch management tool remains uncertain and further study
is required. Some studies have indicated that circle hooks have reduced bycatch and bycatch mortality of
some species, but other studies have been inconclusive (Sauls and Ayala 2012) (Garner et al. 2014). Overall,
bycatch management is considered “moderately effec ve.”
31
The most frequently discarded species in the South Atlan c snapper-grouper fishery include red snapper,
scamp, red porgy, vermillion snapper, and Atlan c sharpnose shark (GSAFFI 2013). The handline fishery was
not expected to contribute to significant mortality of any threatened or endangered species. Annual expected
mortality of sea turtles is expected to be less than 30 individuals, and no mortality is expected for smalltooth
sawfish (SAFMC 2014). All vessels in the fishery are required to use non-stainless steel circle hooks and have
de-hooking tools aboard to minimize bycatch mortality (SAFMC 2015a). The effec veness of circle hooks as a
bycatch management tool remains uncertain and further study is required. Some studies have indicated that
circle hooks have reduced bycatch and bycatch mortality of some species, but other studies have been
inconclusive (Wilson & Diaz 2012) (Sauls and Ayala 2012) (Garner et al. 2014). Overall, bycatch management
is considered “moderately effec ve.”
Subfactor 3.2. 2 – Scien fic Research and Monitoring
Considera ons: 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 Effec ve ra ng, assessments must be
conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data
collec on program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met
Discard logbooks are required for 20% of vessels in the reef fish fishery, with approximately 50% compliance
(Ba y & McElderry 2013). The observer program is small, covering just 1% of vessels (Sco -Denton et
al. 2011), resul ng in a score of “moderately effec ve.”
Discard logbooks are required for 20% of vessels in the Snapper-Grouper Fishery, but no observer program
currently exists (SAFMC 2014) (NMFS 2015b). Some preliminary observer-based discard data provide
es mates of discard mortality (GSAFFI 2008) (GSAFFI 2010) (GSAFFI 2013). This results in a score of
“moderately effec ve.”
Subfactor 3.2. 3 – Management Record of Following Scien fic Advice
Considera ons: How o en (always, some mes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scien fic
recommenda ons/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effec ve ra ng is
given if managers nearly always follow scien fic advice.
Highly Effec ve
See Subfactor 3.1.4 in the Harvest Strategy sec on for detailed informa on.
Subfactor 3.2. 4 – Enforcement of Management Regula ons
Considera ons: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management
regula ons and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regula ons? To achieve a Highly Effec ve
ra ng, there must be consistent enforcement of regula ons and verifica on of compliance.
Highly Effec ve
32
33
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 mi gate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web
and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based
Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnec ons 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 mi ga on of gear
impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 ra ng is determined as
follows:
Ra ng cannot be Cri cal for Criterion 4.
Criterion 4 Summary
Region / Method
Gear Type and
Substrate
Mi ga on of Gear
EBFM
Impacts
Score
Bo om longlines
2.00: Moderate
Concern
0.50: Moderate
Mi ga on
3.00: Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(2.739)
Handline
4.00: Very Low
Concern
0.25: Minimal
Mi ga on
3.00: Moderate
Concern
Green
(3.571)
Diver
4.00: Very Low
Concern
0.25: Minimal
Mi ga on
3.00: Moderate
Concern
Green
(3.571)
United States / Southeast Atlan c / 4.00: Very Low
Handline
Concern
0.25: Minimal
Mi ga on
3.00: Moderate
Concern
Green
(3.571)
United States / Southeast Atlan c / 4.00: Very Low
Diver
Concern
0.25: Minimal
Mi ga on
3.00: Moderate
Concern
Green
(3.571)
SCORING GUIDELINES
Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate
5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bo om
4 (Very Low) - Ver cal line gear
3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bo om, but is not dragged along the bo om (e.g. gillnet, bo om
longline, trap) and is not fished on sensi ve habitats. Bo om seine on resilient mud/sand habitats.
Midwater trawl that is known to contact bo om occasionally
2 (Moderate)—Bo om dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap,
or bo om longline fished on sensi ve boulder or coral reef habitat. Bo om seine except on mud/sand
1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensi ve 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 mul ple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classifica on is
uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensi ve, plausible habitat type.
34
Factor 4.2 - Mi ga on of Gear Impacts
+1 (Strong Mi ga on)—Examples include large propor on of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with
gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and
modifica ons shown to be effec ve at reducing damage, or an effec ve combina on of ‘moderate’
mi ga on measures.
+0.5 (Moderate Mi ga on)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place to
limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spa al footprint of damage caused from fishing.
+0.25 (Low Mi ga on)—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 ac vely being reduced
0 (No Mi ga on)—No effec ve measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats
Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
5 (Very Low Concern)—Substan al efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensure
fishing prac ces do not have nega ve ecological effects (e.g., large propor on 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 excep onally large role in the ecosystem.
Measures are in place to minimize poten ally nega ve ecological effect if hatchery supplementa on or fish
aggrega ng devices (FADs) are used.
3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an excep onally large role in the
ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these
species, OR nega ve ecological effects from hatchery supplementa on or FADs are possible and
management is not place to mi gate these impacts
2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an excep onally 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 supplementa on or fish aggrega ng devices (FADs) in the fishery
is having serious nega ve ecological or gene c consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades
or other detrimental impacts to the food web.
Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate
Moderate Concern
Mu on snapper is caught with bo om longlines throughout many areas of the West Florida con nental shelf
at depths greater than 35 m (Sco -Denton & Williams 2013). The bo om habitat in these areas consists of
mixed so -bo om sedimentary habitats and hard-bo om limestone rock and reef areas, which support hard
corals, so corals, and sponges (NOAA 2007). We have awarded “moderate” concern to bo om longline
impacts due to the possible damage to these rocky or coral bo om areas. Although less damaging than
dredging or trawling, bo om longlines have been documented to damage sponges and deep-water corals in
other loca ons (Chuenpagdee et al. 2003) (Fuller et al. 2008).
Very Low Concern
Handlines used for reef-associated species are in limited contact with the substrate and therefore have very
low impact on habitat (Morgan & Chuenpagdee 2003).
Very Low Concern
35
Diver-based fishing (spearfishing) may result in some incidental contact with the reef, but has li le expected
or observable impacts on benthic coral habitat (Frisch et al. 2012).
Factor 4.2 - Mi ga on of Gear Impacts
Moderate Mi ga on
A reduc on in the number of bo om longline vessels as a result of ghter restric ons aimed at reducing
loggerhead sea turtle bycatch has likely helped to reduce impacts to Gulf of Mexico bo om habitats (Federal
Register 2010). Addi onal measures that may help to mi gate impacts to bo om habitats include a seasonal
fishing closure in waters shallower than 35 fathoms, the use of circle hooks that may reduce bo om
snagging, limits on the number of hooks that can be fished at once, and a ban on longline fishing in
designated Habitat Areas of Par cular Concern (Federal Register 2005) (Federal Register 2010) (Wilson &
Diaz 2012).
Minimal Mi ga on
Circle hooks are required to be used by all vessels in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery and the South
Atlan c snapper grouper fishery (Sauls and Ayala 2012) (GMFMC 2015b) (SAFMC 2015a); circle hooks are
expected to be less likely to snag the substrate (Cooke and Suski 2004), although limited data exist to
substan ate this point. A small por on of Gulf of Mexico waters (0.5%) are designated as no-take marine
protected areas (MPAs), where fishing ac vity is prohibited, and there are eight deepwater MPAs in the
Southeast Atlan c, where fishing for snapper and grouper species is prohibited (SAFMC 2007) (OOCRM
2011). A substan al propor on of all representa ve mu on snapper habitats have not been protected, but
some major spawning habitats are currently under protec on (Burton et al. 2005) (Jeffrey et al. 2012). This
factor receives a score of “minimal” mi ga on.
Minimal Mi ga on
A small por on of Gulf of Mexico waters (0.5%) are designated as no-take marine protected areas (MPAs),
where fishing ac vity is prohibited, and there are eight deepwater MPAs in the Southeast Atlan c, where
fishing for snapper and grouper species is prohibited (SAFMC 2007) (OOCRM 2011). A substan al propor on
of all representa ve mu on snapper habitats have not been protected, but some major spawning habitats are
currently under protec on (Burton et al. 2005) (Jeffrey et al. 2012). This factor receives a score of “minimal”
mi ga on.
Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
Moderate Concern
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is in the planning phase of ecosystem-based management
(EBM) development. The council has designated an Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Working Group to
develop objec ves related to EBM implementa on (ESMWG 2014). Addi onally, NOAA commissioned a
study to act as a framework from which ecosystem-based management of the Gulf of Mexico will be built
(Karnauskas 2013). The GMFMC has not evaluated the poten al food web or other ecological impacts
of removal of snappers and groupers from the ecosystem (GMFMC 2014). But the Dry Tortugas South
Ecological Reserve was created to help protect spawning aggrega ons of mu on snapper, and there is
evidence that this has improved produc vity of mu on snapper (Burton et al. 2005).
36
There is no indica on that removal of mu on snapper or most other species caught in the fishery would
result in detrimental food web impacts. But red grouper (Epinephelus morio) may serve as a habitat modifier,
poten ally increasing biodiversity and abundance of economically and ecologically important species such as
spiny lobster, sponges, and corals (Coleman et al. 2010). Because the GMFMC has not yet implemented
policies to account for species’ ecological roles, but large nega ve impacts to the ecosystem are unlikely, this
results in a score of “moderate” concern.
Moderate Concern
The South Atlan c Fishery Management Council is working toward adop ng an ecosystem-based approach to
management through a Fishery Ecosystem Plan. The plan addresses five key areas needed to implement this
ecosystem approach: 1) an overview of the South Atlan c system; 2) species, habitats, and essen al fish
habitat; 3) informa on on coastal fishing communi es; 4) threats to the system and recommenda ons;
and 5) research and data needs (SAFMC 2009). The most recent adop on of the Comprehensive EcosystemBased Amendment 2 implements some goals of ecosystem-based management, including providing special
management zones for snapper-grouper species in South Carolina and requiring the review of poten al
essen al fish habitat closures in the future (NOAA 2011).
There is no indica on that mu on snapper is a species of excep onal importance, but red
grouper (Epinephelus morio) may serve as a habitat modifier, poten ally increasing biodiversity and
abundance of economically and ecologically important species such as spiny lobster, sponges, and corals
(Coleman et al. 2010). The council has created eight no-take marine protected areas in the South Atlan c
(SAFMC 2009), which may confer some benefit to species such as red grouper. Although some efforts have
been made to protect important habitat areas, the poten al food web or other ecological effects related to
removal of the species within this fishery have not been evaluated, resul ng in a score of “moderate” concern.
37
Acknowledgements
Scien fic review does not cons tute an endorsement of The Safina Center or Seafood Watch® program, or its
seafood recommenda ons, on the part of the reviewing scien sts. The Safina Center and Seafood Watch® are
solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
The Safina Center and Seafood Watch would like to thank Dr. Elizabeth Babcock of the University of
Miami, Michael Burton of NOAA's Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, Dr. Nicholas Farmer
of NOAA Fisheries' Data Analysis Operations Branch, and Joe O'Hop of the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy. Additionally we
would like to thank Lawrence Beerkircher of NOAA's Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Donna Bellais of
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Dr. Allen Foley of the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, and Joseph Myers of the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program for
providing data/information for this assessment.
38
References
Atlan c Coastal Coopera ve Sta s cs Program (ACCSP). 2015. Query for most common species landed with
mu on snapper. Provided on October 5, 2015. Available at: h p://www.accsp.org/index.htm
Allen, G.R., 1985. FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 6. Snappers of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue
of lutjanid species known to date. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(6):208 p. Rome: FAO.
Allsop, D.J. and S.A. West, 2003. Constant rela ve age and size at sex change for sequen ally hermaphrodi c
fish. J. Evol. Biol. 16(2003):921-929.
Anderson, W.D., Jr. 1967. Field guide to the Snappers (Lutjanidae) of the Western Atlan c.
Circ.U.S.Dep.Interior., 252:1-14
Ault, J.S., Bohnsack, J.A., Smith, S.G., & Luo, J. 2005. Toward sustainable mul species fisheries in the Florida,
USA, coral reef ecosystem. Bulle n of Marine Science, 76(2):595-622.
Barbieri, L.R., & Colvocoresses, J.A. 2003. Southeast Florida reef fish abundance and biology. Five-year
performance report for Florida Grant F-73 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior, 120 pp.
Ba y A., McElderry H. 2013. Pilot study of the use of electronic monitoring systems in the Gulf of Mexico reef
fishery. Report by Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. February 2013.
Bene , D.D., Matera, J.A., Stevens, O.M., Alarcon J.F., Feeley, M.W., Rotman, F.J., Minemoto, Y., BannerStevens, G., Fanke, J., Zimmerman, S. Eldridge, L. 2002. Growth, survival and feed conversion rates of hatcheryreared mu on snapper Lutjanis analis cultured in floa ng net cages. J. World Aquaculture Society, 33: 349–
357.
Berry, F.H. and R.K. Burch. 1979. Aspects of the amberjack fisheries. Proc. 31st Ann. Gulf. Caribbean Fish. Inst.
31:179-194. 4. Berry, F.H. and W.F. Smith-Vaniz.
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>.
Brule, T., Deniel, C., Colas-Marrufo, T., & Renan, X. 2003. Reproduc ve biology of gag in the southern Gulf of
Mexico. Journal of Fish Biology, 63:1505-1520.
Brulé, T., Déniel, C., Colás-Marrufo, T., and Sánchez-Crespo, M. 1999. Red grouper reproduc on in the southern
Gulf of Mexico. Transac ons of the American Fisheries Society, 128:385-402.
Burton, M.L. 2002. Age, growth and mortality of mu on snapper, Lutjanus analis, from the east coast of
Florida, with a brief discussion of management implica ons. Fisheries Research, 59:31–41.
Burton, M.L., Brennan, K.J., Munoz, R.C., & Parker Jr., R.O. 2005. Preliminary evidence of increased spawning
aggrega ons of mu on snapper (Lutjanus analis) at Riley's Hump two years a er establishment of the Tortugas
South Ecological Reserve. Fishery Bulle n, 103(2): 404-410.
Carlson, J.K., Cortes, E., & Johnson, A.G. 1999. Age and growth of the blacknose shark, Carcharhinus
acronotus, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Copeia, 1999(3), 684-691.
Carlson, J.K., Middlemiss, A.M., and Neer, J.A. 2007. A revised age and growth model for the blacknose shark,
Carcharhinus acronotus, from the eastern Gulf of Mexico using x-radiographs. Gulf of Mexico Science 1: 82-87.
Carpenter, K.E. (ed.). 2002. The living marine resources of the Western Central Atlan c. Volume 3: Bony fishes
part 2 (Opistognathidae to Molidae), sea turtles and marine mammals. FAO Species Iden fica on Guide for
Fishery Purposes and American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publica on No. 5. Rome,
FAO, 375-2127. Available at:h p://www.fao.org/docrep/009/y4160e/y4160e00.htm
Carson E.W., Saillant E., Renshaw M.A., Cummings N.J., Gold J.R. 2011. Popula on structure, long-term
connec vity, and effec ve size of mu on snapper (Lutjanus analis) in the Caribbean Sea and Florida Keys.
Fishery Bulle n 109: 416-428.
Casey, J.P., G.R. Poulakis, and P.W. Stevens. 2007. Habitat use by juvenile gag, Mycteroperca microlepis (Pisces:
Serranidae), in subtropical Charlo e Harbor, Florida (USA). Gulf and Caribbean Research 19: 1-9.
Choat, J.H., Pollard, D. Sadovy, Y.J. 2010. Lachnolaimus maximus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2015.2.
Chuenpagdee, R., Morgan, L.E., Maxwell, S.M., Norse, E.A., Pauly, D. 2003. Shi ing gears: Assessing collateral
impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Fron ers in Ecology and the Environment 1(10): 517-524.
Claro, R. 1981. Ecologia y ciclo de vida del pargo criollo, Lutjanus analis, en la plataforma cubana. Academia de
ciencias de Cuba 186: 1-83.
39
Coleman, F.C., Koenig, C.C., Scanlon, K.M., Heppell, S., Heppell, S., and Miller, M.W. 2010. Benthic habitat
modifica on through excava on by red grouper, Epinephelus morio, in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. The
Open Fish Science Journal, 3:1-15.
Compagno, L.J.V. 2001. Sharks of the World. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the shark species
known to date. Volume 3. Carcharhiniformes. FAO, Rome.
Conant, T.A., Du on, P.H., Eguchi, T., Epperly, S.P., Fahy, C.C., Godfrey, M.H., MacPherson, S.L., Possardt, E.E.,
Schroeder, B.A., Seminoff, J.A., Snover, M.L., Upite, C.M., and Witherington, B.E. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle
(Care a care a) 2009 status review under the U.S. Enddangered Species Act. August, 2009.
Cooke, S.J. & Suski, C.D. 2004. Are circle hooks an effec ve tool for conserving marine and freshwater
recrea onal catch-and-release fisheries? Aqua c Conserva on: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 14:299326.
Cooper, W., Collins, A., O’Hop, J., Addis, D. 2013.The 2013 Stock Assessment Report for Hogfish in the South
Atlan c and Gulf of Mexico. Producted by Fish and Wildlife Research Ins tute, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conserva on Commission for Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 37. Available at:
h p://sedarweb.org/sedar-37-final-stock-assessment-report-southeastern-us-hogfish
De Mitcheson, Y.S., Cornish, A., Domeier, M., Colin, P.L., Russell, M., & Lindeman, K.C. 2008. A global baseline
for spawning aggrega ons of reef fishes. Conserva on Biology, 22(5):1233-1244.
Ebert, D.A. & Stehmann, M.F.W. 2013. Sharks, batoids, and chimaeras of the North Atlan c FAO Species
Catalogue for Fishery Purposes. No. 7. Rome, FAO. 523 pp.
ESMWG (Ecosystem Science and Management Working Group). 2014. Explora on of ecosytem based fishery
management in the United States. Revised Dra Report to the NOAA Science Advisory Board, June 23, 2014.
Available at: h p://www.sab.noaa.gov/Mee ngs/2014/june/june_23_2014.html
FAO. 2015. Fisheries and aquaculture so ware. FishStatJ - so ware for fishery sta s cal me series. In: FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 23 June 2015. Accessed December 5, 2015.
Faunce, C., Tunnell, J., Burton, M., Ferguson, K., O'Hop, J., Muller, R., Feeley, M., & Crabtree, L. 2007. Life
history of Lutjanus analis inhabi ng Florida waters, SEDAR 15A-DW-15 Data Workshop Report, 2.
Federal Register. 2005. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlan c; Gulf of Mexico Essen al
Fish Habitat Amendment, 70 Federal Register 246 (23 December 2005) pp. 76216-76220. Available at:
h p://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-12-23/pdf/05-24416.pdf
Federal Register. 2010. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlan c; Reef Fish Fishery of the
Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 31. Na onal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Na onal Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administra on (NOAA), Commerce. Federal Register, 75 (79): 21512-21520.
Federal Register. 2011. Endangered and threatened species; Determina on of nine dis nct popula on segments
of loggerhead sea turtles as endangered or threatened. Federal Register, 76 (184): 58868-58952.
Federal Register. 2014. Endangered and Threatened Species: Cri cal habitat for the Northwest Atlan c Ocean
loggerhead sea turtle dis nct popula on segment (DPS) and determina on regarding cri cal habitat for the
North Pacific Ocean loggerhead DPS. Federal Register, 79 (132): 39856-39912.
Federal Register. 2015. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlan c; Snapper-Grouper
Fishery Off the Southern Atlan c States; Regulatory Amendment 22, [Docket No. 150305220–5469–01]. 80
(107):31880-31884. Available at: h ps://www.federalregister.gov/ar cles/2015/06/04/2015-13592/fisheriesof-the-caribbean-gulf-of-mexico-and-south-atlan c-snapper-grouper-fishery-off-the
FishWatch 2015. Seafood Profiles, FishWatch. NOAA. Available at:
h p://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/index.htm
Florida Museum of Natural History, 2005. Biological profiles: yellowtail snapper. Retrieved on 26 August 2005,
from www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/YellowtailSnapper/Yellowtailsnapper.html. Ichthyology at the
Florida Museum of Natural History: Educa on-Biological Profiles. FLMNH, University of Florida.
Floeter, S.R., J.L. Gasparini, L.A. Rocha, C.E.L. Ferreira, C.A. Rangel and B.M. Feitoza, 2003. Brazilian reef fish
fauna: checklist and remarks (updated Jan. 2003). Brazilian Reef Fish Project: www.brazilianreeffish.cjb.net.
Freitas, M.O., De Moura, R.L., Francini-Filho, R.B., & Minte-Vera, C.V. 2011. Spawning pa erns of commercially
important reef fish (Lutjanidae and Serranidae) in the tropical western South Atlan c. Scien a Marina,
75(1):135-146.
Frisch A.J., Cole A.J., Hobbs J.-P.A., Rizzari J.R., Munkres K.P. 2012. Effects of spearfishing on reef fish
popula ons in a mul -use conserva on area. PLoS ONE407(12): e51938. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051938
Froese, R. & Pauly, D. Editors. 2015. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publica on. www.fishbase.org, (
04/2015 )
Fuller, S.D., Picco, C., Ford, J., Tsao, C.F., Morgan, L.E., Hangaard, D., Chuenpagdee, R. (2008) How We Fish
Ma ers: Addressing the Ecological Impacts of Canadian Fishing Gear. Ecology Ac on Center, Living Oceans
Society, Marine Conserva on Biology Ins tute. Available at: h p://mcbi.marineconserva on.org/publica ons/pub_pdfs/HowWeFish.pdf
Garcia-Moliner, G. & Eklund, A.-M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group). 2004. Epinephelus morio. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T44681A10923778
Garner S.B., Pa erson III W.F., Porch C.E., Tarnecki J.H. 2014. Experimental assessment of circle hook
performance and selec vity in the northern Gulf of Mexico recrea onal reef fish fishery. Marine and Coastal
Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 6:235-246.
GMFMC. 2009. Final Amendment 31 to the fishery management plan for reef fish resources in the Gulf of
Mexico. June, 2009.
GMFMC. 2014. Ecosystem Based Fishery Management Working Group notes. September , 2014. Available at:
h p://gulfcouncil.org/council_mee ngs/BriefingMaterials/BB-03-2015/E6(a)%20%20%20EBFM%20Working%20Group%20Sept%202014%20Summary%20Report.pdf
GMFMC 2015a. Species profiles accessed within “Basic Recrea onal Fishing Regula ons”. Gulf of Mexico
Fisheries Management Council. Available at:
h p://gulfcouncil.org/fishing_regula ons/regula ons_matrix/Site/Regula ons_Matrix.html
GMFMC. 2015b. Commercial fishing regula ons for Gulf of Mexico federal waters - For species managed by
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. January 1, 2015.
GMFMC. 2015c. Reef Fish Management Commi ee, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Mee ng
minutes. May 22, 2015.
GMFMC. 2015d. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Science Commi ees. Accessed: 2/15/2016.
Available at: h p://gulfcouncil.org/panels_commi ees/scien fic_sta s cal_commi ees.php
GMFMC. 2015e. Species profiles accessed within “Basic Recrea onal Fishing Regula ons”. Gulf of Mexico
Fisheries Management Council. Available at:
h p://gulfcouncil.org/fishing_regula ons/regula ons_matrix/Site/Regula ons_Matrix.html
Graham, R.T., Carcamo, R., Rhodes, K.L., Roberts, C.M., and Requena, N. 2008. Historical and contemporary
evidence of a mu on snapper (Lutjanus analis Cuvier, 1828) spawning aggrega on fishery in decline. Coral
Reefs, 27:311-319.
GSAFFI. 2008. Catch characteriza on and discards within the snapper grouper ver cal hook-and-line fishery of
the south Atlan c United States. Final Report to NOAA, October 2008.
GSAFFI. 2010. A con nua on of catch characteriza on and discards within the snapper-grouper ver cal hookand-line fishery in the south Atlan c United States. Final report to NOAA/NMFS, September 2010.
GSAFFI. 2013. Con nua on of catch characteriza on and discards within the snapper-grouper ver cal hookand-line fishery of the south Atlan c United States. April, 2013.
Hardy, R.F., Tucker, A.D., Foley, A.M., Schroeder, B.A., Glove, R.J. and Meylan, A.B. 2014. Spa otemporal
occurrence of loggerhead turtles (Care a care a) on the West Florida Shelf and apparent overlap with a
commercial fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aqua c Science 71: 1924-1933.
Harris, P.J., Wyanski, D.M., White, D.B., & Moore, J.L. 2002. Age, growth and reproduc on of scamp,
Mycteroperca phenax, in the southwestern North Atlan c, 1979-1997.
Harris, P.J., Wyanski, D.M., White, D.B., & Mikell, P.P. 2007. Age, growth and reproduc on of greater amberjack
off the southeastern U.S. Atlan c coast. Transac ons of the American Fisheries Society, 136:1534-1545.
Hawk M. 2012. Effects of management on the recrea onal snapper-grouper fishery of the southeast United
States. Masters's thesis for the Graduate School of the College of Charleston, September 2012.
Hazin, F.H., Oliveira, P.G., & Broadhurst, M.K. 2002. Reproduc on of the blacknose shark (Carcharhinus
acronotus) in coastal waters off northeastern Brazil. Fishery Bulle n, 100:143-148.
Heemstra, P.C. and J.E. Randall, 1993. FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 16. Groupers of the world (family
Serranidae, subfamily Epinephelinae). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the grouper, rockcod, hind,
coral grouper and lyretail species known to date. Rome: FAO. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(16):382 p.
Huntsman, G. 1996. Lutjanus analis. The IUCN Red List41of Threatened Species 1996: e.T12416A3341192.
h p://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.1996.RLTS.T12416A3341192.en . Downloaded on 03 October 2015.
Jeffrey, C.F.G., Monaco, M.E., Leeworthy, V.R., & Fonseca, M. 2012. An integrated biogeographic assessment of
reef fish popula ons and fisheries in Dry Tortugas: Effects of no-take reserves. NOAA Technical Memorandum
no. 8, NCCO8 111.
Karnauskas, M., Schirripa, M.J., Kelble, C.R., Cook, G.S., & Craig, J.K. 2013. Ecosystem status report for the Gulf
of Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-653.
Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470.
Manooch, C.S. III, 1987. Age and growth of snappers and groupers. p. 329-373. In J.J. Polovina and S. Ralston
(eds.) Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. Ocean Resour. Mar. Policy Ser.
Westview Press, Inc., Boulder and London.
Manooch, C.S., III, Haimovici, M. 1983. Foods of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, and Almaco jack, Seriola
rivoliana (Pisces: Carangidae) from the South Atlan c Bight. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scien fic Society,
99(1): 1-9.
Manooch, C.S. III, and Po s, J.C. 1997. Age, growth and mortality of greater amberjack from the southeastern
United States. Fisheries Research, 30:229-240.
Manooch, C.S., Ill, Po s, J.C., Burton, M.L., & Harris, P.J. 1998. Popula on assessment of the scamp,
Mycteroperca phenax, from the southeastern United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-4lO,
57p.
Matheson, R.H. III, G.R. Huntsman and C.S. Manooch III, 1986. Age, growth, mortality, food and reproduc on
of scamp, Myctoperca phenax, collected off North Carolina and South Carolina. Bull. Mar. Sci. 38:300-312.
Moe, M.A.J. 1969. Biology of the red grouper (Epinephelus morio Valenciennes) from the eastern Gulf of
Mexico. Professional Papers Series 10, Florida Marine Laboratory, St. Petersburg, FL. 1969; 95 p.
Morgan, L.E. and Chuenpagdee, R. 2003. Shi ing gears: Addressing the collateral impacts of fishing methods in
U.S. waters. Pew science series on conserva on and the environment. Island Press, 52 pp.
Morgan, M., Carlson, J., Kyne, P.M. & Lessa, R. 2009. Carcharhinus acronotus. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2009. h p://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009-2.RLTS.T161378A5410167.en.
MRAG. 2009. Produc vity and suscep bility analyses: Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico PSA results, March
2009, 6 pp.
NMFS. 2009. Es mated takes of sea turtles in the bo om longline por on of the Gulf of Mexico reef fish
fishery July 2006 through December 2008 based on observer data. March, 2009.
NMFS. 2015a. Commercial Fisheries Sta s cs. Na onal Marine Fisheries Service. Available at:
h p://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index
NMFS 2015b. Recrea onal Fisheries Sta s cs. NOAA Office of Science and Technology. Available at:
h p://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recrea onal/queries/
NMFS. 2015c. Electronic Monitoring and Repor ng Regional Implementa on plan, Na onal Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Region. February 26, 2015.
NMFS and USFWS. 2008. Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlan c popula on of the loggerhead sea turtle
(Care a care a), 2nd revision. December, 2008.
NOAA 2007. Puglise, K.A. and R. Kelty (eds.). 2007. NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Research Plan for Fiscal Years
2007 to 2011. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Coral Reef Conserva on Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum
CRCP 1. 128 pp. Available at:
h p://www.coris.noaa.gov/ac vi es/coral_research_plan/pdfs/coral_researchplan.pdf
NOAA SERO. 2009. Endangered Species Act - Sec on 7 Consulta on, Biological Opinion. October 13, 2009.
NOAA. 2011. U.S. Na onal Bycatch Report. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-117C. First edi on,
September 16, 2011.
NOAA. 2013. Imports and exports of fishery products, Annual summary, 2013. Current fishery sta s cs report
no. 2013-2. NOAA Fisheries.
NOAA 2015a. Status of fisheries: Stock status updates, December 2015 (4th quarter) update. NOAA Fisheries.
Available at: h p://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/status_updates.html
NOAA. 2015b. Commercial fisheries sta s cs, US foreign trade. NOAA Office of Science and Technology.
Available at: h p://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/foreign-trade/
42
NOAA. 2014. NOAA Fisheries status of the stocks 2014: Annual report to Congress on the status of U.S.
fisheries.
NOAA 2015c. Historical Overview (1800s-present): How has the red snapper fishery changed over me? NOAA
Fisheries. Available at:
h p://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/red_snapper/overview/index.html
NOAA SERO. 2009. Endangered Species Act- Sec on 7 consulta on, Biological Opinion. October 13, 2009.
NOAA SERO. 2015. NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Gulf of Mexico Stock Annual Catch Limits
Landings Available at: h p://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/acl_monitoring/stock_gulf/index.html
NOAA SERO. 2016a. NOAA Southeast Regional Office, Historical South Atlan c Commercial Landings.
Available at:
h p://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/acl_monitoring/commercial_sa/historical/index.html
NOAA SERO. 2016b. NOAA Southeast Regional Office, Historical recrea onal landings and annual catch limits,
Available at:
h p://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/acl_monitoring/recrea onal_historical/index.html
O'Hop, J., Murphy, M. & Chagaris, D. 2012. The 2012 stock assessment report for yellowtail snapper in the
South Atlan c and Gulf of Mexico. Fish and Wildlife Conserva on Commission, May 29, 2012. 341 pp.
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OOCRM), 2011. Snapshot of Gulf of Mexico MPAs. May
2011.
Phillips, K.F., Mansfield, K.L., Die D.J., and Addison, D.S. 2014. Survival and remigra on probabili es for
loggerhead turtles (Care a care a) nes ng in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Biology, 161: 863-870.
Porter R.D., Jylkka Z., and Swanson G. 2012. Enforcement and compliance trends under IFQ management in
the Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish fishery. Marine Policy 38:45-53.
Portnoy, D.S., Hollenbeck, C.M., Belcher, C.N., Driggers III, W.B., Frazier, B.S., Gelsleichter, J., Grubbs, R.D., &
Gold, J.R. 2014. Contemporary popula on structure and post-glacial gene c demography in a migratory marine
species, the blacknose shark, Carcharhinus acronotus. Molecular Ecology, 23:5480-5495.
Po s, J.C. and Brennan, K. 2001. Trends in catch data and es mated sta c SPR values for fi een species of reef
fish landed along the southeastern United States. NOAA/CCFHR. February, 2001.
Rocha, L., McGovern, J.C., Craig, M.T., Choat, J.H., Ferreira, B., Bertoncini, A.A. & Craig, M. 2008. Mycteroperca
phenax. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T132729A3434736. Downloaded on 30 June 2016.
SAFMC. 2007. Snapper grouper amendment 14: Including a final environmental impact statement, biological
assessment, ini al regulatory flexibility analysis, regulatory impact review, and social impact
assessment/fishery impact statement. July, 2007.
SAFMC. 2009. Regula ons for deepwater marine protected areas in the south Atlan c.
SAFMC 2011. Amendment 24 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlan c Region with Environmental Assessment, Ini al Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, Regulatory Impact
Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. Available at:
h p://safmc.net/Library/pdf/SGAmend24.pdf
SAFMC. 2013. Update to Re-define Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) in Amendment 24. Available at:
h p://www.safmc.net/sites/default/files/mee ngs/pdf/SSC/SSC102013/A10_Council%20ConclusionMSSTAm24.pdf
SAFMC. 2014. Amendment 29 to the fishery management plan for the snapper grouper fishery of the south
Atlan c region. October 14, 2014. 206 pp.
SAFMC. 2015a. South Atlan c snapper grouper complex commercial regula ons. Updated January 7, 2105.
SAFMC 2015b. Fish ID and Regula ons, South Atlan c Fishery Management Council.
Sauls B. and Ayala O. 2012. Circle hook requirements in the Gulf of Mexico: Applica on in recrea onal fisheries
and effec veness for conserva on of reef fishes. Bulle n of Marine Science, 88(3):667-679.
Sco , W.B. and M.G. Sco , 1988. Atlan c fishes of Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 219:731 p.
Sco -Denton, E. and Williams. Jo A. 2013. Observer coverage of the 2010-2011 Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery.
Na onal Marine Fisheries Service. May, 2013.
Sco -Denton E., Cryer P.F., Gocke J.P., Harrelson M.R., Kinsella D.L., Pulver J.R., Smith R.C., Williams J.A. 2011.
Descrip ons of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico reef fish bo om longline and ver cal line fisheries based on observer
43
data. Marine Fisheries Review, 73: 1-26.
Seafood Watch. 2014. Black grouper, gag grouper, red grouper, snowy grouper, yellowedge grouper, warsaw
grouper report for United States, Bo om longline, Handline. by Max, L., Seafood Watch Staff. Seafood Watch,
Monterey Bay Aquarium, 2014. 129 pp.
SEDAR 2007. Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 14, Stock Assessment Report 2 for Caribbean Mu on
Snapper. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries. Available at: h p://sedarweb.org/sedar-14stock-assessment-report-caribbean-mu on-snapper
SEDAR. 2008a. SEDAR 15A, Stock assessment report 3 (SAR 3), South Atlan c and Gulf of Mexico mu on
snapper. February, 2008.
SEDAR 2008b. Stock Assessment Report, South Atlan c Greater Amberjack. Southeast Data, Assessment, and
Review 15, South Atlan c Fishery Management Council, NOAA Fisheries. Available at:
h p://sedarweb.org/sedar-15-stock-assessment-report-south-atlan c-greater-amberjack
SEDAR 2009. Stock Assessment of Red Grouper in the Gulf of Mexico, Southeast Data, Assessment, and
Review 12 Update Assessment. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries. Available at:
h p://sedarweb.org/2009-update-sedar-12-gulf-mexico-red-grouper
SEDAR 2010. Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 19, Stock Assessment Report for South Atlan c Red
Grouper. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries. Available at: h p://sedarweb.org/sedar-19-finalstock-assessment-report-south-atlan c-red-grouper
SEDAR. 2011. HMS Gulf of Mexico blacknose shark, SEDAR 21 Stock assessment report. September, 2011.
415 pp.
SEDAR 2012a. Stock Assessment of Vermilion Snapper off the Southeastern United States. SEDAR 17 Update
Assessment. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries. Available at: h p://sedarweb.org/2012update-sedar-17-south-atlan c-vermilion-snapper
SEDAR 2012b. O'Hop, J., Murphy, M., Chagaris, D. The 2012 Stock Assessment Report for Yellowtail Snapper
in the South Atlan c and Gulf of Mexico. Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 27A. Fish and Wildlife
Research Ins tute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva on Commission. Available at:
h p://sedarweb.org/sedar-27a-stock-assessment-report-southeastern-yellowtail-snapper
SEDAR 2012c. Stock Assessment of Red Porgy off the Southeastern United States, SEDAR 01 Update
Assessment. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries. Available at: h p://sedarweb.org/2012update-sedar-01-south-atlan c-red-porgy
SEDAR 2014a. SEDAR 33 – Gulf of Mexico Gag Stock Assessment Report. SEDAR, North Charleston SC. 609
pp. Available at: h p://sedarweb.org/sedar-33-stock-assessment-report-gulf-mexico-gag-grouper
SEDAR 2014b. Stock Assessment of Gag off the Southeastern United States. Southeast Data, Assessment, and
Review 10 Update Assessment, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries. Available at:
h p://sedarweb.org/2014-update-sedar-10-south-atlan c-gag-grouper
SEDAR 2014c. SEDAR. 2014. SEDAR 36 – South Atlan c Snowy Grouper Stock Assessment Report. SEDAR,
North Charleston SC. 146 pp. available online at: h p://sedarweb.org/sedar-36-stock-assessment-reportsouth-atlan c-snowy-grouper
SEDAR 2015a. O'Hop, J., Muller, R.G., and Addis, D.T. Stock Assessment of Mu on Snapper (Lutjanus analis) of
the U.S. South Atlan c and Gulf of Mexico through 2013, SEDAR 15A Update Assessment. Fish and Wildlife
Research Ins tute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva on Commission. Available at:
h p://sedarweb.org/2015-update-sedar-15a-south-atlan c-and-gulf-mexico-mu on-snapper
SEDAR. 2015b. SEDAR 42, Gulf of Mexico Red Grouper, Sec on III: Assessment Process Report. June, 2015.
SEDAR. 2013. SEDAR 36 – South Atlan c Snowy Grouper Stock Assessment Report. SEDAR, North Charleston
SC. Revised January 13, 2014.
SFB (Southeast Fishery Bulle n). 2015. Archives available at:
h p://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishery_bulle ns/bulle n_archives/index.html
SFSC. 2015. Total removals of red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) in 2014 from the U.S. South Atlan c.
Shulzitski, K., McCartney, M.A., and Burton, M.L. 2009. Popula on connec vity among Dry Tortugas, Florida,
and Caribbean popula ons of mu on snapper (Lutjanus analis), inferred from mul ple microsatellite loci.
Fishery Bulle n, 107:501-509.
Stebbins S., Trumble R.J., and Turris B. 2009. Monitoring the Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish fishery: a
44
review and discussion. Report by MRAG/PFMI and AMRL. April 2009.
Switzer, T.S., S.F. Keenan, P.W. Stevens, R.H. McMichael, Jr., and MacDonald, T.C. 2012. Incorpora ng ecology
into survey design: monitoring recruitment of age-0 gag in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management 35:1132-1143.
TIP (Trip Interviewer Program) Data. 2015. Query provided on all species caught with mu on snapper. Data
provided on 9/25/15. NOAA Fisheries.
Wilson J.A. & Diaz G.A. 2012. An overview of circle hook use and management measures in United States
marine fisheries. Bulle n of Marine Science 88:771-788.
45
Appendix A: Extra Bycatch Species
Red grouper
High
FishBase has assigned a high vulnerability ra ng (63 out of 100) to red grouper (Froese and Pauly 2015). Red
grouper (Epinephelus morio) is a medium-sized grouper with variable colora on ranging from red to mo led
reddish-brown, reaching a maximum size of 125 cm. It is a protogynous hermaphrodite, with 50% of females
reaching sexual maturity at approximately 54 cm (Moe 1969) and then metamorphosing into males around
age 9 (Allsop and West 2003). Adult red grouper and young-of-the-year juveniles are associated with offshore
rocky and muddy bo oms to a depth of 330 m (Heemstra and Randall 1993), while juvenile fish ages 1–6 are
common on nearshore coral reefs (GMFMC 2015a). Spawning takes place from January to March (Brule et al.
2003). Red grouper are found from North Carolina to the coast of Brazil, and throughout the Gulf of Mexico
and Caribbean, feeding on smaller fish, squid, and crustaceans (Moe 1969) (GMFMC 2015a).
Low Concern
The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature considers red grouper to be a near threatened species
(Garcia-Moliner and Eklund 2004). Red grouper in the Gulf of Mexico is managed by the Gulf of Mexico
Fisheries Management Council under the Reef Fish Management Plan. A er previous overfished status, the
Gulf of Mexico red grouper stock was declared rebuilt in 2007 (FishWatch 2015). Formal stock
assessments (SEDAR 2009) (SEDAR 2015b) list this stock as not overfished, with abundance well above the
target level of biomass at maximum sustainable yield and increasing from 2009 to 2013 (B/BM SY proxy = 1.28
in 2009, B/B M SY proxy = 1.83 in 2013). The assessment review panel notes that there is some uncertainty
around the abundance es mate, and there is debate regarding the appropriate reference points (SEDAR
2015b). Also, this species is vulnerable to toxic red de events, which could reduce biomass (FishWatch 2015)
(SEDAR 2009). Based on the recovery from previous overfished status, combined with uncertainty in the
recent stock assessment, abundance is rated as a “low” concern.
Low Concern
The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature considers red grouper to be near threatened (GarciaMoliner and Eklund 2004). Red grouper in the South Atlan c is managed by the South Atlan c Fisheries
Management Council under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery. The last stock assessment for red grouper in the
South Atlan c es mated abundance as of 2008 to be at 79% of the biomass at maximum sustainable yield
(B2008 /B M SY = 0.79) and at 92% of the minimum stock size threshold (B/MSST = 0.92) (SEDAR 2010).
Because abundance was es mated to be below the limit reference point, the assessment concluded that red
grouper in the South Atlan c was overfished. Since then, the way that MSST is calculated was revised, and
based on the new MSST value (75% of BM SY ), red grouper is no longer classified as overfished (SAFMC 2013).
But red grouper abundance remains below the target level and the species is in year 4 of a 10-year rebuilding
plan (NOAA 2015a) (SAFMC 2011). Because red grouper is no longer considered overfished but abundance is
below the target level, abundance is rated “low” concern.
46
Very Low Concern
The Na onal Marine Fisheries Service lists red grouper in the Gulf of Mexico as not experiencing overfishing
(NOAA 2015a). Red grouper is commonly targeted by commercial fishers using ver cal lines and longlines,
and by headboat and private recrea onal fishers using ver cal lines. Landings for the Gulf of Mexico in 2014
were 6,545,646 lbs by the commercial fishery and 1,835,083 lbs by the recrea onal fishery (NMFS 2015a)
(NMFS 2015b). Fishing mortality was es mated to be below the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable
yield in both recent stock assessments (F/F M SY = 0.778 in 2008, F/F M SY = 0.76 in 2013 (SEDAR 2009) (SEDAR
2015b)). Therefore, red grouper fishing mortality is a “very low” concern.
Low Concern
Red grouper in the South Atlan c was experiencing overfishing in 2008, with fishing mortality well above the
target level at maximum sustainable yield (F/F M SY = 1.46 (SEDAR 2010)). The overfishing concerns were
addressed with the establishment of a rebuilding plan and annual catch limits for red grouper in 2012. NOAA
Fisheries currently lists red grouper in the South Atlan c as not subject to overfishing (NOAA 2015a). Red
grouper is commonly targeted by commercial fishers using ver cal lines and longlines, and by headboat and
private recrea onal fishers using ver cal lines. Landings for the South Atlan c in 2014 were 71,576 lbs by the
commercial fishery and 29,437 lbs by the recrea onal fishery (NMFS 2015a) (NMFS 2015b). In a recent peerreviewed report on grouper fisheries, Seafood Watch rated fishing mortality for this stock as “low” concern
due to the current lack of overfishing (Seafood Watch 2014).
20-40%
> 100%
20-40%
47
Yellowtail snapper
Medium
FishBase has assigned a high vulnerability ra ng (65 out of 100) to yellowtail snapper, but its life history suggests
a low vulnerability to fishing (see detailed Ra onale below). Addi onally, a Produc vity Suscep bility Analysis for
yellowtail snapper found it ranked as medium risk (MRAG 2009). Taking into account these different
assessments, we have ranked its vulnerability as medium. Yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) is a mediumsized snapper with bluish colora on, recognized by a prominent yellow stripe and yellow caudal fin, ranging in
size up to 86 cm (Allen 1985). It reaches sexual maturity around 24 cm in length and 3 years of age, and may
form large spawning aggrega ons (Burton et al. 2005). The maximum observed age is 23 years (O’Hop et al.
2012). Adult yellowtail snapper are found well above coral reef bo oms, commonly over a depth range of 10–70
m, while juveniles inhabit sea grass beds (Froese and Pauly 2016). Yellowtail snapper are found in the Western
North Atlan c from North Carolina to the coast of Brazil, and throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean
(FLMNH 2005). Yellowtail snapper feeds on both benthic and planktonic prey, including fish, crustaceans,
gastropods, cephalopods, and worms (Froese and Pauly 2015) (SAFMC 2015b).
Ra onale:
Table 2: Results from Seafood Watch fish vulnerability rubric (SFW criteria document, p. 4). A ribute scores can
range from 1 to 3, with higher scores signifying more resilient life-history a ributes.
Vulnerability a ribute
Category
Score
Average age at maturity
<5 years
3
Average maximum age
10-25 years
2
Fecundity
>100 eggs
N/A
Average max size
<100 cm
3
Average size at maturity
<40 cm
3
Reproduc ve strategy
Broadcast spawner
3
Trophic level
>3.25
1
Average Score
Low Vulnerability
2.5
Species with average a ribute scores between 2.44 and 3.0 are deemed to have a “low” vulnerability.
Very Low Concern
Yellowtail snapper in the South Atlan c is managed both by the South Atlan c Fisheries Management Council
and by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council, and the most recent stock assessment (SEDAR
2012b) treats this species as a single popula on that ranges into both South Atlan c and Gulf of Mexico
management zones. This assessment rated the stock status as not overfished, with spawning stock biomass
more than three mes the target level of biomass at maximum sustainable yield (B/BM SY = 3.36 (SEDAR
2012b)). Due to this high biomass, we have rated the abundance as “very low” concern.
48
Very Low Concern
The Na onal Marine Fisheries Service lists yellowtail snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlan c regions
as not subject to overfishing (NOAA 2015a). The most recent stock assessment es mated fishing mortality to
be well below the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (F/F M SY of 0.154) (SEDAR 2012b). This ra o
was based on an F M SY that would yield a spawning poten al ra o (SPR) of 30%. Yellowtail snapper are
commonly targeted by commercial fishers using ver cal lines, and by headboat and private recrea onal
fishers using ver cal lines. Landings for the Gulf of Mexico in 2014 were 1,880,973 lbs by the commercial
fishery and 506,987 lbs by the recrea onal fishery, while landings for the South Atlan c in 2014 were 89,303
lbs by the commercial fishery and 395,124 lbs by the recrea onal fishery (NMFS 2015a) (NMFS 2015b).
Because of the very low overall fishing mortality, we have awarded a ra ng of “very low” concern for this
species.
20-40%
20-40%
Vermilion snapper
Medium
FishBase has assigned a medium vulnerability ra ng (50 out of 100) to vermilion snapper (Froese & Pauly
2015). Vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens) is a medium-sized snapper with red to reddish-silver
colora on, and some mes with small yellow or blue markings. It can grow to 60 cm in length (Froese and
Pauly 2015). Vermilion snapper reaches sexual maturity around 23 cm at 3–4 years of age, and adults may
live up to a decade (Manooch 1987) (GMFMC 2015a). Adult vermilion snapper are found over rock, gravel, or
sand bo oms down to 300 m, while juveniles inhabit shallower waters but s ll deeper than 25 m (Allen
1985). Vermilion snapper are found in the Western North Atlan c from North Carolina to the coast of Brazil,
and throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean (Floeter et al. 2003). Vermilion snapper feeds on smaller
fish, crustaceans, squid, benthic invertebrates, and some planktonic prey (Froese and Pauly 2015) (GMFMC
2015a).
49
Low Concern
Vermilion snapper in the South Atlan c is managed by the South Atlan c Fisheries Management Council
under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery, and was last assessed in 2012. The assessment indicates that the
abundance of vermilion snapper has been declining since 1946 and was at its lowest level in 2011. The
biomass of spawning fish was es mated to be slightly below the target level or the biomass at maximum
sustainable yield (B/B M SY of 0.98). But abundance was above the limit abundance reference point or the
minimum stock size threshold (B/MSST = 1.26), indica ng that the popula on is not overfished (SEDAR
2012a). Because vermilion snapper is not overfished, but abundance is below the target level, we have
awarded a “low” concern score.
Low Concern
The Na onal Marine Fisheries Service lists vermilion snapper along the South Atlan c coast as not
experiencing overfishing (NOAA 2015a), and the most recent stock assessment (SEDAR 2012a) es mates
fishing mortality to be 67% of the target level or fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (F/F M SY =
0.67 (SEDAR 2012a)) for the years 2009–2011. The stock assessment also notes a large amount of
uncertainty in this overall es mate, with some individual es mates indica ng overfishing over the same me
period (SEDAR 2012a). In addi on, it was noted that decreasing abundance and increasing fishing mortality
rates are cause for concern (SEDAR 2012a). Vermilion snapper is commonly targeted by commercial fishers
using ver cal lines, and by headboat and private recrea onal fishers using ver cal lines. Landings for the
South Atlan c in 2014 were 907,528 lbs by the commercial fishery and 259,146 lbs by the recrea onal fishery
(NMFS 2015a) (NMFS 2015b). Given the low fishing mortality but acknowledged uncertainty around this
measure, we have awarded a “low” concern score.
20-40%
Blacknose shark
High
FishBase has assigned a high to very high vulnerability ra ng (70 out of 100) to blacknose shark (Froese and
Pauly 2016) and IUCN lists the species as near threatened (Morgan et al. 2009). Blacknose shark
(Carcharhinus acronotus) is a small, widely distributed warm water sharks found from Brazil to Virginia in
the Western Atlan c, including the Gulf of Mexico. There are two gene cally dis nct popula ons in the Gulf
of Mexico: northern and southern (Portnay et al. 2014). This shark belongs to the order Carcharhiniformes
(ground sharks), is slender with a rounded snout with a dis nc ve dusky to black patch on the underside
(Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Blacknose shark may poten ally reach 200 cm in length (Compagno 2001)
and maximum age is believed to be 20 years (SEDAR 2011). In the Gulf of Mexico, females reach sexual
maturity at around 6.5 years of age and 110 cm in length (Carlson et al. 1999) (Carlson et al. 2007), and
reproduc on is annual, with 3–6 live young birthed per li er. Blacknose shark is found commonly over sandy,
shell, or coral habitats in water between 18 and 64 m. It feeds on small fishes such as porcupinefish and
pinfish, and is preyed upon by larger sharks (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).
50
High Concern
NOAA lists the overfished status for blacknose shark in the Gulf of Mexico as unknown (NOAA 2015a). The
most recent SEDAR assessment in 2011 es mated spawning stock biomass (as of 2009) to be approximately
half the target abundance reference point (SSF 2009 /SSF M SY = 0.43 to 0.64 (SEDAR 2011)), and suggested that
the popula on is overfished. Because of high uncertain es in the assessment model, the review panel did not
accept the 2011 assessment results (SEDAR 2011). Blacknose shark is managed under the Consolidated
Atlan c Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, and a rebuilding plan is in place for the
Southeast Atlan c popula on, but not for the Gulf of Mexico popula on (SEDAR 2011) (NOAA 2015a).
Blacknose shark is listed as near threatened by the IUCN (Morgan et al. 2009). Given data limita ons in the
last assessment, the IUCN lis ng, and this species’ high vulnerability to fishing, we have awarded a ra ng of
“high” concern.
Moderate Concern
NOAA Fisheries considers fishing mortality rela ve to sustainable levels unknown for blacknose shark in the
Gulf of Mexico (NOAA 2015a). Because of its coastal distribu on, blacknose shark is likely to be vulnerable to
overfishing (Hazin et al. 2002). In the most recent 2011 stock assessment, fishing mortality was es mated to
be at least three mes the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (F 2009 /F M SY = 3.3 to 22.5 (SEDAR
2011)) But because of uncertain es in the assessment model, the review panel did not accept the assessment
results (SEDAR 2011).
Blacknose shark is targeted in a commercial shark longline fishery. It is also caught in recrea onal fisheries
and as bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery and reef fish fisheries (SEDAR 2011) (Sco -Denton
et al. 2011). Blacknose shark landings for the Gulf of Mexico in 2014 were 2,425 lbs by the commercial fishery
and 50,086 lbs by the recrea onal fishery (NMFS 2016a) (NMFS 2016b). The shrimp trawl fishery is believed
to pose the greatest threat to blacknose sharks because it catches juveniles, and is es mated to account for
the majority of fishing mortality on this species (Morgan et al. 2009) (SEDAR 2011). But bycatch studies also
report significant catches of blacknose sharks in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish bo om longline fishery. Based on
limited observer data on selected reef fish longline trips, 816 blacknose sharks were caught between 2006
and 2009 and another 1,048 were caught from 2010 to 2011, with nearly all (99%) being discarded (Sco Denton et al. 2011) (Sco -Denton and Williams 2013). The 2013 Update to the U.S. Na onal Bycatch Report
es mated that an average of 31,900 individuals sharks were caught as bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish
bo om longline fishery per year from 2006 to 2010 (NOAA 2011). Because total fishing mortality on
blacknose shark is uncertain and the contribu on to mortality by the reef fish bo om longline fishery is also
uncertain, we have awarded a “moderate” concern ra ng.
> 100%
51
Appendix B: Review Schedule
Other GoM scheduled SEDAR assessments (date of comple on):
Gag grouper - March 2017
Red grouper - 2015
Scamp - 2018
Yellowtail snapper - Spring 2018
South Atlan c:
online schedule available only through 2015
52

Mu on Snapper - Seafood Watch

Transcription

Similar documents

Welcome to Mexico

10699 Gulf Blvd, Treasure Island, FL

View PDF file

Mexican images

Poster - Taller de creación literaria

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

TEPOZTLÁN, MEXICO

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

Presentación de PowerPoint