Seafood Watch Seafood Report

Greater Amberjack Seroila dumerili

©Diane Rome Peebles

U.S. South Atlantic

July 5, 2011

Jill H. Swasey MRAG Americas, Inc. Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

About Seafood Watch® and the Seafood Reports

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 originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations 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 conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation 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 information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation 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 information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

1 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary ...... 5 II. Introduction ...... 8 III. Analysis of Seafood Watch® Sustainability Criteria for Wild-caught Species ...... 12 Criterion 2: Status of Wild Stocks ...... 25 Criterion 3: Nature and Extent of Bycatch ...... 37 Criterion 4: Effect of Fishing Practices on Habitats and Ecosystems ...... 46 Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime ...... 58 V. References ...... 70

2 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Capture Fisheries Evaluation Species: Seriola dumerili Region: South Atlantic

Analyst: Jill Swasey Date: July 5, 2011

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems.

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that capture fisheries must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program. Species from sustainable capture fisheries: • have a low vulnerability to fishing pressure, and hence a low probability of being overfished, because of their inherent life history characteristics; • have stock structure and abundance sufficient to maintain or enhance long-term fishery productivity; • are captured using techniques that minimize the catch of unwanted and/or unmarketable species; • are captured in ways that maintain natural functional relationships among species in the ecosystem, conserves the diversity and productivity of the surrounding ecosystem, and do not result in irreversible ecosystem state changes; and • have a management regime that implements and enforces all local, national and international laws and utilizes a precautionary approach to ensure the long-term productivity of the resource and integrity of the ecosystem.

Seafood Watch has developed a set of five sustainability criteria, corresponding to these guiding principles, to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation for consumers and businesses. These criteria are: 1. Inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure 2. Status of wild stocks 3. Nature and extent of discarded bycatch 4. Effect of fishing practices on habitats and ecosystems 5. Effectiveness of the management regime

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other wild-caught invertebrates.

3 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Each criterion includes: • Primary factors to evaluate and rank • Secondary factors to evaluate and rank • Evaluation guidelines2 to synthesize these factors • A resulting rank for that criterion

Once a rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation for the species in question is developed based on additional evaluation guidelines. The ranks for each criterion, and the resulting overall seafood recommendation, are summarized in a table. Criterion ranks and the overall seafood recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories of the Seafood Watch pocket guide:

Best Choices/Green: Consumers are strongly encouraged to purchase seafood in this category. The wild-caught species is sustainable as defined by Seafood Watch.

Good Alternatives/Yellow: Consumers are encouraged to purchase seafood in this category, as they are better choices than seafood in the Avoid category. However there are some concerns with how this species is fished and thus it does not demonstrate all of the qualities of a sustainable fishery as defined by Seafood Watch.

Avoid/Red: Consumers are encouraged to avoid seafood in this category, at least for now. Species in this category do not demonstrate enough qualities to be defined as sustainable by Seafood Watch.

2 Evaluation Guidelines throughout this document reflect common combinations of primary and secondary factors that result in a given level of conservation concern. Not all possible combinations are shown – other combinations should be matched as closely as possible to the existing guidelines.

4 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

I. Executive Summary Greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) is one of the largest jack species (family Carangidae) and is found in subtropical regions with circumglobal distribution, occurring in the Indo-West Pacific, Mediterranean Sea, and Western and Eastern Atlantic Oceans. Greater amberjack exhibit moderate productivity with fast growth, early maturation, and very high fecundity; though there is no estimate of intrinsic rate of increase. Based on these characteristics, the South Atlantic greater amberjack stock is inherently resilient to fishing pressure according to the to Seafood Watch® criteria.

The South Atlantic greater amberjack stock is not overfished (SSB2006/SSBMSY = 1.096) and overfishing is not occurring (F2006/FMSY = 0.531), according to the 2007 Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) assessment, though this data is now five years old and there is likely considerable uncertainty in biomass and fishing mortality estimates prior to the 2000s. Fishery-dependant sampling indicates no significant differences between the mean ages of male and female greater amberjack, or between the age frequency distributions of male and female amberjack. As a result, the South Atlantic stock is ranked healthy (Low Conservation Concern) by Seafood Watch®.

Greater amberjack are one of a number of species in the mixed species snapper-grouper fishery. Greater amberjack are not typically a primary target and as a result, there is little data measuring bycatch on amberjack trips. There are at least 8 species of snapper grouper that are overfished and 4 where overfishing is occurring that may overlap habitat with greater amberjack; and the status of many others remain unknown. There are no complete estimates of species discards in the snapper grouper fishery. Ineffective management often leads to increased discards to avoid quota overages and this could be contributing to further population declines in species of concern. As a result, bycatch is a severe conservation concern according to Seafood Watch®.

Handlines are the dominant gear in the South Atlantic commercial fishery, and believed to have low impact on habitat. The commercial fishery occurs in subtropical waters with catches typically occurring in depths from 150–400 ft. The species is known to concentrate around reefs, rock outcroppings and wrecks; their coral reef habitat is highly vulnerable to fishing impacts. There is no evidence that removal of greater amberjack (a top-level predator) disrupts the food web, though there has not been an explicit ecosystem evaluation of the stock. The effect of fishing practices on habitats and ecosystems are of moderate conservation concern according to Seafood Watch®.

Greater amberjack are managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) under the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan. The Council utilizes a multi-step method, known as the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process, for examining stock assessments and obtaining scientific advice. The SEDAR process researches and reviews available data, conducts the stock assessment and a subsequent peer review. There is no fishery-independent monitoring and no observer programs in the South Atlantic fishery; regular data collections are limited to fishery-dependent data. Quotas have been set within scientific advice

5 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

and catches have not exceeded quotas, and the fishery will be subject to annual catch limits (ACL) and accountability measures by the end of 2011. Commercial catch is monitored in season through the NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) Quota Monitoring System (QMS) and the fishery is closed when the quota is reached; landings in the recreational fishery are poorly accounted for, resulting in high management uncertainty. There remains concern that discard mortality is not well accounted for; the stock assessment does consider discards of greater amberjack as low, and accounts for them in the stock assessment. Management has not effectively addressed the high diversity of catch, and bycatch that occurs within the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. Federal fisheries enforcement is conducted by the NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), the US Coast Guard, and the state enforcement agencies. Based on these characteristics, the management of greater amberjack in the South Atlantic is considered moderately effective by Seafood Watch®.

Low inherent vulnerability to fishing and healthy stocks, combined with serious bycatch concerns, moderate impacts on the habitat and ecosystem, and moderately effective management, make the South Atlantic greater amberjack fishery a “Good Alternative.”

Table of Sustainability Ranks

Conservation Concern Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical Inherent Vulnerability √ Status of Stocks √ Nature of Bycatch √ Habitat & Ecosystem Effects √ Management Effectiveness √

About the Overall Seafood Recommendation: • A seafood product is ranked Best Choice if three or more criteria are of Low Conservation Concern (green) and the remaining criteria are not of High or Critical Conservation Concern. • A seafood product is ranked Good Alternative if the five criteria “average” to yellow (Moderate Conservation Concern) OR if the “Status of Stocks” and “Management Effectiveness” criteria are both of Moderate Conservation Concern.

6 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

• A seafood product is ranked Avoid if two or more criteria are of High Conservation Concern (red) OR if one or more criteria are of Critical Conservation Concern (black) in the table above.

Overall Seafood Recommendation:

Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid

7 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

II. Introduction

Greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) is one of the largest jack species (family Carangidae) and is found in subtropical regions with circumglobal distribution. In the Western Atlantic, this species ranges from Nova Scotia southward through the Caribbean to Brazil, including the Gulf of Mexico. Greater amberjack is highly productive, is characterized by fast growth particularly in the early years, early maturation, and very high fecundity. The species is gonochoristic and females are larger at age than males. Greater amberjack mature earlier in the south Atlantic than in the Gulf of Mexico thus indicating regional life history dimorphism. Greater amberjacks exhibit schooling behavior as juveniles, but this behavior decreases with age, although adults tend to aggregate over reefs, wrecks and other structures. Large amberjack are commonly found infested with larval tapeworms, which for many years reduced targeting in both the commercial and recreational fisheries (SEDAR 2008).

Greater amberjack is a popular game fish as well as a commercially caught species, though not a common target it is caught and landed with other snapper grouper species. Primary regulations include a minimum size limit, quota, trip limit, bag limit, gear restrictions and a closed season that coincides with spawning events; south Atlantic states have adopted regulations complementary to federal management. Greater amberjack are primarily caught using hook and line, a low impact fishing gear.

Greater amberjack are managed in the South Atlantic by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council within the snapper grouper management unit (SAFMC 1983). The snapper-grouper fishery contains many exploited species that are regulated through a multitude of species-specific regulations. By the first quarter of 2011, 9 of the snapper-grouper species were considered to be experiencing overfishing, 5 species were overfished, and many have an unknown status (Fisheries 2011). Management restrictions are often in the form of limitations (i.e. size limits, quotas, closures) which result in at-sea discards. Further, many of the discarded fish are caught at deep depths, which have been correlated to an increase in immediate release mortality (Stephen and Harris 2010). Therefore, in this mixed species fishery, species-specific regulations may not perform as intended.

Greater amberjack is managed by the SAFMC and the NMFS Southeast Regional Office in the South Atlantic Snapper/Grouper Management Unit. In state waters, greater amberjack are managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, Georgia Coastal Resources Division, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina have adopted complementary regulations, but catches primarily occur in federal waters. Commercial regulations include the requirement of a Limited Access permit, a minimum size limit of 36” fork length, first implemented in 1992, and a trip limit of 1000 lbs. Regulatory Amendment 9 recently proposed to increase the trip limit to 1500 lbs (SAFMC 2011d), though this has not been approved by the Council (McGovern 2011). Recreational size limit is 28”FL and current retention is limited to a daily limit of one fish per person. During the annual fishery closure, possession above the one fish per person per day bag limit is prohibited. The federal fishery is closed in April; the state of Florida implements a fishery closure during the

8 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

months of March, April and May of each year (FWC 2011c). The commercial fishery is monitored in season through the NMFS, SEFSC Quota Monitoring System (QMS) and closed when the quota is reached. The QMS is an online data entry system is to assist the dealers with reporting purchases. In the greater amberjack fishery, dealers are required to report monthly (SEFSC 2011a). There have been no changes to the greater amberjack current commercial quota/annual catch limit (ACL) (1,169,931 lbs gw) or reporting requirements with adoption ACLs of and accountability measures (AMs) (SAFMC 2011a).

Commercial landings in the South Atlantic occur primarily in Florida, followed by North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Total commercial landings have fluctuated in recent years from 115,758 pounds gutted weight (GW) (2005) to 423,193 pounds GW in 2009 (NOAA Fisheries 2011a). Over the time series, 2005 to 2009, the handline fishery was responsible for over 80% of the commercial landings. Landings prior to the 1990s could have included other species in the Seriola genus, as there was little segregation of either the commercial or recreational catches beyond a general amberjack category. The commercial quota of amberjack has never been filled. However, there is thought to be considerable uncertainty in recreational fishing mortality (particularly due to unknown discards) that would impact stock status. This was more likely the case prior to the 1990s with poor segregation of catches, though segregation of catches has improved in recent years.

Other members of the Seriola genus are believed to co-occur with greater amberjack; these include lesser amberjack, banded rudderfish, and almaco jack at small sizes (Cummings 1993). Greater amberjack has been misidentified as these other species, particularly banded rudderfish, which has caused confusion in reported landings. Reporting of other jack species under the greater amberjack category could remain in practice. In addition, in North Carolina, distinct species codes for amberjacks, banded rudderfish and almaco jacks didn’t exist until implementation of the trip ticket program (NCTTP) on January 1, 1994. A large portion of NC seafood dealers record all amberjacks (greater, lesser, banded rudderfish and almaco jacks) under the amberjack species codes without separating banded rudderfish and almaco jack (SEDAR 2008). In NC, greater amberjack are separated out from the other species likely thrown into the NC logbook general category (lesser, almaco, and banded rudderfish) by using proportions from dependent fish house sampling; this was the method used to estimate greater amberjack state landings reported in SEDAR 15 (McInerny 2011). The Florida trip ticket system has been identifying greater amberjack since 1986 and in Georgia prior to 1994, all amberjacks were recorded under a single code (SEDAR 2008).

Greater amberjack are caught in a mixed species fishery where fishers target species with overlapping habitats, different life stages and differing stock statuses. In contrast, the Gulf of Mexico stock has been considered to be overfished and overfishing occurring since about 2003 ((NMFS 2010b).

9 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Scope of the analysis and the ensuing recommendation:

This report focuses on South Atlantic greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) caught in the snapper grouper fishery by handline. There are active commercial and recreational fisheries, though in the commercial fishery amberjack are not typically the primary target species. There have been stock assessments that are now outdated and in general there are no direct estimates of natural and discard mortality for greater amberjack.

Availability of Science

The status, commercial exploitation and abundance of greater amberjack in the South Atlantic are generally well documented, though outdated; and there remain concerns over recreational fishing mortality and high levels of discard mortality that occurred through the 1980s and current estimates of total mortality. The last formal assessment was the benchmark assessment completed in 2007 as part of SEDAR 15 (SEDAR 2008). The next standard assessment is scheduled for 2012 as part of SEDAR 32. There is a lack of information on fleet structure and capacity. The species is a reef fish and that habitat in general is reasonably well understood, though no specific studies describing the ecosystem interaction of the species were found (SAFMC 1998b, Lindeman et al. 2000, SAFMC 2009). There likely remain unaccounted for components of fishing mortality. Since the mid-1990s, there has been improved reporting on landings; however it is a concern that there may remain poor segregation of catch. Prior to the 1990s, both commercial and recreational species identification and catch by species were more problematic than in more recent years. Recreational catches reported through the Marine Recreational Fisheries Survey Statistics (MRFSS) and headboat surveys were more likely aggregated, aided by improved sampler training and species identification (Cummings 2011). With the implementation of commercial size limits in the 1990s, there has been emphasis on dealers’ and fishers’ ability to identify species; this has improved landings information on greater amberjack separate from other Seriola sp. While commercial discards of amberjack are thought to be low, species entanglements allow for catches of many species, resulting in discards that may be underestimated and are often high release mortality. Discards are thought to be largely regulatory (discards of undersized species) and there is poor characterization of the type and amount of bycatch in the snapper grouper fishery and a fishing trip could target multiple species.

In the early 1990s there was increased focus on research needs to identify the status of the resources and management measures needed to sustain the resources of Seriola species, particularly greater amberjack, in the southeast. This arose from two major concerns: that reported landings were believed to be only a small portion of total removals, and that landings of unreported catches were likely substantial and fishermen were commonly landing and selling only the edible flesh (a practice referred to as coring) (Berry and Burch 1979, Cummings 1993).

10 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

The literature available for evaluation of the greater amberjack fishery in the South Atlantic includes primary literature, federal and state stock assessments, federal management plans, and state and federal government documents. The SEDAR process serves as a central repository for scientific literature available on a species, which is collected from state, and federal agency offices when a stock beings the assessment process (SEFSC 2011b). There is a reasonable level of information available on the species, though some of it is dated and would benefit from the input of new research and data. Age, growth and maturity studies from the mid-2000s conducted provide the most useful estimates of life history parameters (MARMAP 2004, Harris and Stephen 2005, Harris et al. 2007a, Harris et al. 2007b). In general, significant challenges remain in characterizing the recreational fishery, and the current stock assessment apparatus in the region lacks the resources to produce assessments as frequent as good management requires. There has not been same level of research on the Atlantic greater amberjack as there has been for the Gulf of Mexico. While some information is more recent than others, there are generally more information gaps in South Atlantic compared with the bank of knowledge on the Gulf stock.

Market Availability

Common and market names: Greater amberjack is more commonly known simply as amberjack by fishers and producers. The species can be difficult to distinguish from other Seriola species particularly at sizes below 12 inches and is often misidentified as banded rudderfish and lesser amberjack. Vernacular names recognized by the FDA include yellowtail, Atlantic amberjack, madregal and bonito (Berry and Burch 1979, FDA 2011).

Seasonal availability: Greater amberjack are available nearly year round. The federal commercial fishery in the South Atlantic is closed annually in April and serves as a spawning protection measure. The Gulf of Mexico employs an extended closed season from March through May annually.

Product forms: Greater amberjack are available both fresh (headed-and-gutted (H&G), fillets) and frozen (H&G, fillets, skin on) in the U.S. market (Diversified Business Communications 2010).

Import and export sources and statistics: No exporting or importing of greater amberjack was reported by NOAA Fisheries.

11 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

III. Analysis of Seafood Watch® Sustainability Criteria for Wild-caught Species

Criterion 1: Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure

Guiding Principle: Sustainable wild-caught species have a low vulnerability to fishing pressure, and hence a low probability of being overfished, because of their inherent life history characteristics.

Primary Factors3 to evaluate Intrinsic rate of increase (‘r’)  High (> 0.16)  Medium (0.05–0.16)  Low (< 0.05)  Unavailable/Unknown

Key relevant information Specific value is unknown; based on life history characteristics of high fecundity, early age of maturity and rapid growth, the intrinsic rate of increase is likely moderate to high. SEDAR 9 (2011) estimated a productivity score for the Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack stock of 2.25, suggesting a medium level of productivity for that resource. The productivity rank is one aspect of a productivity– susceptibility assessment and is determined by assigning each life-history characteristic a value of between 1 and 3 (1 for low, 2 for medium, and 3 for high productivity characteristics) and ranks were averaged to produce an overall productivity score.

Reference(s) SEDAR. 2011. Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 9 Stock Assessment Update Report: Gulf of Mexico Greater Amberjack. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%202010%20GAJ%20Stock%20Assessment%20Update%20FINAL%20plus %20Appendix%202.pdf?id=DOCUMENT.

3 These primary factors and evaluation guidelines follow the recommendations of Musick et al. (2000). Marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish stocks at risk of extinction in North America (exclusive of Pacific salmonids). Fisheries 25:6-30.

12 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Other notes

Age at 1st maturity  Low (< 5 years)  Medium (5–10 years)  High (> 10 years)  Unavailable/Unknown

Key relevant information The age at 50% maturity for females in the South Atlantic was 1.3 years (95% CI = 0.7-1.7); this corresponds to a size of 733 mm fork length (FL) (95% CI = 719-745). There was no estimate for age at 50% maturity in males, though size at 50% maturity was 644 mm FL (MARMAP 2004, Harris et al. 2007b). Comparatively, 50% of female greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico were mature by age 4 (or 850-900 mm FL), considerably older than in the South Atlantic (Murie and Parkyn 2010, SEDAR 2011).

Reference(s) Harris, P. J., D. M. Wyanski, D. B. White, P. P. Mikell, and P. B. Eyo. 2007b. Age, growth, and reproduction of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, off the Atlantic coast of the southeastern United States. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. SEDAR 15-RD01. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%2015-RD01.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. MARMAP. 2004. Analytical Report Age, growth, and reproduction of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in the southwestern north Atlantic. Marine Resources Research Institute, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. December 2004. Charleston, SC. Contact Person: Patrick J. Harris. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S9RD16_GAJLH.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Murie, D. J., and D. C. Parkyn. 2010. Age, Growth and Sex Maturity of Greater Amberjack (Seriola dumerili) in the Gulf of Mexico. MARFIN Grant No. NA05NMF4331071. in Marine Fisheries Initiative 18th Annual Conference, April 6-7, 2010. St. Petersburg, FL. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/grants/MARFIN%20conference%20book.pdf SEDAR. 2011. Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 9 Stock Assessment Update Report: Gulf of Mexico Greater Amberjack. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%202010%20GAJ%20Stock%20Assessment%20Update%20FINAL%20plus %20Appendix%202.pdf?id=DOCUMENT.

13 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Other notes

Von Bertalanffy growth coefficient (‘k’)  High (> 0.16)  Medium (0.05–0.15)  Low (< 0.05)  Unavailable/Unknown

Key relevant information Growth rates for males and females were determined not to be significantly different (Beasley 1993 in Thompson et al. 1999); however females were determined to both live longer and attain larger sizes than males. Synthesis based on tagging data from three studies determined an average growth rate for Atlantic greater amberjack of 0.43 mm/day (Beasley 1993, Manooch and Potts 1997a, MARMAP 2004, Harris et al. 2007a). There does exist potential sources of bias in growth estimates obtained from tagging (release- recapture) and otolith (or other hard-part) studies; where tagging studies are more likely to include fish below the minimum legal size limit and hard-part studies more likely to include mostly fish at or above the minimum size; also, the potential exists for over- estimating the size at age for younger fish (Schirripa and Burns 1997).

The von Bertalanffy model provides a growth coefficient (K) of 0.343 (SEDAR 2008). Initial estimates of K were calculated with samples collected from fishery-dependent sources and subject to minimum size limits of 36 inches FL; therefore the size of the fish at the youngest ages was thought to be skewed to the fastest growers. Diaz et al. (Diaz et al. 2004) recommended removal of samples below the minimum size limit assigned to the species to correct for the skewed distribution of lengths-at-age for the youngest ages.

Reference(s) Beasley, M. L. 1993. Age and growth of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, from the northern Gulf of Mexico. MS thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Diaz, G. A., C. E. Porch, and M. Ortiz. 2004. Growth models for red snapper in US Gulf of Mexico Waters estimated from landings with minimum size limit restrictions. NMFS/SFD Contribution SFD-2004-038. SEDAR7-AW1.

14 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR7-AW-01.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Harris, P. J., D. M. Wyanski, D. B. White, and P. P. Mikell. 2007a. Age, Growth, and Reproduction of Greater Amberjack off the Southeastern Atlantic Coast. Trans. Of the American Fisheries Society 136:1534-1545. Manooch, C., III, and J. Potts. 1997a. Age, growth and mortality of greater amberjack from the southeastern United States. Fisheries Research 30:229-240. MARMAP. 2004. Analytical Report Age, growth, and reproduction of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in the southwestern north Atlantic. Marine Resources Research Institute, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. December 2004. Charleston, SC. Contact Person: Patrick J. Harris. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S9RD16_GAJLH.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Schirripa, M. J., and K. M. Burns. 1997. Growth estimates for three species of reef fish in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 61:581-591. SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Thompson, B. A., M. Beasley, and C. A. Wilson. 1999. Age distribution and growth of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, from the north-central Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 97:362-371.

Other notes

Maximum age  Low (< 11 years)  Medium (11–30 years)  High (> 30 years)  Unavailable/Unknown

Key relevant information Historic maximum age for the South Atlantic population is thought to be about 17 years, while 13 years is likely reflective of the current maximum age of the population. Based on this, recent stock assessment models recognize the maximum age as 17 years (Manooch and Potts 1997a, Harris et al. 2007a).

15 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Reference(s) Harris, P. J., D. M. Wyanski, D. B. White, and P. P. Mikell. 2007a. Age, Growth, and Reproduction of Greater Amberjack off the Southeastern Atlantic Coast. Trans. Of the American Fisheries Society 136:1534-1545. Manooch, C., III, and J. Potts. 1997a. Age, growth and mortality of greater amberjack from the southeastern United States. Fisheries Research 30:229-240.

Other notes

Reproductive potential (fecundity)  High (> 100 inds./year)  Moderate (10–100 inds./year)  Low (< 10 inds./year)  Unavailable/Unknown

Key relevant information Greater amberjack are highly fecund. Harris et al. (2007a) have estimated that during a spawning season of roughly 73 days off South Florida (27 February through 10 May), an individual female could spawn approximately 14 times. The potential annual fecundity is a product of batch fecundity and the number of spawning events. Estimates of potential annual fecundity range from 25,472,100 to 47,194,300 oocytes for ages 3–7. Greater amberjack exhibited evidence of indeterminate fecundity because total fecundity did not decrease during the spawning season (Harris et al. 2007b).

Reference(s) Harris, P. J., D. M. Wyanski, D. B. White, and P. P. Mikell. 2007a. Age, Growth, and Reproduction of Greater Amberjack off the

16 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Southeastern Atlantic Coast. Trans. Of the American Fisheries Society 136:1534-1545. Harris, P. J., D. M. Wyanski, D. B. White, P. P. Mikell, and P. B. Eyo. 2007b. Age, growth, and reproduction of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, off the Atlantic coast of the southeastern United States. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. SEDAR 15-RD01. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%2015-RD01.pdf?id=DOCUMENT.

Other notes There was no estimate for number of individuals per year, though based on life history characteristics, productivity is estimated to be medium to high for greater amberjack.

Secondary Factors to evaluate

Species range  Broad (e.g. species exists in multiple ocean basins, has multiple intermixing stocks or is highly migratory)  Limited (e.g. species exists in one ocean basin)  Narrow (e.g. endemism or numerous evolutionary significant units or restricted to one coastline) Key relevant information Greater amberjack are a pelagic, epibenthic species associated with reefs, rocky outcrops or wrecks in depths ranging 65 from 18--72 m (Manooch and Potts 1997a, Carpenter 2002, FLMNH 2011). Distribution is circumglobal, occurring in the Indo-West Pacific, Mediterranean Sea, and Western and Eastern Atlantic Oceans. In the Western Atlantic, it ranges from Nova Scotia southward through the Caribbean to Brazil, including the Gulf of Mexico (Manooch 1984, Shipp 1988, Manooch and Potts 1997a, Manooch and Potts 1997b, SAFMC 1998b, Thompson et al. 1999, Carpenter 2002).

The SAFMC has characterized essential fish habitat information for greater amberjack based on geographic presence/absence and growth, reproduction and survival rates available. Both larvae and juvenile great amberjack have been observed in association with pelagic Sargassum habitats in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, including the Caribbean (SAFMC 1998b). Distribution of pelagic Sargassum in the Northwest Atlantic is provided in Figure 1. Adult greater amberjack are associated with the deepwater ecosystem associated with the Oculina Bank HAPC. The strong currents found in that area are thought to contribute to the growth of the coral, trapping fine sand, mud and coral debris and forming the basis of a highly diverse resident invertebrate community, which

17 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

serves as food for large populations of fishes (SAFMC 1998b). Figure 2 provides a map of Oculina habitat distributed along the Atlantic shelf.

Studies of greater amberjack from the Gulf of Mexico suggest that larvae likely remain planktonic for upwards of 30 days and may accumulate in frontal zones with or without Sargassum; small (2.5-6.6mm) greater amberjack were collected in open water, suggesting that they had not yet recruited to the Sargassum habitat (Comyns et al. 2002, GMFMC 2004, Comyns et al. 2010, Cummings 2011). Duration and transport during the larval stage are critically important in the species ability to recruit to its juvenile habitat, though this issue is not further considered in this report.

Within US waters, separate stocks are recognized, and managed, in the US South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Results from 35 years of tag-recapture studies have demonstrated that some greater amberjack are resident along Florida's Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic coasts (Cummings and McClellan 1996a). The SEDAR 15 Working Group identified Monroe County, Florida as the focal point for the boundary between the US South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack stocks (SEDAR 2008). Data collected from a tag- recapture study (19% of the tagged fish were recaptured) indicated that greater amberjack are capable of extensive movement between the southeast Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, which contributes to genetic exchange between the two populations (MARMAP 2007). Though results from earlier studies (summarized in McClellan and Cummings (1996)) found that there was less than 2% exchange between the two populations (1.4% exchange between the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico fish and a 1.6% exchange between the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic). Movement of the Atlantic stock occurred from the Carolinas to southeast Florida during reproductive season (spring), and may have been spawning related (McClellan and Cummings 1996).

Reference(s) Carpenter, K. E., editor. 2002. The living marine resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Volume 3: Bony fishes part 2 (Opistognathidae to Molidae), sea turtles and marine mammals. FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes and American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. Special Publication No. 5. pp. 1375-2127. FAO, Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/y4162e/y4162e00.pdf Comyns, B. H., N. M. Crochet, J. S. Franks, J. R. Hendon, and R. S. Waller. 2002. Preliminary Assessment of the Association of Larval Fishes with Pelagic Sargassum Habitat and Convergence Zone in the Northcenteral Gulf of Mexico. 53rd Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. http://procs.gcfi.org/pdf/gcfi_53-54.pdf. Comyns, B. H., E. R. Hoffmayer, J. S. Franks, G. L. Grammer, and E. A. L. Saillant. 2010. Early Life History and Recruitment of Dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) and Greater Amberjack (Seriola dumerili) to Pelagic Sargassum Habitat in the North Central Gulf of Mexico. in Vickburg, Mississippi. http://mississippiafs.org/pdfs/2010MSAFSFinalProgram%2836th%29.pdf. Cummings, N. J., and D. B. McClellan. 1996a. Movement patterns and stock interchange of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in

18 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

the Southeastern U.S. U.S. Dept. of Comm., NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC, Miami Laboratory Cont. No. MIA-95/96-14. 60 p. Cummings, N., NMFS/SEFSC Research Fish Biologist 2011. Personal communication. April 2011. FLMNH. 2011. Biological Profiles: Greater Amberjack. Florida Museum of Natural History. Accessed March 2011. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gallery/Descript/GreateramberJack/greateramberJack.html. GMFMC. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). APPENDIX C INFORMATION ON SPECIES DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. http://www.gulfcouncil.org/beta/GMFMCweb/downloads/EFH%20Appendices/Appendix%20C.pdf. Manooch, C., III. 1984. Fisherman’s guide to the fishes of the southeastern United States. North Carolina Museum of Natural History. Raleigh, North Carolina. Manooch, C., III, and J. Potts. 1997a. Age, growth and mortality of greater amberjack from the southeastern United States. Fisheries Research 30:229-240. Manooch, C. M., III, and J. C. Potts. 1997b. Age, growth, and mortality of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, from the Gulf of Mexico headboat fishery. Bulletin of Marine Science 61:671-683. MARMAP. 2007. A Tag and Recapture study of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, from the Southeastern United States. SEDAR 15-RD02. MARMAP Unpublished Report. February 2007. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%2015- RD02.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. McClellan, D. B., and N. J. Cummings. 1996. Preliminary analysis of tag and recapture data of the greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in the southeastern United States. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. 49:25-45. http://procs.gcfi.org/pdf/gcfi_49-3.pdf. SAFMC. 2002. Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Sargassum Habitat for the South Atlantic Region. http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Library/FMP/Sargassum/SargFMP.pdf. SAFMC. 1998b. Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. October 1998. http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFH Am. SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Shipp, R. L. 1988. Dr. Bob Shipp’s guide to fishes of the Gulf of Mexico. Century Printing, Mobile, AL. Thompson, B. A., M. Beasley, and C. A. Wilson. 1999. Age distribution and growth of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, from the north-central Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 97:362-371. Other notes

19 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Figure 1: Distribution of pelagic Sargassum in the Northwest Atlantic. Solid line refers to the outer boundary of regular occurrence; dashed line refers to the area in which there is a > 5% probability of encounter within 1° square; and hatched circle represents possible center of distribution (SAFMC 2002).

20 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Figure 2: Oculina habitat distributed along the Atlantic shelf (SAFMC 1998b).

21 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Special Behaviors or Requirements: Existence of special behaviors that increase ease or population consequences of capture (e.g. migratory bottlenecks, spawning aggregations, site fidelity, unusual attraction to gear, sequential hermaphrodites, segregation by sex, etc., OR specific and limited habitat requirements within the species’ range).

 No known behaviors or requirements OR behaviors that decrease vulnerability (e.g. widely dispersed during spawning)  Some (i.e. 1–2) behaviors or requirements  Many (i.e. > 2) behaviors or requirements Key relevant information Greater amberjack juveniles occur primarily in schools in association with floating plants or debris in oceanic and offshore waters, but are also found as individuals. Schooling behavior is more common in juveniles and decreases as fish grow older; the oldest fish are primarily solitary. Adults typically are associated with reefs, wrecks and other bottom structure, though they also range widely (SAFMC 2011d). Adults may aggregate to spawn (Lindeman et al. 2000).

Small greater amberjack have been observed in schools with other species. Biologists in Florida have observed that small greater amberjack are sometimes caught mixed within schools of banded rudderfish and the two species are not easily separated by the harvesters (SEDAR 2008). The two species are both biologically and physically similar, though there is no minimum size limit for capture of banded rudderfish. The difficulty in distinguishing the two species, particularly sizes less than 12 inches, likely leads to errors in catch accounting of both species.

Reference(s) Lindeman, K. C., R. Pugliese, G. T. Waugh, and J. S. Ault. 2000. Developmental Patterns Within a Multispecies Reef Fishery: Management Applications for Essential Fish Habitats and Protected Areas. Bulletin of Marine Science 66:929-956. http://femar.rsmas.miami.edu/Publications/lindemanpugliesewaugh.pdf. SAFMC. 2011b. Regulatory Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region and Environmental Assessment. February 2011. http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=%2faxVDPnkJew%3d&tabid=666. SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT.

22 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Other notes

Quality of Habitat: Degradation from non-fishery impacts  Habitat is robust  Habitat has been moderately altered by non-fishery impacts  Habitat has been substantially compromised from non-fishery impacts and thus has reduced capacity to support this species (e.g. from dams, pollution, or coastal development) Key relevant information Greater amberjack is a reef associated species (FWC 2006, SEDAR 2008, FLMNH 2011). Throughout the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, late larval and juvenile greater amberjack are associated with pelagic Sargassum mats (Bortone et al. 1977, SAFMC 1998b). At around 5–6 months of age, greater amberjack shift from a pelagic to demersal habitat. After shifting to demersal habitats, sub- adults and adults congregate around rocky and coral reefs, rock outcrops, and wrecks. Throughout their range, coral reef habitats have been deteriorating due to both fishery and non-fishery impacts, including physical damage, pollution, coastal development, other anthropogenic inputs, bleaching and disease. It is unlikely that the vertical gear used in the amberjack fishery has a substantial damaging affect on reef habitats.

Reference(s) Bortone, S. A., P. A. Hastings, and S. B. Collard. 1977. The pelagic-Sargassum ichthyofauna of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Northeast Gulf Sci 1:60-67. FLMNH. 2011. Biological Profiles: Greater Amberjack. Florida Museum of Natural History . Accessed March 2011. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gallery/Descript/GreateramberJack/greateramberJack.html. FWC. 2006. Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission http://www.flkeys- fishing.com/files/Amberjack.pdf SAFMC. 1998. Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. October 1998. http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFH Am.

23 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT.

Synthesis

While the intrinsic rate of increase, ‘r’, of Seriola dumerili in the South Atlantic is unknown, it matures quickly and is highly fecund, making it inherently resilient to fishing pressure according to Seafood Watch®. Greater amberjack are typically solitary as adults though form juvenile aggregations around Sargassum. The juvenile habitat is pelagic Sargassum mats that are protected through a fishery management plan. The species has a broad range along the South Atlantic coast and throughout the Gulf of Mexico, though are recognized as two distinct reproductive populations.

Evaluation Guidelines

1) Primary Factors a) If ‘r’ is known, use it as the basis for the rank of the Primary Factors. b) If ‘r’ is unknown, then the rank from the remaining Primary Factors (in order of importance, as listed) is the basis for the rank.

2) Secondary Factors a) If a majority (2 out of 3) of the Secondary Factors rank as Red, reclassify the species into the next lower rank (i.e. Green becomes Yellow, Yellow becomes Red). No other combination of Secondary Factors can modify the rank from the Primary Factors. b) No combination of primary and secondary factors can result in a Critical Conservation Concern for this criterion.

Conservation Concern: Inherent Vulnerability

 Low (Inherently Resilient)  Moderate (Moderately Vulnerable)  High (Highly Vulnerable)

24 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Criterion 2: Status of Wild Stocks

Guiding Principle: Sustainable wild-caught species have stock structure and abundance sufficient to maintain or enhance long-term fishery productivity.

Primary Factors to evaluate

Management classification status  Underutilized OR close to virgin biomass  Fully fished OR recovering from overfished OR unknown  Recruitment or growth overfished, overexploited, depleted or “threatened” Key relevant information A number of reports started documenting amberjack abundance beginning in the mid 1990s (e.g. (McClellan and Cummings 1996, Cummings and Mcclellan 1999, Cummings et al. 1999). Stock status of the resource in the South Atlantic was reported in 1996 and two assessments were conducted in 1999 (Cummings and McClellan 1996c, b, Legault and Turner 1999, Nelson 1999), followed by SEDAR 15 in 2007. Presently, stock status is not monitored regularly beyond the SEDAR assessment process.

The status of the greater amberjack in the Northwest Atlantic is determined separately for the stock off the Southeast U.S. Atlantic coast and for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The most recent assessment was completed in 2007 and determined that the Southeast Atlantic stock is not overfished (SSB2006/SSBMSY = 1.096) and overfishing is not occurring (F2006/FMSY = 0.531) (SEDAR 2008). The next assessment (SEDAR 32) is scheduled for 2012. The stock has probably maintained a biomass above threshold levels since the 1950s, though there have been evident population declines in response to an increase in targeting greater amberjack. There is likely considerable uncertainty in biomass and fishing mortality estimates prior to the 2000s. This results from high and poorly accounted for levels of discards in an active recreational fishery and mixing of Seriola species and unaccounted for discards in the commercial fishery prior to the 1990s.

SEDAR 15 (2008) determined that greater amberjack in the South Atlantic are probably not overfished, and overfishing is probably not occurring. With biomass assumed just above the reference point (SSB2006/SSBMSY = 1.096) uncertainties in total fishing mortality and discard estimates could be significant. The 2006 estimate of biomass was just below half of the estimated virgin biomass (B2006/Bunfished = 0.458). The initial stock biomass (for 1946) used in the SEDAR 15 (2008) assessment was assumed to be equal to

25 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

the unfished (virgin) biomass, because minimal landings had occurred prior to the first year of the model. Cummings and McClellan (1996) demonstrated that exploitation began with recreational fishing in the 1970s (commercial fishing followed in the mid to late 1970s), consistent with the assumption that the estimated initial stock biomass represented an unfished stock.

Reference(s) Cummings, N. J., and D. B. McClellan. 1996b. Stock Assessment of the Atlantic Ocean Greater Amberjack through 1995. Miami Laboratory Contribution Report Number MIA-96/97-04. Cummings, N. J., and D. B. McClellan. 1996c. Status of the Greater Amberjack, Seriola Dumerili, in the Southeast United States Through 1995. Proceedings of the 49th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/docs/StatusGreaterAmberjack1995.pdf. Cummings, N. J., and D. B. Mcclellan. 1999. Aspects of the Atlantic Greater Amberjack Fishery Through 1998. Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution No. SFD 98/99-61. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/docs/AspectsAtlanticAmberjack1998.pdf. Cummings, N. J., S. C. Turner, D. B. McClellan, and C. M. Legault. 1999. Atlantic Greater Amberjack Abundance Indices From Commercial Handline and Recreational Charter, Private, and Headboat Fisheries through fishing year 1997. Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution No. SFD-98/99-62. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/docs/atl_indices.pdf. Legault, C., and S. Turner. 1999. Stock assessment analyses on Atlantic greater amberjack. NOAA/NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Sustainable Fisheries Division. Contribution SFD-98/99-63. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%2015-RD03.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. McClellan, D. B., and N. J. Cummings. 1996. Preliminary analysis of tag and recapture data of the greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in the southeastern United States. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. 49:25-45. http://procs.gcfi.org/pdf/gcfi_49-3.pdf. Nelson, G. A. 1999. Alternative Stock Assessment Methods Applied To Greater Amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Florida Marine Research Institute. http://myfwc.com/media/200815/amberjack99_2712.pdf. SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Other notes

26 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Current population abundance relative to BMSY  At or above BMSY (> 100%)

 Moderately Below BMSY (50%–100%) OR unknown

 Substantially below BMSY (< 50%) Key relevant information

The most recent estimated spawning biomass (SSB2006/SSBMSY) in the South Atlantic (2006) is 1.096. The SSB2006 was estimated at 2,126 mt and SSBMSY was estimated at 1,940 mt. The abundance is up from recent declines in the 1980s and 1990s. The estimated time series of SSB/SSBMSY predicted an initial status well above the MSY benchmark, decline during the 1980s and 1990s, and stable just above BMSY since the 1990s (SEDAR 2008). Reference(s) SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Other notes

Occurrence of overfishing (current level of fishing mortality relative to overfishing threshold)  Overfishing not occurring (Fcurr/Fmsy < 1.0)  Overfishing is likely/probable OR fishing effort is increasing with poor understanding of stock status OR Unknown

 Overfishing occurring (Fcurr/Fmsy > 1.0) Key relevant information SEDAR 15 (2008) stock evaluation determined that greater amberjack in the South Atlantic were not overfished, depleted, or th th endangered or undergoing overfishing (F2006/FMSY = 0.531). Figure 3 illustrates full fishing mortality with 10 and 90 percentile point estimates for 2006 to illustrate variability. It’s important to consider that greater amberjack is among a large complex of data- poor species, and there exist gaps in research and fishing mortality is unaccounted for.. The last available biomass estimate is from 2006. The next stock assessment for South Atlantic greater amberjack is scheduled for 2012 in SEDAR 32.

27 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Reference(s) SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Other notes

Figure 3: Full fishing mortality overtime with uncertainty estimates for MSY benchmarks (SEDAR 2008).

28 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Overall degree of uncertainty in status of stock  Low (i.e. current stock assessment and other fishery-independent data are robust OR reliable long-term fishery-dependent data available)  Medium (i.e. only limited, fishery-dependent data on stock status are available)  High (i.e. little or no current fishery-dependent or independent information on stock status OR models/estimates broadly disputed or otherwise out-of-date) Key relevant information Uncertainty in the age-structured assessment model was examined through sensitivity runs; the procedure was repeated n = 1,000 times, and the 10th and 90th percentiles of each benchmark were used to indicate uncertainty. The precision range of estimates is provided in

Table 1 (SEDAR 2008).

Generally, there is thought to be considerable uncertainty in biomass and fishing mortality estimates prior to the 2000s. In general there are no direct estimates of natural and discard mortality for greater amberjack. This results from high and poorly accounted for levels of discards in an active recreational fishery and mixing of Seriola species and unaccounted for discards in the commercial fishery prior to the 1990s. Though this has improved in recent years, it would have impacted stock status.

Reference(s) SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Other notes

29 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Table 1: Reference point and uncertainty estimates from the catch-at-age assessment model. Precision is represented by 10th and 90th percentiles of bootstrap analysis of the spawner–recruit curve. Estimates of yield do not include discards (SEDAR 2008).

Precision Range Reference Points 10th Percentile 90th Percentile

FMSY 0.424 0.201 0.666 MSY 2,005000 lb 1,497,000 lbs 2,403,000 lbs

BMSY 5,491 mt 4664 mt 7306 mt

SSBMSY 1,940 mt 1535 mt 2798 mt

F/FMSY 0.531 0.338 1.117

SSB2006/SSBMSY 1.096 0.768 1.385

SSB2006/MSST 1.461 1.024 1.847

Long-term trend (relative to species’ generation time) in population abundance as measured by either fishery-independent (stock assessment) or fishery-dependent (standardized CPUE) measures  Trend is up  Trend is flat or variable (among areas, over time or among methods) OR Unknown  Trend is down

Key relevant information Throughout the history of federal stock evaluations, the South Atlantic greater amberjack population has not been determined to be overfished (Figure 4). The first commercial quota for greater amberjack in federal waters was established in 1999, and has since never been met (SAFMC 1998a, SEDAR 2008), which could imply that the quota was set too high and MSY was overestimated. Additionally, intense fishing pressure through the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in the recreational sector, and underestimation of the

30 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

potential magnitude of unreported landings could have had considerable impact on total mortality.

Spawning biomass in the South Atlantic declined since the beginning of the fishery, especially during the 1980s and 1990s, consistent with fishing down to the MSY level. The most recent evaluation (SEDAR15) predicted that the stock has not declined below SSBMSY (SEDAR 2008)

The estimated time series of commercial fishing mortality rate (F) from the SEDAR 15 stock evaluation shows a generally increasing trend from the 1980s through the mid-1990s, and then an estimated decline from the 1990s to the present values around F = 0.23 (Figure 5). Increased interest in the commercial fishery coincided with decreases in recreational fishing mortality in the 1990s. In the most recent years, the majority of full fishing mortality is comprised of commercial handline and general recreational (MRFSS) landings; commercial diving and headboat sectors comprise a comparably smaller portion (SEDAR 2008).

The Gulf of Mexico stock is presently undergoing rebuilding (NMFS 2010b, a). Reference(s) NMFS. 2010a. 2009 Report to Congress. The Status of U.S. Fisheries. As mandated by the Sustainable Fisheries Act amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996. National Marine Fisheries Service. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/sos_full28_press.pdf. NMFS. 2010b. 2010 Status of US Fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed March 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm. SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Other notes

31 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Figure 4: Estimated SSBYEAR/SSBMSY, solid lines indicate where time series estimates would reach benchmark estimates (SEDAR 2008).

32 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

0.6

0.5

FMSY 0.4

0.3 Fishing Mortality 0.2

0.1

0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Commercial Handline Commercial Diving Headboat Recreational Survey (MRFSS) Full F (including discards) Fmsy

Figure 5: Estimated fishing mortality from the various fishing sectors (SEDAR 2008).

33 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Short-term trend in population abundance as measured by either fishery-independent (stock assessment) or fishery-dependent (standardized CPUE) measures  Trend is up  Trend is flat or variable (among areas, over time or among methods) OR Unknown  Trend is down Key relevant information The South Atlantic greater amberjack population experienced considerable fluctuations over the last five year period of estimated biomass as referenced by large variability in estimated spawning stock biomass. Spawning biomass levels reached near SSBMSY in 1998, increased steadily until 2003 then steadily declined, though remained above SSBMSY through 2006 (SEDAR 2008) (Figure 4). th th There was considerable variation in this estimate with SSB2006/SSBMSY ranging from 0.768 to1.385 (10 and 90 percentile estimates); the SEDAR accepted estimate was 1.096 (SEDAR 2008).

Reference(s) SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Other notes

Current age, size or sex distribution of the stock relative to natural condition  Distribution(s) is(are) functionally normal  Distribution(s) unknown  Distribution(s) is(are) skewed Key relevant information There are no significant differences between the mean ages of male and female greater amberjack, or between the age frequency

34 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

distributions of male and female amberjack. In samples collected using fishery independent gear (chevron traps, hook & line gear, bottom longlines) from 2000 to 2004 using otolith weight as a predictor, the age of all fish aged was 3.98 years old (±1.66; range 0- 13 years), while the mean age of males was 3.87 (±1.61; range 0-13) and females was 4.01 (±1.68; range 0-13) (MARMAP 2004). Samples collected from fishery-dependent sources 1998 and 2006 revealed potentially skewed sex and age distributions with the size of the fish at the youngest ages biased towards the fastest growers, though this was explained as a result of sampling bias. In these samples, 99.5% were collected from fishery-dependent sources (e.g., headboat, commercial) and subject to minimum size limits (since 1992 of 36” FL for commercial fisheries and 28” FL for recreational fisheries). This skewed distribution of lengths-at-age for the youngest ages was corrected in the assessment model (SEDAR 2008).

Similarly, sex distribution measured as the overall male: female ratio for greater amberjack was 1:1.11, significantly different from a 1:1 ratio (0.011100 mm FL), with no differences apparent for the smaller size classes. The female-skewed sex ratio was likely reflective of the commercial size limit selectivity for larger fish (Harris et al. 2007a, SEDAR 2008). No trends were apparent in the age-based sex ratio, confirming that there is no difference in longevity between males and females.

Reference(s) Harris, P. J., D. M. Wyanski, D. B. White, and P. P. Mikell. 2007a. Age, Growth, and Reproduction of Greater Amberjack off the Southeastern Atlantic Coast. Trans. Of the American Fisheries Society 136:1534-1545. MARMAP. 2004. Analytical Report Age, growth, and reproduction of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in the southwestern north Atlantic. Marine Resources Research Institute, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. December 2004. Charleston, SC. Contact Person: Patrick J. Harris. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S9RD16_GAJLH.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Other notes

Synthesis

Greater amberjack in the South Atlantic are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, and thereby the definition of a “healthy’ stock according to Seafood Watch® applies. Though it should be noted that estimates of biomass and fishing mortality are now five years old and uncertainty in recreational catch and discards could have a considerable impact on assessment results.

35 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Evaluation Guidelines

A “Healthy” Stock: 1) Is underutilized (near virgin biomass) 2) Has a biomass at or above BMSY AND overfishing is not occurring AND distribution parameters are functionally normal AND stock uncertainty is not high

A “Moderate” Stock: 1) Has a biomass at 50%–100% of BMSY AND overfishing is not occurring 2) Is recovering from overfishing AND short-term trend in abundance is up AND overfishing not occurring AND stock uncertainty is low 3) Has an Unknown status because the majority of primary factors are unknown.

A “Poor” Stock: 1) Is fully fished AND trend in abundance is down AND distribution parameters are skewed 2) Is overfished, overexploited or depleted AND trends in abundance and CPUE are up. 3) Overfishing is occurring AND stock is not currently overfished.

A stock is considered a Critical Conservation Concern and the species is ranked “Avoid,” regardless of other criteria, if it is: 1) Overfished, overexploited or depleted AND trend in abundance is flat or down 2) Overfished AND overfishing is occurring 3) Listed as a “threatened species” or similar proxy by national or international bodies

Conservation Concern: Status of Stocks

 Low (Stock Healthy)  Moderate (Stock Moderate or Unknown)  High (Stock Poor)

 Stock Critical

36 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Criterion 3: Nature and Extent of Bycatch

Seafood Watch® defines sustainable wild-caught seafood as marine life captured using fishing techniques that successfully minimize the catch of unwanted and/or unmarketable species (i.e., bycatch). Bycatch is defined as species that are caught but subsequently discarded (injured or dead) for any reason. Bycatch does not include incidental catch (non-targeted catch) if it is utilized, accounted for and managed in some way.

Guiding Principle: A sustainable wild-caught species is captured using techniques that minimize the catch of unwanted and/or unmarketable species.

Primary Factors to evaluate

Quantity of bycatch, including any species of “special concern” (i.e. those identified as “endangered”, “threatened” or “protected” under state, federal or international law)

 Quantity of bycatch is low (< 10% of targeted landings on a per number basis) AND does not regularly include species of special concern  Quantity of bycatch is moderate (10%–100% of targeted landings on a per number basis) AND does not regularly include species of special concern OR Unknown  Quantity of bycatch is high (> 100% of targeted landings on a per number basis) OR bycatch regularly includes threatened, endangered or protected species

Key relevant information Greater amberjack are one of a number of species in the mixed species snapper-grouper fishery, and therefore it is difficult to determine what species are being targeted on a particular trip. In general, fishermen can alter their practices to have a greater chance of catching one species over another. The only bycatch would be regulatory discards (fish that are too small to be retained or are prohibited from being retained due to quota or seasonal closures). The catch of some other retained species is a concern, where those species are overfished, or overfishing is occurring. There are at least 8 species that are overfished and 4 where overfishing is occurring (NMFS 2010b); and the status of many others remain unknown. Amberjack are a common bycatch species in fisheries

37 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

targeting vermilion snapper and many other snapper and grouper species. Though one study found that amberjack comprised 214 of the 19,386 fish caught during ten commercial trips in South Carolina; of those 214 amberjack , 162 were landed (Harris and Stephen 2005). There were few reports of bycatch of amberjack in other fisheries in general.

Estimates of greater amberjack discards from the targeted commercial handline fishery were available through 2006 in the 2007 assessment. Estimated discards, as reported in numbers of fish, were generally very low. Commercial landings were reported in pounds, making direct comparisons difficult. McCarthy (Year unknown) found— in nearly all reports— the reason for discarding greater amberjack was due to regulatory restrictions. Only in region 3, (3300 latitude to <3700 latitude) for greater amberjack handline vessels, was an appreciable percentage (22.6%) of discards reported as due to market conditions (McCarthy Year unknown).

Weight of amberjack discarded in the amberjack fishery is difficult to estimate using available data: landings are presented in weight, while discards are presented as numbers. Without size estimates, the actual weight of discards could not be determined. A rough estimate of landings to discards in weight was made by converting numbers to weight assuming that all discards were just below the minimum legal size of 36” commercial and 28” recreational, and using the weight to length (whole weight to fork length) conversion equations provided in SEDAR 15. This serves as the maximum weight that could represent discards, given that most discards are regulatory. Based on these caveats, the maximum greater amberjack commercial bycatch to landings ratio for the years from 1990 to 2006 ranged from 0.50 to 1.83, and in the greater amberjack recreational fishery for that same time period ranged from 1.54 to 5.70 (Table 2). The bycatch to landings ratio for greater amberjack may have limited practical value as the fishery is not highly targeted and it is unclear if discards are associated with amberjack fishing or with fishing for other species. Additionally, the likely unreported recreational discards further confound uncertainty in the ratio.

Stephen and Harris (2010) found the wide range of species (n = 60 in 23 families) caught by snapper-grouper commercial fishermen was indicative of the high diversity of reef-associated species that can be found off the coast of the southeastern United States. However, 17 species comprised over 90% of the catch. In general, discard proportions were low indicating a low bycatch component in the snapper-grouper fishery. Many snapper-grouper species are long-lived and even a low discard proportion may have significant impacts on the stock. This study found that in trips targeting vermilion snapper, greater amberjack were among the most commonly caught species. Nearly all discarded greater amberjack experienced immediate release mortality (93.62%) (Stephen and Harris 2010).

In another study attempting to characterize the catch of commercial fishermen, commercial trips targeting vermilion snapper off South Carolina were analyzed for differences in abundance and species diversity. The study found that eight species comprised 95% of the total catch: vermilion snapper, gray triggerfish, red porgy, black sea bass, snowy grouper, tomtate, scamp and greater amberjack. During the trips, amberjack comprised 24% of all discards (only 12% of the catch was discarded), and 1.1% of the catch, additionally, only 8% of the discarded greater amberjack lived (Harris and Stephen 2005). The most highly discarded fish was red

38 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

porgy (62%). This study also found that nearly 34% of fish classified as discards were actually captured dead and used as bait, which is typically an unacknowledged source of mortality (Harris and Stephen 2005). Given that greater amberjack is a mixed species fishery and not typically the targeted species, there is little information on bycatch composition in greater amberjack trips.

Recreational discards are estimated through headboat surveys and MRFSS. At the time of SEDAR 15, headboat survey discard data was only available for 2006, and was estimated by applying the proportion of MRFSS discards and landings to headboat landings. MRFSS discards are estimated based on number of live fish discarded during fishing trips as reported in intercept surveys of anglers. Greater amberjack in the geranial Seriola category was estimated based on proportions from Florida headboat observer data.

Figure 6 provides a trend comparison for commercial discards and landings in the handline fishery.

Bycatch of “threatened, endangered or protected species” There is believed to be limited interaction with threatened, protected and endangered species in the greater amberjack commercial fishery. There was no documented incidental mortality or injury of marine mammal species/ stocks in the hook-and-line fisheries used in snapper grouper fisheries of the South Atlantic (NOAA Fisheries 2011b). Of the 31 different species of marine mammals that may occur in the EEZ of the South Atlantic region there are only three known interactions between the South Atlantic snapper grouper. All three marine mammals were likely dolphins, all were caught in Florida on handline gear, and all three animals were released alive (SAFMC 1998b). However, sea turtles are known to be vulnerable to capture by vertical hook-and-line gear (SAFMC 1998b). In 2006, three loggerhead turtles and three unidentified sea turtles were caught on vertical lines (NMFS 2006). In both instances, the responsible commercial fishery was not identified. Other protected species found in the greater amberjack’s habitat include Acropora coral species (elkhorn [Acropora palmata] and staghorn [A. cervicornis]), which are likely to be impacted from the immensity of anchors and hooks used in the fishery (SAFMC 1998b). The minimal interactions likely have little impact on the population status of threatened, endangered, or protected species.

Reference(s) Harris, P. J., and J. Stephen. 2005. Characterization of commercial reef fish catch and bycatch off the southeast coast of the United States. Final Report. Cooperative Research Program Grant No. NA03NMF4540416. SEDAR 15-RD07. July 2005. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%2015-RD07.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. McCarthy, K. Year unknown. Discards of Greater Amberjack and Red Snapper Calculated for Vessels with Federal Fishing Permits in the US South Atlantic. Sustainable Fisheries Division, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. SEDAR 15-DW01.

39 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%2015-DW01.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. NOAA Fisheries. 2011b. Southeast Division Office of Law Enforcement. Accessed April 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/se_southeast.html. NMFS. 2006. Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation on the Continued Authorization of Snapper Grouper Fishing under the South Atlantic Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (RFFMP) and Proposed Amendment 13C. Biological Opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service. June 7. NMFS. 2010b. 2010 Status of US Fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed March 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm. SAFMC. 1998b. Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. October 1998. http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFH Am. SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. Stephen, J. A., and P. J. Harris. 2010. Commercial catch composition with discard and immediate release mortality proportions off the southeastern coast of the United States. Fisheries Research 103:18-24. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR24-RD03_Stephen%202010.pdf?id=DOCUMENT.

Other notes The fishery does not explicitly target amberjack and are catching a suite of species, some of which are overfished and on which overfishing is occurring on. This fishery regularly includes fishing on these species of concern and there are not appropriate management measures in place to limit bycatch on those species. The fishery has little interaction with ETP species, but there are 8 overfished species (species of concern) in the snapper grouper fishery.

40 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Table 2. Maximum discards/landings ratio of amberjack as estimated from the minimum size of amberjack (NOAA Fisheries 2011b, McCarthy Year Unknown, and SEDAR 2008). Recreational Commercial discards/ discards/ landings landings 1990 1.54 1991 2.21 1992 2.39 0.50 1993 2.86 0.73 1994 1.07 0.96 1995 2.16 1.01 1996 1.82 1.49 1997 2.78 1.60 1998 3.75 1.67 1999 1.66 1.61 2000 3.53 1.77 2001 4.67 1.79 2002 4.49 1.58 2003 3.70 1.56 2004 5.70 1.01 2005 5.53 1.01 2006 4.90 1.83

41 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Commercial Handline Fishery

600,000 12,000

500,000 10,000

400,000 8,000

300,000 6,000 Pounds (Landings) 200,000 4,000 Number of Fish (Discards)

100,000 2,000

0 0 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Landings (lbs) Discards (# of fish)

Figure 6: Landings (pounds) and discards (numbers of fish) of greater amberjack for the commercial handline fishery (NOAA Fisheries 2011a, McCarthy Year unknown).

42 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Population consequences of bycatch  Low: Evidence indicates quantity of bycatch has little or no impact on population levels  Moderate: Conflicting evidence of population consequences of bycatch OR Unknown  Severe: Evidence indicates quantity of bycatch is a contributing factor in driving one or more bycatch species toward extinction OR is a contributing factor in limiting the recovery of a species of “special concern” Key relevant information Unknown. In the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic there are at least 8 species that are overfished and 4 where overfishing is occurring (NMFS 2010b); and the status of many others remain unknown. Amberjack is not highly targeted and there were no complete estimates of species discards in the snapper grouper fishery. There is likley bycatch of species of concern that could be contributing to further population declines.

Reference(s) NMFS. 2010b. 2010 Status of US Fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed March 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm. Other notes

Trend in bycatch interaction rates (adjusting for changes in abundance of bycatch species) as a result of management measures (including fishing seasons, protected areas and gear innovations):  Trend in bycatch interaction rates is down  Trend in bycatch interaction rates is flat OR Unknown  Trend in bycatch interaction rates is up  Not applicable because quantity of bycatch is low

43 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Key relevant information Not known. Reference(s)

Other notes

Secondary Factor to evaluate

Evidence that the ecosystem has been or likely will be substantially altered (relative to natural variability) in response to the continued discard of the bycatch species  Studies show no evidence of ecosystem impacts  Conflicting evidence of ecosystem impacts OR Unknown  Studies show evidence of substantial ecosystem impacts Key relevant information No Evidence. Reference(s)

Other notes

Synthesis

The bycatch:landings ratio is not known, although the handline gear used is fairly selective. Most discards in the fishery are regulatory discards (e.g. of undersized individuals). The fishery has little interaction with ETP species, but there are 8 overfished species (species of concern) in the snapper grouper fishery, and management does not incorporate measures to constrain bycatch of these species of

44 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

concern. There are poor estimates of bycatch in the mixed species fishery, along with overlapping distribution of species of concern, and ineffective management that often leads to increased discards to avoid quota overages.

Evaluation Guidelines

Bycatch is “Minimal” if: 1) Quantity of bycatch is <10% of targeted landings AND bycatch has little or no impact on population levels.

Bycatch is “Moderate” if: 1) Quantity of bycatch is 10%– 100% of targeted landings 2) Bycatch regularly includes species of “special concern” AND bycatch has little or no impact on the bycatch population levels AND the trend in bycatch interaction rates is not up.

Bycatch is “Severe” if: 1) Quantity of bycatch is > 100% of targeted landings 2) Bycatch regularly includes species of “special concern” AND evidence indicates bycatch rate is a contributing factor toward extinction or limiting recovery AND trend in bycatch is down.

Bycatch is considered a Critical Conservation Concern and the species is ranked “Avoid,” regardless of other criteria, if: 1) Bycatch regularly includes species of special concern AND evidence indicates bycatch rate is a factor contributing to extinction or limiting recovery AND trend in bycatch interaction rates is not down. 2) Quantity of bycatch is high AND studies show evidence of substantial ecosystem impacts.

Conservation Concern: Nature and Extent of Discarded Bycatch  Low (Bycatch Minimal)  Moderate (Bycatch Moderate)  High (Bycatch Severe)  Bycatch Critical

45 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Criterion 4: Effect of Fishing Practices on Habitats and Ecosystems

Guiding Principle: Capture of a sustainable wild-caught species maintains natural functional relationships among species in the ecosystem, conserves the diversity and productivity of the surrounding ecosystem, and does not result in irreversible ecosystem state changes.

Primary Habitat Factors to evaluate

Known (or inferred from other studies) effect of fishing gear on physical and biogenic habitats  Minimal damage (i.e. pelagic longline, midwater gillnet, midwater trawl, purse seine, hook and line, or spear/harpoon)  Moderate damage (i.e. bottom gillnet, bottom longline or some pots/ traps)  Great damage (i.e. bottom trawl or dredge) Key relevant information Greater amberjack in the South Atlantic are caught commercially by handlines, diving, longlines, and other gear. Handlines, or vertical lines, have been the predominant gear used in targeting greater amberjack. In 2009, 85.64% of commercial landings were caught using handlines. Between 1997 and 2009, the composition of commercial landings on average was 79.86% handlines, 15.79% diving and 4.34% other gears (including longlines) (NOAA Fisheries 2011a). Handline catches predominate from the North Carolina/Virginia border down to the Atlantic side of Key West, Florida. The majority of hook and line fishermen use either electric or hydraulic reels (bandit gear) and generally have 2–4 bandit reels per boat (SAFMC 2010a). The recreational fishery uses hook and line gear, and recreational landings are considerably higher than commercial landings (Figure 7, Figure 8) (NOAA Fisheries 2011a, c).

Little to no segregation of jacks occurred in catch records before the mid-1980s, and misidentification of greater amberjack with banded rudderfish, lesser amberjack and almaco jack was common; therefore only recent landing records are likely to have accurate species specific landings (Cummings 2011). This does not alter handlines being the dominant gear used. It is generally believed that interest by commercial fishers for greater amberjack as a food fish was probably low prior to the 1980s, so landings from earlier years may be low.

Additionally, potentially damaging fishing gears have mostly been eliminated from the snapper grouper fishery for many years (SAFMC 1998b).

46 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Critical Habitats The SAFMC has identified coral reefs, live/hard bottom, submerged aquatic vegetation, artificial reefs and medium to high profile outcroppings on and around the shelf break zone from shore to at least 600 feet as essential fish habitat (EFH) for snapper-grouper species in need of protection. In particular, the EFH includes the spawning area in the water column above the adult habitat and the additional pelagic environment, such as Sargassum mats along with the Sargassum FMP utilizing a near zero OY (SAFMC 1998b, 2002). Protections for some juvenile and adult habitats in the South Atlantic are in place through the Sargassum FMP and marine protected areas (e.g. Oculina Bank HAPC and Closed Area) (SAFMC 1998b, 2002).

State and federal management of the commercial fishery implement an annual closed season from April 1to April 30, which coincides with the core of the spawning season. During the closure there is a prohibition on harvest and possession in excess of the 1 fish/day bag limit (GACRD 2010, FWC 2011a, NCDMF 2011a, NMFS 2011, SAFMC 2011c, SCDNR 2011a).

In Florida state waters, the closed season is extended to include the months of March, April and May of each year, when harvest and possession in quantities greater than the 1 fish/day recreational bag limit, and the purchase, sale and exchange of any species of amberjack harvested from state waters, is prohibited (FWC 2011a).

Habitat Management Gear permitted for use in the commercial snapper grouper fishery includes vertical hook and line gear, spearfishing gear, (without rebreathers, powerheads) except where prohibited in special management zones, bottom longline (only to depths below 50 fathoms with geographical restrictions), pots, and additional possession restrictions on vessels with longline gear. This prohibits the use of more habitat damaging gear such as trawls (SAFMC 2010c).

Eight deepwater Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been established in the South Atlantic region in addition to closed areas and habitat of particular concern. Two have been specifically identified as adult greater amberjack habitat; these are the East Hump Marine Protected Area (MAP) near the Islamorada Hump and the Oculina Bank. The Hump MPA is located beyond the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 13 nautical miles southeast of Long Key, FL (Figure 9) (SAFMC 2005). This area prohibits any fishing for or possession of snapper grouper species. The Oculina Bank is an area located approximately 15 nautical miles off the coast of Ft. Pierce, Florida, and has been designated a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) by the Council (Figure 10). Within the area, fishing activities are limited; though the use of hook-and-line gear is permitted. However, located within the Oculina Bank HAPC is an experimental closed area designed to aid in the protection of snapper grouper species and their associated habitat. Within the closed area, it is prohibited to fish for or retain any snapper grouper from the area (SAFMC 2010c).

47 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Reference(s) Cummings, N., NMFS/SEFSC Research Fish Biologist 2011. Personal communication. April 2011. FWC. 2011a. Rule 68B-14.0045: Commercial Harvest Requirements; Licenses, Season Closures, Bag and Trip Limits. Effective February 11, 2011. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=REEF%20FISH&ID=68B-14.0045 GACRD. 2010. Georgia’s Commercial Saltwater Fishing Regulations. Georgia Coastal Resource Division. June 2010. http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=276. NCDMF. 2011. FF-40-2011 PROCLAMATION RE: SNAPPER-GROUPER COMPLEX-COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. March 10, 2011. http://www.ncdmf.net/procs/procs2011/FF-040- 2011.html. NOAA Fisheries. 2011a. Annual Commercial Landings by Gear Type. Accessed April 2011. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/gear_landings.html NOAA Fisheries. 2011c. Recreational Fisheries Statistics Queries. Accessed April 2011. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/index.html. NMFS. 2011. 50 CFR Part 622 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic. National Marine Fisheries Service. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/regulations/pdfs/Vr110131.622.pdf. SAFMC. 1998b. Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. October 1998. http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFH Am. SAFMC. 2002. Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Sargassum Habitat for the South Atlantic Region. http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Library/FMP/Sargassum/SargFMP.pdf. SAFMC. 2005. Final Evaluation Plan for the Oculina Experimental Closed Area. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. http://www.safmc.net/Portals/0/Oculina/OECAEvaluationPlan.pdf. SAFMC. 2010b. Amendment 17A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Final Environmental Impact Statement, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. July 2010. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/pdfs/Amend17Afinal071910.pdf SAFMC. 2011a. Regulations by Species: Greater Amberjack. Accessed March 11, 2011. http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/GreaterAmberjack/tabid/294/Default.aspx

48 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

SAFMC. 2011c. Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Amendment for the South Atlantic Region. Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic; Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Sargassum Habitat of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Golden Crab Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 23 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. March 2011. http://safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=z6I%2Bl6%2BZMcc%3D&tabid=670. SCDNR. 2011a. Fishing Regulations. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Accessed April 2011. http://www.dnr.sc.gov/regulations.html. SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT.

Other notes

Figure 7: Recent numbers of commercial trips and landings for the east coast Florida and North Carolina (SEDAR 2008).

49 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

1,600,000 Commercial and Recreational Landings

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000 Pounds

600,000

400,000

200,000

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Handlines Other Gear Diving Recreational (hook and line)

Figure 8: Recent commercial (handline, diving and other gears) and recreational (hook and line) landings (NOAA Fisheries 2011a, c).

50 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Figure 9: The East Hump MPA. Located near the popular fishing spot called the “Islamorada Hump,” this site is located in waters ranging from 636 ft. to 971 ft. deep, with the tops of the “humps” at 509 ft. to 541 ft. The humps are pinnacle-like formations consist primarily of hardened layers of sandy carbonate sediments and support a diverse array of marine plants and animals, including deepwater corals. The area contains abundant habitat for snapper grouper species (SAFMC 2011e).

51 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Figure 10: Expanded Oculina Bank HAPC, Satellite Oculina HAPCs, and the Oculina Experimental Closed Area (SAFMC 2005).

52

Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

For specific fishery being evaluated, resilience of physical and biogenic habitats to disturbance by fishing method  High (e.g. shallow water, sandy habitats)  Moderate (e.g. shallow or deep water mud bottoms, or deep water sandy habitats)  Low (e.g. shallow or deep water corals, shallow or deep water rocky bottoms)  Not applicable because gear damage is minimal Key relevant information The commercial fishery for greater amberjack in the South Atlantic occurs in subtropical waters, and catches typically occur in depths from 150 to 400 ft (Cummings 1993, McGovern 2011). The species is known to concentrate around reefs, rock outcroppings and wrecks (Cummings 1993).

Reference(s) Cummings, N. 1993. The exploitation of the Atlantic Amberjack Fisheries Through 1991. Southeast Fisheries Science Center. March 1993. https://grunt.sefsc.noaa.gov/P_QryLDS/download/MIA459_MIA-92_93-30.pdf?id=LDS. McGovern, J., NMFS/SR S Atlantic/Caribbean Operations Branch Chief, Fishery Biologist. 2011. Personal communication. April 2011.

Other notes The fishing method itself is considered selective, though the species congregates around coral reef habitats and there are no estimates of the number of hooks and anchors in the fishery impacting the habitat.

If gear impacts are moderate or great, spatial scale of the impact  Small scale (e.g. small, artisanal fishery or sensitive habitats are strongly protected)  Moderate scale (e.g. modern fishery but of limited geographic scope)  Large scale (e.g. industrialized fishery over large geographic areas)  Not applicable because gear damage is minimal

53 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Key relevant information The fishery is industrial, with 2009 commercial landings in the South Atlantic of 423,193 pounds GW (NOAA Fisheries 2011a). Most vessels are typically 20–30 ft fiberglass boats employed in the king mackerel and reef fish fisheries fished by single fisherman (Cummings 1993).

Off the western Atlantic, Florida landings account for the majority of total commercial annual landings. Peak production occurs from March through June off the east coast of Florida, though there is an annual closure during April (SAFMC 2010). The commercial fishery occurs primarily in federal waters as adult amberjack are found at depths more common off the continental shelf (McGovern 2011). The majority of the commercial fishery activity is concentrated off Florida. The largest percentage of removals for the Atlantic stock are off southeast Florida, particularly Palm Beach through the Keys (Hump area) (Cummings 2011). Minor catches of amberjack are taken in Georgia’s waters (with only one reported dealer in 2010,(Califf 2011)), slightly more from South Carolina and the second largest number of landings off of North Carolina (Cummings 2011, NOAA Fisheries 2011a). Cummings and McClellan (1996) identified temporal migrations along the Atlantic coast, southerly migration in the spring and summer and a subsequent northerly migration, along with resident populations on Florida’s east coast, which likely explain increased landings in Florida and North Carolina compared with South Carolina and Georgia. A small population of greater amberjack found along the west coast of Florida (Tampa/Ft. Meyers) moves south along the Gulf coast and into the Keys (Atlantic) in the winter (Cummings and McClellan 1996a, Cummings 2011). As seen in the figure below, the number of commercial trips has fluctuated, but been in a declining trend for the last decade (Figure 11). Data for South Carolina and Georgia were not available.

Reference(s) Califf, J., Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Personal communication. Cummings, N. 1993. The exploitation of the Atlantic Amberjack Fisheries Through 1991. Southeast Fisheries Science Center. March 1993. https://grunt.sefsc.noaa.gov/P_QryLDS/download/MIA459_MIA-92_93-30.pdf?id=LDS. Cummings, N., NMFS/SEFSC Research Fish Biologist 2011. Personal communication. April 2011. NOAA Fisheries. 2011. Annual Commercial Landings by Gear Type. Accessed April 2011. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/gear_landings.html Cummings, N. J., and D. B. McClellan. 1996a. Movement patterns and stock interchange of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in the Southeastern U.S. U.S. Dept. of Comm., NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC, Miami Laboratory Cont. No. MIA-95/96-14. 60 p.

Other notes

54 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

2500 Number of Trips

2000

1500

1000

500

0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Florida East Coast North Carolina

Figure 11: Number of commercial trips in Florida and North Carolina. (Data source: (FWC 2011a, McInerny 2011).

Primary Ecosystem Factors to evaluate

Evidence that the removal of the targeted species or the removal/deployment of baitfish has or will likely substantially disrupt the food web  The fishery and its ecosystem have been thoroughly studied, and studies show no evidence of substantial ecosystem impacts  Conflicting evidence of ecosystem impacts OR Unknown  Ecosystem impacts of targeted species removal demonstrated

55 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Key relevant information There is no evidence that the removal of greater amberjack has or will likely substantially disrupt the food web. Greater amberjack are not a low trophic level species and are one of a number of top-level predators. Greater amberjack are thought to be currently harvested at levels that will not jeopardize stock status or trophic structure. There has not been an explicit ecosystem evaluation for the stock.

Reference(s)

Other notes

Evidence that the fishing method has caused or is likely to cause substantial ecosystem state changes, including alternate stable states  The fishery and its ecosystem have been thoroughly studied, and studies show no evidence of substantial ecosystem impacts  Conflicting evidence of ecosystem impacts OR Unknown  Ecosystem impacts from fishing method demonstrated Key relevant information The primary gear used in the fishery is believed to have low impact on habitat (SAFMC 1998b), target species and bycatch when compared with other gears. The handlines employed in the commercial fishery are generally electric hook and line reels fitted with weights, a monofilament leader and a single circle hook directly attached to the leader. A few fishermen employ hydraulic retrieval gear (Cummings 1993). Second to handlines are diver catches, followed by a low level of incidental catches from longlines targeting snapper and grouper. Handlines are selective and come in contact with the benthos if the gear is dropped to the bottom. Juvenile Sargassum habitat was threatened through fishing methods utilized; however implementation of the FMP has successfully protected that habitat (SAFMC 2002).

Reference(s) Cummings, N. 1993. The exploitation of the Atlantic Amberjack Fisheries Through 1991. Southeast Fisheries Science Center. March

56 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

1993. https://grunt.sefsc.noaa.gov/P_QryLDS/download/MIA459_MIA-92_93-30.pdf?id=LDS. SAFMC. 1998b. Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. October 1998. http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EFH Am. SAFMC. 2002. Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Sargassum Habitat for the South Atlantic Region. http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Library/FMP/Sargassum/SargFMP.pdf. Other notes

Synthesis The handline fishing gear used in the amberjack fishery does not typically come into contact with the seafloor, although it may when the gear is dropped to the bottom. This gear is considered to have minimal impacts on seafloor habitat. The full distribution and impact of the fishery is not explicitly known. Greater amberjack are reef associated species, a habitat that is highly vulnerable to fishing impacts. There are protections in place to preserve critical habitat, though there remain considerable declines in coral reef habitat and the extent of potential damage from fishing gear and anchors is not explicitly known.

Evaluation Guidelines

The effect of fishing practices is “Benign” if: 1) Damage from gear is minimal AND resilience to disturbance is high AND neither Ecosystem Factor is red.

The effect of fishing practices is “Moderate” if: 1) Gear effects are moderate AND resilience to disturbance is moderate or high AND neither Ecosystem Factor is red. 2) Gear results in great damage AND resilience to disturbance is high OR impacts are small scale AND neither Ecosystem Factor is red. 3) Damage from gear is minimal and one Ecosystem factor is red.

The effect of fishing practices is “Severe” if: 1) Gear results in great damage AND the resilience of physical and biogenic habitats to disturbance is moderate or low. 2) Both Ecosystem Factors are red.

57 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Habitat effects are considered a Critical Conservation Concern and a species receives a recommendation of “Avoid,” regardless of other criteria if:  Four or more of the Habitat and Ecosystem factors rank red.

Conservation Concern: Effect of Fishing Practices on Habitats and Ecosystems

 Low (Fishing Effects Benign)  Moderate (Fishing Effects Moderate)  High (Fishing Effects Severe)  Critical Fishing Effects

Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime

Guiding Principle: The management regime of a sustainable wild-caught species implements and enforces all local, national and international laws and utilizes a precautionary approach to ensure the long-term productivity of the resource and integrity of the ecosystem.

Primary Factors to evaluate

Stock Status: Management process utilizes an independent scientific stock assessment that seeks knowledge related to the status of the stock  Stock assessment complete and robust  Stock assessment is planned or underway but is incomplete OR stock assessment is complete but out-of-date or otherwise uncertain  No stock assessment is available now and none is planned in the near future

58 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Key relevant information Stock assessments for South Atlantic greater amberjack are conducted through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process of the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC 2011b). SEDAR is a multi-step method for examining stock assessments. The process includes three public workshops: data workshop where participants research and review available data; a stock assessment workshop, where participants determine the tools to be used to formulate the stock assessment, how to interpret information from the assessment, and how uncertainty is to be incorporated into the assessment; and a peer review of the stock assessment report. The SEDAR process is utilized by fishery managers in the South Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico (SAFMC 2011f). State agencies contribute fisheries statistics data, and participants, to the SEDAR process.

Current stock status information is already five years old. The South Atlantic greater amberjack was the subject of a full assessment in 2007 (SEDAR 2008) and a update assessment evaluation is planned for 2012. The poor quality recreational landing and discard data add to the uncertainty of assessments. There are no abundance estimates or stock status updates that occur between assessments.

Reference(s) SAFMC. 2011f. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Website. http://www.safmc.net. SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. SEFSC. 2011. Southeast Fisheries Science Center Website. Accessed April 2011. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov

Other notes

Scientific Monitoring: Management process involves regular collection and analysis of data with respect to the short and long-term abundance of the stock  Regular collection and assessment of both fishery-dependent and independent data  Regular collection of fishery-dependent data only  No regular collection or analysis of data

59 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Key relevant information Adequate fishery independent surveys for South Atlantic greater amberjack do not exist. The SEFSC conducts fishery-independent reef fish monitoring in the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas areas through SCUBA surveys, and acoustic assessment of reef fish habitat (SEFSC 2011b). These fishery independent visual surveys are less significant for greater amberjack because juvenile habitat is farther offshore than the survey coverage, and the visual surveys do not overlap with the adult segment. The SEDAR review panel recommended development of a fishery-independent index for greater amberjack (SEDAR 2008).

Observer coverage is inadequate for the greater amberjack fishery, and for the snapper-grouper fishery as a whole. SEDAR (2008) mentioned only headboat observer data as available for use, and the Data Workshop Report specifically recommended obtaining observer data for the snapper-grouper fishery.

Commercial landings, recreational catch and effort are monitored through fishery-dependant data collected by the NMFS, SEFSC through the QMS, which collects dealer reports including landings; and the Fisheries Logbook System (FLS), which records fishing and non-fishing activity including catch and effort data for an entire trip. For each fishing trip, data collected include date, gear, fishing area, days at sea, fishing effort, species caught, and weight of the catch (SEDAR 2008). States and NMFS do monitor effort and landings annually in the commercial and recreational fisheries. NMFS online databases provide annual domestic commercial and recreational landings statistics, and the MRFSS conducts annual surveys to collect catch, effort, and participation data. MRFSS combines a telephone survey of households to estimate number of trips with creel surveys to estimate catch and effort per trip, though discards are likely underestimated for a couple of reasons. Many small jack species harvested by recreational anglers are used as bait, and the majority of these fish are unobserved by interviewers and cannot be identified to species. Also, there were no greater amberjack specific estimates on the released portion of the catch (SEDAR 2008). SEDAR 15 found that the only available data on the released recreational catch portion of greater amberjack comes from at-sea headboat surveys.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) collects catch-and-effort data and geographic distribution of landings for both commercial and recreational fisheries on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts (FWC 2011b). The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) provides annual commercial trip ticket and recreational survey fishing statistics on effort, landings and value (NCDMF 2011b). Additionally, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) Marine Resources Monitoring, Assessment, and Prediction (MARMAP) Program conducts reef fish assessment from Cape Lookout, North Carolina to Fort Pierce, Florida and most recently fishery-independent assessments of reef fish abundance and life history (SCDNR 2011b).

Reference(s) FWC. 2011b. Commercial Fisheries Landings in Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

60 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/fishstats/commercial-fisheries/landings-in-florida/. NCDMF. 2011b. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Website. http://www.ncfisheries.net/. SCDNR. 2011b. SCDNR Marine Resources Research Institute (MRRI) Webpage. http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/mrri/MARMAP/MMhist.html. SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. SEFSC. 2011b. Southeast Fisheries Science Center Website. Accessed April 2011. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov

Other notes

Scientific Advice: Management has a well-known track record of consistently setting or exceeding catch quotas beyond those recommended by its scientific advisors and other external scientists:  No  Yes  Not enough information available to evaluate OR not applicable because little or no scientific information is collected Key relevant information Quotas are not set above scientific advice and catches have not exceeded quotas.

Scientific advice for management comes from the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process—a multi-step method for examining stock assessments. The SEDAR process is utilized by fishery managers in the South Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico (SAFMC 2011f). State agencies contribute fisheries statistics data, and participants, to the SEDAR process.

In general, there is concern that discard mortality is not well accounted for; the stock assessment considers discards of greater amberjack as low, and accounts for them in the stock assessment. However, justification for the assumption of low discards is not strong. Low observer coverage has provided little information to address the issue of the recreational fishery using many small amberjack as bait. The lack of adequate accountability in the recreational fishery means that scientific advice has substantial uncertainty, which affects the scientific advice provided.

61 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

The first commercial quota was set for greater amberjack at 63% of 1995 landings (quota=1,169,931 lbs gutted weight) through Amendment 9 to the FMP (SAFMC 1998a) and has never been exceeded (SAFMC 2011d). There is presently a 1,000 lb trip limit on the commercial fishery, which remains open until the quota is reached. With increasing restrictions on other snapper grouper species through Amendments 13C and 16, effort could shift to greater amberjack and there has been an interest in increasing the trip limit for greater amberjack (reference). Additionally, as the quota is routinely not being taken in full, there is some thought that optimum yield (OY) for the species may not be achieved, and that the stock is under-utilized. In March 2011, the SAFMC proposed increasing the trip limit to 1,200 lbs via regulatory Amendment 9 to maximize the probability of reaching OY for greater amberjack (McGovern 2011, SAFMC 2011d). Annual catch limits and accountability measures, as mandated by the Magnuson-Steven Act (MSA), have not yet been set for 2012, but are being defined through the Comprehensive ACL Amendment (Amendment 23 for Reef Fish FMP) for the South Atlantic Region (SAFMC 2010a, b, 2011a). Under the MSA, the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) has the responsibility for setting the Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) within scientific limits. SEDAR conducts and reviews the assessments to assure sound science. The fishery will be subject to annual catch limits (ACL) and accountability measures by the end of 2011. Landings in the commercial sector are well accounted for, resulting in low management uncertainty. Landings in the recreational fishery are poorly accounted for, resulting in high management uncertainty. The stock assessment (SEDAR 2008) considered discards of greater amberjack as low, but the reliability of the estimate is unclear as the observer coverage to monitor discards is low. The ACLs do not seem to directly account for dead discards, which would likely cause a problem if discards are greater than estimated.

Reference(s) McGovern, J., NMFS/SR S Atlantic/Caribbean Operations Branch Chief, Fishery Biologist. 2011. Personal communication. April 2011. SAFMC. 1998a. Amendment 9, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement for the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1 Southpark Cir., Suite 306, Charleston, S.C. 29407-4699. 246 pp. http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Library/FMP/SnapGroup/SnapGroupAmend9.pdf. SAFMC. 2010a. Fishing Regulations for the South Atlantic Federal Waters as of June 2010 for species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=KMfgAnrh1I0%3d&tabid=248. SAFMC. 2010b. Amendment 17A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Final Environmental Impact Statement, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and

62 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. July 2010. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/pdfs/Amend17Afinal071910.pdf SAFMC. 2011a. Regulations by Species: Greater Amberjack. Accessed March 11, 2011. http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/GreaterAmberjack/tabid/294/Default.aspx SAFMC. 2011d. Regulatory Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region and Environmental Assessment. February 2011. http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=%2faxVDPnkJew%3d&tabid=666. SAFMC. 2011f. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Website. http://www.safmc.net.

Other notes While quotas have not been exceeded, this may be due to poorly estimated MSY and underreporting of discards.

Bycatch: Management implements an effective bycatch reduction plan  Bycatch plan in place and reaching its conservation goals (deemed effective)  Bycatch plan in place but effectiveness is not yet demonstrated or is under debate  No bycatch plan implemented or bycatch plan implemented but not meeting its conservation goals (deemed ineffective)  Not applicable because bycatch is “low” Key relevant information The greater amberjack fishery occurs within the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery, a mixed species fishery that may have a high diversity of catch. The overlapping distribution of the snapper-grouper complex means that commercial and recreational amberjack fishermen cannot eliminate interactions with other species. Many species in the South Atlantic are designated as overfished and have very restrictive catch limits, and the greater amberjack fishery may discard substantial numbers of them. Current gear restrictions include required use of non-stainless circle hooks when fishing for snapper grouper species, possession of a dehooking device, and restrictions on allowable gear (SAFMC 2010c). However, no regulations are in place to minimize interactions with overfished species. The low survival from barotrauma of many overfished species encountered in the greater amberjack fishery, and the lack of effective measures to minimize adverse impacts of barotrauma, makes discards of overfished species a serious problem.

63 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Reference(s) SAFMC. 2010c. Amendment 17B to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Environmental Assessment, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement March 2010. http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9BXhV2vGiyM%3d&tabid=415.

Other notes

Fishing practices: Management addresses the effect of the fishing method(s) on habitats and ecosystems  Mitigative measures in place and deemed effective  Mitigative measures in place but effectiveness is not yet demonstrated or is under debate  No mitigative measures in place or measures in place but deemed ineffective  Not applicable because fishing method is moderate or benign Key relevant information This factor is not applicable in this fishery, because habitat impacts of the fishing method are moderate. Handlines are pelagic gear and there should be minimal interaction with seafloor habitat from individual gear; however, given the large size of the fishing fleet, some cumulative impact could occur from the many lines and weights in sensitive habitats (GMFMC 1998, SAFMC 1998b, Rader 2011). Closed areas are in place to protect sensitive habitat (SAFMC 2010c), specifically the experimental closed area within the Oculina Bank HAPC (SAFMC 2005) and the East Hump MPA in the Florida Keys is protected from seafloor disturbances (SAFMC 2011e). Fishing and possession of snapper grouper species in these areas are prohibited.

Reference(s) FWC. 2011c. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Website. http://myfwc.com/.

64 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

GMFMC. 1998. Generic Amendment for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. October 1998. http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/FINALEFH-%20Amendment%201-%20no%20appendices.pdf. McGovern, J., NMFS/SR S Atlantic/Caribbean Operations Branch Chief, Fishery Biologist. 2011. Personal communication. April 2011. Rader, D., Chief Oceans Scientist, Environmental Defense. 2011. Personal communication. 2011. SAFMC. 1998b. Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. October 1998. http://www.safmc.net/ecosystem/EcosystemManagement/HabitatProtection/SAFMCHabitatPlan/tabid/80/Default.aspx#EF HAm. SAFMC. 2005. Final Evaluation Plan for the Oculina Experimental Closed Area. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. http://www.safmc.net/Portals/0/Oculina/OECAEvaluationPlan.pdf. SAFMC. 2010c. Amendment 17B to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Environmental Assessment, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement March 2010. http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9BXhV2vGiyM%3d&tabid=415. SAFMC. 2011a. Regulations by Species: Greater Amberjack. Accessed March 11, 2011. http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/GreaterAmberjack/tabid/294/Default.aspx SAFMC. 2011d. Fisheries Management and Law Enforcement. SAFMC Website. Accessed April 2011. http://www.safmc.net/LawEnforcement/tabid/580/Default.aspx. SAFMC. 2011e. SAFMC MPA Information Page. in. http://www.safmc.net/MPAInformationPage/tabid/469/Default.aspx. SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S15%20SAR%202%20Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT. SEFSC. 2011a. Quota Monitoring. Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Accessed April 2011. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/fisheries/quotas.htm.

Other notes

65 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Enforcement: Management and appropriate government bodies enforce fishery regulations  Regulations regularly enforced by independent bodies, including logbook reports, observer coverage, dockside monitoring and similar measures  Regulations enforced by fishing industry or by voluntary/honor system  Regulations not regularly and consistently enforced Key relevant information Federal fisheries enforcement is conducted by the NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), the US Coast Guard, and the state enforcement agencies. The SAFMC does not have any actual enforcement authority, but coordinates with state and federal law enforcement agencies. The Southeast Division of the OLE works closely with the US Coast Guard to enforce federal regulations through patrols and monitoring of fisheries regulations. State agencies (SC DNR – Marine Resources Division, GA DNR – Wildlife Resources Division, and Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission) share jurisdictional authority through Joint Enforcement Agreements (JEAs) with NOAA Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries 2011d, SAFMC 2011b). North Carolina lacks a Joint Enforcement Agreement with OLE, but participates in fishery enforcement. There are no observer, at-sea or dockside monitoring programs in the greater amberjack fishery.

Reference(s) NOAA Fisheries. 2011d. Southeast Division Office of Law Enforcement. Accessed April 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/se_southeast.html. SAFMC. 2011b. Fisheries Management and Law Enforcement. SAFMC Website. Accessed April 2011. http://www.safmc.net/LawEnforcement/tabid/580/Default.aspx.

Other notes

66 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Management Track Record: Conservation measures enacted by management have resulted in the long-term maintenance of stock abundance and ecosystem integrity  Management has maintained stock productivity over time OR has fully recovered the stock from an overfished condition  Stock productivity has varied and management has responded quickly OR stock has not varied but management has not been in place long enough to evaluate its effectiveness OR Unknown  Measures have not maintained stock productivity OR were implemented only after significant declines and stock has not yet fully recovered Key relevant information Stock evaluations for the Atlantic greater amberjack indicate that the stock has probably never been overfished and the commercial quota, since implemented, has never been met.

Fisheries management utilizes a quota for the commercial fishery: personal bag limits for the recreational fishery, size limits and closed seasons that coincide with primary spawning events to protect the stock and maintain productivity. These appear to be effective. the South Atlantic stock is believed to not be overfished, however, the last assessment results are already 5 years old and new information will be valuable in assessing stock productivity. In addition, lack of information on mortality in the recreational fishery adds to uncertainty about the effectiveness of management in maintaining stock productivity.

At its December 2006 Council meeting in Atlantic Beach, North Carolina, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council voted to explore a Limited Access Privilege (LAP) Program as a possible management tool for the Snapper Grouper Fishery (http://www.safmc.net/SocioEconomic/LimitedAccessPrivileges/tabid/486/Default.aspx). The Council noted declined harvest quantities and values, suggesting that the snapper-grouper fishery is overcapitalized. While meetings have taken place to discuss options, no decisions to support or oppose a LAP have occurred.

Reference(s)

67 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Other notes

Synthesis There is a comprehensive management system in place, though data are insufficient to track fishing activity, management does not mitigate bycatch and there are no observer or monitoring programs.

Evaluation Guidelines

Management is deemed to be “Highly Effective” if the majority of management factors are green AND the remaining factors are not red.

Management is deemed to be “Moderately Effective” if: 1) Management factors “average” to yellow 2) Management factors include one or two red factors

Management is deemed to be “Ineffective” if three individual management factors are red, including especially those for Stock Status and Bycatch.

Management is considered a Critical Conservation Concern and a species receives a recommendation of “Avoid,” regardless of other criteria if: 1) There is no management in place 2) The majority of the management factors rank red.

Conservation Concern: Effectiveness of Management  Low (Management Highly Effective)  Moderate (Management Moderately Effective)  High (Management Ineffective)  Critical (Management Critically Ineffective)

68 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Acknowledgements

Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

We acknowledge scientists from SERO, the SEFSC, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Georgia Coastal Resource Division and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Specifically we thank Nancie Cummings (NOAA Fisheries) and Doug Rader (EDF) for their continued supply of information and review of this report.

69 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

V. References Beasley, M. L. 1993. Age and growth of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, from the northern Gulf of Mexico. MS thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Berry, F. H., and R. K. Burch. 1979. Aspects of the amberjack fisheries. Proc. Gulf and Carib. Fish. Inst. 31:179-194. Bortone, S. A., P. A. Hastings, and S. B. Collard. 1977. The pelagic-Sargassum ichthyofauna of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Northeast Gulf Sci 1:60-67. Califf, J., Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Personal communication. Carpenter, K. E., editor. 2002. The living marine resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Volume 3: Bony fishes part 2 (Opistognathidae to Molidae), sea turtles and marine mammals. FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes and American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. Special Publication No. 5. pp. 1375-2127. FAO, Rome. Comyns, B. H., N. M. Crochet, J. S. Franks, J. R. Hendon, and R. S. Waller. 2002. Peliminary Assessment of the Association of Larval Fishes with Pelagic Sargassum Habitat and Convergence Zone in the Northcenteral Gulf of Mexico. 53rd Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. Comyns, B. H., E. R. Hoffmayer, J. S. Franks, G. L. Grammer, and E. A. L. Saillant. 2010. Early Life History and Recruitment of Dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) and Greater Amberjack (Seriola dumerili) to Pelagic Sargassum Habitat in the North Central Gulf of Mexico. in Vickburg, Mississippi. Cummings, N. 1993. The exploitation of the Atlantic Amberjack Fisheries Through 1991. Southeast Fisheries Science Center. March 1993. Cummings, N., NMFS/SEFSC Research Fish Biologist 2011. Personal communication. April 2011. Cummings, N. J., and D. B. McClellan. 1996a. Movement patterns and stock interchange of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in the Southeastern U.S. U.S. Dept. of Comm., NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC, Miami Laboratory Cont. No. MIA-95/96-14. 60 p. Cummings, N. J., and D. B. McClellan. 1996b. Status of the Greater Amberjack, Seriola Dumerili, in the Southeast United States Through 1995. Proceedings of the 49th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. Cummings, N. J., and D. B. McClellan. 1996c. Stock Assessment of the Atlantic Ocean Greater Amberjack through 1995. Miami Laboratory Contribution Report Number MIA-96/97-04. Cummings, N. J., and D. B. Mcclellan. 1999. Aspects of the Atlantic Greater Amberjack Fishery Through 1998. Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution No. SFD 98/99-61. Cummings, N. J., S. C. Turner, D. B. McClellan, and C. M. Legault. 1999. Atlantic Greater Amberjack Abundance Indices From Commercial Handline and Recreational Charter, Private, and Headboat Fisheries through fishing year 1997. Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution No. SFD-98/99-62. Diaz, G. A., C. E. Porch, and M. Ortiz. 2004. Growth models for red snapper in US Gulf of Mexico Waters estimated from landings with minimum size limit restrictions. NMFS/SFD Contribution SFD-2004-038. SEDAR7-AW1.

70 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

Diversified Business Communications. 2010. Seafood Handbook. The Comprehensive Guide to Sourcing, Buying, and Preparation., Second Edition edition. FDA. 2011. 2010 FDA Seafood List. Accessed April 2011. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/SEARCH_SEAFOOD/index.cfm Fisheries, N. 2011. Status of US Fisheries. Accessed June 20, 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm. FLMNH. 2011. Biological Profiles: Greater Amberjack. Florida Museum of Natural History . Accessed March 2011. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gallery/Descript/GreateramberJack/greateramberJack.html. FWC. 2006. Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWC. 2011a. Commercial Fisheries Landings in Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWC. 2011b. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Website. http://myfwc.com/. FWC. 2011c. Rule 68B-14.0045: Commercial Harvest Requirements; Licenses, Season Closures, Bag and Trip Limits. Effective February 11, 2011. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission GACRD. 2010. Georgia’s Commercial Saltwater Fishing Regulations. Georgia Coastal Resource Division. June 2010. GMFMC. 1998. Generic Amendment for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. October 1998. GMFMC. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). APPENDIX C INFORMATION ON SPECIES DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Harris, P. J., and J. Stephen. 2005. Characterization of commercial reef fish catch and bycatch off the southeast coast of the United States. Final Report. Cooperative Research Program Grant No. NA03NMF4540416. SEDAR 15-RD07. July 2005. . Harris, P. J., D. M. Wyanski, D. B. White, and P. P. Mikell. 2007a. Age, Growth, and Reproduction of Greater Amberjack off the Southeastern Atlantic Coast. Trans. Of the American Fisheries Society 136:1534-1545. Harris, P. J., D. M. Wyanski, D. B. White, P. P. Mikell, and P. B. Eyo. 2007b. Age, growth, and reproduction of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, off the Atlantic coast of the southeastern United States. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. SEDAR 15-RD01. Legault, C., and S. Turner. 1999. Stock assessment analyses on Atlantic greater amberjack. NOAA/NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Sustainable Fisheries Division. Contribution SFD-98/99-63. Lindeman, K. C., R. Pugliese, G. T. Waugh, and J. S. Ault. 2000. Developmental Patterns Within a Multispecies Reef Fishery: Management Applications for Essential Fish Habitats and Protected Areas. Bulletin of Marine Science 66:929-956. Manooch, C., III. 1984. Fisherman’s guide to the fishes of the southeastern United States. North Carolina Museum of Natural History. Raleigh, North Carolina. Manooch, C., III, and J. Potts. 1997a. Age, growth and mortality of greater amberjack from the southeastern United States. Fisheries Research 30:229-240. Manooch, C. M., III, and J. C. Potts. 1997b. Age, growth, and mortality of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, from the Gulf of Mexico headboat fishery. Bulletin of Marine Science 61:671-683.

71 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

MARMAP. 2004. Analytical Report Age, growth, and reproduction of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in the southwestern north Atlantic. Marine Resources Research Institute, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. December 2004. Charleston, SC. Contact Person: Patrick J. Harris. MARMAP. 2007. A Tag and Recapture study of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, from the Southeastern United States. SEDAR 15-RD02. MARMAP Unpublished Report. February 2007. McCarthy, K. Year unknown. Discards of Greater Amberjack and Red Snapper Calculated for Vessels with Federal Fishing Permits in the US South Atlantic. Sustainable Fisheries Division, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. SEDAR 15-DW01. McClellan, D. B., and N. J. Cummings. 1996. Preliminary analysis of tag and recapture data of the greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in the southeastern United States. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. 49:25-45. McGovern, J., NMFS/SR S Atlantic/Caribbean Operations Branch Chief, Fishery Biologist. 2011. Personal communication. April 2011. McInerny, S., North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Trip Ticket Analyst. 2011. Personal communication. Murie, D. J., and D. C. Parkyn. 2010. Age, Growth and Sex Maturity of Greater Amberjack (Seriola dumerili) in the Gulf of Mexico. MARFIN Grant No. NA05NMF4331071. in Marine Fisheries Initiative 18th Annual Conference, April 6-7, 2010. St. Petersburg, FL. NCDMF. 2011a. FF-40-2011 PROCLAMATION RE: SNAPPER-GROUPER COMPLEX-COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. March 10, 2011. NCDMF. 2011b. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Website. http://www.ncfisheries.net/. Nelson, G. A. 1999. Alternative Stock Assessment Methods Applied To Greater Amberjack, Seriola dumerili, in Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Florida Marine Research Institute. NMFS. 2006. Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation on the Continued Authorization of Snapper Grouper Fishing under the South Atlantic Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (RFFMP) and Proposed Amendment 13C. Biological Opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service. June 7. NMFS. 2010a. 2009 Report to Congress. The Status of U.S. Fisheries. As mandated by the Sustainable Fisheries Act amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996. National Marine Fisheries Service. NMFS. 2010b. 2010 Status of US Fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed March 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm. NMFS. 2011. 50 CFR Part 622 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic. National Marine Fisheries Service. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA Fisheries. 2011a. Annual Commercial Landings by Gear Type. Accessed April 2011. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/gear_landings.html NOAA Fisheries. 2011b. NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources Final 2011 List of Fisheries (LOF). Accessed April 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/final2011.htm#table2.

72 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

NOAA Fisheries. 2011c. Recreational Fisheries Statistics Queries. Accessed April 2011. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/index.html. NOAA Fisheries. 2011d. Southeast Division Office of Law Enforcement. Accessed April 2011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/se_southeast.html. Rader, D., Chief Oceans Scientist, Environmental Defense. 2011. Personal communication. 2011. SAFMC. 1983. Fishery Management Plan, Regulatory Impact review, and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Snapper- Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. SAFMC. 1998a. Amendment 9, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement for the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1 Southpark Cir., Suite 306, Charleston, S.C. 29407-4699. 246 pp. . SAFMC. 1998b. Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. October 1998. SAFMC. 2002. Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Sargassum Habitat for the South Atlantic Region. SAFMC. 2005. Final Evaluation Plan for the Oculina Experimental Closed Area. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. SAFMC. 2009. Fishery Ecosystem Plan of the South Atlantic Region. Volume II - South Atlantic Habitats and Species. SAFMC. 2010a. Amendment 17A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Final Environmental Impact Statement, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. July 2010. SAFMC. 2010b. Amendment 17B to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Environmental Assessment, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement March 2010. SAFMC. 2010c. Fishing Regulations for the South Atlantic Federal Waters as of June 2010 for species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. SAFMC. 2011a. Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Amendment for the South Atlantic Region. Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic; Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Sargassum Habitat of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Golden Crab Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 23 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. March 2011. SAFMC. 2011b. Fisheries Management and Law Enforcement. SAFMC Website. Accessed April 2011. http://www.safmc.net/LawEnforcement/tabid/580/Default.aspx. SAFMC. 2011c. Regulations by Species: Greater Amberjack. Accessed March 11, 2011. http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/GreaterAmberjack/tabid/294/Default.aspx

73 Seafood Watch® Greater Amberjack Report July 5, 2011

SAFMC. 2011d. Regulatory Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region and Environmental Assessment. February 2011. SAFMC. 2011e. SAFMC MPA Information Page. in. SAFMC. 2011f. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Website. http://www.safmc.net. SCDNR. 2011a. Fishing Regulations. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Accessed April 2011. http://www.dnr.sc.gov/regulations.html. SCDNR. 2011b. SCDNR Marine Resources Reasearch Institute (MRRI) Webpage. http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/mrri/MARMAP/MMhist.html. Schirripa, M. J., and K. M. Burns. 1997. Growth estimates for three species of reef fish in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 61:581-591. SEDAR. 2008. Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 15 - Stock Assessment Report 2 (SAR 2) South Atlantic Greater Amberjack. February 2008. SEDAR. 2011. Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 9 Stock Assessment Update Report: Gulf of Mexico Greater Amberjack. SEFSC. 2011a. Quota Monitoring. Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Accessed April 2011. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/fisheries/quotas.htm. SEFSC. 2011b. Southeast Fisheries Science Center Website. Accessed April 2011. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov Shipp, R. L. 1988. Dr. Bob Shipp’s guide to fishes of the Gulf of Mexico. Century Printing, Mobile, AL. Stephen, J. A., and P. J. Harris. 2010. Commercial catch composition with discard and immediate release mortality proportions off the southeastern coast of the United States. Fisheries Research 103:18-24. Thompson, B. A., M. Beasley, and C. A. Wilson. 1999. Age distribution and growth of greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili, from the north-central Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 97:362-371.

74