Vermilion Snapper |
|
Sometimes known as Chub Head Snapper, Golden-Red Snapper, Beeliner, Redfish
This Species is Wild Caught
Summary
Vermilion Snapper are found from North Carolina to Brazil and throughout the Gulf of Mexico. They reach sexual maturity at a young age and are highly fecund, spawning multiple times per year. Vermilion Snapper are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico, but are undergoing overfishing in the U.S. South Atlantic though the population is not considered overfished. The majority of fishermen use hook-and-line gear to catch Vermilion Snapper, which has little impact on bottom habitat and results in moderate levels of bycatch.
| CRITERION | Points |
|---|---|
| Life History | 2.25 |
| Abundance | 2.25 |
| Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts | 3.50 |
| Management | 2.50 |
| Bycatch | 2.00 |
| Final Score | 2.50 |
| Color | |
| Final Score | Color |
|---|---|
| 2.60 - 4.00 |  |
| 2.20 - 2.59 | |
| 1.80 - 2.19 |  |
| 1.40 - 1.79 |  |
| 0.00 - 1.39 |  |
Life History
Core Points (only one selection allowed)
If a value for intrinsic rate of increase (‘r’) is known, assign the score below based on this value. If no r-value is available, assign the score below for the correct age at 50% maturity for females if specified, or for the correct value of growth rate ('k'). If no estimates of r, age at 50% maturity, or k are available, assign the score below based on maximum age.
| 1.00 | Intrinsic rate of increase <0.05; OR age at 50% maturity >10 years; OR growth rate <0.15; OR maximum age >30 years. |
| 2.00 | Intrinsic rate of increase = 0.05-0.15; OR age at 50% maturity = 5-10 years; OR a growth rate = 0.16-0.30; OR maximum age = 11-30 years. Vermilion Snapper reach a maximum age of 26 years in the Gulf of Mexico (Allman et al. 2005) and a maximum length of 63 cm (Anderson 2002). In the U.S. South Atlantic Vermilion Snapper reach a maximum age of 19 years (SEDAR 2008). Vermilion Snapper mature before they reach 20 cm in length or approximately 1 year of age (Cuellar et al. 1996; Hood and Johnson 1999; Collins et al. 2005) and possibly at sizes less than 15 cm (Collins and Pinckney 1988). In the Gulf of Mexico, 69% of Vermilion Snapper age 0 were mature and 84% of those age 1 were mature (Hood and Johnson 1999). Fish from the western Gulf of Mexico tend to be older on average than those in the eastern Gulf of Mexico (Allman et al. 2001; Allman et al. 2005). Growth rate is estimated at 0.2 (Fishbase 2010). |
| 3.00 | Intrinsic rate of increase >0.16; OR age at 50% maturity = 1-5 years; OR growth rate >0.30; OR maximum age <11 years. |
Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
| -0.25 | Species has special behaviors that make it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., spawning aggregations; site fidelity; segregation by sex; migratory bottlenecks; unusual attraction to gear; etc.). | |
| -0.25 | Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity >20 years; sequential hermaphrodites; extremely low fecundity). | |
| -0.25 | Species has a small or restricted range (e.g., endemism; numerous evolutionarily significant units; restricted to one coastline; e.g., American lobster; striped bass; endemic reef fishes). Vermilion Snapper are found in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico from North Carolina to Brazil (Anderson 2002). Genetic information indicates some differences in the population structure of Vermilion Snapper from Venezuela and the U.S. and between the western Gulf of Mexico and other U.S. locations (Schwartz and Bert 2003; Tringali and Higham 2007). Mark recapture studies indicate Vermilion Snappers have a small home range (Fable 1980). Due to the reported differences between Vermilion Snapper from the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic in the weight-length relationship, lifespan (SEDAR 2008) and possible genetic separation, the two populations are managed and assessed separately (SEDAR 2006, 2008). We consider this a medium range and therefore no points were subtracted. | |
| -0.25 | Species exhibits high natural population variability driven by broad-scale environmental change (e.g. El Nino; decadal oscillations). | |
| +0.25 | Species does not have special behaviors that increase ease or population consequences of capture OR has special behaviors that make it less vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., species is widely dispersed during spawning). | |
| +0.25 | Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially resilient to fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity <1 year; extremely high fecundity). Vermilion Snapper mature quickly (Cuellar et al. 1996; Hood and Johnson 1999; Collins et al. 2005) and spawn in offshore waters from April to September (Cuellar et al. 1996; Hood and Johnson 1999; GMFMC 2004; Collins et al. 2005), with peak spawning reported to occur at night (Collins et al. 2005). Spawning occurs along the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico (Lyczkowski-Schultz et al. 2005; Collins et al. 2005). Batch fecundity estimates of 7,000 to 408,000 eggs/kg have been reported and appear to be greater in larger fish (Collins et al. 2005). Vermilion Snapper spawn between 33 to 87 times a year, about once every 5 days (Cuellar et al. 1996; Mikell et al. 2008). Annual fecundity estimates range from 0.64 to 35.5 million eggs/kg (Collins et al. 2005), which is very high. | |
| +0.25 | Species is distributed over a very wide range (e.g., throughout an entire hemisphere or ocean basin; e.g., swordfish; tuna; Patagonian toothfish). | |
| +0.25 | Species does not exhibit high natural population variability driven by broad-scale environmental change (e.g., El Nino; decadal oscillations). | |
| 2.25 | Points for Life History | |
Abundance
Core Points (only one selection allowed)
Compared to natural or un-fished level, the species population is:
| 1.00 | Low: Abundance or biomass is <75% of BMSY or similar proxy (e.g., spawning potential ratio). |
| 2.00 | Medium: Abundance or biomass is 75-125% of BMSY or similar proxy; OR population is approaching or recovering from an overfished condition; OR adequate information on abundance or biomass is not available. In 2004 (date of last population assessment) the population of Vermilion Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico were not considered overfished or undergoing overfishing (SEDAR 2006). The spawning stock biomass was at 180% of that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and fishing mortality was at 65% of that needed to produce MSY (SEDAR 2006). Additionally, at this time it was suspected that shrimp fishing effort had decreased and that would benefit the population of Vermilion Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico (SEDAR 2006). |
| 3.00 | High: Abundance or biomass is >125% of BMSY or similar proxy. |
Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
| -0.25 | The population is declining over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass estimates or standardized CPUE). | |
| -0.25 | Age, size or sex distribution is skewed relative to the natural condition (e.g., truncated size/age structure or anomalous sex distribution). Sex ratios of Vermilion Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico have been estimated at 1.6:1 (Allman 2007). Length frequency distributions from the Gulf of Mexico commercial handline fishery from 2001-2004 indicated that Vermilion Snappers age 3-5 were the most commonly caught and the oldest fish were 26 years old (Allman et al. 2005). Vermilion Snapper from the western Gulf of Mexico commercial hand-and-line fishery are on average 1 year older than those in the eastern Gulf of Mexico (2001-2004) (Allman et al. 2005). | |
| -0.25 | Species is listed as "overfished" OR species is listed as "depleted", "endangered", or "threatened" by recognized national or international bodies. | |
| -0.25 | Current levels of abundance are likely to jeopardize the availability of food for other species or cause substantial change in the structure of the associated food web. | |
| +0.25 | The population is increasing over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass estimates or standardized CPUE). Vermilion Snapper abundance in the Gulf of Mexico declined from 1993 to 2000 and showed a slight increase from 2000 to 2004 (SEDAR 2006). Because the increase is slight and covers only a few years, no points were added. | |
| +0.25 | Age, size or sex distribution is functionally normal. | |
| +0.25 | Species is close to virgin biomass. | |
| +0.25 | Current levels of abundance provide adequate food for other predators or are not known to affect the structure of the associated food web. Vermilion Snapper mostly feed on other fish, shrimps, crabs, and invertebrates that live on the seafloor (Fishbase 2010). Current levels of abundance likely provide sufficient food, so points were added. | |
| 2.25 | Points for Abundance | |
Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts
Core Points (only one selection allowed)
Select the option that most accurately describes the effect of the fishing method upon the habitat that it affects.
| 1.00 | The fishing method causes great damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., cyanide; blasting; bottom trawling; dredging). |
| 2.00 | The fishing method does moderate damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., bottom gillnets; traps and pots; bottom longlines). |
| 3.00 | The fishing method does little damage to physical or biogenic habitats (e.g., hand picking; hand raking; hook and line; pelagic long lines; mid-water trawl or gillnet; purse seines). In the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic the majority of Vermilion Snapper are caught with hand-line or hook-and-line gear (GMFMC 2004; SEDAR 2008). This fishing method, typically involving 6 lines per boat each with 10 or less baited hooks, has a very low impact on bottom habitat (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). |
Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
| -0.25 | Habitat for this species is so compromised from non-fishery impacts that the ability of the habitat to support this species is substantially reduced (e.g., dams; pollution; coastal development). | |
| -0.25 | Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are not protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc. | |
| -0.25 | No efforts are being made to minimize damage from existing gear types OR new or modified gear is increasing habitat damage (e.g., fitting trawls with roller rigs or rockhopping gear; more robust gear for deep-sea fisheries). | |
| -0.25 | If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is very slow (e.g., deep water corals; rocky bottoms). | |
| +0.25 | Habitat for this species remains robust and viable and is capable of supporting this species. | |
| +0.25 | Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc. In the Gulf of Mexico Vermilion Snapper are found over reefs and rocky bottoms (20-200 m depth) (GMFMC 2004). Juveniles are found over reefs, underwater structures and hard bottom habitats (20-200 m depth) (NOAA 1985). Coastal and offshore reef habitats are used by Vermilion Snapper as nursery grounds during the early and late juvenile stages (GMFMC 2004). | |
| +0.25 | Gear innovations are being implemented over a majority of the fishing area to minimize damage from gear types OR no innovations necessary because gear effects are minimal. Gear innovations are not necessary because gear effects are minimal (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). | |
| +0.25 | If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is fast (e.g., mud or sandy bottoms) OR gear effects are minimal. | |
| 3.50 | Points for Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts | |
Management
Core Points (only one selection allowed)
Select the option that most accurately describes the current management of the fisheries of this species.
| 1.00 | Regulations are ineffective (e.g., illegal fishing or overfishing is occurring) OR the fishery is unregulated (i.e., no control rules are in effect). |
| 2.00 | Management measures are in place over a major portion over the species' range but implementation has not met conservation goals OR management measures are in place but have not been in place long enough to determine if they are likely to achieve conservation and sustainability goals. Vermilion Snappers are managed in federal waters in the South Atlantic under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery (SAFMC 1983). Management measures included in this plan and its Amendments are: gear restrictions, designated Special Management Zones (SMZ) (SAFMC 1983), prohibited fishing in SMA’s (SAFMC 1986), area closures for trawl gear (SAFMC 1988), commercial quotas and trip limits (SAFMC 1992), prohibition on certain gear in specific areas, size limits (SAFMC 1983), dealer permits, (SAFMC 1994), limited entry permit (SAFMC 1998) plans to monitor bycatch and reduce hooking of sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish (SAFMC 2008) and deepwater marine protected areas (SAFMC 2007). |
| 3.00 | Substantial management measures are in place over a large portion of the species range and have demonstrated success in achieving conservation and sustainability goals. |
Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
| -0.25 | There is inadequate scientific monitoring of stock status, catch or fishing effort. | |
| -0.25 | Management does not explicitly address fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and ecosystems. | |
| -0.25 | This species is overfished and no recovery plan or an ineffective recovery plan is in place. | |
| -0.25 | Management has failed to reduce excess capacity in this fishery or implements subsidies that result in excess capacity in this fishery. | |
| +0.25 | There is adequate scientific monitoring, analysis and interpretation of stock status, catch and fishing effort. | |
| +0.25 | Management explicitly and effectively addresses fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and ecosystems. | |
| +0.25 | This species is overfished and there is a recovery plan (including benchmarks, timetables and methods to evaluate success) in place that is showing signs of success OR recovery plan is not needed. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council implemented Amendment 16 to the Snapper/Grouper Fishery Management Plan in 2009 in an effort to end overfishing of Vermilion Snapper and Gag Grouper (SAFMC 2009). | |
| +0.25 | Management has taken action to control excess capacity or reduce subsidies that result in excess capacity OR no measures are necessary because fishery is not overcapitalized. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council has implemented both limited access (GMFMC 1995) and license limitation programs (GMFMC 1999). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council uses a limited entry permit system and requires anyone entering the fishery to buy two snapper/grouper permits and retire one (SAFMC 1997). | |
| 2.50 | Points for Management | |
Bycatch
Core Points (only one selection allowed)
Select the option that most accurately describes the current level of bycatch and the consequences that result from fishing this species. The term, "bycatch" used in this document excludes incidental catch of a species for which an adequate management framework exists. The terms, "endangered, threatened, or protected," used in this document refer to species status that is determined by national legislation such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (or another nation's equivalent), the IUCN Red List, or a credible scientific body such as the American Fisheries Society.
| 1.00 | Bycatch in this fishery is high (>100% of targeted landings), OR regularly includes a "threatened, endangered or protected species." |
| 2.00 | Bycatch in this fishery is moderate (10-99% of targeted landings) AND does not regularly include "threatened, endangered or protected species" OR level of bycatch is unknown. The 2006 biological opinion conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service determined that the South Atlantic snapper/grouper fishery would not adversely affect Northern right whale critical habitat or marine mammals but would adversely affect sea turtles and sawfish (NMFS 2006). Sea turtles and sawfish are considered vulnerable to both hook-and-line gear and bottom longlines (NMFS 2006). It was estimated that over a three year period close to 300 sea turtles (107 fatal) and 8 smalltooth sawfish were incidentally taken by the snapper/grouper fishery including the recreational fishery, which accounts for the majority of these takes (SAFMC 2008). Recent analysis from observer program data (2006-2008) indicated the number of sea turtle takes authorized in the last Biological Opinion was exceeded (primarily in the Gulf of Mexico due to the bottom longline fishery) (GMFMC 2009). A new Biological Opinion is being developed and could result in a “jeopardy opinion” for loggerhead sea turtles unless actions are taken to reduce the impact of bottom longlines (from the reef fish fishery) on this species (GMFMC 2009). |
| 3.00 | Bycatch in this fishery is low (<10% of targeted landings) and does not regularly include "threatened, endangered or protected species." |
Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
| -0.25 | Bycatch in this fishery is a contributing factor to the decline of "threatened, endangered, or protected species" and no effective measures are being taken to reduce it. | |
| -0.25 | Bycatch of targeted or non-targeted species (e.g., undersize individuals) in this fishery is high and no measures are being taken to reduce it. | |
| -0.25 | Bycatch of this species (e.g., undersize individuals) in other fisheries is high OR bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, and no measures are being taken to reduce it. From 1997 to 2004 the number of Vermilion Snapper discarded by the Gulf of Mexico handline fishery ranged from around 17,000 to 156,000 (SEDAR 2006). In the South Atlantic handline fishery discards of Vermilion Snapper commonly exceed 100,000 fish per year (SEDAR 2008) | |
| -0.25 | The continued removal of the bycatch species contributes to its decline. Several species of finfish are caught along with Vermilion Snapper, with some having low abundance. Examples include golden tilefish which is undergoing overfishing, snowy grouper considered overfished and undergoing overfishing (SEDAR 2004), and the red porgy population which is below its biomass limit but is not undergoing overfishing (SEDAR 2006). In addition, red snapper are considered overfished in both the South Atlantic (SEDAR 2009) and Gulf of Mexico (SEDAR 2005). These species, however, are all managed species and incidental catch is considered in their respective management plans, thus no points were subtracted. | |
| +0.25 | Measures taken over a major portion of the species range have been shown to reduce bycatch of "threatened, endangered, or protected species" or bycatch rates are no longer deemed to affect the abundance of the "protected" bycatch species OR no measures needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear). Final Amendment 31 to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan addresses the incidental capture of sea turtles (GMFMC 2009). The amendment includes the following actions aimed at reducing interactions between longling gear and sea turtles: seasonal closure, develop longline endorsement to reef fish permit and restrict the number of hooks per vessel (GMFMC 2009). These actions could reduce effort in the reef fish bottom longline fishery by 48-67%, and therefore also reduce the interactions with sea turtles (GMFMC 2009). In the South Atlantic, Amendment 15B includes requirements that hook and line fishermen must comply with sea turtle and smalltooth sawfish release protocols and possess onboard specific gear to ensure proper release of these species when they are incidentally caught (SAFMC 2008). This Amendment also established a bycatch monitoring program (SAFMC 2008). | |
| +0.25 | There is bycatch of targeted (e.g., undersize individuals) or non-targeted species in this fishery and measures (e.g., gear modifications) have been implemented that have been shown to reduce bycatch over a large portion of the species range OR no measures are needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear). | |
| +0.25 | Bycatch of this species in other fisheries is low OR bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, but effective measures are being taken to reduce it over a large portion of the range. | |
| +0.25 | The continued removal of the bycatch species in the targeted fishery has had or will likely have little or no impact on populations of the bycatch species OR there are no significant bycatch concerns because the fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear). | |
| 2.00 | Points for Bycatch | |
Reference
Allman, R.J., Fitzhugh, G.R. and Fable, W.A. 2001. Report of Vermilion snapper otolith aging: 1994-2001 data summary. NMFS Panama City Laboratory Contribution Series 01-01. 25 p.
Allman, R.J., Tunnell, J.A. and Barnett, B.K. 2005. Vermilion snapper otolith aging: 2001-2004 data summary. SEDAR9-DW2. 20 p.
Allman, R.J. 2007. Small-scale spatial variation in the population structure of Vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens) from the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries Research 88:88-99.
Collins, M.R. and Pinckney, J.L. 1988. Size and age at maturity for Vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens) (Lutjanidae) in the South Atlantic Bight. Northeast Gulf Science 10:52-53.
Collins, L.A., Allman, R.J. and Lyon, H.M. 2005. Reproduction of Vermilion snapper (Lutjanidae: Rhomboplites aurorubens) from the northern and eastern Gulf of Mexico, 1991-2002. SEDAR9-DW3. 15 p.
Cuellar, N., Sedberry, G.R. and Wyanski, D.M. 1996. Reproductive seasonality, maturation, fecundity, and spawning frequency of the Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens, off the southeastern United States. Fishery Bulletin 94:635-653.
Hood, P.B. and Johnson, A.K. 1999. Age, growth, mortality and reproduction of Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens, from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 97:828-841.
Fable, W.A.Jr., 1980. Tagging studies of red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) and vermilion snaper (Rhomboplites aurorubens) off the south Texas coast. Contributions in Marine Science, University of Texas 23:115-121.
Fishbase. 2010. Vermilion Snapper. http://fishbase.com/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=213
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 1989. Amendment Number 1 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (includes Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis). Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL. 357 p. Online: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/RF%20Amend-01%20Final%201989-08-rescan.pdf
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 1993. Amendment 6 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (includes Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis). Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL. 23 p. Online: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/RF%20Amend-06%20Final%201993-01.pdf
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 1995. Amendment 8 and Environmental Assessment (Effort Management Amendment) to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan for the reef fish resources of the Gulf of Mexico (includes Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis). Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL. 155 pg. Online: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/RF%20Amend-08%20Final%201995-06.pdf
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 1999. Amendment Number 16B to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (includes Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis). Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL. 56 p.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2002. Generic amendment addressing the establishment of the Tortugas Marine Reserves in the following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 13), Coral and Coral Reefs Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 4), Red Drum Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 19), Shrimp Fish Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 12), Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 7), Stone Crab Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 8) (Includes an IRFA, RIR, and A FSEIS). Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL. 194 p. Online: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/TORTAMENwp.pdf
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM): Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Reef Fish Fishery of The Gulf of Mexico, Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Coral and Coral Reef Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL. 682 p.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2006. Final Amendment 26 to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan to establish a red snapper Individual Fishing Quota program (including a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Regulatory Impact Review). Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL. 298 p. Online: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/Amend26031606FINAL.pdf
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2007. Final Amendment 27 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan and Amendment 14 to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan (including supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis). Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL. 481 p. Online: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/RedSnapper/pdfs/FinalRFAmend27-ShrimpAmend14.pdf
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2009. Final Amendment 31 to the Fishery Management Plan for Reef Fish Resources in the Gulf of Mexico (revised): addressed bycatch of sea turtles in the bottom longline component of the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery (includes revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory Impact Review). Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL. 287 p.
Lyzkowski-Shultz, J., and Hanisko, G. 2005. Review of the early life history of Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites auroubens, with a summary of data from SEAMAP plankton surveys in the Gulf of Mexico: 1982-2002. SEDAR9-DW24.
Mikell, P.P., Reichert, J.M. and Stephen, J.A. 2007. Age, growth, and reproductive biology of vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens, from the southeastern United States, 2002-2005. SCNDR Analytical Report. 31 p.
Morgan, LE. And Chuenpagdee, R. 2003. Shifting gears: addressing the collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Pew Science Series. Washington D.C., Island Press.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the continued authorization of snapper grouper fishing under the South Atlantic Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (RFFMP) and proposed Amendment 13C. Biological Opinion. June 7, 2006.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1985. Gulf of Mexico coastal and ocean zones strategic assessment: Data Atlas. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NOS. December 1985.
Ruderschausen, P.J., Buckel, J.A. and Williams, E.H. 2007. Discard composition and release fate in the snapper and grouper commercial hook-and-line fishery in North Carolina, USA. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14:103-113.
Schirripa, M.J. 1998. Status of Vermilion snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS SEFSC, SFD-97/98-09A.
Schirripa, M.J. and C.M. Legault 1999. Status of the Red Snapper in U.S. Waters of the Gulf of Mexico: Updated through 1998. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Sustainable Fisheries Division.
Schirripa, M.J. and Legault, C.M. 2000. Status of the Vermilion snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico assessment 4.5. NMFS, SEFSC SFD-99/00-75.
Schwartz, T. and Bert, T.M. 2005. Preliminary assessment of the genetic stock strucutre of Vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. FMRI Report Number IHR2003-007. 15 p.
Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR). 2004. Stock assessment of the deepwater snapper grouper complex in the South Atlantic. SEDAR 4 Stock Assessment Report 1. SEDAR4-SAR1. Online: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/
Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR). 2005. Stock assessment report of SEDAR 7, Gulf of Mexico red Snapper: SEDAR 7 assessment report 1. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. 480 p. Online: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/
Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR). 2006. Stock assessment report of SEDAR 9 Gulf of Mexico Vermilion snapper, SEDAR 9 Assessment Report 3. SEDAR, Charleston, SC. 231 p.
Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR). 2008. SEDAR 17 Stock Assessment Report, South Atlantic Vermilion snapper. SEDAR, Charleston, SC. 450 p.
Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR). 2009. SEDAR 15, Stock assessment report 1 (SAR 1) South Atlantic red snapper. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. 511 pg. Online: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1983. Fishery Management Plan, Regulatory Impact Review and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1986. Regulatory Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1988. Amendment Number 1 and Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review to the Fishery Management Plan for the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1992. Regulatory Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1993. Amendment Number 6, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Assessment for the Fishery Manaagement Plan for the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. 155 pp.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1994. Amendment Number 7, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Assessment for the Fishery Manaagement Plan for the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. 110 pp.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1997. Amendment Number 8, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Assessment for the Fishery Manaagement Plan for the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. 185 pp. Online: http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Library/FMP/SnapGroup/SnapGroupAmend8.pdf
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2003. Amendment Number 13A, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Assessment for the Fishery Manaagement Plan for the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. 177 pp.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2007. Final Amendment Number 14, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement for the Fishery Management Plan for the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic region. . South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2008. Amendment Number 15B, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Assessment for the Fishery Manaagement Plan for the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2009. Amendment 16 (gag and vermilion snapper) including a final environmental impact statement, initial regulatory flexibility analysis, final regulatory impact review, and final social impact assessment/fishery impact statement. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston SC. 608 p.
Tringali M.D. and Highman, M. 2007. Isolation-by-distance gene flow among vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens Cuvier, 1829) from the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern United States. Gulf of Mexico Science 25:2-14.
Fish Key
 | Species is relatively abundant, and fishing/farming methods cause little damage to habitat and other wildlife. |
 | Species has medium to high levels of abundance, or fishing/farming methods cause some damage to the environment. |
 | Some problems exist with this species' status or catch/farming methods, or information is insufficient for evaluating. |
 | Species abundance is generally low, or fishing/farming methods typically have large environmental impact. |
 | Species has a combination of problems such as overfishing, high bycatch, and poor management; or farming methods have serious environmental impacts. |
 |
A fishery targeting this species has been certified as sustainable and well managed to the Marine Stewardship Council's environmental standard. Learn more at www.msc.org. |  |
These fish contain levels of mercury or PCBs that may pose a health risk to adults and children. Please refer to http://www.edf.org/seafood for more details. |
