Black Grouper, Gag Grouper, Red Grouper, Snowy Grouper, Yellowedge Grouper, Warsaw Grouper

Home , Grouper, Gulf grouper, Hyporthodus nigritus, King snake eel, Mycteroperca bonaci, Mycteroperca microlepis

Black grouper, Gag grouper, Red grouper, Snowy grouper, Yellowedge grouper, Warsaw grouper

Mycteroperca bonaci, Mycteroperca microlepis, Epinephelus morio, Epinephelus niveatus, Epinephelus flavolimbatus, Epinephelus nigritus

Image © Diane Rome Peebles

United States Bottom longline, Handline

May 22, 2014 (original report) Updated June 30, 2016 and March 22, 2017 (Gag South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico ONLY) Lisa Max, Seafood Watch staff

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

Table of Contents

About Seafood Watch® ...... 3

Guiding Principles ...... 4

Executive Summary ...... 6

Introduction ...... 10

Assessment ...... 17 Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under Assessment ...... 17 Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks ...... 40 Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ...... 88 Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem ...... 108

Acknowledgements ...... 115

References ...... 116

About Seafood Watch®

The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the North American marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. The program’s mission is to engage and empower consumers and businesses to purchase environmentally responsible seafood fished or farmed in ways that minimize their impact on the environment or are in a credible improvement project with the same goal.

Each sustainability recommendation is supported by a seafood report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s sustainability criteria to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choice,” “Good Alternative,” or “Avoid.” In producing the seafood reports, Seafood Watch utilizes research published in academic, peer reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch research analysts also communicate with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations, when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying seafood reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Both the detailed evaluation methodology and the scientific reports are available on seafoodwatch.org.

For more information about Seafood Watch and seafood reports, please contact the Seafood Watch program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990 or visit online at seafoodwatch.org.

Guiding Principles

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

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that capture fisheries must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program:

 Stocks are healthy and abundant.  Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life.  The fishery minimizes bycatch.  The fishery is managed to sustain long-term productivity of all impacted species.  The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained.  Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts, or reduction of genetic diversity.

Based on these guiding principles, Seafood Watch has developed a set of four sustainability criteria to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

1. Impacts on the species under assessment 2. Impacts on other species 3. Effectiveness of management 4. Habitat and ecosystem impacts

Each criterion includes:

 Factors to evaluate and score  Evaluation guidelines to synthesize these factors and to produce a numerical score  A resulting numerical score and rating for that criterion

Once a score and rating has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide:

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

Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or farmed.

Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

Executive Summary

This report provides analyses and recommendations for six grouper species fished in the reef fish fishery in the US Gulf of Mexico and the snapper-grouper fishery in the US South Atlantic. These species include three shallow water groupers: gag (Mycteroperca microlepis), red grouper (Epinephelus morio) and black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci) (found at shallower depths than the other shallow water groupers), and three deep water groupers: snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus), yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus flavolimbatus), and Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus). For these species, US stocks are divided into the US Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic stocks, except for black grouper, which is considered to be one stock across both regions. In both regions, groupers are fished with vertical gear (handline or bandit, also considered as handline) and bottom longline gear, with some caught using rod and reel. Across both regions, the majority of US commercially caught grouper is landed from the Gulf of Mexico, with 3511 metric tons (MT) or 92% coming from the Gulf in 2012, and 296 MT or 8% coming from the South Atlantic region that year. Of the grouper landed commercially in the US, the overwhelming majority (72%) is red grouper from the Gulf, with 2727 MT landed in 2012.

Groupers have a low resiliency to fishing pressure, with all the species assessed in this report (except gag) listed on International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)’s list of threatened species: Warsaw grouper (critically endangered) yellowedge grouper (vulnerable), snowy grouper (vulnerable), black grouper (near threatened) and red grouper (near threatened). The species addressed here are long lived, having maximum ages between 29 (red grouper) and 85 (yellowedge grouper) years. Stock assessments, regularly conducted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) for their respective stocks, in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as part of the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process, indicate that some of these species are overfished (snowy grouper in the South Atlantic and possibly gag in the Gulf of Mexico) and/or experiencing overfishing (Warsaw grouper in the South Atlantic). Several species are in the midst of rebuilding plans as part of their management (red and snowy groupers in the South Atlantic). Red grouper in the Gulf of Mexico is the one species that has been successfully rebuilt in either region. Warsaw grouper harvest or possession is banned in the South Atlantic.

Retained and bycatch species analyzed in this assessment were selected based on the number caught in either regional fishery status or their conservation status (endangered, threatened, overfished, etc.). Gears used for grouper fishing target a range of snapper and grouper species, and also catch other species, resulting in large amounts of regulatory discards (groupers and snapper that are undersized, during a closed season or overages for a given quota) as well as incidental catch. Species retained or caught as bycatch include Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), blacknose shark (Carcharhinus acronotus) blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps), dusky smoothhound (smooth dogfish) (Mustelus canis), giant snake eel (Ophichthus rex), golden tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps), gray triggerfish (Balistes capriscus), greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili), red porgy (Pagrus pagrus), red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), scamp (Mycteroperca

phenax), speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi), vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens) and yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus). Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), an endangered sea turtle species, was caught in unacceptable numbers on Gulf of Mexico bottom longline gear, but this has been remedied by reducing the amount of longline gear deployed in this region and is monitored by fisheries observers. A body of research exists on discard mortality for grouper species, and there are management measures required in the fishery to reduce mortality, including use of circle hooks, dehooking devices and venting tools.

The assessed grouper species are increasingly subject to more stringent management, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico where their catch is regulated by a real time Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) system, with the majority of grouper landed (red grouper from the Gulf) commercially in the US ranking as a Sea Food Watch (SFW) “good alternative.” All South Atlantic species ranked as "avoid" except for gag, red and black groupers caught with handlines, which rank as "good alternative." In the Gulf of Mexico, all species rank as “avoid” except gag, black and red groupers caught by handline or longline, which rank as "good alternative." All assessed fisheries have "high impacts" on non-target species as well as "moderately effective" management strategies, but the Gulf has a better management score than the South Atlantic due to ongoing observer programs in the Gulf, which are non-existent in the South Atlantic. Over both regions, ecosystem impacts to fish habitat are "low" for handline fisheries due to lack of or minimal gear contact with the seafloor and are "moderate" for bottom longline fisheries which may or may not contact the seafloor. Factoring into the overall ecosystem impacts score, ecosystem based management is of "low concern" in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic due to the establishment of several fishing restricted areas.

Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations

Stock / Fishery Impacts on Impacts on Management Habitat and Overall the Stock other Spp. Ecosystem Recommendation Red grouper Green (3.83) Red (0.95) Yellow (3.00) Green (4.12) Good Alternative United States Gulf of Mexico (2.590) - Handline Red grouper Green (3.83) Red (0.95) Yellow (2.45) Green (4.12) Good Alternative United States South Atlantic (2.462) - Handline Red grouper Green (3.83) Red (0.75) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.16) Good Alternative United States Gulf of Mexico (2.285) - Longline, Bottom Gag grouper Yellow Red (0.95) Yellow (3.00) Green (4.12) Good Alternative United States Gulf of Mexico (3.318) (2.502) - Handline Gag grouper Green (3.83) Red (0.95) Yellow (2.45) Green (4.12) Good Alternative United States South Atlantic (2.462) - Handline

Gag grouper Yellow Red (0.75) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.16) Good Alternative United States Gulf of Mexico (3.318) (2.204) - Longline, Bottom Yellowedge grouper Red (2.16) Red (0.95) Yellow (2.45) Green (4.12) Avoid (2.133) United States South Atlantic - Handline Yellowedge grouper Yellow Red (0.75) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.16) Avoid (2.083) United States Gulf of Mexico (2.64) - Longline, Bottom Yellowedge grouper Red (2.16) Red (0.75) Yellow (2.45) Yellow (3.16) Avoid (1.882) United States South Atlantic - Longline, Bottom Black grouper Green (4.47) Red (2.05) Yellow (3.00) Green (4.12) Good Alternative United States Gulf of Mexico (3.264) - Handline Black grouper Green (4.47) Red (2.12) Yellow (2.45) Green (4.12) Good Alternative United States South Atlantic (3.129) - Handline Black grouper Green (4.47) Red (1.06) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.16) Good Alternative United States Gulf of Mexico (2.590) - Longline, Bottom Snowy grouper Red (2.16) Red (0.95) Yellow (3.00) Green (4.12) Avoid (2.244) United States Gulf of Mexico - Handline Snowy grouper Red (2.16) Red (0.95) Yellow (2.45) Green (4.12) Avoid (2.133) United States South Atlantic - Handline Snowy grouper Red (2.16) Red (0.75) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.16) Avoid (1.980) United States Gulf of Mexico - Longline, Bottom Snowy grouper Red (2.16) Red (0.75) Yellow (2.45) Yellow (3.16) Avoid (1.882) United States South Atlantic - Longline, Bottom Warsaw grouper Red (1.00) Red (2.05) Yellow (3.00) Green (4.12) Avoid (2.244) United States Gulf of Mexico - Handline Warsaw grouper Red (1.00) Red (1.06) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.16) Avoid (1.781) United States Gulf of Mexico - Longline, Bottom

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

 Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores

 Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical scores, and does not meet the criteria for Best Choice (above)

 Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern, or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

2 Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

This report addresses US handline and longline fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic for six grouper species. The species covered are: red grouper (Epinephelus morio), gag (Mycteroperca microlepis), black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci), yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus flavolimbatus), snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus) and Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus).

Overview of the species and management bodies

The groupers covered within this report are generally long lived, large bodied, protogynous (individuals function first as females then some portion of the population transforms into males), and reach sexual maturity between three and nine years of age (Fitzhugh et al. 2006b) (Parker & Mays 1998) (SAFMC 2012). The maximum age of these groupers range from 29 years for red grouper (Lombardi-Carlson et al. 2008) to 85 years for yellowedge grouper (Cook et al. 2009). They range in maximum size from 18.6 kg for yellowedge grouper to 263 kg for Warsaw grouper. Though fecundity is unknown for most grouper species, studies have shown some species are prolific spawners, producing over one million eggs per spawn (SEDAR 2013d) (Sedberry et al. 2006) (Wyanski et al. 2000) (SEDAR 2006) (SEDAR 2010a) (SEDAR 2011). However, many grouper species have a slow population doubling time, ranging from 4.5-14 years (SEDAR 2013d) (Sedberry et al. 2006) (Wyanski et al. 2000) (SEDAR 2006)(SEDAR 2010a) (SEDAR 2011). Furthermore, many grouper species are relatively sedentary, making seasonal migrations to specific spawning sites where they form spawning aggregations, significantly increasing their susceptibility to fishing pressure. Grouper species vary in their spawning periods (SEDAR 2013d) (Sedberry et al. 2006) (Wyanski et al. 2000) (SEDAR 2006) (SEDAR 2010a) (SEDAR 2011). Of the groupers covered in this Seafood Watch report, black grouper are generally found from 10 to 20 meters, red and gag from 20 to 50 meters, Warsaw from 70 to 110 meters, snowy and yellowedge from 100 to 200 meters (SAFMC 2012). Additional information for the assessed grouper species can be found in the following summary table:

Table 1: Grouper species life history information.

Species Home Spawning Peak Mean Maximum Maximum Maximum Age at Size at range or period spawning depth age length weight maturity maturity migration period caught (cm) (kg) (cm)

Gag Large Jan - May Mar - April 20-50 26 145 37 2-3 62

Red Small Feb - June April 30-45 25 125 23 3-5 49-59

Black Small Jan - April Feb - April 10-20 33 152 unknown 5 83

Snowy Unknown Jan - Oct May - Aug 100-200 40 122 30 5 54

Warsaw Unknown May May 70-110 41 230 263 unknown unknown

Yellowedge Unknown Feb - Nov Mar - Sept 100-200 85 114 19 9 57

In the Gulf of Mexico, the six groupers covered in this report are managed under the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) along with 25 other species (other groupers, snappers, tilefishes, jacks, a wrasse and a trigger fish) managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). Whereas in the South Atlantic, they are managed under the Snapper-Grouper FMP along with 54 other species with a wider variety of life history traits (other groupers, snappers, tilefishes, jacks, triggerfish, sea basses, porgies, grunts and a wrasse) managed by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). Gulf of Mexico black grouper is now managed as a combined Gulf of Mexico/South Atlantic stock under the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish and Snapper-Grouper FMP (NMFS 2013).

Under Amendment 29 to the Reef Fish FMP (as of 1/1/2010), the GMFMC manages Gulf grouper and tilefish under an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program with 5 shared categories with strict reporting requirements (gag grouper, red grouper, other shallow water groupers, deep water groupers and tilefish). The total quota for each species is determined by annual catch limits allocated between commercial and recreational fisherman. Black grouper is included in the "other shallow water grouper" category, and snowy, yellowedge and Warsaw are included in the "deep water grouper" category. Other management measures for the Gulf reef fish fishery include gear and fishing location restrictions to reduce bycatch, minimum size limits to protect immature fish and commercial and recreational area closures to protect spawning groupers.

The SAFMC manages the snapper-grouper complex via a limited access fishery including transferable and non-transferable permits with overall species quotas determined by annual catch limits. Other management measures for the snapper-grouper fishery include minimum size limits to prevent harvest of immature fish, gear restrictions to reduce bycatch and protect habitat, seasonal closures to protect shallow water grouper during their spawning season and eight “marine protected areas” closed to fishing or possession of snapper and grouper, to protect the population and habitat of long-lived deep water snapper-grouper species.

Production Statistics

US grouper commercial production is dominated by the Gulf of Mexico, and to a lesser extent the South Atlantic region (See Figures 1-3). In 2011, the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish fishery landed more than nine times the amount of grouper biomass landed in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery, largely due

to the high landings of red grouper in the Gulf. While red grouper, and to a lesser extent yellowedge grouper, are the predominant species caught in the Gulf, gag is the predominant species caught in the South Atlantic. In both regions, catches of shallow water grouper exceed those of deep water species, with deep water grouper catch dominated by snowy grouper in the South Atlantic and yellowedge in the Gulf of Mexico. In both regions, recreational landings of grouper species are high, and in some cases may exceed commercial landings, as is the case with gag grouper landings in the Gulf of Mexico. Seafood Watch (SFW) does not assess the sustainability of recreational fisheries, but does factor recreational fishing into Criteria 1 assessment of fish stocks and their corresponding fishing mortality.

Figure 1: Total South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico grouper catch 1986-2012 (combined catch of gag, black, red, Warsaw, snowy and yellowedge), from NMFS, Annual Commercial Landing Statistics, downloaded May 2014

Figure 2: Gulf of Mexico grouper catch by species 1986-2012, from NMFS, Annual Commercial Landing Statistics, downloaded May 2014

Figure 3: South Atlantic grouper catch by species 1982-2012, from NMFS, Annual Commercial Landing Statistics, downloaded May 2014

Internationally, grouper production is increasing (see Figure 4). Whether this is a real effect or an effect of an increasing number of countries reporting production to FAO is unknown. We do note that the total US grouper production reported in FAO is lower than reported by NMFS.

Figure 4: Global Grouper Production 1950-2009 (From FAO)

For the species covered in this report, global production information is variable, though all of these species occur in US waters, south through the Caribbean into Brazilian waters. According to the FAO, large red grouper fisheries existed in Brazil and Cuba (with a small fishery in the Dominican Republic), but as of 2005, production of red grouper in these countries fell to zero. FAO reports only US fisheries for gag, black grouper, snowy grouper, Warsaw grouper and yellowedge, but reports much lower tonnage than NMFS reports for most of these species (FAO 2013).

Importance to the US/North American market

The largest importer of grouper to the US is Mexico, with 2011 imports exceeding those from other countries (namely Panama and Costa Rica) by at least a factor of 12 (NMFS 2013d)(See Figures 5 and 6). Also in 2011, grouper imports from Mexico exceeded the combined production of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico for the species covered in this report. While the species composition of the Mexican catch is not reported in NMFS commercial fishery statistics database (nor does FAO list Mexican caught grouper by species), it is higly likely that species caught include those caught by the US in the Gulf of

Mexico (those included in this report), as their range extends through Mexican waters.

Figure 5: Total grouper imports to the US from 1991 to 2012. Downloaded in April 2013 from NMFS Foreign Trade database

Figure 6: Grouper imports to the US from the top 10 grouper exporting countries (Mexico, Panama, Brazil, Columbia, India, Ecuador, Indonesia, Nicaragua, China, Costa Rica) from 1991 to 2012. Downloaded in April 2013 from NMFS Foreign Trade database

Common and market names Mycteroperca microlepis (gag grouper): market names are gag, grouper; vernacular names are velvet rockfish, small-scaled rockfish, charcoal belly Epinephelus morio (red grouper): market name is grouper; vernacular name is cherna americana, negre, Mycteroperca bonaci (black grouper): market name is grouper; vernacular names are rockfish, marbled rockfish, runner, springer, blackfin grouper Hyporthodus flavolimbatus (yellowedge grouper): market name is grouper; vernacular name is yellowfinned grouper Epinephelus niveatus (snowy grouper): market name is grouper; vernacular name is spotted grouper, snowflake Epinephelus nigritus (Warsaw grouper): market name is grouper; vernacular names are black jewfish, black grouper (FDA 2012)

Primary product forms

Grouper are sold both as whole fish and fillets in fresh and frozen forms.

Assessment

This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries, available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under Assessment This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored when abundance is unknown. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

 Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern  Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern  Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.

Criterion 1 Summary

BLACK GROUPER Region / Method Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality United States Gulf of Mexico 1.00:High 4.00:Low 5.00:Very Low Green (4.472) Handline Concern Concern United States Gulf of Mexico 1.00:High 4.00:Low 5.00:Very Low Green (4.472) Longline, Bottom Concern Concern United States South Atlantic 1.00:High 4.00:Low 5.00:Very Low Green (4.472) Handline Concern Concern

GAG GROUPER Region / Method Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality United States Gulf of Mexico 1.00:High 3.00:Moderate 3.67:Low Yellow (3.318) Handline Concern Concern United States Gulf of Mexico 1.00:High 3.00:Moderate 3.67:Low Yellow (3.318) Longline, Bottom Concern Concern United States South Atlantic 1.00:High 4.00:Low 3.67:Low Green (3.831) Handline Concern Concern

RED GROUPER Region / Method Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality United States Gulf of Mexico 1.00:High 4.00:Low 3.67:Low Green (3.831) Handline Concern Concern United States Gulf of Mexico 1.00:High 4.00:Low 3.67:Low Green (3.831) Longline, Bottom Concern Concern United States South Atlantic 1.00:High 4.00:Low 3.67:Low Green (3.831) Handline Concern Concern

SNOWY GROUPER Region / Method Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality United States Gulf of Mexico 1.00:High 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Handline Concern Concern United States Gulf of Mexico 1.00:High 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Longline, Bottom Concern Concern United States South Atlantic 1.00:High 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Handline Concern Concern United States South Atlantic 1.00:High 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Longline, Bottom Concern Concern

WARSAW GROUPER Region / Method Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality United States Gulf of Mexico 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Red (1.000) Handline Concern Concern United States Gulf of Mexico 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Red (1.000) Longline, Bottom Concern Concern

YELLOWEDGE GROUPER Region / Method Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality United States Gulf of Mexico 1.00:High 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow (2.644) Longline, Bottom Concern Concern United States South Atlantic 1.00:High 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Handline Concern Concern United States South Atlantic 1.00:High 2.00:High 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Longline, Bottom Concern Concern

Criterion 1 Assessment

Factor 1.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring guidelines

 Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing (e.g., early maturing (<5 years), short lived (< 10 years), small maximum size, and low on food chain).  Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain).  High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing (e.g., long lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top predator).

Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.

Factor 1.2 — Abundance

Scoring guidelines

 5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY)) or near virgin biomass.  4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished.  3 (Moderate Concern)—Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing.  2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.  1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring guidelines

 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, (FMSY)), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).  3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect

species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).  2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place.  1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.  0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing.

BLACK GROUPER

Factor 1.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States GULF OF MEXICO, Handline

United States GULF OF MEXICO, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Handline

1.00 High

The FishBase Inherent Vulnerability score for black grouper is 63 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005), corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Black grouper is a slow growing, large bodied predatory species, known to live over 30 years. It is a "protogynous hermaphrodite" (shifting from male to female) (SAFMC 2012).

Factor 1.2 — Abundance

United States GULF OF MEXICO, Handline

United States GULF OF MEXICO, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Handline

4.00 Low Concern

According to the 2010 stock assessment (which factored in the effects of commerical and recreational fishing on the stock), black grouper is not considered overfished in the South Atlantic and/or the Gulf of

Mexico. This assessment uses a biomass proxy of SSB2008/SSBF30%SPR = 1.40 (SSB = spawning stock biomass) (SEDAR 2010a) for its model (see Figure 7). There is an update stock assessment for the Florida Gulf and Atlantic stocks scheduled for 2014, but no larger regional assessments are currently scheduled

(SEDAR 2013). Although IUCN lists black grouper as "near threatened" (Ferreira et al. 2008), SFW scores this species as "low concern" because the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico stock assessment (which is more recent) found that it is not overfished.

Rationale:

Figure 7: Proxies for B/BMSY and F/FMSY for the black grouper stock (South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico) through 2008 based on model results presented in the 2010 stock assessment (SEDAR 19).

Black grouper in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are now considered one stock, though they will be managed regionally (with each region having its own catch levels under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) in the South Atlantic and the Reef Fish FMP in the Gulf of Mexico). The US black grouper stock occurs primarily in the Florida Keys (the northern portion of their range) (SEDAR 2010a), with a large portion of the US population protected by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s Tortugas Ecological Reserves and Dry Tortugas National Park’s Research Natural Area.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

United States GULF OF MEXICO, Handline

United States GULF OF MEXICO, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Handline

5.00 Very Low Concern

According to the 2010 stock assessment and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) current stock status information, black grouper in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico is not currently experiencing overfishing (SEDAR 2010a). This determination is based on the most recent stock assessment (2010) which factored in the effects of both commercial and recreational fishing on the stock. The stock assessment found an exploitation status (Fcurrent/MFMT) (MFMT = Maximum Fishing

Mortality Threshold) of 0.50. Because maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is unknown, F30%SPR (F = fishing mortality, SPR = spawning potential ratio) was used as a proxy for MFMT (or FMSY) in the assessment model (see Figure 8) (SEDAR 2010a).

The majority of black grouper's fishing mortality occurs in South Florida, particularly in the Florida Keys (SEDAR 2010a) where a large portion of the stock is protected by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s Tortugas Ecological Reserves and Dry Tortugas National Park’s Research Natural Area.

Data from the 2010 stock assessment show that black grouper's fishing mortality is dominated by the recreational fishery, with commerical handline and longline fisheries responsible for only 9% of the total fishing mortality on this species in 2008 (see Figure 8) (SEDAR 2010a). We note that the stock assessment accounted for historical errors in catch data from the 1980s and 1990s, when gag was often landed as black grouper.

Black grouper fishing mortality scores as "very low concern" because the proxy is below the reference point and because a large proportion of its habitat is protected from fishing.

Rationale

Figure 8: Black Grouper fishing mortality. This figure is taken from the 2010 SEDAR stock assessment.

GAG GROUPER

Factor 1.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Handline

1.00 High

The FishBase inherent vulnerability score for gag grouper is 68 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005), corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Gag is a slow growing, large bodied "protogynous hermaphrodite" species (shifting from females to males at approximately 11 years of age) and lives up to 30 years. It forms spawning aggregations, with females spawning multiple times per year, releasing 60,000 and 1.7 million eggs per spawn. (NMFS 2014a)

Factor 1.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

3.00 Moderate Concern

United States South Atlantic, Handline

4.00 Low Concern

The last stock assessment for gag grouper in the South Atlantic region was conducted in 2006 and updated in 2014. The 2014 update includes data through 2012. Abundance of gag grouper declined until the mid-1980's and has since been relatively stable, fluctuating around the minimum standing stock threshold (MSST) reference point, with an upturn in abundance in recent years. The assessment indicates that it is highly likely that the 2012 spawning stock biomass (the amount of fish capable of reproducing) is above MSST, indicating the population is not depleted/overfished. Spawning stock biomass is estimated to be near the target level, the biomass at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY), but it is uncertain if it is above the target level. Spawning stock biomass is expected to decline after 2012, due to poor recruitment (amount of new fish entering the fishery) during 2010 and 2011 {SEDAR 2014b}. Since it is uncertain if abundance is above the target level and abundance is expected to decline, we have awarded a low concern score.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

3.67 Low Concern

In the Gulf of Mexico, recreational fishing is responsible for the majority of gag fishing mortality (GMFMC 2011b). According to NMFS 2014 1st Quarter Status of US Fisheries report, gag grouper in the Gulf of Mexico is experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2013) and has been since the 2009 update stock assessment that indicated a fishing mortality ratio, FCURRENT/MFMT (F/FMSY proxy) of 2.47 (SEDAR 2012).

However, according to the 2014 SEDAR assessment (completed prior to the release of 2014 1st Quarter status update), the Gulf of Mexico gag stock is no longer experiencing overfishing (see Figure 10), with a

FCURRENT /MFMT (2010-2012) of 0.77 for the preferred population model and a FCURRENT /MFMT of 0.32 for the alternative model (SEDAR 2014). This change in status is attributed to the rebuilding plan's lowered gag quotas (begun in 2009) and the commercial and recreational IFQ system (begun in 2010). Due to information in the new stock assessment that indicates an end to overfishing, fishing mortality scores as

"low concern."

Rationale

Figure 10: Predicted fishing mortality rate and associated 95% asymptotic intervals. Horizontal lines represent

FSPR30% (orange line) and FMSY (red line) benchmarks for SSB-combined (the preferred stock assessment model). Taken from SEDAR 33: Gulf of Mexico Gag 2014 stock assessment.

Due to overfishing, NMFS reduced the 2009 gag quota by 41%. This reduction was insufficient to end overfishing, so in 2011 interim measures were set which further reduced the commercial quota and reduced the recreational gag season (GMFMC 2011b). Also in 2011, Amendment 32 to the Reef Fish FMP was approved. Effective in 2012, Amendment 32 implemented a 10 year rebuilding plan for gag, reduced the gag size limit to lower the amount of regulatory discard mortality, adjusted the commercial gag and shallow-water grouper quota to account for incidental dead gag discards when fishing for other shallow water groupers, set recreational bag limits and closed seasons, adjusted multi-use IFQ shares in the grouper Individual Fishing Quota program and set other management measures (GMFMC 2011a).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

3.67 Low Concern

The 2014 stock assessment for South Atlantic gag grouper indicated that the average fishing mortality for the years 2010-2012 exceeded the target level of fishing at maximum sustainable yield (F/FMSY = 1.23), indicating that overfishing was occurring (SEDAR 2014b). However, The South Atlantic Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) noted that the fishing mortality rate for 2012, and the projected fishing mortality rate in 2013 based on the actual landings, suggested that overfishing did not occur in 2012 and 2013. Additionally, following the 2014 assessment managers took action to revise the annual catch limit for gag grouper for the 2015-2019 fishing years to ensure that overfishing does not occur in the future (80 FR 31880). NOAA Fisheries currently considers gag grouper in the South Atlantic to no longer be experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2015), but a new assessment has yet to be completed. Gag grouper are commonly targeted by commercial fishers using vertical lines, as well as by divers, and by headboat and private recreational fishers using vertical lines. 380,252 lbs of gag grouper were caught in the commercial fishery and 177,606 lbs were caught in the recreational fishery in the South Atlantic in 2014 (NMFS 2015a) (NMFS 2015b). Due to recent suggestion that overfishing on South Atlantic gag grouper is no longer occurring, we have rated this factor a "low concern".

RED GROUPER

Factor 1.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Handline

1.00 High

The FishBase Inherent Vulnerability score for red grouper is 63 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005), corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Red grouper is a slow growing, large bodied top predator species that lives up to 29 years, reaching maturity between four and six years of age. It is "protogynous hermaphrodite", shifting from female to male between the ages of seven and 15. Red grouper spawn frequently throughout their reproductive season, which is estimated at almost 26 times per year. (NMFS 2014b)

Factor 1.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

4.00 Low Concern

Red grouper is listed as "near threatened" by IUCN. (Garcia-Moliner & Eklund 2004)(Froese and Pauly 2000).

The 2009 Gulf of Mexico red grouper update stock assessment (based on commercial and recreational impacts to the stock) indicated that its stock had declined from 2005 levels, although the stock was not overfished. This decline was attributed to a 2005 episodic mortality event (most likely due to red tide) resulting in approximately 20% mortality, in addition to normal, natural and fishing mortalities (GMFMC 2011). According to the 2009 assessment, the ratio of spawning stock biomass to the spawning stock biomass at MSY (SSB/SSBMSY) was 1.28, indicating that the stock was not overfished, and is slightly below the level needed to produce optimum yield in the fishery (SEDAR 2009).

Previously, NMFS declared Gulf of Mexico red grouper overfished in a 1999 stock assessment (as of 1997) and again in the 2002 assessment. Due to this, NMFS implemented a Gulf of Mexico red grouper rebuilding plan in 2004, reducing landings by 9.4% (GMFMC 2008). A benchmark stock assessment is scheduled for Gulf of Mexico red grouper in 2014 (SEDAR 2013).

Although red grouper is not overfished in the Gulf of Mexico, its stock status scores as "low concern" rather than "very low concern" due to the age of the stock assessment.

United States South Atlantic, Handline

4.00 Low Concern

Red grouper is listed as "near threatened" by IUCN. (Garcia-Moliner & Eklund 2004)(Froese and Pauly 2000).

According to the NMFS 4th Quarter 2013 Status of US Fisheries report, red grouper is not overfished

(but is rebuidling, and in the 2nd year of a 10 year plan) in the South Atlantic with a B/BMSY proxy = 0.79. The most recent South Atlantic red grouper stock assessment (2010) is out of date, describing the stock as overfished (SEDAR 2010). Red grouper's South Altantic stock status scores as "low concern" because the stock is not considered overfished, but an up-to-date stock assessment is lacking. To remedy the overfished state, the NMFS specified a species specific ACL for red grouper (previously there was a joint ACL for gag, red grouper and black grouper). A red grouper rebuilding plan was issued (SAFMC 2011) and finalized in June 2012 via Amendment 24 to the FMP for the South Atlantic snapper- grouper fishery (77 FR 34254). NMFS states that this plan has an 81 percent probability of rebuilding the stock in 10years (NMFS-SERO 2012).

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

United States South Atlantic, Handline

3.67 Low Concern

According to the 4th quarter NMFS Status of US Fisheries report, red grouper in the South Atlantic is in the second year of a 10 year rebuidling plan and is not experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2013). The most recent South Atlantic red grouper stock assessment (completed in 2010 and based on both commercial and recreational fishing data up to and including 2008) is out of date, and found the stock to be experiencing overfishing (F/FMSY = 1.35) (see Figure 11) (SEDAR 2010)(SAFMC 2011). Fishing mortality scores as "low concern" because the stock is not currently experiencing overfishing and the stock assessment is out of date.

Rationale

Figure 11: The overfishing ratio for red grouper from 1976 to 2008 for the South Atlantic. The stock is undergoing overfishing when the F/FMSY is greater than one (SAFMC 2011).

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

3.67 Low Concern

The 2009 Gulf of Mexico red grouper update stock assessment (based on commercial and recreational fishing impacts to the stock) indicated that its stock had declined from 2005 levels, although the stock was neither overfished or undergoing overfishing. This decline was attributed to a 2005 episodic mortality event resulting in approximately 20% mortality, in addition to normal, natural, and fishing mortalities (GMFMC 2011). According to the 2009 assessment, overfishing was not occurring

(Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.80) (SEDAR 2009). A benchmark Gulf of Mexico red grouper stock assessment is scheduled for 2014 (SEDAR 2013). According to the 2009 assessment, the breakdown of fishing mortality by gear type in 2008 was: commercial handline 0.052; commercial longline 0.097; and recreational 0.033 (SEDAR 2009).

For 2014, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) eliminated seasonal closures for all shallow water groupers (except for gag) in Florida Gulf state waters. The GMFMC likewise eliminated the closed season within 20 fathoms. Red grouper do not migrate to spawn like other species in this management group and show a weak trend of increasing size with depth; thus this management action may likely result in increased fishing mortality from the recreational sector, which tends to fish shallower compared to the commercial sector (R. Ellis, pers. comm. 2014). Due to uncertainties created by this new legislation, red grouper fishing mortality for the Gulf of Mexico scores as "low concern" rather than "very low concern."

Rationale: Previously, NMFS declared Gulf of Mexico red grouper overfished and experiencing overfishing in a 1999 stock assessment (as of 1997) and again in the 2002 assessment. Due to this, NMFS implemented a Gulf of Mexico red grouper rebuilding plan in 2004 (now completed), reducing landings by 9.4% (GMFMC 2008).

SNOWY GROUPER

Factor 1.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High

The FishBase inherent vulnerability score for snowy grouper is 64 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005), corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Snowy grouper is a slow growing, long-lived species, with a maximum recorded age of 40 years. It is a "protogynous hermaphrodite" (shifting from female to male). Information on fecundity of this species is lacking. (SAFMC 2012)

Factor 1.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 High Concern

Snowy grouper is listed as "vulnerable" by IUCN (Thierry et al. 2008)(Froese and Pauly 2000).

According to NMFS, it is unknown if snowy grouper in the Gulf of Mexico are overfished or experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2013). There has been no Gulf of Mexico stock assessment for this species.

Due to its IUCN status and its unknown overfished status, snowy grouper's stock status scores as "high concern."

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 High Concern

Snowy grouper is listed as "vulnerable" by IUCN (Thierry et al. 2008) (Froese and Pauly 2000).

According to the 2013 stock assessment (based on commercial and recreational fishery impacts), snowy grouper is overfished with an SSB below SSB at MSY (SSB2012/SSBMSY = 0.49) (SEDAR 2013d) (see Figures 12 and 13). The fishery is in its eigth year of a 34 year rebuilding plan (NMFS 2013).

Due to its overfished status, snowy grouper's stock status in the South Atlantic scores as "high concern."

Rationale

Figure 12: Top panel: Estimated total biomass (metric tons) of snowy grouper in the South Atlantic at the start of each year. Horizontal dashed line indicates BMSY. Bottom panel: Estimated spawning stock (population fecundity) at time of peak spawning. Figure is from the 2013 SEDAR 36 stock assessment.

Figure 13: Estimated time series for the South Atlantic snowy grouper stock relative to benchmarks. Solid line indicates estimates from the stock assessment model base run (Beaufort Assessment Model); dashed lines represent median values; gray error bands indicate 5th and 95th percentiles. Top panel: spawning biomass relative to the minimum stock size threshold (MSST). Bottom panel: spawning biomass relative to SSBMSY.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.33 Moderate Concern

According to NMFS, it is unknown if snowy grouper in the Gulf of Mexico is overfished or experiencing overfishing (NMFS 2013). There has been no Gulf of Mexico stock assessment for this species. Snowy grouper in the Gulf of Mexico are primarily fished using longlines and rod & reel. Of the 65.7 MT landed commercially in 2011, 38.2 MT were landed by longline and 14.1 MT were landed by rod and reel. Starting in 2010, snowy grouper in the Gulf of Mexico has been managed under the deep water grouper IFQ program. In 2010, snowy grouper landings represented 21.3% of all deep water grouper landed (59.4% of the total 2010 deep water grouper quota was met), and in 2011, it represented 18.6% of all deep water grouper landed (76.3% of the total deep water grouper quota was met) (GMFMC 2013a) (NMFS 2013b).

Due to its unknown overfishing status and unknown effects of management strategies and regulations on this species, snowy grouper's fishing mortality in the Gulf of Mexico scores as "moderate concern."

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.33 Moderate Concern

According to the 2013 stock assessment (based on commercial and recreational fishing impacts), snowy grouper in the South Atlantic is no longer experiencing overfishing, with current fishing mortality (F2010-

2012) below fishing mortality at MSY (FMSY) (F2010–2012/FMSY = 0.59) (SEDAR 2013d) (see Figure X9). There is significant uncertainty around this estimate; 76% of the model results support the ‘not overfishing’ determination (SEDAR 2013d). The assessment states that the estimated fishing rate exceeded the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) (represented by FMSY) in 2012 (when the recreational fleet exceeded its quota), but because the assessment is based on a three year geometric mean rather than the most recent year of data, the stock is considered not overfished (SEDAR 2013d). Based on the stock fluctuating below and above FMSY, fishing mortality scores as "moderate concern."

Rationale

Figure 14: Estimated fishing mortality (F) relative to fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) for the South Atlantic snowy grouper stock relative to benchmarks. Solid line indicates estimates from the stock assessment base model run (Beaufort Assessment Model); dashed lines represent median values; gray error bands indicate 5th and 95th percentiles.

WARSAW GROUPER

Factor 1.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High

The FishBase inherent vulnerability score for Warsaw grouper is 68 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005), corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Warsaw grouper is a slow growing, very large-bodied species, reaching the highest maximum age (41 years) and largest size of any of the groupers covered in this report (230 cm, 263 kg). Fecundity of this species is unknown. (SAFMC 2012)

Factor 1.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

1.00 Very High Concern

Warsaw grouper has been listed by IUCN as "critically endangered" since 2006 (IUCN 2006). Warsaw grouper has been on the candidate list for Endangered Species Act Listing since 1999 (64 FR 33466) and NMFS placed it on the Species of Concern list in 2004 due to potential population decline and threats from fishing and bycatch (69 FR 19975). In 2010, a petition to list Warsaw grouper under Endangered Species Act (ESA) was denied (69 FR 59690) with the rationale that the "Warsaw grouper has always been too uncommonly captured in fisheries for data on landings or weight of fish landed to be a reliable indicator of population status and trends."

Warsaw grouper's overfished status in the Gulf of Mexico is unknown because no stock assessments have been conducted (NMFS 2013).

Due to to its IUCN status and its unknown overfished status, Warsaw grouper's stock status in the Gulf of Mexico scores as "very high concern."

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High Concern

NMFS listed Warsaw grouper's overfishing status in the Gulf of Mexico as unknown, the stock has not been assessed (NMFS 2013).

Starting in 2010, Warsaw grouper in the Gulf of Mexico has been managed under the deep water grouper IFQ program. Due to flexibility measures built into the IFQ program, Warsaw grouper (and speckled hind) can be landed under the shallow water grouper IFQ once a fisherman's deep water IFQ allocation has been reached (NMFS 2013a). In 2010, Warsaw grouper landings represented 9.8% of all deep water grouper landed (59.4% of the total 2010 deep water grouper quota was met) and, in 2011, it represented 5.8% of all deep water grouper landed (76.3% of the total deep water grouper quota was met) (NMFS 2013a)(NMFS 2013b). We note that of the deepwater groupers, Warsaw grouper is in least demand (GMFMC 2012) so is likely not as highly targeted as other species.

According to the Federal Register notice rejecting ESA listing for this species, management actions have

significantly reduced landings for Warsaw grouper in the Gulf of Mexico (69 FR 59690). In the IFQ program's first year (2010), landings for this species reached a low point, and have increased in subsequent years (2010: 28.6 MT, 2011: 33.7 MT 2012: 47.5 MT)(NMFS 2014d). Although fishing effort is managed, SFW rates fishing mortality for Warsaw grouper as "high concern" because this species is listed as "critically endangered" by IUCN, fishing mortality is unknown, and it is unknown if management to curtail overfishing is effective.

YELLOWEDGE GROUPER

Factor 1.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High

The FishBase inherent vulnerability score for yellowedge grouper is 66 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005), corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Yellowedge grouper is a slow-growing long-lived species (with maximum age recorded at 85 years). It is a "protogynous hermaphrodite" (shifting from female to male). Information on fecundity is lacking for this species. (SAFMC 2012)

Factor 1.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

3.00 Moderate Concern

Yellowedge grouper is listed as "vulnerable" by IUCN (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Ferreira & Peres 2008).

Stock assessments for Gulf of Mexico yellowedge grouper were carried out in 2002 (determined inconclusive) and in 2011. The 2011 assessment (based on commercial and recreational impacts to the stock) concluded that the stock was not overfished. According to the stock assessment, the most realistic range estimate for B/BMSY (using a SPR of 30% as a proxy for MSY and based on spawning stock biomass in 2009 relative to the minimum stock size threshold) was 0.96 to 1.36 (SEDAR 2011).

There were high degrees of uncertainty among the numerous model outputs in the stock assessment, with results indicating that the stock could be close to overfished (SEDAR 2011). For the preferred outcome (which resulted in the stock not being overfished), the stock assessment modeled biomass

with the less conservative SPR30% as a proxy for MSY rather than the more conservative SPR40%. Choosing

SPR40% would have led to an "overfished" determination. Due to the very high vulnerability of this species to fishing mortality, SPR40% may have been a more appropriate MSY proxy. Independent reviews of the stock assessment discussed the choice of SPR percentage as a management decision, such that setting SPR at the more conservative 40% assumes a lower biological risk that the stock will be overfished (Cook 2011)(Medley 2011)(Sparholt 2011).

The next stock assessment is tentatively scheduled for 2015 (SEDAR 2013).

Yellowedge grouper's stock status in the Gulf of Mexico scores as "moderate concern" rather than "low" or "very low concern" because of uncertainties over the overfished status and the use of the less conservative SPR30% as an MSY proxy in the stock assessment.

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 High Concern

Yellowedge grouper is listed as "vulnerable" by IUCN (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Ferreira & Peres 2008).According to the NMFS 4th Quarter Status of US Fisheries Report, the South Atlantic yellowedge grouper stock's overfished status is unknown (NMFS 2013).

The last stock assessment that included yellowedge grouper (SEDAR 4) is out of date, and was completed in 2004 based on data through 2002. It used a static SPR value of 48% based on age data from the Gulf of Mexico population and size-based reproductive data from the South Atlantic (SEDAR 2004). There are no plans to conduct future stock assessments of yellowedge grouper in the South Atlantic region (SEDAR 2013).

Due to yellowedge grouper's IUCN status and an ”unknown” overfished status, stock status scores as "high concern."

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.33 Moderate Concern

the most realistic range estimate for F/FMSY (using a SPR of 30% as a proxy for MSY based on the average fishing mortality between 2007 and 2009 relative to the MFMT) was 0.78 to 1.30. (SEDAR 2011)

However, there were high degrees of uncertainty among the numerous model outputs, with results indicating that the stock could be experiencing overfishing (SEDAR 2011). For the preferred outcome (which resulted in overfishing not occurring), the stock assessment modeled fishing mortality with both the less conservative SPR30% as a proxy for MSY rather than the more conservative SPR40%. Choosing

SPR40% would have led to an “overfishing” determination. Due to the high vulnerability of this species to fishing mortality, SPR40% may have been a more appropriate MSY proxy. Independent reviews of the stock assessment discussed the choice of SPR percentage as a management decision, such that setting SPR at the more conservative 40% assumes a lower biological risk for overfishing the stock (Cook 2011)(Medley 2011)(Sparholt 2011).

The next stock assessment is tentatively scheduled for 2015 (SEDAR 2013).

Due to uncertainty in the F/FMSY estimation and the choice of SPR30% rather than SPR40% as an MSY proxy, fishing mortality scores as "moderate concern" rather than "low concern" or "very low concern." As of 2010, commercial (but not recreational) fishing mortality to the yellowedge grouper stock is managed under a multi-species deepwater grouper IFQ program which currently also includes Warsaw, snowy and speckled hind (GMFMC 2012). Recreational mortality to the yellowedge grouper stock is considered to be low (SEDAR 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.33 Moderate Concern

According to NMFS, the yellowedge grouper stock in the South Atlantic region is not experiencing overfishing but F is unestimated (NMFS 2013). The last stock assessment that included yellowedge grouper is out of date (SEDAR 4) and was completed in 2004 based on data through 2002 (SEDAR 2004). There are no future plans to assess the South Atlantic stock of this species (SEDAR 2013).

Commercial catches of yellowedge grouper in the South Atlantic region are currently low, with 0.2 MT handline landings and 0.1 MT rod and reel landings in 2011 and no longline landings in 2010 or 2011 (NMFS 2013b) due to Amendment 17B, which prohibited deepwater grouper harvest at depths exceeding 240 ft. (73 m) in order to decrease the fishing mortality of Warsaw grouper and speckled hind. In May 2012, NMFS removed this deepwater prohibition of yellowedge grouper catch. NMFS does not expect much of an increase in yellowedge grouper deep longline catch as a result of this management action (77 FR 27375).

Yellowedge grouper fishing mortality in the South Atlantic scores as "moderate concern" because, although this stock may be depleted (overfished status is unknown), fishing mortality is low.

Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks

All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing.

To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0 to 1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

 Subscore >3.2=Green or Low Concern  Subscore >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern  Subscore <=2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.

Criterion 2 Summary

Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section.

Black Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

Subscore:: 2.159 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 2.051

Species Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality RED PORGY 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern SNOWY GROUPER 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern SCAMP 2.00: Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern GAG GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern GRAY TRIGGERFISH 3.00: Low 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern RED SNAPPER 2.00: Medium 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern

GREATER AMBERJACK 2.00: Medium 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern RED GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern BLACK GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 5.00: Very 4.472 Concern Low Concern VERMILION SNAPPER 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER 1.00: High 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern

Black Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

Subscore:: 1.414 Discard Rate: 0.75 C2 Rate: 1.061

Species Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality BLACKNOSE SHARK 1.00: High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern LOGGERHEAD TURTLE 1.00: High 1.00: Very 2.33: 1.526 High Concern Moderate Concern SPECKLED HIND 1.00: High 1.00: Very 2.33: 1.526 High Concern Moderate Concern DUSKY SMOOTHHOUND (SMOOTH 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 DOGFISH) Concern Moderate Concern GIANT SNAKE EEL 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern SNOWY GROUPER 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern BLUELINE TILEFISH 2.00: Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern YELLOWEDGE GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern GAG GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern RED GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern

BLACK GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 5.00: Very 4.472 Concern Low Concern GOLDEN TILEFISH 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern

Black Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Handline

Subscore:: 2.236 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 2.124

Species Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality GAG GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern GRAY TRIGGERFISH 3.00: Low 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern RED PORGY 1.00: High 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern SCAMP 2.00: Medium 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern BLACK SEA BASS 3.00: Low 4.00: Low 5.0: Very Low 4.472 Concern Concern RED GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern ATLANTIC SHARPNOSE SHARK 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 3.67: Low 4.284 Low Concern Concern BLACK GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 5.00: Very 4.472 Concern Low Concern VERMILION SNAPPER 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low 5.00: Very 4.472 Concern Low Concern YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER 1.00: High 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern

Gag Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

SNOWY GROUPER 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern SCAMP 2.00: Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern GAG GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern GRAY TRIGGERFISH 3.00: Low 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern RED SNAPPER 2.00: Medium 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern GREATER AMBERJACK 2.00: Medium 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern RED GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern VERMILION SNAPPER 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER 1.00: High 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern

Gag Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.75 C2 Rate: 0.750

SNOWY GROUPER 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern BLUELINE TILEFISH 2.00: Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern YELLOWEDGE GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern GAG GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern RED GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern ATLANTIC SHARPNOSE SHARK 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 3.67: Low 4.284 Low Concern Concern GOLDEN TILEFISH 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern

Gag Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Handline

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

Species Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality WARSAW GROUPER 1.00: High 1.00: Very 1.00: High 1.000 High Concern Concern GAG GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern SNOWY GROUPER 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern YELLOWEDGE GROUPER 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern GRAY TRIGGERFISH 3.00: Low 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern RED PORGY 1.00: High 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern SCAMP 2.00: Medium 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern RED GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern ATLANTIC SHARPNOSE SHARK 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 3.67: Low 4.284 Low Concern Concern

BLACK SEA BASS 3.00: Low 4.00: Low 5.00: Very 4.472 Concern Low Concern VERMILION SNAPPER 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low 5.00: Very 4.472 Concern Low Concern YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER 1.00: High 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern

Red Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

Species Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality WARSAW GROUPER 1.00: High 1.00: Very 1.00: High 1.000 High Concern Concern RED PORGY 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern SNOWY GROUPER 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern SCAMP 2.00: Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern GAG GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern GRAY TRIGGERFISH 3.00: Low 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern RED SNAPPER 2.00: Medium 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern GREATER AMBERJACK 2.00: Medium 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern RED GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern VERMILION SNAPPER 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER 1.00: High 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern

Red Rrouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.75 C2 Rate: 0.750

Species Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality WARSAW GROUPER 1.00: High 1.00: Very 1.00: High 1.000 High Concern Concern BLACKNOSE SHARK 1.00: High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern LOGGERHEAD TURTLE 1.00: High 1.00: Very 2.33: 1.526 High Concern Moderate Concern SPECKLED HIND 1.00: High 1.00: Very 2.33: 1.526 High Concern Moderate Concern DUSKY SMOOTHHOUND (SMOOTH 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 DOGFISH) Concern Moderate Concern GIANT SNAKE EEL 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern SNOWY GROUPER 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern BLUELINE TILEFISH 2.00: Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern YELLOWEDGE GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern GAG GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.3182 Moderate Concern Concern RED GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern ATLANTIC SHARPNOSE SHARK 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 3.67: Low 4.284 Low Concern Concern GOLDEN TILEFISH 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern

Red Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Handline

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

Snowy Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

Snowy Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.75 C2 Rate: 0.750

Snowy Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Handline

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

Species Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality WARSAW GROUPER 1.00: High 1.00: Very 1.00: High 1.000 High Concern Concern GAG GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern SNOWY GROUPER 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern YELLOWEDGE GROUPER 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern GRAY TRIGGERFISH 3.00: Low 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern RED PORGY 1.00: High 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern SCAMP 2.00: Medium 3.00: Medium 3.67: Low 3.318 Concern Concern RED GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern ATLANTIC SHARPNOSE SHARK 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 3.67: Low 4.284 Low Concern Concern

Snowy Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.75 C2 Rate: 0.750

Species Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality SPECKLED HIND 1.00: High 1.00: Very 1.00: High 1.000 High Concern Concern WARSAW GROUPER 1.00: High 1.00: Very 1.00: High 1.000 High Concern Concern BLACKNOSE SHARK 1.00: High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern SNOWY GROUPER 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern YELLOWEDGE GROUPER 1.00: High 2.00: High 2.33: 2.159 Concern Moderate Concern BLUELINE TILEFISH 2.00: Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern ATLANTIC SHARPNOSE SHARK 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 3.67: Low 4.284 Low Concern Concern GOLDEN TILEFISH 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern

Warsaw Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

Subscore:: 2.159 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 2.051

SCAMP 2.00: Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.664 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern GAG GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern GRAY TRIGGERFISH 3.00: Low 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern RED SNAPPER 2.00: Medium 2.00: High 3.67: Low 2.709 Concern Concern GREATER AMBERJACK 2.00: Medium 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern RED GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern VERMILION SNAPPER 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER 1.00: High 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern

Warsaw Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

Subscore:: 1.414 Discard Rate: 0.75 C2 Rate: 1.061

BLUELINE TILEFISH 2.00: Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern YELLOWEDGE GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern GAG GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern RED GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern ATLANTIC SHARPNOSE SHARK 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 3.67: Low 4.284 Low Concern Concern GOLDEN TILEFISH 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern

Yellowedge Grouper: United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.75 C2 Rate: 0.750

GAG GROUPER 1.00: High 3.00: 3.67: Low 3.318 Moderate Concern Concern RED GROUPER 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low 3.831 Concern Concern ATLANTIC SHARPNOSE SHARK 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 3.67: Low 4.284 Low Concern Concern GOLDEN TILEFISH 2.00: Medium 5.00: Very 5.00: Very 5.000 Low Concern Low Concern

Yellowedge Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Handline

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.950

Yellowedge Grouper: United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

Subscore:: 1.000 Discard Rate: 0.75 C2 Rate: 0.750

Due to the way observer data are collected (the number of individual fish rather than the weight of bycatch is recorded while catch is recorded by weight), it is not possible to determine bycatch ratios for any of the fisheries under consideration, nor is it possible to quantitatively determine which bycatch species should be included in this section according to the SFW guidelines. However, observer data were used to qualitatively determine bycatch species for each region. Details on observer coverage are provided in the discussion for Criteria 3.2, Bycatch Management. Please note that black grouper in both regions is caught at shallower depths than the other 5 grouper species assessed in this report. The deeper water species, namely Warsaw grouper, are not included as bycatch for black grouper.

Criterion 2 Assessment

ATLANTIC SHARPNOSE SHARK

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Medium

Inherent Vulnerability = 48 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005)

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

5.00 Very Low Concern

According to the 2013 stock assessment, Atlantic sharpnose shark is not overfished. The stock assessment uses a biomass proxy of spawning stock fecundity (SSF) and estimated SSF2011/SSFMSY as ranging from 1.01 to 2.88 (SEDAR 2013c). The assessment reports an 85%–99% probability that the stock is not overfished (SEDAR 2013c).

2.3 - Fishing Mortality

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

3.67 Low Concern

According to the 2013 stock assessment it is not clear if the Atlantic sharpnose shark stock (across the US Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region) is experiencing overfishing with current fishing mortality (F2011) compared to fishing mortality at MSY (FMSY) ranging from F2011/FMSY=0.03 to 0.57 (SEDAR 2013c). The probability of overfishing not occurring in 2011 was >50% in three cases and ranged between 54 and 67% (SEDAR 2013c), justifying the fishing mortality score of "low concern."

Bycatch is a significant source of mortality to Atlantic sharpnose shark, but the species is not overfished and is likely not experiencing overfishing (so current bycatch mortality of this species is considered acceptable). Between July 2006 and December 2009, reef fish observers covering 1,503 longline sets recorded 2142 individuals caught (20 were kept) on reef fish longline gear in this region (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). According to the 2013 Update to the US National Bycatch report, an estimated 25,910.76 individuals were caught in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish bottom longline fishery (NMFS 2013f). The report does not cite the data they based this estimate on. This estimate constitutes 40% of the total bycatch of Atlantic sharpnose shark across the Southeast region (spanning the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic) (NMFS 2013f).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

3.67 Low Concern

According to the 2013 stock assessment, it is not clear if the Atlantic sharpnose shark stock (across the US Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region) is experiencing overfishing with current fishing mortality (F2011) compared to FMSY ranging from F2011/FMSY=0.03 to 0.57 (SEDAR 2013c). The probability of overfishing not occurring in 2011 was >50% in three cases and ranged between 54 and 67% (SEDAR 2013c), justifying the fishing mortality score of "low concern."

Bycatch is a significant source of mortality to Atlantic sharpnose shark, but the species is not overfished and is likely not experiencing overfishing (so current bycatch mortality of this species is considered acceptable). A pilot snapper-grouper fishery observer program over three fishing seasons (316 observer days over 2007-8, 2008-9, 20010-11) (representing a small subset of all fishing trips) recorded 506 individuals caught on handline gear in the South Atlantic (Helies and Jamison 2013). According to the 2013 Update to the National Bycatch report, an estimated 9,479 individuals were caught in the South

Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery between 2006 and 2010 (NMFS 2013f). The origin of these data (whether from observer or logbook data) is not cited in the report.

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

3.67 Low Concern

Bycatch is a significant source of mortality to Atlantic sharpnose shark, but the species is not overfished and is likely not experiencing overfishing (so current bycatch mortality of this species is considered acceptable). According to the 2013 National Bycatch report, an estimate of 3,166.03 individuals (with a coefficent of variation (CV) = 0.95) were caught in the South Altantic snapper-grouper bottom longline fishery based on data from 2006 to 2010 (NMFS 2013f). These data are likely based on logbook data (observer data on this fishery is not available (NMFS 2011), and the report does not specify what data sources were used to derive each estimate) (NMFS 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

3.67 Low Concern

Bycatch is a significant source of mortality for Atlantic sharpnose shark, but the species is not overfished and is likely not experiencing overfishing (so current bycatch mortality of this species is considered acceptable). A pilot snapper-grouper fishery observer program over three fishing seasons (316 observer days over 2007-8, 2008-9, 20010-11, representing a small subset of all fishing trips) recorded 506 individuals caught on handline gear in the South Atlantic (Helies and Jamison 2013). According to the 2013 Update to the National Bycatch report, an estimated 9,479 individuals were caught in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery between 2006 and 2010 (NMFS 2013f). The origin of these data (whether from observer or logbook data) is not cited in the report.

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 111%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 1,503 longline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 24%. This ratio is based on observer count data from 59 vertical line snapper-grouper fishery trips over 316 days, covering the region extending from southern North Carolina to northern Florida (Helies and Jamison 2013).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The discards+bait/landings ratio cannot be calculated for the South Atlantic longline snapper-grouper fishery due to the low number of fishing vessels reporting (NMFS 2011). Given the similarities in gear and catch between this region and the Gulf of Mexico longline reef fishery, SFW uses the ratio calculated for the Gulf of Mexico (111%) as a substitute.

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

BLACK GROUPER- See discussion in Criterion 1

BLACK SEA BASS

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

United States South Atlantic, Handline

3.00 Low

Inherent Vulnerability = 31 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005)

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States South Atlantic, Handline

4.00 Low Concern

The 2011 black sea bass assessment for the US South Atlantic population was updated in 2013. The spawning stock biomass (abundance of mature fish) is estimated to be 103% that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and 166% of MSST (minimum standing stock (spawning biomass) threshold), indicating the population had recovered and was no longer overfished. There was a high amount of uncertainty around this estimate based largely on the influence of high recruitment rates (fish entering the fishery) between 2008 and 2012, which may artificially inflate the biomass estimate (SEDAR 2013a). SFW has, therefore, awarded a “low” and not a “very low concern” score.

2.3 - Fishing Mortality

United States South Atlantic, Handline

3.67 Very Low Concern

The 2013 updated assessment indicates that overfishing of this black sea bass population occurred from 1991-2010, though there was a high degree of uncertainty around the fishing mortality estimates. However, in recent years (2011-2012), fishing mortality has fallen to below sustainable levels and is currently at 66% of the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). The assessment indicates that it is highly likely that current fishing levels on black sea bass are sustainable, with only a 7% chance that overfishing is still occurring. As well, the handline fishery only accounts for around 10% of the catches or fishing mortality {SEDAR 2013a}. We have therefore awarded a score of very low concern.

A pilot snapper-grouper fishery observer study, which sampled a limited number of handline trips over 3 seasons recorded 1302 black sea bass caught (316 observer days over 2007-8, 2008-9 and 2010-11; representing a small subset of all fishing trips) (Helies and Jamison 2013).

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

BLACKNOSE SHARK

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High

Inherent Vulnerability = 70 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005).

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 High Concern

NMFS lists the overfished status of blacknose shark in the Gulf of Mexico as unknown (NMFS 2013). The 2011 stock assessment for this region provided biomass refererence points based on spawning stock fecundity (SSF2005/SSFMSY = 0.48) and described the population as overfished (SEDAR 2011e). This species is listed as near threatened by IUCN (Morgan et al. 2009).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 High Concern

NMFS lists blacknose shark in the South Atlantic as overfished with a

(B/BMSY proxy: SSF2005/SSFMSY ranges from 0.43 - 0.60) (SEDAR 2011a)(NMFS 2013). It is in the fourth year of an 18 year rebuilding plan (NMFS 2013). This species is listed as near threatened by IUCN (Morgan et al. 2009).

2.3 - Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High Concern

According to the NMFS, the overfishing status for blacknose shark in the Gulf of Mexico is unknown (NMFS 2013), however the 2011 stock assessment describes this population as experiencing overfishing with F2005/FMSY as 3.43 (SEDAR 2011e). Based on limited observer data on selected longline trips (n = 1,503 sets) between 2006 and 2009, 816 blacknose sharks were caught (with 6 kept) in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). The 2013 Update to the US National Bycatch Report estimated that 31,885.77 individuals (coefficient of variation (CV) = 2.97) were caught as bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish bottom longline fishery (NMFS 2013f), which constitutes 80% of the bycatch mortality of this species across the South Atlantic region (including the South Altantic and Gulf of Mexico). The report does not cite the data source used to generate these estimates.

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High Concern

According to the NMFS, blacknose shark in the South Atlantic is experiencing overfishing, with the most recent stock assessment estimating fishing mortality of F2005/FMSY=2.12-5.68 (SEDAR 2011a). There is inadequate data to determine bycatch in the longline snapper-grouper fishery in this region (NMFS 2011).

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 111%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 1,503 longline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The discards+bait/landings ratio cannot be calculated for the South Atlantic longline snapper-grouper fishery due to the low number of fishing vessels reporting (NMFS 2011). Given the similarities in gear and catch between this region and the Gulf of Mexico longline reef fishery, we use the ratio calculated for the Gulf of Mexico (111%) as a substitute.

BLUELINE TILEFISH

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Medium

The inherent vulnerability of blueline tilefish, Caulolatilus microps, was assessed based on seven productivity attributes (Table 2). Blueline tilefish scored an average of 2.333 which corresponds to a moderate inherent vulnerability.

Rationale:

The www.fishbase.org vulnerability score was 58 out of 100 {Froese and Pauly 2000}{Cheung et al. 2005}. This represents high inherent vulnerability, however the life history attributes do not support this score, therefore a moderate score is used.

Table 2: Inherent Vulnerability characteristics of blueline tilefish.

Productivity attribute Blueline tilefish Score Source Average age at maturity 3 yrs 3 SEDAR 2013e Average maximum age 43 yrs 1 SEDAR 2013e Fecundity 2.2-13 million eggs/yr N/A SEDAR 2013e Average size at maturity 33.8-38.7cm TL (females) 3 SEDAR 2013e Average maximum size 90 cm TL 3 SEDAR 2013e

Reproductive strategy Broadcast Spawner 3 SEDAR 2013e Trophic Level 3.8 ± 0.6 SE 1 Froese and Pauly 2000 Average Score 2.333

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

3.00 Moderate Concern

There has been no stock assessment for blueline tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico and its overfished status is unknown. However, its stock was discussed in the golden tilefish assessment (it was determined that adequate data was unavailable for an assessment of this species), and annual catch per unit effort (CPUE) was provided through 2009. No trend in CPUE values was detected over time (SEDAR 2011c).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

3.00 Moderate Concern

There is no stock assessment for blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic region so its overfished status is unknown. However, there is a benchmark assessment underway in 2013 {SEDAR 2013}. Preliminary documents with CPUE data show that this metric has fluctuated, but overall has declined over time.

2.3 - Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.33 Moderate Concern

There has been no stock assessment for blueline tilefish in the Gulf of Mexico and it is unknown whether this species is experiencing overfishing. However, its stock was discussed in the golden tilefish assessment, as these two species comprise the majority of landings for the Gulf tilefish quota (IFQ). Blueline tilefish catch (largely caught by longline) has fluctuated, but generally increased over time (SEDAR 2011c). A deepwater species, blueline tilefish is a major bycatch species of the yellowedge grouper fishery, with fisherman reporting 3,000 lbs. of blueline tilefish caught for every 10,000 lbs. of yellowedge grouper caught (SEDAR 2011c). Between July 2006 and December 2009, reef fish observers covering 1,503 longline sets recorded 3591 blueline tilefish as caught (1767 were kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). According to limited logbook data, for the 13 longline trips reporting discards between 2002

and 2009, a total of 3498 blueline tilefish were discarded (SEDAR 2011c). Discarded blueline tilefish are assumed to have 100% mortality (SEDAR 2011c).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.33 Moderate Concern

There is no stock assessment for blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic region so whether this species is experiencing overfishing is unknown. However, there is a benchmark assessment underway in 2013. There are inadequate data to determine bycatch in the longline snapper-grouper fishery in this region {NMFS 2011}.

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 111%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 1,503 longline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The discards+bait/landings ratio cannot be calculated for the South Atlantic longline snapper-grouper fishery due to the low number of fishing vessels reporting (NMFS 2011). Given the similarities in gear and catch between this region and the Gulf of Mexico longline reef fishery, we use the ratio calculated for the Gulf of Mexico (111%) as a substitute.

DUSKY SMOOTHHOUND (SMOOTH DOGFISH)

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High

Inherent Vulnerability = 87 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005).

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 High Concern

There is no stock assessment for smooth dogfish so its overfished status is unknown. However, there is a benchmark assessment scheduled for 2014 (SEDAR 2013). This species is listed as "near threatened" by IUCN (Conrath 2005).

2.3 - Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.33 Moderate Concern

There is no stock assessment for smooth dogfish so it is unknown whether it is experiencing overfishing. A benchmark assessment is scheduled for 2014 (SEDAR 2013) Based on observer data from 1,503 reef fish longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico between July 2006 and December 2009, 1284 smooth dogfish were caught (only 1 was kept), 96% of those caught were classified as "normal," rather than "stressed" (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). Bycatch mortality studies are not available for this species. Due to moderate management aimed at reducing bycatch species, SFW rates this sub-criterion as “moderate concern.” Relevant management practices include mandatory use of circle hooks, dehooking devices, and venting tools (NMFS 2008).

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 111%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 1,503 longline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

GAG GROUPER- See discussion in Criterion 1

GIANT SNAKE EEL

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High

Inherent Vulnerability = 74 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005)

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 High Concern

There is no stock assessment for giant/king snake eel in the Gulf of Mexico (nor is a future assessment scheduled), thus, the overfished status of this species is unknown.

Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.33 Moderate Concern

There is no stock assessment for giant/king snake eel in the Gulf of Mexico (nor is a future assessment scheduled), thus, it is unknown if this species is experiencing overfishing. Based on observer data from 1,503 reef fish longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico between July 2006 and December 2009, 1573 giant/king snake eels were caught (only 2 were kept), and 88% of those caught were classified as "normal" rather than "stressed" (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). Due to moderate management aimed at

reducing bycatch species, SFW rates this subcriterion as “moderate concern.” Relevant management practices include mandatory use of circle hooks, dehooking devices, and venting tools (NMFS 2008).

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 111%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 1,503 longline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

GOLDEN TILEFISH

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Medium

The inherent vulnerability of golden tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaelonticeps, was assessed based on seven productivity attributes (Table 3). Golden tilefish scored an average of 2.0 which corresponds to a moderate inherent vulnerability.

Rationale:

The www.fishbase.org vulnerability score was 60 out of 100 {Froese and Pauly 2000}{Cheung et al. 2005}. This represents high inherent vulnerability, however the life history attributes do not support this score, therefore a moderate score is used.

Table 3: Inherent Vulnerability characteristics for golden tilefish.

Productivity attribute Golden Tilefish Score Source Average age at maturity 2-3 yrs 3 SEDAR 2013b/c Average maximum age 40 yrs 1 SEDAR 2013b/c Fecundity 2.3 million eggs/yr N/A Grimes et al. 1988 Average size at maturity 48-66 cm TL (females) 2 Grimes et al. 1988 Average maximum size 112 cm TL 2 Nitschke 2006 Reproductive strategy Broadcast Spawner 3 Grimes et al. 1988 Trophic Level 3.5 ± 0.4 SE 1 Froese and Pauly 2000 Average Score 2

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

5.00 Very Low Concern

In the Gulf of Mexico, tilefish/golden tilefish is not overfished (B/BMSY proxy: SSBcurrent/MSST ranges from 2.26 to 2.30) (SEDAR 2011c).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

5.00 Very Low Concern

According to the most recent stock assessment and NMFS, golden tilefish in the South Atlantic is not overfished (B/BMSY proxy: SSBcurrent/MSST = 2.14 (SEDAR 2011b)(NMFS 2013).

Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

5.00 Very Low Concern

In the Gulf of Mexico, tilefish/golden tilefish is not experiencing overfishing, with an Fcurrent/MFMT

(F/FMSY proxy) of 0.49-0.78 (SEDAR 2011c). Golden tilefish landings peaked in the late 1980s and have fluctuated ever since (SEDAR 2011c). Based on reef fish observer data on commercial longline vessels covering 1503 sets between July 2006 and December 2009, 2199 golden tilefish were caught (2130 were kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). Limited commercial logbook data from 11 longline trips reporting discards between 2002 and 2009 reported 3509 golden tilefish discarded (SEDAR 2011c). Discarded golden tilefish are assumed to have 100% mortality (SEDAR 2011c).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

5.00 Very Low Concern

According to the most recent stock assessment and NMFS stock status update, golden tilefish in the

South Atlantic is not experiencing overfishing and has an F/FMSY of 0.36 (SEDAR 2011b)(NMFS 2013).

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 111%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 1,503 longline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

GRAY TRIGGERFISH

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Handline

3.00 Low

Inherent Vulnerability = 32 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005)

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

2.00 High Concern

According to the 2011 update stock assessment (to the 2006 benchmark assessment, which found that gray triggerfish was overfished) gray triggerfish in the Gulf of Mexico is still overfished

(B/BMSY proxy: SSBcurrent/MSST = 0.53) (GMFMC 2012b). The NMFS 2013 4th Quarter Stock Status update lists the B/BMSY proxy at a much lower value of 0.04 (NMFS 2013). It is in year six of a six year rebuilding

plan (NMFS 2013). In recent years, gray triggerfish has had lower than normal recruitment (GMFMC 2012b).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

3.00 Moderate Concern

There is no stock assessment for gray triggerfish in the South Atlantic region, thus, its overfished status is unknown. However, there is a benchmark assessment underway in 2013 (SEDAR 2013). Preliminary documents with CPUE data show fluctuation over time, with a sharp increase in recent years (2009- 2011) (NMFS-SEFSC 2013a).

Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

3.67 Low Concern

According to the NMFS 4th Quarter 2013 Stock Status update, gray triggerfish in the Gulf of Mexico is no longer experiencing overfishing in year 6 of a 6 year rebuilding plan (NMFS 2013) so fishing mortality scores as "low concern" for this species. The most recent overfishing ratio for this species is from the 2011 update stock assessment (an update to the 2006 benchmark assessment), which found that gray triggerfish in the Gulf of Mexico was experiencing overfishing with an Fcurrent/MFMT (F/FMSY proxy) of 1.04 (GMFMC 2012b). Reef fish observer data from vertical line trips covering 1116 sea days/7391 sets from July 2006 to December 2009, recorded 809 gray triggerfish caught (751 kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

2.33 Moderate Concern

There is no stock assessment for gray triggerfish in the South Atlantic region, but according to NMFS 4th Quarter Stock Status Update this stock is not experiencing overfishing. There is a benchmark assessment underway in 2014 (originally scheduled for 2013). Based on pilot observer data collected over three seasons (2007-8, 2008-9, 2010-11) covering 316 observer days, 4936 gray triggerfish were recorded caught (4875 kept) (Helies and Jamison 2013). Gray triggerfish was the third most common species caught on these trips (Helies and Jamison 2013).

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 40%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 7,391 handline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 24%. This ratio is based on observer count data from 59 vertical line snapper-grouper fishery trips over 316 days covering the region extending from southern North Carolina to northern Florida (Helies and Jamison 2013).

GREATER AMBERJACK

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

2.00 Medium

Inherent Vulnerability = 54 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005)

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

3.00 Moderate Concern

According to the results of 2014 stock assessment, greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico is slightly overfished, although the review panel did not agree on an overfished status for this stock due to concerns over the assessment models used (SEDAR 2014a). Estimates from all three stock assessment models for 2012 greater amberjack biomass relative to its biomass at MSY (B2012/BMSY) (1.140, 1.039 and 0.906) do not exceed the minimum stock size threshold (MSST) of 75% BMSY (i.e., do not indicate that the stock is overfished) (SEDAR 2014a). Stock status is scored as “moderate concern” due to concerns about the stock assessment raised by the review panel, as well as uncertainties in the underlying data on discards used in the stock assessment (SEDAR 2014a).

Greater amberjack is in year 12 of a 10 year rebuilding plan in the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS 2014c).

Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

3.67 Low Concern

According to the results of 2014 stock assessment, greater amberjack in the Gulf of Mexico is not likely experiencing overfishing, although the review panel did not agree on an overfishing status for this stock due to concerns over the assessment models used (SEDAR 2014a). The 2014 assessment found that fishing mortality has steadily decreased over the last several years. Estimates of current fishing mortality relative to fishing mortality at MSY (F/FMSY) range from 0.45-0.55, indicating that the stock is not likely experiencing overfishing (SEDAR 2014a).

Reef fish observers on vertical-line trips covering 1116 sea days/7391 sets from July 2006 to December 2009, recorded 613 greater amberjack caught (171 kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

Due to uncertainty over the overfishing status in the 2014 stock assessment, greater amberjack's fishing mortality scores as "low concern" rather than "very low concern."

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 40%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 7,391 handline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

LOGGERHEAD TURTLE

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High

Inherent Vulnerability is automatically rated as high for all sea turtle species.

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

1.00 Very High Concern

Worldwide, loggerhead sea turtle populations are in decline. Under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA), loggerhead sea turtles are divided into distinct population segments (DPSs), five of which are listed as endangered and four as threatened (NMFS 2013e). Loggerheads in the Gulf of Mexico are part of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, which listed as threatened under ESA (NMFS 2013e). In the northern Gulf of Mexico, nest abundance (a measure of population health), declined by almost half from 1994 to 2010 (Lamont et al. 2012). In 2013, NMFS proposed that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS is critical habitat for loggerhead sea turtles (78 FR 43005).

Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.33 Moderate Concern

Bottom longline gear is known to adversely affect sea turtles via hooking, entanglement, trailing line, and forced submergence. Captured sea turtles can be released alive or may be found dead upon retrieval of the gear as a result of forced submergence (NMFS 2009b). According to a 2009 NMFS report, loggerhead turtle take in the Gulf of Mexico bottom longline reef fishery exceeded the number authorized by a 2005 NMFS Biological Opinion (BO) issued under the ESA (85 loggerheads over 3 yrs). The fishery took an estimated 714 loggerheads between July 2006 and December 2008 (the 95 % confidence interval was 296.9 – 1,720.5) (NMFS 2009a) (See Table 4). The 2009 BO provides an estimate of 519 takes with 314 of those as mortalities (See Table 1) (NMFS 2009b). These takes occurred despite the 2006 management measures to reduce sea turtle take established through Amendment 18A of the Gulf of Mexico Reef FMP (established due to the 2005 BO), which required reef fishery vessels to have sea turtle release gear and instructions for how to use it onboard (NMFS 2011). Due to the excessive take, NMFS formulated a new BO in 2009 (NMFS 2009b), and to reduce take to an acceptable level from the status quo (see table for anticipated future takes), NMFS instituted management strategies via Amendment 31 to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fishery FMP in April 2010. This amendment includes several measures aimed at reducing turtle hooking and entanglements, including a prohibition on bottom longline gears within the 35-fathom contour in the Gulf of Mexico (east of Cape San Blas, FL), a reduction in vessels holding reef fish permits via an endorsement program for those vessels landing at least 40,000lbs (18.1 MT) of reef fish per annum and a limit of 1,000 hooks onboard reef fish longline vessels, with a maximum of 750 hooks rigged for fishing at any time (75 FR 21512). Preliminary data suggest that these actions have successfully reduced sea turtle takes in the reef fish fishery. For 2009, before the Amendment 31 restrictions were fully implemented, an estimated 48.5 loggerhead turtles were taken in the reef fish bottom longline fishery (95% CI 22.5-104.4) (NMFS 2010). Total interaction

estimates for 2011 and 2012 are not publically available, but are anticipated to be lower still. (J. Lee, pers. Comm.).

Due to effective bycatch management in the longline reef fish fishery, specifically aimed at reducing loggerhead sea turtle take, fishing mortality for loggerheads is scored as "moderate concern."

Rationale:

Table 4: Status Quo and Anticipated Annual Loggerhead Sea Turtle Captures on Reef Fish Bottom Longlines in the Gulf of Mexico under the Proposed Action in the 2009 NMFS BO.

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 111%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 1,503 longline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

RED GROUPER- see discussion in Criterion 1

RED PORGY

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Handline

1.00 High

Inherent Vulnerability = 66 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005)

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

2.00 High Concern

There has been no stock assessment for red porgy in the Gulf of Mexico and its overfished status is unknown.

United States South Atlantic, Handline

2.00 High Concern

Red porgy in the South Atlantic is overfished (SSB2011/SSBMSY = 0.47) (SEDAR 2012a). It is in year 13 of an 18 year rebuilding plan (NMFS 2013). Biomass estimates suggest that the stock is recovering, with SSB/SSBMSY increasing from 0.19 in 1998 to the most recent value of 0.47 (SEDAR 2012a).

Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

2.33 Moderate Concern

There has been no stock assessment for red porgy in the Gulf of Mexico and it is unknown whether or not it is experiencing overfishing. Reef fish observers on vertical line trips covering 1116 sea days/7391 sets from July 2006 to December 2009, recorded 6120 red porgy caught (5971 kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

3.67 Low Concern

Red porgy in the South Atlantic is not experiencing overfishing (F2009−2011/FMSY = 0.64), but is rebuilding

(SEDAR 2012a). Estimates suggest that the stock has generally been exploited below FMSY since the late 1990s (SEDAR 2012a). Pilot observer data from the vertical line fishery in this region, covering 316 sea days over 3 seasons (2007-8, 2008-9, 2010-11) recorded red porgy as the second highest caught species, and the primary discard species, with 5705 caught (3452 kept) (Helies and Jamison 2013).

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 40%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 7,391 handline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

RED SNAPPER

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

2.00 Medium

Inherent Vulnerability = 55 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005)

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

2.00 High Concern

Red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is overfished (SBB/MSST = 0.18) and is in year 13 of a 32 year rebuilding plan (NMFS 2013). The SBB/MSST value currently listed by NMFS is from the 2009 stock assessment. According to the model used in the most recent stock assessment (completed in June 2013), red snapper biomass and spawning biomass have been increasing since the late 1980s after decreasing from the 1880s to early 1900s and steeply decreasing from the 1940s through the 1970s (SEDAR 2013b).

Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

3.67 Low Concern

Red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is not experiencing overfishing, but is rebuilding (NMFS 2013). In the 2013 stock assessment all fishing mortality rates explored in the models resulted in nearly constant fishing mortality during the projection interval, none of which indicated overfishing (SEDAR 2013b). Reef fish observers on vertical line trips covering 1116 sea days/7391 sets from July 2006 to December 2009, recorded 27669 red snapper caught (17992 kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). On these observer trips, red snapper had the highest catch rate as well as the highest discard rate of any species.

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 40%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 7,391 handline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

SCAMP

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Handline

2.00 Medium

Fishbase assigns a high vulnerability to fishing score (68/100) to scamp {Froese and Pauly 2000}{Cheung et al. 2005}. However, based on the life history attribute method, Scamp are only considered to have a medium vulnerability (see detailed rationale section). Scamp reach sexual maturity by 3 years of age and 16 in. (41 cm) in length. They have been recorded to live to an age of 21 years, and may live to as many as 30 years. They can grow to a length of 43 in. (110 cm). {SAFMC 2014c}. Scamp spawn thousands of pelagic eggs in offshore waters from April to May. They are high-level predators and will eat crabs, shrimp, and other fish whole {Froese and Pauly 2000}{SAFMC 2014}. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers scamp to be a species of "Least Concern" {Rocha et al. 2008}. Because of this Least Concern designation, we have rated vulnerability of Scamp based on the life

history attribute method rather than the Fishbase score. The SFW method results in a score of 1.83, which corresponds to moderate inherent vulnerability.

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

3.00 Moderate Concern

There is no stock assessment for scamp in the Gulf of Mexico and it is unknown if it is overfished {NMFS 2014c} so it is rated as "moderate concern".

United States South Atlantic, Handline

3.00 Moderate Concern

Scamp populations in the South Atlantic have not been formally assessed since 1998, but have recently been listed in a core group of species to be regularly assessed starting in 2015 {Carmichael 2013}. The National Marine Fisheries Service considers the status of scamp to be unknown {NMFS 2014c}. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers scamp to be a species of "Least Concern" {Rocha et al. 2008}. Because the status of scamp is unknown and they have a medium vulnerability to fishing, we have rated this factor "moderate concern".

Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

2.33 Moderate Concern

There is no stock assessment for scamp in the Gulf of Mexico and it is unknown if it is experiencing overfishing. Reef fish observers on vertical line trips covering 1116 sea days/7391 sets from July 2006 to December 2009, recorded 1002 scamp caught (898 kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

3.67 Low Concern

There is no stock assessment for scamp in the South Atlantic, but scamp is not experiencing overfishing (no fishing mortality metric is available) (NMFS 2013). Pilot observer data from the vertical line fishery in

this region, covering 316 sea days over 3 seasons (2007-8, 2008-9, 2010-11) recorded scamp as the fourth highest caught species, and the third most discarded species with 2276 caught (1745 kept) (Helies and Jamison 2013).

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 40%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 7,391 handline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

SNOWY GROUPER- See discussion in Criterion 1

SPECKLED HIND

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High

Inherent Vulnerability = 60 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005).

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

1.00 Very High Concern

There has been no stock assessment for speckled hind in the Gulf of Mexico, so it is unknown if this species is overfished in this region. Speckled hind is listed as "critically endangered" by IUCN (IUCN 2006), warranting a score of "very high concern" for this criterion.

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

1.00 Very High Concern

There was a stock assessment for speckled hind in the South Atlantic in 2004. According to NMFS it is unknown whether speckled hind is overfished in this region. (NMFS 2013) Speckled hind is listed as "critically endangered" by IUCN (IUCN 2006), warranting a score of "very high concern" for this criterion.

Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.33 Moderate Concern

There has been no stock assessment for speckled hind in the Gulf of Mexico, so it is unknown if this species is experiencing overfishing in this region. Fishing for speckled hind is regulated as part of the deep water grouper IFQ program. However, speckled hind can also be landed under the shallow water grouper IFQ category when a shareholder's deep water grouper allocation has been used (GMFMC 2014). There are recreational fishing limits for speckled hind to limit fishing mortality of this species (one speckled hind is permitted per vessel as part of the four grouper bag limit) (GMFMC 2014).

Based on reef fish observer data on commercial longline vessels covering 1503 sets between July 2006 and December 2009, 492 speckled hind were caught (453 were kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

Fishing mortality for speckled hind in the Gulf of Mexico scores as "moderate concern" due to speckled hind's uncertain population status and the unknown effectiveness of existing fishing regulations for this species (commercial and recreational).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High Concern

There was a stock assessment for speckled hind in 2004 for the South Atlantic region. NMFS lists this species as experiencing overfishing in this region (NMFS 2013) and prohibits its harvest or possession in federal waters (SAFMC 2013).

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 111%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 1,503 longline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The discards+bait/landings ratio cannot be calculated for the South Atlantic longline snapper-grouper fishery due to the low number of fishing vessels reporting (NMFS 2011). Given the similarities in gear and catch between this region and the Gulf of Mexico longline reef fishery, we use the ratio calculated for the Gulf of Mexico (111%) as a substitute.

VERMILION SNAPPER

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Handline

2.00 Medium

Inherent Vulnerability = 50 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005)

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

5.00 Very Low Concern

Vermilion snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is not overfished (B/BMSY proxy: SSB2010/SSBSPR30% = 1.55) (SEDAR 2011d).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

4.00 Low Concern

Vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is not overfished (SSB2011/MSST = 1.26 and SSB2011/SSBMSY =

0.98) according to the primary model used in the most recent stock assessment, the Beaufort Assessment Model (SEDAR 2012b). However, another of the stock assessment models based on a mixed Monte Carlo/Bootstrap procedure, resulted in an overfished condition on 25% of its runs (SEDAR 2012b). Results from the stock assessment suggest that the spawning stock has generally declined throughout the full assessment period (1946–2011) with the 2011 spawning stock estimate being the lowest value in the time series, slightly below SSBMSY but above MSST (SEDAR 2012b). These trends show the stock decreasing over time, warranting a score of "low concern" rather than "very low concern" for this criterion.

Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

5.00 Very Low Concern

Vermilion snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is not experiencing overfishing (F2010/FSPR30%=0.61) (SEDAR 2011d). Reef fish observers on vertical line trips covering 1116 sea days/7391 sets from July 2006 to December 2009, recorded 26045 vermilion snapper caught (23240 kept) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). On these trips, vermilion snapper was the second most frequently caught species.

United States South Atlantic, Handline

5.00 Very Low Concern

Vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is not experiencing overfishing (F2009−2011/FMSY = 0.67) (SEDAR 2012b).As a result of the recent stock assessment, the SAFMC proposed increasing the total annual catch limit for vermilion snapper by 306,000 lbs. (whole weight) to 1,372,000 lbs. (ww) in 2013;

eliminating the 4-month recreational seasonal closure originally implemented to help end overfishing; and reducing the vermilion trip limit in an effort to extend the split-season commercial fishery. Pilot observer data from the vertical line fishery in this region, covering 316 sea days over 3 seasons (2007-8, 2008-9, 2010-11) recorded vermilion snapper as the primary species caught, and the second most discarded species with 17695 caught (15899 kept) (Helies and Jamison 2013).

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 40%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 7,391 handline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

WARSAW GROUPER

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High

The fishbase inherent vulnerability score for Warsaw grouper is 68 {Froese and Pauly 2000}{Cheung et al. 2005}, corresponding to a SFW score of "high" inherent vulnerability. Warsaw grouper is a slow- growing, very large-bodied species, reaching the highest maximum age (41 years) and largest size of any of the groupers covered in this report (230 cm, 263 kg). Fecundity of this species is unknown. {SAFMC 2012}

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

1.00 Very High Concern

Warsaw grouper has been listed by IUCN as "critically endangered" since 2006 (IUCN 2006). Warsaw grouper has been on the candidate list for ESA listing since 1999 (64 FR 33466) and NMFS placed it on the "Species of Concern" list in 2004 due to potential population decline and threats from fishing and bycatch (69 FR 19975). In 2010, a petition to list Warsaw grouper under ESA was denied (69 FR 59690) with the rationale that "Warsaw grouper has always been too uncommonly captured in fisheries for data on landings or weight of fish landed to be a reliable indicator of population status and trends."

Warsaw grouper's overfished status is listed as "unknown" in the US South Atlantic region and

B/BMSY has not been estimated (NMFS 2013). The most recent stock assessment that considered Warsaw grouper was in 2004 (SEDAR 4). SEDAR 4 found that commercial and recreational data available were insufficient to proceed with a stock assessment for the species due to data limitations, and data were insufficient to calculate CPUE indices across fishery sectors (SEDAR 2004). Due to to its IUCN status and its unknown overfished status, Warsaw grouper's stock status in the Gulf of Mexico scores as "very high concern."

Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

1.00 High Concern

NMFS lists Warsaw grouper in the US South Atlantic as undergoing overfishing (NMFS 2013). The fishery is closed to commercial harvest in state and federal waters and its possession is prohibited in federal waters (SAFMC 2013). Recreational bag limits exist in state waters for Warsaw grouper.

Due to concerns about bycatch fishing mortality of Warsaw grouper in the South Atlantic while targeting other species, NMFS implemented Amendment 17B in 2010, prohibiting the harvest of Warsaw grouper and speckled hind in federal waters and prohibiting the harvest of snowy grouper, blueline tilefish, yellowedge grouper, misty grouper, queen snapper, and silk snapper beyond 240 ft depth (NMFS-SERO 2010). Due to data indicating that this closure did not significantly reduce bycatch (while causing significant socio-economic hardship), the 240 ft. restriction was removed in May 2012 (77 FR 27375). Currently under development, Amendment 17 proposes spatial closures in the South Atlantic aimed at reducing bycatch mortality for Warsaw grouper and speckled hind (NMFS-SERO 2012).

According to the Federal Register notice rejecting the ESA listing for this species, management actions have significantly reduced landings for Warsaw grouper in the South Atlantic (69 FR 59690). Although commercial harvest is banned and possession in federal waters is prohibited, SFW rates fishing mortality for Warsaw grouper as "high concern" because this species is listed as "critically endangered" by IUCN, fishing mortality (as a result of bycatch) is unknown and it is unknown if management to curtail overfishing is effective.

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

0.75 > 100%

The discards+bait/landings ratio cannot be calculated for the South Atlantic longline snapper-grouper fishery due to the low number of fishing vessels reporting (NMFS 2011). Given the similarities in gear and catch between this region and the Gulf of Mexico longline reef fishery, we use the ratio calculated for the Gulf of Mexico (111%) as a substitute.

YELLOWEDGE GROUPER- See discussion in Criterion 1

YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER

Factor 2.1 — Inherent Vulnerability

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Handline

1.00 High

Inherent Vulnerability = 65 (Froese and Pauly 2000)(Cheung et al. 2005)

Factor 2.2 — Abundance

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Handline

5.00 Very Low Concern

Yellowtail snapper in the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico is not overfished (B/BMSY = 2.70)(NMFS 2013).

Factor 2.3 — Fishing Mortality

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Handline

5.00 Very Low Concern

Assessed as one population by the state of Florida through the SEDAR stock assessment process, yellowtail snapper in the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico is not experiencing overfishing, with an

F/FMSY of 0.76 (FWC 2012). According to the 2011 national bycatch report (based on commercial logbook data from 2005-6), an estimated 129,459.39 yellowtail snapper were caught as bycatch in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper handline fishery, and 280,020.06 in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish handline fishery (NMFS 2011).

Factor 2.4 — Discard Rate

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

The bait+discards/landings ratio is 40%. This ratio is based on observer count data covering 7,391 handline sets from August 2006 to November 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.95 20%–40%

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness

Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).

The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is determined as follows:

 Score>3.2 = Green or Low Concern  Score>2.2 and <=3.2 = Yellow or Moderate Concern  Score<=2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical

Criterion 3 Summary

Region / Method Management of Management of Overall Retained Species Non-Retained Recommendation Species United States GULF OF 3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000) MEXICO Handline United States GULF OF 3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000) MEXICO Longline, Bottom United States Gulf of 3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000) Mexico Handline United States Gulf of 3.000 3.000 Yellow(3.000) Mexico Longline, Bottom United States South 3.000 2.000 Yellow(2.449) Atlantic Handline United States South 3.000 2.000 Yellow(2.449) Atlantic Longline, Bottom United States South 3.000 2.000 Yellow(2.449) Atlantic Handline

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Scoring Guidelines

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as”ineffective,” ‘”moderately effective,” or”highly effective.”

 5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as”highly effective” for all seven subfactors considered.  4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ”moderately effective.”  3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least”moderately effective.”  2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for”moderately effective” for Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated”ineffective.”  1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated”ineffective.”  0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.

Factor 3.1 Summary

Factor 3.1: Management of fishing impacts on retained species Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion United States GULF OF Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately Highly MEXICO Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Handline United States GULF OF Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately Highly MEXICO Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Longline, Bottom United States Gulf of Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately Highly Mexico Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Handline United States Gulf of Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately Highly Mexico Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Longline, Bottom United States South Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately Highly Atlantic Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Handline United States South Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately Highly Atlantic Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Longline, Bottom United States South Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Moderately Highly Atlantic Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Handline

Factor 3.1 Assessment

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

The GMFMC has conducted scientifically based stock assessments and continually amended the Reef Fish FMP (instituted in 1984) to end overfishing of the most commercially important species, namely the shallow water groupers: gag (which has been overfished on and off since the 1970s and maycurrently be overfished) and red grouper (which has rebuilt and is no longer overfished or experiencing overfishing). Management measures instituted by amendments have included rebuilding programs, annual catch limits allocated between commercial and recreational fisheries, gear restrictions, minimum size limits on shallow water grouper species (for example, red grouper's minimum size limit is set at 20 inches, the L50 of maturity). Additional measures include area closures to protect spawning sites and, most recently, an IFQ system with a strict reporting program. There are no mimimum size limits for deep water grouper species due to the high likelihood of lethal barotrauma during capture (see Table 5). A concise summary of each amendment made to the FMP is given in a 2012 GMFMC document (GMFMC 2012a).

Protected areas are part of the GMFMC's management strategy (see Figure 15 for a map of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Gulf). The GMFMC designated essential fish habitat (EFH) in 2005, including seven Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC), where either all fishing is prohibited (Tortugas, north and south), or certain gears, including longlines, are prohibited (McGrail Bank, Pulley Ridge, Stetson Bank, West and East Flower Garden Banks) (70 FR 76216).

Problematic for rebuilding and maintaining grouper stocks is the infrequency of quantitative stock assessments, namely for the deep water groupers, plus the lack of information on regulatory discards of these species (and other bycatch) and the lack of accountability in the recreational fishery. The infrequent stock assessment of the deep water groupers is due partly to a lack of sufficient data, likely caused by low population size (pers. comm. R. Ellis). Due to these challenges, this criterion is scored as moderately effective.

Rationale

Table 5: Commercial and recreational minimum size limits for grouper species in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (as of 10/16/2013)

Figure 15: Protected Areas in the Gulf of Mexico

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

The SAFMC has conducted scientifically based stock assessments and continually amended the Snapper- Grouper FMP (instituted in 1983) to end overfishing of grouper species (gag, red, black, snowy, Warsaw have all experienced overfishing). Management measures instituted by amendments have included rebuilding plans, annual catch limits (allocated between the commercial and recreational fisheries), minimum size limits (see Table 5 above), gear restrictions, seasonal closures to protect spawning aggregations, limits on the number of available commercial fishing permits and MPAs that are closed to or restrict fishing (see Figures 16 and 17 for maps of protected areas in this region). Red and snowy are overfished and currently in rebuilding plans, though Warsaw is experiencing overfishing and does not have a rebuilding plan. There is a concise summary of each amendment made to the FMP on the SAFMC website. (SAFMC 2013c)

Currently (via Amendment 17 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP), the SAFMC is reevaluating the eight deep water MPAs designated in 2009 (via Amendment 14 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP) to protect deep water grouper and snapper. This process is investigating the addition of new MPAs and/or modifying the current set in order to decrease bycatch and end overfishing of Warsaw grouper and speckled hind—both currently managed under a harvest prohibition—as the current set has been criticised for lack of effectiveness protecting these species (Farmer & Karnauskas 2013). Warsaw grouper and speckled hind co-occur with other deep water groupers covered in this report (namely snowy and yellowedge) (Farmer et al. 2011), thus, it is possible that the current set of MPAs may not be well designed to protect these species either.

Currently, the Oculina Bank Habitat of Particular Concern (HAPC) and experimental closed area protects grouper habitat by restricting longline gear (and other bottom damaging gears) throughout the 300 mi2 HAPC and by restricting all fishing in the 92 mi2closed area. (SAFMC 2013c) Coral HAPC areas are currently being expanded via Coral Amendment 8.

Problematic for rebuilding and maintaining grouper stocks is the infrequency of quantitative stock assessments, the lack of information on regulatory discards of these species (and other bycatch) because observer coverage is lacking, and the lack of accountability in the recreational fishery. Due to these challenges, this criterion is scored as “moderately effective.”

Rationale

Figure 16: Map of MPAs off the East Coast of Florida (under the jurisdiction of the SAFMC).

Figure 17: Map of MPAs off North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia (under the jurisdiction of the SAFMC).

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

Rebuilding plans are in place (or have been completed successfully) for the most commercially valuable grouper species, namely gag and red grouper. This criterion scores as “moderate effective” because vulnerable deep water groupers, namely Warsaw (listed as critically endangered by IUCN), and snowy groupers (listed as vulnerable by IUCN), are unassessed and have "unknown" overfished and overfishing statuses (NMFS 2013). Thus, they are not eligible for rebuilding plans (even if it is widely held that Warsaw grouper is depleted throughout its range).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

Rebuilding plans are in place for grouper species listed as "overfished" (not for those experiencing "overfishing"); snowy grouper is in year 8 of a 34 year plan and red grouper is in year 1 of a 10 year plan. Warsaw grouper, listed as critically endangered by IUCN, is experiencing overfishing, but has an unknown overfished status (its MSY has not been estimated) and is currently closed to fishing (NMFS 2013). Regulatory discards of Warsaw grouper (and overfished groupers) may be occurring, but due to a lack of observer coverage, the severity of this problem is unquantified.

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status.

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

Stock assessments are carried out with greater frequencies and with more rigor for the more commercially valuable grouper species; gag had 4 yrs between the last assessment and the current one (2009 to 2013), red grouper will have 5 years between the last assessment and the future one (2009 to 2014), black grouper will have 5 years between the last assessment and the future one (2009 to 2014), yellowedge grouper has only been assessed twice (2002 and 2010), snowy and Warsaw groupers have never been assessed. (SEDAR 2013) Gag, red grouper, black grouper and yellowedge grouper assessments have used fishery dependent and independent data.

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

Stock assessments are carried out for most of the grouper species evaluated here, but with low frequency. Red grouper has been listed as overfished since its 2009 stock assessment and no future assessment is scheduled. Gag, which formerly was experiencing overfishing, was assessed in 2006 and updated in 2014 (8 years later). Black grouper was assessed in 2009 and a larger regional update is not scheduled, but a state level assessment for Florida stocks is scheduled for 2014. Snowy grouper has been listed overfished since its last stock assessment in 2004, and is currently under assessment in 2013, eight years later. Warsaw grouper has never had a stock assessment, but is currently closed to fishing. Yellowedge grouper has never been assessed, but catch of this species is very low in the South Atlantic region. (SEDAR 2013)

Stock assessments for snowy, black, gag, red have used both fishery dependent and independent data.

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

3.00 Highly Effective

GMFMC follows scientific advice set out by their Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), particularly for commercially important, overfished species (GMFMC 2011b).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

3.00 Highly Effective

SAFMC follows scientific advice as set out by their Science and Statistical Committee (SSC).

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

Since 2006, commercial vessels fishing under the Gulf Reef Fish FMP are required to have satellite communication vessel monitoring systems (VMS) (NMFS-SERO 2007). Grouper species catch, relative to their quotas, are monitored in real time via the online IFQ reporting system, which is maintained by the NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO) (NMFS-SERO 2013c). A recent study of enforcement under the IFQ program suggests that compliance has increased although levels of non-compliance remain substantial, and increased dockside enforcement is necessary (Porter et al. 2013).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

Under Amendment 30 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, the SAFMC is proposing that all commercial vessels that fish for these species be equipped with satellite communication VMS in order to improve enforcement, increase scientific knowledge and promote better management. Currently, there is no VMS in the SAFMC jurisdiction, with exception of rock shrimp. In terms of enforcement, the council states that VMSs would be particularly useful to help enforce fishing area restrictions (SAFMC 2013b). Currently, quota enforcement relies on mandatory trip report forms reporting catch for all snapper- grouper vessels.

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime. United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

The newest measures enacted by management, namely the new IFQ system, have not been in place long enough to result in the long-term maintenance of grouper stock abundance, given the long-lived and slow reproductive rates of these species. However, the 2009 red grouper stock assessment indicated that the population has generally increased from 1986 levels and, while it decreased from the 2006 assessment levels, the stock is at 86% of its target and is above the overfished threshold (SEDAR 2009).

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

Measures enacted by management may not have been in place long enough to result in the long-term maintenance of grouper stock abundance, given the long-lived and slow reproductive rates of these species. Of the grouper species with rebuilding plans, snowy (in year 8 of a 34 year plan) has not recovered, and red grouper is only in year 1 of a 10 year plan. (NMFS 2013) Harvest of Warsaw grouper (listed as critically endangered by IUCN) has been prohibited in federal waters since 2010 (NMFS-SERO 2010) and it is unlikely that this prohibition has yet to have a measureable effect on its population size.

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

3.00 Highly Effective

The GMFMC developed a strategic communication plan in 2011 aimed at increasing stakeholder involvement through outreach and education strategies, and to develop a system to evaluate the effectiveness of its communication tactics. (GMFMC 2011c)

The Gulf Council currently involves public stakeholders via public hearings on all proposed rule changes, at public testimonies, informal question and answer sessions, in person and via the web at Council meetings (where final actions are taken). Stakeholder can also provide public comment to NMFS and the Gulf Council before a rule is approved. Stakeholders also serve on Council advisory panels and committees (such as the Science and Statistical Committee). (GMFMC 2013b). Select stakeholders are also involved in the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process.

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

3.00 Highly Effective

The SAFMC currently involves stakeholders, via public hearings, on all proposed rule changes and at public testimonies at Council meetings (where final actions are taken). Stakeholder can also provide public comment to NMFS before a rule is approved. Stakeholders also serve on Council panels and committees. (SAFMC 2013c)

Factor 3.2: Bycatch Management Strategy

Scoring Guidelines

Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations. Each is rated as ”ineffective,” ”moderately effective," or ”highly effective.” Unless reason exists to rank Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations differently, these ranks are the same as in 3.1.  5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as”highly effective” for all four subfactors considered.  4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy rated”highly effective” and all other subfactors rated at least”moderately effective.”  3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rate at least”moderately effective.”  2 (High Concern) — Meets standards for”moderately effective” for Management Strategy but some other factors rated”ineffective.”  1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy is rated”ineffective.”  0 (Critical)—No bycatch management exists even when overfished, depleted, endangered or threatened species are known to be regular components of bycatch and are substantially impacted by the fishery.

Criterion 3.2 Summary

Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species Region / Method Strategy Research Advice Enforce United States Gulf of Mexico Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Handline Effective Effective Effective Effective United States Gulf of Mexico Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Longline, Bottom Effective Effective Effective Effective United States Gulf of Mexico Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Handline Effective Effective Effective Effective United States Gulf of Mexico Moderately Moderately Highly Moderately Longline, Bottom Effective Effective Effective Effective

100

United States South Atlantic Moderately Ineffective Highly Ineffective Handline Effective Effective United States South Atlantic Moderately Ineffective Highly Ineffective Longline, Bottom Effective Effective United States South Atlantic Moderately Ineffective Highly Ineffective Handline Effective Effective

Criterion 3.2 Assessment

3.2.0 - All Species Retained?

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

0.00 No

According to limited observer data recorded between 2006 and 2009 (representing approximately 1% of the total fishery covering 1116 vertical line sea days or 237 trips and 675 longline sea days or 61 trips), discarded bycatch (including regulatory discards) made up 26% of the individual fish captured by vertical line and 51% of the individual fish captured by longline (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). The majority of discarded fish (>80%) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011) are regulatory discards of undersized groupers and snappers and also include regulation sized fish when IFQs (including multi-species IFQs) are reached. The majority of discarded fish are released alive: of those, 35% released from the vertical line fishery and 42% from the longline fishery had signs of barotrauma (Scott-Denton et al. 2011).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

0.00 No

According to the 2011 US Bycatch Report, discard estimates cannot be made for the South Atlantic longline snapper-grouper fishery because too few discard reports were submitted by longline vessels. (NMFS 2011)

101

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.00 No

An NMFS funded, pilot observer program for the vertical line snapper-grouper fishery (from 2007 through 2011, covering 59 trips or 316 observer days over a region extending from southern North Carolina to northern Florida) found that of trips sampled, 19% of the individual fish caught were discarded. The primary discarded species were red porgy, vermilion snapper and black sea bass (Helies and Jamison 2013).

3.2.0 - Critical?

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.00 No

Bycatch management exists, and is explained in subsequent answers.

Subfactor 3.2.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place to minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

2.00 Moderately Effective

Several management measures are in place to reduce regulatory and incidental bycatch of targeted grouper species, including flexibility measures in the Gulf grouper IFQ program to allow landings across categories (NMFS 2013a), reductions in size limits of some species (GMFMC 2011a) and mandatory use of circle hooks, dehooking devices, and venting tools (NMFS 2008). Circle hooks have been shown to reduce gut hookings in target as well as non-target species; gut hooking is more likely to result in bleeding than jaw hooking (Bacheler & Buckel 2004).

In 2009, a BO was released for the Gulf of Mexico's reef fish fishery; it included several reasonable and

102

prudent measures (RPMs) to minimize impacts on protected species (specifically sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish)(NMFS 2009a). These RPMs “require NMFS to: (1) avoid and minimize take through outreach and education; (2) minimize future gear impacts through research; and (3) monitor the frequency, magnitude, and impact of incidental take” (NMFS 2014a). A recent update to the 2009 BO demonstrates that significant progress has been made on six terms and conditions from the 2009 BO including training and education on the handling of sea turtles, fishery interactions with protected species, bycatch reporting, stock assessments, and improved observer coverage, (NMFS 2014c). Observer coverage began in 2005 for Gulf of Mexico fisheries (NMFS 2014e) and, in 2012, no protected species were caught on a subset of observer covered trips using bottom longline gear to target deepwater reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico. This subset included observations from the Shark Bottom Longline Observer Program covering the reef fish fishery, but did not include trips from the Reef Fish Observer Program (Gulak et al. 2013).

Overall, the management strategy and implementation for bycatch species is moderately effective.

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

Due to excessive bycatch or "take" of federally listed, endangered loggerhead sea turtles (over 800 over a 30 month period)(NMFS 2009a) in the bottom longline component of the Gulf of Mexico reef fishery, the GMFMC instituted large changes to the fishery, via interim measures in 2009 and permanent measures in 2010. These measures reduced the longline fleet by almost 80%, seasonally banned the use of longline gear across a large portion of the Gulf, restricted the number of hooks allowed on board longline vessels and continued monitoring the fishery for incidental sea turtle takes (NMFS 2009b). No recent data are available on the loggerhead sea turtle take by Gulf reef fish longliners, but it seems likely that this take is reduced given the post 2009-2010 reductions in longline effort.

According to limited observer data recorded between 2006 and 2009, discarded bycatch (including regulatory discards) made up 26% of the individual fish captured by vertical line and 51% of the individual fish captured by longline (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). The majority of discarded fish (>80%) (Scott-Denton et al. 2011) are regulatory discards of undersized groupers and snappers and also include regulation sized fish when IFQs (including multi-species IFQs) are reached. The majority of discarded fish are released alive: of those, 35% released from the vertical line fishery and 42% from the longline fishery had signs of barotrauma (Scott-Denton et al. 2011). Several management measures are in place to reduce regulatory and incidental bycatch of targeted grouper species, including flexibility measures in the Gulf grouper IFQ program to allow landings across categories (NMFS 2013a), reductions in size limits of some species (GMFMC 2011a) and mandatory use of circle hooks, dehooking devices, and venting tools (NMFS 2008). Circle hooks have been shown to reduce gut hookings in target and non-target species; gut hooking is more likely to result in bleeding than jaw hooking (Bacheler & Buckel 2004).

103

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

Current bycatch management strategies in the South Atlantic include requirements for de-hooking devices (Amendment 16, 2009) and non-stainless circle hooks (Amendment 17A, 2010) to reduce discard mortality (SAFMC 2013c). Circle hooks have been shown to reduce gut hookings in target and non-target species; gut hooking is more likely to result in bleeding than jaw hooking (Bacheler & Buckel 2004).

Overall the management strategy and implementation for bycatch species is “moderately effective.”

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Scientific Research and Monitoring Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met.

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

The reef fish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is monitored by two observer programs, the Reef Fishery Observer Program (RFOP), which monitors vertical line (handline) and bottom longline trips, and the Shark Bottom Long Line Fishery Observer Program (SBLOP), which monitors bottom longline trips. Combining coverage from these programs, observer coverage is 5.3% for vertical line gears and 7.1% for bottom longline (Table 6) (NMFS 2014e). Target coverage for this fishery is 2% (NMFS 2013g), so observer coverage is above the target.

SEFSC collects logbook information on landed catch from 100% of commercial vessels and 20% of them are randomly subsampled to report all discards. In addition, a form specific for those fish discarded was implemented in 2001, to obtain better information on fish not landed. Underreporting is suspected in this self reporting program, and compliance is difficult to estimate because vessels can submit a report of "no discards" (NMFS 2011).

104

Although observer coverage meets and exceeds its target, this criterion scores as "moderately effective" because the high discard rate and the discard of highly vulnerable species in this fishery warrant increased observer coverage and because logbook data on discards are suspect.

Rationale Table 6: Number of sea days observed, the total sea days fished and the percent observer coverage in the reef fish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. SBLOP (Shark Bottom Long Line Observer Program), RFOP (Reef Fish Observer Program). (NMFS 2014e)

Gear Type SBLOP RFOP Industry Percent Coverage

Bottom Longline 240 196 6,133 7.1%

Vertical Line n/a 1,247.8 23,349 5.3%

Total 240 1,443.8 29,482 5.7%

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

0.00 Ineffective

Discard data for the bottom longline snapper-grouper fishery are collected by the SEFSC through the coastal logbook program from 20% of vessels. These vessels are not required to report discards of target species. Underreporting is suspected in this self reporting program, and compliance is difficult to estimate because vessels can submit a report of "no discards." According to the National Bycatch Report, a discard estimate cannot be calculated for this fishery because so few vessels report discards (less than 5 trips reported in 2005-6). Due to potential high bycatch, NMFS recommended, as a high priority, that this fishery implement an observer program for fish species and protected species (marine mammals and sea turtles). (NMFS 2011)

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.00 Ineffective

NMFS-SEFSC collects logbook information on landed catch from 100% of commercial vessels and 20% of them are randomly subsampled to report all discards. Since 2001, a separate form is required to be completed by all commercial vessels with reef fish permits describing those fish discarded at sea, which includes the fish's disposition (discard condition), estimated weight, the number of fish, and reason for discard. Underreporting is suspected in this self reporting program, and compliance is difficult to

105

estimate because vessels can submit a report of "no discards." NMFS has recommended, as a high priority (due to potential high bycatch), that this fishery implement an observer program for fish species and protected species (marine mammals and sea turtles) (NMFS 2011). NMFS funded a pilot observer program for the snapper-grouper bandit gear fishery (which includes handlines), encompassing 200 sea days of observation from January 2007 to December 2011 (Helies and Jamison 2013).

This criterion scores as ineffective because there is no observer coverage in this fishery where bycatch of depleted and protected species is a concern, and logbook data are insufficient.

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

3.00 Highly Effective

In 2009, after observer data indicated that the longline component of the Gulf of Mexico reef fishery exceeded the number of incidental takes of endangered loggerhead sea turtles allowed by the 2005 BO under the ESA, NMFS acted swiftly to reduce turtle bycatch by enacting several measures restricting the use of longline gear in the region (NMFS 2009b), effectively shifting the commercial reef fishery to vertical gear.

In 2008, in order to reduce mortality of discarded fish, NMFS followed scientific advice and required all commercial and recreational fishers targeting reef fish to possess and use unhooking and venting tools and circle hooks (NMFS 2008).

Although observer coverage is low, scientific advice related to bycatch has been followed for the Gulf reef fish Fishery, so this Scientific Advice is scored as ‘highly effective.’

106

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

3.00 Highly Effective

SAFMC follows scientific advice as set out by their SSC, so Scientific Advice is scored as "highly effective."

3.2.4 - Enforcement

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderately Effective

Since 2006 commercial vessels fishing under the Gulf Reef Fish FMP are required to have satellite communication vessel monitoring systems (VMS) (NMFS-SERO 2007). Grouper species catch, relative to their quotas, are monitored in real time via the online IFQ reporting system, which is maintained by the NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO) (NMFS-SERO 2013c). A recent study of enforcement under the IFQ program suggests that compliance has increased, although levels of non-compliance remain substantial and increased dockside enforcement is necessary (Porter et al. 2013). Enforcement in the Gulf of Mexico Reef fishery is "moderately effective."

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

0.00 Ineffective

Under Amendment 30 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, the SAFMC is proposing that all commercial vessels that fish for these species be equipped with satellite communication VMS in order to improve enforcement, increase scientific knowledge, and promote better management. In terms of enforcement, the council states that VMSs would be particularly useful to help enforce fishing area restrictions (SAFMC 2013b). Currently, quota enforcement relies on mandatory trip report forms that report catch for all snapper-grouper vessels. Due to the lack of current enforcement mechanisms, this criterion is scored as “ineffective.”

107

Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem

This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles are also evaluated. EBFM aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment.

The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation of gear impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

 Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern  Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern  Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary Region / Method Gear Type and Mitigation of EBFM Overall Recomm. Substrate Gear Impacts United States Gulf of Mexico 4.00:Very Low 0.25:Minimal 4.00:Low Green (4.123) Handline Concern Mitigation Concern United States Gulf of Mexico 2.00:Moderate 0.50:Moderate 4.00:Low Yellow (3.162) Longline, Bottom Concern Mitigation Concern United States Gulf of Mexico 4.00:Very Low 0.25:Minimal 4.00:Low Green (4.123) Handline Concern Mitigation Concern United States Gulf of Mexico 2.00:Moderate 0.50:Moderate 4.00:Low Yellow (3.162) Longline, Bottom Concern Mitigation Concern United States South Atlantic 4.00:Very Low 0.25:Minimal 4.00:Low Green (4.123) Handline Concern Mitigation Concern United States South Atlantic 2.00:Moderate 0.50:Moderate 4.00:Low Yellow (3.162) Longline, Bottom Concern Mitigation Concern United States South Atlantic 4.00:Very Low 0.25:Minimal 4.00:Low Green (4.123) Handline Concern Mitigation Concern

Criterion 4 Assessment

Factor 4.1 – Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

Scoring Guidelines

 5 (None)—Fishing gear does not contact the bottom  4 (Very Low)—Vertical line gear

108

 3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g., gillnet, bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally (<25% of the time) or purse seine known to commonly contact bottom  2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand  1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder)  0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl)

Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

4.00 Very Low Concern

Handlines make minimal contact with the substrate.

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderate Concern

Bottom longlines may be fished on the substrate or in the water column. Due to the affiliation of the assessed grouper species (red, black, gag, snowy, yellowedge, Warsaw) with rocky reef and hardbottom habitat, it is likely that longlines are used over these types of habitats. There is no information available on longline gear interaction with the substrate in either the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery or the Gulf of Mexico reef fishery.

United States South Atlantic, Handline

4.00 Very Low Concern

Handlines make minimal contact with the substrate.

109

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

2.00 Moderate Concern

Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Scoring Guidelines

 +1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.  +0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing.  +0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced.  0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats.

United States, Longline, Bottom

0.50 Moderate Mitigation

Longline restrictions in the Gulf of Mexico region which mitigate potential gear impacts include: reductions in the number of reef fish longline vessels by aproximately 80%, limits on the number of hooks which can be fished at once, and restrictions to outside the 35 fathom depth contour from June to August, via Amendment 31 in 2010, which aimed to mitigate loggerhead sea turtle bycatch, but also served to mitigate the effects of longline gear on the benthos (75 FR 21512). Additional restrictions include prohibitions of longline gear in designated Essential Fish Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (EFH-HAPC), via EFH Amendment 3 in 2005 (70 FR 76216), and year-round restrictions to outside the 50 fathom depth contour west of Cape San Blas, Florida and the 20 fathom depth contour east of Cape San Blas, via Amendment 1 in 1990. (GMFMC 1989)

110

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

0.25 Minimal Mitigation

Mitigation of gear impacts scores as "minimal" to reflect the presence of MPAs in the region. See Criteria 3 as well as 4.3 for detailed discussions on habitat protection.

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

0.50 Moderate Mitigation

Longline restrictions in the Gulf of Mexico region which mitigate potential gear impacts include: reductions in the number of reef fish longline vessels by approximately 80%, limits on the number of hooks which can be fished at once, and restrictions to outside the 35 fathom depth contour from June to August, via Amendment 31 in 2010, aimed to mitigate loggerhead sea turtle bycatch, but also served to mitigate the effects of longline gear on the benthos (75 FR 21512). Additional restrictions include prohibitions of longline gear in designated Essential Fish Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (EFH-HAPC), via EFH Amendment 3 in 2005 (70 FR 76216), and year-round restrictions to outside the 50 fathom depth contour west of Cape San Blas, Florida and the 20 fathom depth contour east of Cape San Blas, via Amendment 1 in 1990 (GMFMC 1989).

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

0.25 Minimal Mitigation

Mitigation of gear impacts scores as "minimal" to reflect the presence of MPAs in the region. See Criteria 3 as well as 4.3 for detailed discussions on habitat protection.

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

0.50 Moderate Mitigation

Longline restrictions in the Gulf of Mexico region which mitigate potential gear impacts include: reductions in the number of reef fish longline vessels by approximately 80%, limits on the number of hooks which can be fished at once and restrictions to outside the 35 fathom depth contour from June to August, via Amendment 31 in 2010 aimed to mitigate loggerhead sea turtle bycatch, but also served to mitigate the effects of longline gear on the benthos (75 FR 21512). Additionaly restrictions include prohibitions of longline gear in designated Essential Fish Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (EFH-HAPC), via EFH Amendment 3 in 2005 (70 FR 76216), and year-round restrictions to outside the 50

111

fathom depth contour west of Cape San Blas, Florida and the 20 fathom depth contour east of Cape San Blas, via Amendment 1 in 1990 (GMFMC 1989).

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

0.50 Moderate Mitigation

Longline restrictions in the South Atlantic region which mitigate potential gear impact include depth limitations (only allowed in depths of 50 fathoms or more and only north of St. Lucie Inlet, Florida), vessel limits (vessels with longline gear onboard may only possess deepwater species), protected areas limits (longline gear cannot be used in the deep water Oculina Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) located approximately 15 nautical miles off the coast of Ft. Pierce, Florida), and a longline endorsement program for the golden tile fish sector of the snapper-grouper fishery which serves to restrict longline effort across the the snapper-grouper fishery in general (SAFMC 2013c). In addition, coral HAPCs are currently being expanded through Coral Amendment 8 to the Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hardbottom Habitats FMP.

United States South Atlantic, Handline

0.25 Minimal Mitigation

Mitigation of gear impacts scores as "minimal" to reflect the presence of MPAs in the region. See Criteria 3 as well as 4.3 for detailed discussions on habitat protection.

Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Scoring Guidelines

 5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators).  4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used.  3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts.

112

 2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.  1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or FADs in the fishery is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.

United States , Longline, Bottom

United States Gulf of Mexico, Handline

United States Gulf of Mexico, Longline, Bottom

4.00 Low Concern

Groupers are species of "exceptional importance" serving as mid-level to apex predators and ecosystem engineers. Studies have shown that groupers can have direct and indirect cascading effects on food webs (Stallings 2008) and may represent an important biocontrol for invasive lionfish in the regions of interest (Mumby et al. 2011). Species such as red grouper are ecosystem engineers, excavating holes in bays and shallow coastal areas as juveniles and in deeper areas where they expose underlying rock structures as adults (Coleman et al. 2010). Yellowedge groupers have been observed using burrows, but it is unknown if they excavate them (Jones et al. 1989).

Taking the ecosystem roles of fish in the Reef Fish FMP into account, the GMFMC designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in 2005, including seven Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) where either all fishing is prohibited (Tortugas, north and south), or certain gears, including longlines, are prohibited (McGrail Bank, Pulley Ridge, Stetson Bank, West and East Flower Garden Banks) (70 FR 76216). Current EBFM efforts in the Gulf include NOAAs Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) program (Schirripa et al. 2012) and FWC's West Florida Shelf modeling efforts.

United States South Atlantic, Handline

United States South Atlantic, Longline, Bottom

4.00 Low Concern

113

Under Amendment 14 to the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan, eight marine protected areas were established in 2009 to protect a portion of the long-lived, "deep water" snapper and grouper species. Currently, under proposed Amendment 17 to the FMP, alternative configurations and extents of these eight MPAs are under consideration, specifically to protect Warsaw grouper and speckled hind (SAFMC 2013e). The Oculina Bank HAPC and experimental closed area protects grouper habitat by restricting longline gear (and other bottom damaging gears) throughout the 300 mi2 HAPC and by restricting all fishing in the 92 mi2 closed area (SAFMC 2013c).

114

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

Seafood Watch® would like to thank Robert Ellis of Florida State University, Helen Takade- Heumacher of the Environmental Defense Fund, Linda Anne Lombardi of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and two anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

Updates

South Atlantic gag fishing mortality (Criterion 1.3) was updated on 30 June 2016 to “low concern” from “high concern” because overfishing is no longer occurring on this stock. This resulted in an overall score and rating change for handlines (the only gear type assessed in the South Atlantic); an increase to 2.462 (Good Alternative) from 2.093 (Avoid).

Gulf of Mexico gag abundance (Criterion 1.2) was updated on 30 June 2016 to “moderate concern” from “high concern” because NMFS no longer considers this stock overfished, but the stock assessment models suggests that the stock may still be overfished. This resulted in overall score changes for both gear types, with a rating change for longline. The overall handline score increased to 2.502 (Good Alternative) from 2.375 (Good Alternative) and the overall longline score increased to 2.204 (Good Alternative) from 2.095 (Avoid). The rating for longline caught gag was updated on 22 March 2017.

The remainder of this report is unchanged from the 2014 report.

115

References

(FR) "Endangered and Threatened Species; Establishment of Species of Concern List, Addition of Species to Species of Concern List, Description of Factors for Identifying Species of Concern, and Revision of Candidate Species List Under the Endangered Species Act" 69 Federal Register 73 (April 15, 2004), pp.19975-19979. Available at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/SOC/Revised%20SOC%20webpage%202010/fr69-19975.pdf

(FR) “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Warsaw Grouper as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)" 69 Federal Register 187 (September 28 2010), pp.59690. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-09-28/pdf/2010- 24334.pdf

(FR) "Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico Essential Fish Habitat Amendment" 70 Federal Register 246 (23 December 2005) pp. 76216-76220. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-12-23/pdf/05-24416.pdf

(FR) "Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 31" 75 Federal Register 79 (26 April 2010) pp. 21512-21520. Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2008-0310-0577

(FR) "Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Snapper-Grouper Management Measures" 77 Federal Register 91 (10 May 2012) pp. 27374-27380. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-10/html/2012- 11307.htm

(FR) "Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper- Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 24" 77 Federal Register 112 (11 June 2012), pp. 34254-34260. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-06-11/pdf/2012-14137.pdf

(FR) "Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Loggerhead Sea Turtle Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and Determination Regarding Critical Habitat for the North Pacific Ocean Loggerhead DPS" 78 Federal Register 138 (18 July 2013), pp. 43005 - 43054. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/18/2013-17204/endangered- and-threatened-species-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-the-northwest-atlantic-ocean

(FR) “Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Regulatory Amendment 22” 80 Federal Register 107, pp. 31880-31884. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/04/2015-13592/fisheries-of-the- caribbean-gulf-of-mexico-and-south-atlantic-snapper-grouper-fishery-off-the

Bacheler, N.M., and Buckel, J.A. 2004. Does hook type influence the catch rate, size, and injury of grouper in a North Carolina commercial fishery? Fisheries Research 69: 303-311.

116

Bertoncini, A.A., Choat, J.H., Craig, M.T., Ferreira, B.P. & Rocha, L. Mycteroperca microlepis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. .

Carmichael, J. 2013. SEDAR stock assessment productivity and long-term South Atlantic assessment planning. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, August 2013. Availalbe at: http://safmc.net/meetings/pdf/A2_SEDARProductivitySAFMC.pdf

Cheung, W.W.L., Pitcher, T.J. and Pauly, D. 2005. A fuzzy logic expert system to estimate intrinsic extinction vulnerabilities of marine fishes to fishing. Biol. Conserv. 124:97-111.

Coleman, F.C., Koenig, C.C., Scanlon, K.M., Heppell, S., and Miller, M.W. 2010. Benthic Habitat Modification through Excavation by Red Grouper, Epinephelus morio, in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. The Open Fish Science Journal 3:1-15. Available at: http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tofishsj/articles/V003/1TOFISHSJ.pdf

Conrath, C. 2005. Mustelus canis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 25 July 2013.

Cook, M., and Hendon, M. 2010. Yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus flavolimbatus) age, growth and reproduction from the northern Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service Southeastern Fisheries Science Center. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S22_DW_08.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

Cook, R. 2011. Reviewer’s Report of SEDAR 22 Assessment Review Workshop (RW) of Gulf of Mexico Yellowedge Grouper and Tilefish. Center for Independent Experts. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Sedar_Workshops.jsp?WorkshopNum=22

Cook, M., Fitzhugh, G.R., and Franks, J.S. 2009. Validation of yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flavolimatus, age using nuclear bomb-produced radiocarbon. Environmental Biology of Fishes 86: 461- 472.n Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S22_RD04_cook%20et%20al%202009.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

R. Ellis, personal communication, June 2014

FAO. 2013. Global Capture Production. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global- capture-production/en

Farmer, N.A., and Karnauskas, M. 2013. Spatial Distribution and Conservation of Speckled Hind and Warsaw Grouper in the Atlantic Ocean off the Southeastern U.S. PLoS ONE 8(11): e78682. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078682

Farmer, N.A., Malinowski, R.P., and McGovern, M.F. 2010. Species groupings for management of the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery. SERO-LAPP-2010-03.

117

Farmer, N.A., Mehta, N.K., Reichert, M.J.M., and Stephen, J.A. 2011. Species groupings for management of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Unit. SERO- LAPP-2010-06: Appendix O

FDA. 2012. FDA Seafood List. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/search_seafood/index.cfm

Ferreira, B.P. & Peres, M.B. 2008. Hyporthodus flavolimbatus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 03 April 2013. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/64400/0

Ferreira, B.P., Rocha, L., Gaspar, A.L.B., Sadovy, Y. & Craig, M. 2008. Mycteroperca bonaci. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 18 July 2013. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/132724/0

Fitzhugh, G.R., Lyon, H.M., Walling, W.T., Levins, C.F. and Lombardi-Carlson, L.A. 2006a. An update of Gulf of Mexico red grouper reproductive data and parameters for SEDAR 12. SEDAR 12-DW-04. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S12%20DW04%20reproduction.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

Fitzhugh, G.R., Lyon, H.M., Walling, W.T., Levins, C.F. and Lombardi-Carlson, L.A. 2006. Update of gag (Mycteroperca microlepis) reproductive parameters: Eastern Gulf of Mexico, SEDAR 10 Data Workshop. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. SEDAR 10-DW-03. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S10DW03%20GULF OF MEXICOreproduction.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

Froese, R. and Pauly, D. Editors. 2000. FishBase 2000: concepts, design and data sources. ICLARM, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. 344 p.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2012. The 2012 Stock Assessment Report for Yellowtail Snapper in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/YTS_FWC_SAR.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

Garcia-Moliner, G., and Eklund, A.M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group). 2004. Epinephelus morio. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 02 April 2013.

GMFMC. 1989. Amendment Number 1 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan. Available at: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/RF%20Amend-01%20Final%201989-08- rescan.pdf

GMFMC. 2008. Final Reef Fish Amendment 30b: Gag – End Overfishing and Set Management Thresholds and Targets; Red Grouper – Set Optimum Yield Tac and Management Measures, Time/Area Closures; and Federal Regulatory Compliance. October 2008. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 462 pp. Available at

118

http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/Final%20Amendment%2030B%2010_10_08. pdf

GMFMC. 2011. Final regulatory amendment to set 2011-2015 total allowable catch and adjust bag limit for red grouper: including environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and regulatory flexibility act analysis.

GMFMC. 2011a. Amendment Guide: Reef Fish Amendment 32 Gag and Red Grouper. Available at: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/docs/amendments/Amendment%2032%20Amendment%20Guide%20Bookl et%2011-2-11.pdf

GMFMC. 2011b. Final Reef Fish Amendment 32: Gag grouper - Rebuilding plan, annual catch limits, management measures, Red grouper - annual catch limits, management measures, grouper accountability measures. rev. 10/21/2011. Available at: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/docs/amendments/Final%20RF32_EIS_October_21_2011[2].pdf

GMFMC. 2011c. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Five-Year Strategic Communications Plan. 8/31/2011. Available at: http://safmc.net/images/pdf/Attach11_GulfCouncilStrategic_Communications_Plan_Final_Draft.pdf

GMFMC. 2012. 2011 Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota Annual Report. Available at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/ifq/documents/pdfs/2011_gt_annualreport_final.pdf

GMFMC. 2012a. Scoping Document for Amendment 28 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico. August 2012.

GMFMC. 2012b. Modifications to the Gray Triggerfish Rebuilding Plan Including Adjustments to the Annual Catch Limits & Annual Catch Targets for the Commercial & Recreational Sector: Public Hearing Draft of Amendment 37 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico.

GMFMC. 2013. Frequently Asked Questions for the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper and Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Programs. Available at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/ifq/documents/pdfs/gulf_reef_fish_ifq_faqs_may2013. pdf

GMFMC. 2013a. Commercial Quotas/Catch Allowances (all years). Updated July 2, 2014. Available at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/ifq/documents/pdfs/commercialquotascatchallowance table.pdf

GMFMC. 2013b. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Administrative Handbook. June 2013. Available at: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/Administrative%20Handbook.pdf

119

GMFMC. 2014. Fishing regulations (website). Available at: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/fishing_regulations/index.php

Grimes, C. B., C. F. Idelberger, K. W. Able, and S. C. Turner. 1988. The reproductive biology of tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps Goode and Bean, from the United States Mid-Atlantic Bight, and the effects of fishing on the breeding system. Fish. Bull., U.S. 86(4):745-776. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/labs/panama/library/CG88FB2.pdf

Gulak, S.J.B., Enzenauer, M.P. and Carlson, J.K. 2013. Characterization of the Shark and Reef Fish Bottom Longline Fisheries. 2012. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-652. 42 p. available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/labs/panama/documents/observer_documents/bottom_longline/NMFS- SEFSC-652.pdf

Heemstra, P. C. and Randall, J.E. (1993). "Groupers of the world. (Family Serranidae, Subfamily Epinephelinae). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the grouper, rock cod, hind, coral grouper and lyretail species known to date." FAO Fish.Synops., FAO species catalogue 16(125). Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/t0540e/t0540e00.pdf

Helies F.C., and Jamison, J.L. 2013. Continuation of Catch Characterization and Discards within the Snapper-Grouper Vertical Hook-and-Line Fishery of the South Atlantic United States. Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation. Available at: http://www.gulfsouthfoundation.org/uploads/113_final.pdf

Ng Wai Chuen & Huntsman, G. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group). 2006. Hyporthodus nigritus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. Downloaded on 17 July 2013. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/7860/0

Jones, R.S., Gutherz, E.J., Nelson, W.R., Matlock, G.C. 1989. Burrow utilization by yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Biology of Fishes 26: 277- 284. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S22_RD07_jones1989EBF_v26.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

Lamont M.M., Carthy, R.R., Fujisaki, I. 2012. Declining reproductive parameters highlight conservation needs for loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Chelonian Conservation Biology 11: 190–196. Available at: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2744/CCB-1006.1

Lombardi-Carlson, L.A., Fitzhugh, G., Palmer, C., Gardner, C., Farsky, R. and Ortiz, M. 2008. Regional size, age, and growth differences of red grouper (Epinephelus morio) along the west coast of Florida. Fisheries Research 91: 239-251. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783607003463

Medley. 2011. Reviewer’s Report of SEDAR 22 Assessment Review Workshop (RW) of Gulf of Mexico Yellowedge Grouper and Tilefish. Center for Independent Experts. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Sedar_Workshops.jsp?WorkshopNum=22

Morgan, M., Carlson, J., Kyne, P.M., and Lessa, R. 2009. Carcharhinus acronotus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 25 July 2013.

120

Mumby P.J., A.R. Harborne and Brumbaugh D.R. 2011. Grouper as a Natural Biocontrol of Invasive Lionfish. PLoS ONE 6(6): e21510. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021510

Nitschke, P. 2006. Tilefish. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US. Available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/og/tile/

NMFS. 2006. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion: The Continued Authorization of Snapper-Grouper Fishing in the U.S. South Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as Managed under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan (SGFMP) of the South Atlantic Region, including Amendment 13C to the SGFMP. Available at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/Fishery%20Biops/02124%20SG%2013C%20SER%20BiOp.pdf

NMFS. 2008. New Regulations Requiring Circle Hooks, Dehooking Devices, and Venting Tools for Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Effective June 1, 2008 Frequently Asked Questions March 2008. Available online at: http://archive.news-press.com/assets/pdf/A4140374812.PDF

NMFS. 2009a. Estimated Takes of Sea Turtles in the Bottom Longline Portion of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery July 2006 through December 2008 Based on Observer Data. NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Contribution PRD-08/09-07. Available at: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/BB%202009-04/B%20-%203(d)%20GULF OF MEXICO%20Sea%20Turtle%20Takes.pdf

NMFS. 2009b. Endangered Species Act -Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion: The Continued Authorization of Reef Fish Fishing under the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (RFFMP), including Amendment 31, and a Rulemaking to Reduce Sea Turtle Bycatch in the Eastern Gulf Bottom Longline Component of the Fishery.

NMFS. 2010. Annual report on the implementation on the terms and conditions of the 2009 Biological Opinion for the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish fishery. 26pp. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/species/turtles/2009BIOPGULF OF MEXICOReefFish.pdf

NMFS. 2011. U.S. National Bycatch Report [W. A. Karp, L. L. Desfosse, S. G. Brooke, Editors]. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-117E, 508 p. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/bycatch_nationalreport.htm

NMFS. 2013. Fourth Quarter Update: Stock status summary for FSSI and non-FSSI stocks. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2013/fourth/Q4%202013%20Stock%20Status%20Tabl es.pdf

NMFS. 2013a. Frequently Asked Questions for the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper and Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Programs. Available at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/ifq/documents/pdfs/gulf_reef_fish_ifq_faqs_may2013. pdf

121

NMFS. 2013b. Annual Commercial Landings by Gear Type. Accessed July 1, 2013. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/landings-by-gear/index

NMFS. 2013c. Fishwatch: Vermilion Snapper. Available at: http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/snapper/species_pages/vermillion_snapper.htm

NMFS. 2013d. U.S. Foreign Trade Data. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/trade/

NMFS. 2013e. Office of Protected Resources. Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta). website updated July 18, 2013. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm

NMFS. 2013f. U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition Update 1 [L.R. Benaka, C. Rilling, E.E. Seney, H. Winarsoo Editors]. U.S. Dep. Commer., U.S. Dep. Commer., 57 p. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/Observer-Program/bycatch-report/NBR_FirstEditionUpdate1.pdf

NMFS. 2013g. National Observer Program Annual Report – FY 2012, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/SPO- 127, 38 p. available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer-home/reports/nopannualreports/

NMFS. 2014. Species Information System Public Portal. Accessed on April 1, 2014.

NMFS. 2014a. Fishwatch: Gag Grouper. Available at: http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/grouper/species_pages/grouper_gag.htm

NMFS. 2014b. Fishwatch: Red Grouper. Available at: http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/grouper/species_pages/grouper_red.htm

NMFS. 2014c. First Quarter Update: Stock status summary for FSSI and non-FSSI stocks. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2014/first/q1_2014_stock_st atus_tables.pdf

NMFS. 2014d. Annual Commercial Landings by Gear Type. Accessed June 13, 2014. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/landings-by-gear/index

NMFS. 2014e. Annual Report for 2012 on the Implementation of the Terms and Conditions of the 2009 Biological Opinion for the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery.

NMFS. 2015. Fourth Quarter Update: Stock status summary for FSSI and non-FSSI stocks. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/status_updates.html

NMFS. 2015a. Commercial Fisheries Statistics. National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index

NMFS 2015b. Recreational Fisheries Statistics. NOAA Office of Science and Technology. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/

122

NMFS-SEFSC. 2013. Standardized catch rates of U.S. blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps) from commercial logbook longline data. SEDAR32-DW17. SEDAR, North Charleston, SC. 13 pp. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR32_DW17_SFB_3.4.2013_FINAL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

NMFS-SEFSC. 2013a. Standardized catch rates of U.S. gray triggerfish (Balistes capriscus) from commercial logbook data. SEDAR32-DW10. SEDAR, North Charleston, SC. 17 pp. available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR32_DW10_SFB_3.4.2013_FINAL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

NMFS-SERO. 2007. Vessel Monitoring System Program Gulf of Mexico Commercial Reef Fish Frequently Asked Questions Revised April 2007.

NMFS-SERO. 2010. Southeast Fishery Bulletin FB10-112: NOAA Will Publish a Final Rule to Establish Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures for Nine South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Species. December 30, 2010. Available at: http://safmc.net/Library/pdf/FBAmendment17BFinalRule122910.pdf

NMFS -SERO. 2012. Southeast Fishery Bulletin. June 11, 2012. FB12-043. Available at: http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yxRytxrA%2Frk%3D&tabid=313

NMFS-SERO. 2013. Distribution of Speckled Hind and Warsaw Grouper in the U.S. South Atlantic. SERO- LAPP-2012-08. Updated January 31, 2013. Available at: http://safmc.net/Meetings/SSCMeeting/SSCBBOctober2012/A15_RA17_SHWG.pdf

NMFS - SERO. 2013a. Historical South Atlantic Commercial Landings. Updated May 30, 2013. Available at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/acl_monitoring/commercial_sa/historical/index.html

NMFS-SERO. 2013c. Individual Fishing Quota Online System - Gulf Reef Fish v2.1.2. Available at:https://ifq.sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ifqgt/main.html#

Parker, R. O., Jr. and Mays R.W. 1998. "Southeastern U.S. deepwater reef fish assemblages, habitat characteristics, catches, and life history summaries." NOAA Technical Report 138: 41. Available at: http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/tr138.pdf

Porter, R.D., Jylkka, Z. and Swanson, G. 2013. Enforcement and compliance trends under IFQ management in the Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish fishery. Marine Policy 38: 45-53. Available at: http://www.nefmc.org/issues/enforce/cte_mtg_docs/120628/MarPol%20in%20press%202012%20KStC yr%206-25-12.pdf

Rocha, L., McGovern, J.C., Craig, M.T., Choat, J.H., Ferreira, B., Bertoncini, A.A. & Craig, M. 2008. Mycteroperca phenax. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/132729/0

SAFMC. 2011. Amendment 24 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Environmental Assessment, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis,

123

Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. Available at: http://safmc.net/Library/pdf/SGAmend24.pdf

SAFMC. 2012. South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report. October 12, 2012. Available at: http://safmc.net/Meetings/SSCMeeting/SSCBBOctober2012/A25_SAFEDraft2012_SASnapGrp.pdf

SAFMC. 2013. South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Complex Commercial Regulations. Updated July 1, 2013. Available at: http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=LdIOVo7Y07g%3D&tabid=248

SAFMC. 2013a. Regulatory Amendment 15 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, Yellowtail Snapper and Shallow Water Groupers. Available at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/s_atl/sg/2013/reg_am15/documents/pdfs/sa_reg_am end15_final.pdf

SAFMC. 2013b. Amendment 30 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) for Vessels Harvesting Snapper-Grouper Species.

SAFMC. 2013c. SAFMC website. Available at: http://www.safmc.net/

SAFMC. 2013d. News Release: Council Approves Measures to Increase Catch Limits for Vermilion Snapper. Available at: http://www.safmc.net/News/NewsReleases/NR_SAFMC_MarchMeeting031213.pdf

SAFMC. 2013e. Regulatory Amendment 17 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Marine Protected Areas). Available at: http://safmc.net/sites/default/files/meetings/pdf/Council/12-2013/SG/SG- A5f_SGRegAm17ScopingDoc_v2_112213ComMotions.pdf

SAFMC. 2014. Scamp. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Available at:http://safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/Scamp

Schirripa, M.J., Allee, B., Cross, S., Kelbe, C., Rost Parsons, A. 2012. Progress towards an integrated ecosystem assessment for the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA white paper available at: http://www.noaa.gov/iea/Assets/iea/gulf/SCRS-12-082_Schirripa.pdf

Personal communication, Elizabeth Scott-Denton, Reef Fish Observer Program Coordinator, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, June 5, 2014

Scott-Denton, E., P. F. Cryer, J. P. Gocke, M. R. Harrelson, D. L. Kinsella, J. R. Pulver, R. C. Smith and Williams J.A. 2011. Descriptions of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico reef fish bottom longline and vertical longline fisheries based on observer data. Marine Fisheries Review 73:1–26. Available at: http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/mfr732/mfr7321.pdf

124

SEDAR. 2004. Stock Assessment of the Deepwater Snapper-Grouper Complex in the South Atlantic. SEDAR 4 Stock Assessment Report 1. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR4- FinalSAR%20200606.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2006. SEDAR 10: Stock Assessment Report. South Atlantic Gag Grouper. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S10_SAR1_SA_Gag_updated_ALL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2007. SEDAR 13: Stock Assessment Report Small Coastal Shark Complex, Atlantic Sharpnose, Blacknose, Bonnethead, and Finetooth Shark. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SAR_complete_2.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2009. SEDAR 12: Stock Assessment of Red Grouper in the Gulf of Mexico, SEDAR Update Assessment. August 3, 2009. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/Red_Grouper_2009_Assessment_Update_Report.pdf?id= DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2009a. SEDAR 12: Stock Assessment of Gag in the Gulf of Mexico, SEDAR Update Assessment. http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/Gag_2009_Assessment_Update_Report.pdf?id=DOCUMEN T

SEDAR. 2010. SEDAR 19: Stock Assessment Report, South Atlantic Red Grouper. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/Red_grouper_SAR_FINAL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2010a. SEDAR 19: Stock Assessment Report, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Black Grouper. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/Black_SAR_FINAL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2011. SEDAR 22: Stock Assessment Report, Gulf of Mexico Yellowedge Grouper. August 2011. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/YEG_final_SAR.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2011a. SEDAR 21: Stock Assessment Report HMS Atlantic Blacknose Shark. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/Atl_Blacknose_SAR.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2011b. SEDAR 25: Stock Assessment Report South Atlantic Tilefish. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR25_TilefishSAR.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2011c. SEDAR 22: Stock Assessment Report Gulf of Mexico Tilefish. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/tilefish_SAR_FINAL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2011d. SEDAR 9. Update Stock Assessment Report Gulf of Mexico Vermilion Snapper. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/2011%20SEDAR%209%20Update%20Assessment%20for% 20Gulf%20of%20Mexico%20Vermilion%20Snapper.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2011e. SEDAR 21: Stock Assessment Report HMS Gulf of Mexico Blacknose Shark. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/Gulf of Mexico_Blacknose_SAR.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

125

SEDAR. 2011f. SEDAR 9: Stock Assessment Update Report, Gulf of Mexico Greater Amberjack. Available online at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%209%20GAJ%20Stock%20Assessment%20Update %20Including%20Appendices%20I-III.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2012. SEDAR 33: Gulf of Mexico Gag Terms of Reference, Approved 23 October 2012. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S33_Gag%20Benchmark%20TORs%20v%203_final.pdf?id= DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2012a. Stock Assessment of Red Porgy of the Southeastern United States - Update Assessment. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR01_red.porgy.2012update.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2012b. SEDAR 17: Stock Assessment of Vermilion Snapper off the Southeastern United States. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR17_vermilion_snapper_2012update.pdf?id=DOCUM ENT

SEDAR. 2013. SEDAR Assessment Projects as of May 17, 2013. Available at http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=iSkQuBbR63o%3d&tabid=423

SEDAR. 2013a. SEDAR 25: Stock Assessment of Black Sea Bass of the Southeastern United States - SEDAR Update Assessment (Update to SEDAR 25). Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/01bsb-update2013Revised4-5_FINAL.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2013b. SEDAR 31: Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Stock Assessment Report. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR%2031%20SAR- %20Gulf%20Red%20Snapper_sizereduced.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2013c. SEDAR 34: Stock Assessment Report, HMS Atlantic Sharpnose Shark. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S34_ATSH_SAR.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2013d. SEDAR 36: South Atlantic Snowy Grouper Stock Assessment Report, Revised January 13, 2014. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S36_Std_SA_SnowyGrouper_SAR_Final_1.10.2014.pdf?id= DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2013e. SEDAR 32: Stock Assessment Report, South Atlantic Blueline Tilefish. 378 p. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S32_SA-BLT_SAR_FINAL_11.26.2013.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

SEDAR. 2014. SEDAR 33: Gulf of Mexico Gag Stock Assessment Report. SEDAR, North Charleston SC. 609 pp. Available online at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Sedar_Workshops.jsp?WorkshopNum=33

126

SEDAR. 2014a. SEDAR 33: Gulf of Mexico Greater Amberjack Stock Assessment Report. SEDAR, North Charleston SC. 490 pp. Available online at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Sedar_Workshops.jsp?WorkshopNum=33

SEDAR. 2014b. Stock Assessment of Gag in the Southeastern United States, SEDAR Update Assessment. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at: http://sedarweb.org/2014-update-sedar-10-south-atlantic-gag-grouper

Sedberry, G.R., Pashuk O., Wyanski D.M., Stephen J.A. and Weinbach P. 2006. Spawning locations for Atlantic reef fishes off the Southeastern U.S. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 57: 463- 514.

Shapiro, D. Y. 1987. Reproduction in groupers. Tropical snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management. J. J. Polovina and S. Ralston. Boulder, CO, Westview Press: 295-328.

Sparholt, H. 2011. SEDAR 22 Review Workshop of Gulf of Mexico Yellowedge Grouper and Tilefish. Center for Independent Experts. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Sedar_Workshops.jsp?WorkshopNum=22

Stallings, C.D. 2008. Indirect Effects of an Exploited Predator on Recruitment of Coral Reef Fishes. Ecology 89(8): 2090-2095. Available at: http://www.marinelab.fsu.edu/faculty/papers/Stallings%202008%20-E- %20indirect%20effects%20of%20an%20exploited%20predator%20on%20recruitment%20of%20coral%2 0reef%20fishes.pdf

Thierry, C., Sadovy, Y., Choat, J.H., Bertoncini, A.A., Rocha, L., Ferreira, B. and Craig, M. 2008. Hyporthodus niveatus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 04 April 2013. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/7861/0

Wyanski D.M., White D.B. and Barans C.A. 2000. Growth, population age structure and aspects of the reproductive biology of snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus, off North Carolina and South Carolina. Fishery Bulletin 98:199-218.

127