Sometimes known as Mexican Snapper, Redtailed Snapper, Redfish, Spot Snapper, Candy Striper, Rainbow Snapper, Bream, Moonlight Grunt, Pot Snapper

LANE SNAPPER HOOK AND LINE CAUGHT Lutjanus synagris Sometimes known as Mexican Snapper, Redtailed Snapper, Redfish, Spot Snapper, Candy Striper, Rainbow Snapper, Bream, Moonlight Grunt, Pot Snapper SUMMARY Lane Snapper are found in the Atlantic Ocean from North Carolina and Bermuda to southern Brazil, and throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region. They reach a maximum size of 60 cm and can live for 19 years. Lane Snapper spawn offshore during summer and can produce hundreds of thousands of eggs. The abundance of Lane Snapper in the US South Atlantic and Caribbean region is currently unknown. They are caught with a variety of fishing gears including hook and line, which causes little damage to the seafloor and results in little bycatch. Criterion Points Final Score Color Life History 2.00 2.40-4.00 Abundance 2.00 1.60-2.39 Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts 3.75 0.00-1.59 Management 2.25 Bycatch 2.75 Final Score 2.55 Color

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. Lane Snapper reach a maximum size of 60 cm and 3.5 kg (Allen 1985) and live for upwards of 19 years (Aiken 1999; Luckhurst et al. 2000). In Jamaica, the mean size at maturity is 27 cm for males and 22 cm for females (Aiken 1999). In Trinidad, sexual maturity is reached at 1 and 2 years of age for males and females respectively (Manickchand-Dass 1987), while in Bermuda sexual maturity is reached by age 1 (Luckhurst et al. 2000). Growth rates vary greatly depending on the location (Manooch and Mason 1984; Acosta and Appeldoorn 1992; Aiken 1999; Luckhurst et al. 2000; SAFMC 2005). For example, growth is slowest in southern Florida (0.13) (Manooch and Mason 1984) and fastest in Bermuda (0.395) (Luckhurst et al. 2000). Daily growth rates in the Gulf of Mexico ranged from 0.90 to 1.31 mm/day. Growth rates also vary slightly between sexes, with males in Jamaica growing faster (0.157) than females (0.142) (Aiken 2008). Although Lane Snappers reach sexual maturity at an early age, their growth rates and lifespan are moderate so we have assigned a middle score. 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.). Adult snappers, including Lane Snapper, tend to remain in one place once established (Bortone and Williams 1986), making them susceptible to fishermen. In addition, Lane

Snapper are known to form spawning aggregations and in places such as Cuba, these are targeted by fishermen (Garcia-Cagide et al. 1994). -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). -0.25 Species exhibits high natural population variability driven by broad-scale environmental change (e.g. El Nino; decadal oscillations). There is some evidence that recent increases in sea surface temperatures in the northern Gulf of Mexico could impact the distribution of Lane and other Snappers. Fodrie et al. (2010) compared fish assemblages in the northern Gulf in the 1970 s to present day, after increases in water temperature occurred, and found that Lane Snapper, which were absent in the early surveys, are now present. However, we have not subtracted any points because we believe more research needs to be conducted. +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). Lane Snapper spawn over a long period of time (Figuerola et al. 1997) and typically in offshore waters (SMS 2007). For example, in Jamaica, spawning occurs over several months, with a peak in July (Aiken 1999) and in Cuba, spawning occurs from March through September and peaks in July and August (Rodriguez-Pino 1962; Druzhinin 1970). In Bermuda, spawning occurs mostly from May through early September, with peaks occurring from June to August (Luckhurst et al. 2000). Estimates of fecundity range from 347,000 to 995,000 eggs for females ranging from 22.5 to 33.5 cm (Rodriguez-Pino 1962) and in Trinidad, fecundity estimates range from 28,000 to 596,000 eggs for females ranging from 29.4 to 41.9 cm in length (Manickchand-Dass 1987). +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). Lane Snapper are found in the Atlantic Ocean from North Carolina and Bermuda to southern Brazil (Allen 1985). They are reported to be most abundant in the Antilles, the

Campeche Bank and off the northern coast of South America (Acero and Garzon 1985; Allen 1985; Cervigon et al. 1992) Genetic analysis has revealed two distinct groups of Lane Snapper in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Karlsson et al. 2009). A Western group that includes the northwestern and north central Gulf and an Eastern group that includes the west coast of Florida, the Florida Keys and the east coast of Florida (Karlsson et al. 2009). In addition, a recent study indicated that populations from the US Caribbean were divergent from those of Florida (Gold et al. 2011) We consider this a medium range and have not awarded points. Also the occurrence of significant population genetic structure indicates that gene flow between geographic populations/stocks is limited and that conservation units may be much more restricted geographically than in other reef fishes. +0.25 Species does not exhibit high natural population variability driven by broad-scale environmental change (e.g., El Nino; decadal oscillations). 2.00 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. Lane Snapper can make up a large portion of the catch in Puerto Rico (Matos-Caraballo 2000) and Cuba (Bustamante et al. 2000). In 2001 Lane Snapper were considered severely overfished by the National Marine fisheries service (NMFS 2002) and in 2004 the status in the Gulf of Mexico was listed as unknown (NMFS 2005). However, the abundance of Lane Snapper and other snappers in unit 3 of the shallow water reef fish fishery of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, is currently unknown (NMFS 2010). Because there is insufficient information, we have assigned a middle score of 2.

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). The sex ratio from the trammel net fishery in Jamaica has been reported as 2.6 females for every 1 male for Lane Snapper 15-31 cm long, but fish larger than 31cm were all females (Aiken 1999). In the hook and line fishery of Bermuda, the sex ratio for large Lane Snapper is reported as skewed towards males (Luckhurst et al. 2000). However there is no indication of changes over time so we have not subtracted points. -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). +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. Lane Snapper are opportunistic generalist feeders that feed on a number of crustaceans and fish species (Randall 1967; Duarte and Garcia 1999) as well as worms and snails (Allen 1985). For example, in Cuba 32% of their diet is reported as fish and 28% as crustaceans (Rodriguez-Pino 1962). Sharks and other large fish prey on Lane Snappers (Bortone and Williams 1986). Since the status of Lane Snapper is unknown we did not add any points. 2.00 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). Lane Snapper are an important species in the commercial fisheries of the Caribbean (Luckhurst et al. 2000) and can make up a large portion of the catch in Puerto Rico (Matos-Caraballo 2000) and Cuba (Bustamante et al. 2000). They are caught by a variety of fishing gears including hook and line. For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, 16% of hook and line trips land Lane Snapper (SERO 2010). In Brazil s artisanal reef fish fishery, which primarily uses hook and line gear, Lane Snapper are an important component of the catch, representing 7.5% of the total catch (Fredou et al. 2006). In Bermuda, the amount of Lane Snapper caught by hook and line increased after the 1987 ban on fish-pots (Luckhurst et al. 2000). In the US Virgin Island St. Croix hook and line fishery, Lane Snapper have represented between 0.01 to 0.85% of the total catch (Diaz and Valle-Esquivel 2003). Hook and line gear 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. Lane Snapper are found in a range of habitats including clear, turbid and brackish water as well as coral and artificial reefs and muddy bottoms (Allen 1985; Bortone and Williams 1986). Juvenile Lane Snappers use a number of habitats including seagrass, mangroves, soft bottoms and shell ridges (Franks and VanderKooy 2000) but are most commonly found inshore over soft and sand bottoms (Manoch and Mason 1984; Bortone and Williams 1986). Adults are mostly sedentary and live offshore over hard bottom habitats like coral reefs (Bortone and Williams 1986). In the Campeche Banks, Mexico, juvenile Lane Snapper have been found at depths of 20-30 m (Rivera-Arriaga et al. 1996) and in Brazil, Lane Snapper are more common in shallow water (Fredou et al. 2006). However, their known distribution is from 10 to 400 m (Allen 1985). There is no indication that this habitat is not capable of supporting this species, so points are added. +0.25 Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc. There are 8 deepwater Marine Protected Areas in the US South Atlantic, which are closed to fishing for snapper/grouper species (SAFMC 2008). This closure was enacted to protect the size, age and genetic structure of snapper/grouper populations (SAFMC 2008). In addition, the Oculina Habitat Area of Particular Concern (SAFMC 1993, 2003) is closed to bottom longline, bottom trawl, dredge and pot or trap fishing. In the Gulf of Mexico there are closed areas and marine sanctuaries such as the East and West Flower Garden Banks, Madison Swanson, Steamboat Lumps and the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, the Edges (GMFMC 2011). There are several areas in the US Virgin Islands where fishing is prohibited. These include the Coral Reef National Monument and three areas of the Virgin Islands National Park (Red Hook Dock, Cruz Bay Finger Pier and Bulkhead and an all boat exclusion zone) (DPNR 2009). Additional areas that are closed to fishing in the US Virgin Islands include: St. James Reserve, Cas Cay/Mangrove Lagoon Reserve, Compass Point Marine Reserve and Wildlife Sanctuary, Salt River Marine Reserve and Wildlife Sanctuary, the Small Pond at Frank Bay Wildlife Marine Sanctuary, Hind Bank Conservation District, and Grammanik Bank (DPR 2009). There is also a closure of St. Croix, US Virgin Islands to protect spawning mutton snapper (CFMC 1993), which could also benefit Lane Snapper. In Puerto Rico there are three seasonally closed areas to all fishing (except for coastal and highly migratory pelagic species): Bajo de Sico, Tourmaline and Abir la Sierra, in an effort to protect red hind spawning (CFMC 1996). This closure may also be beneficial to other species such as the Lane Snapper.

+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. Hook and line gear has a low impact on bottom habitat and therefore gear innovations are not needed. However, authorities have provided protection from other fishing gears to Lane Snapper habitat. For example, bottom anchoring, trawling, bottom longlines, buoy gear and traps/pots are not allowed in Pulley Ridge or McGrail Bank in the Gulf of Mexico (GMFMC 2011) and in Puerto Rico, pots, traps, bottom longlines, gillnets and trammel nets are not allowed in the federal waters of Bajo de Sico (NMFS 2010b). +0.25 If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is fast (e.g., mud or sandy bottoms) OR gear effects are minimal. 3.75 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. Lane Snapper are managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council s Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region in the US South Atlantic (SAFMC 1983). Management measures included in this plan are a limited access permit (SAFMC 1997), size limits, and gear restrictions (SAFMC 2010a). The aim of this plan is to prevent growth overfishing of species within the snapper/grouper complex and to establish procedures to prevent overfishing in other species (Carmichael 2003). In the Gulf of Mexico, Lane Snapper are managed under the Reef Fish Fishery

Management Plan and management measures include: a size limit, gear and bait restrictions (GMFMC 2011). In the US Caribbean, the Caribbean Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands manages all finfish, including Lane Snapper, that are known to be caught by commercial fishermen in federal waters (SAFMC 2003). This plan includes gear restrictions and closed areas and a seasonal prohibition on possessing Lane Snapper from April through June (NMFS 2011). The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the territory of the US Virgin Islands manage Lane Snapper caught in inshore waters. In the US Virgin Islands, management measures include permits, reporting requirements, gear restrictions, gear markings (traps), and seasonal closures (April through June Lane Snapper cannot be possessed) (DPNR 2009). The Puerto Rico Fishing Regulations include a minimum size limit and closed season for silk snapper (Matos-Carabollo 2008). We have assigned a medium score, because despite management efforts, the abundance of Lane Snapper is not known. 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. A lack of species specific data has precluded efforts to assess the abundance of Lane Snapper in the US and Caribbean regions. -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. Amendment 1 to the snapper grouper management plan of the South Atlantic addresses habitat damage from the trawl fishery in the US South Atlantic (SAFMC 1988). This

amendment restricts the use of trawl gear in the US South Atlantic snapper grouper fishery south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and north of Cape Canaveral, Florida. Fish traps, bottom longlines, and spear fishing are not allowed around a specified artificial reef at Key Biscayne, Florida (Carmichael 2003). In addition, Amendment 10 to the management plan identified Essential Fish Habitats (EFH) and EFH-Habitats of Particular Concern for snapper/grouper species (SAFMC 1998). +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. +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 snapper/grouper fishery in the US South Atlantic is managed through a limited access permit system. 2.25 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.

3.00 Bycatch in this fishery is low (<10% of targeted landings) and does not regularly include "threatened, endangered or protected species." In general, hook and line fisheries have low levels of finfish and sea turtle bycatch (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). The southeastern US Atlantic and Caribbean snappergrouper hook and line and fishery is considered a Category III (remote likelihood/no known incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals) fishery and has no documented interactions with marine mammals (FR 2010). Other snapper and grouper species are caught alongside Lane Snapper, but most if not all have commercial value so are not considered as bycatch. 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. Lane Snapper have been observed as bycatch in shrimp trawls off the coast of Venezuela (Luckhurst et al. 2000) and it has been suggested that juvenile Lane Snapper recruitment could be negatively affected by shrimp trawl bycatch (Workman and Foster 1994; Gillig et al. 2001). In addition, Lane Snapper are discarded in the South Atlantic snapper/grouper fishery. For example, between 2005 and 2008, 470 Lane Snapper were reported discarded from 53 trips in the South Atlantic (SAFMC 2010a). We have subtracted points because of the possible large negative impact from shrimp trawl bycatch. -0.25 The continued removal of the bycatch species contributes to its decline. +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).

+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). Other commonly caught species in the Puerto Rican and US Virgin handline fishery include groupers, snappers and jacks, with the two most commonly caught species being the red hind and coney (SAFMC 2003). There is no indication of how much bycatch there is so we have not added any points +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). 2.75 Points for Bycatch REFERENCES Acero, A. and Garzon, J. 1985. Los pargos (Pisces: Perciformes: Lutjanidae) del caribe colombiano. Actualidades Biologicas 14:89-99. Acosta, A. and Appeldoorn, R.S. 1992. Estimation of growth, mortality and yield per recruit for Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus) in Puerto Rico. Bulletin of Marine Science 50:282-291. Aiken, K. 1999. Aspects of reproduction, age and growth of the lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris, (Linneaus), 1785 in Jamaican coastal waters. Abstracts of the 52nd annual meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, November 1-5, 1999, Key West, FL. Aiken, K. 2008. Age, asymmetry, growth and mortality of the lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758) (lutjanidae) from Jamaican waters. PhD thesis, University of west Indies. Allen, G.R. 1985. Snappers of the world; an annoted and illustrated catalogue of lutjanid species known to date. FAO Fisheries Symposium 125:1-208. Bortone, S.A. and Williams, J.L. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (south Florida)-gray, lane, mutton and yellowtail snappers. US fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82. US Army Corps of engineers, Tr

EL-82-4. Bustamante, G., Chiappone, M., Kelly, J., Lowe, A. and Sealy, K.S. 2000. Fish and fisheries in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: recommendations for their protection. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 51:242-257. Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CFMC). 1993. Regulatory Amendment 2 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CFMC). 1996. Regulatory Amendment to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands concerning the red hind spawning aggregation closures including a regulatory impact review and environmental assessment. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 16 p. Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CFMC). 2005. Comprehensive Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the US Caribbean to address required provisions of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan Puerto Rico. 533 p. Carmichael, J. 2003. South Atlantic snapper grouper regulatory overview, excerpted from the SAFMC amendment 13A to the snapper-grouper FMP. SEDAR4-DW-20. 13 p. Cervigon, F. et al. 1992. Fichas FAO de identificacion de species para los fines de la pesca. Gulfa de campo de las species comerciales marinas y de aguas salobres de la costa septentrional de Sur America. CCE y NORAD. Roma. 513 p. Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR). 2009. United States Virgin Islands commercial and recreational fisher's information book. Division of Fish and Wildlife. 42 pg. Druzhini, A.D. 1970. The range and biology of snappers (fam. Lutjanidae). Journal of Icthyology 10:717-736. Figuerola, M., Matos-Caraballo, D. and Torres, W. 1997. Maturation and reproductive seasonality of four reef fish species in Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 50;938-968. Franks, j.s. and VanderKooy, K.E. 2000. Feeding habits of juvenile lane snapper Lutjanus synagris from Mississippi coastal waters, with comments on the diet of gray snapper Lutjanus griseus. Gulf and Caribbean Research 12:11-17. Fredou, T., Ferreira. B.P., and Letourneur, Y. 2006. A univariate and multivariate study of reef fisheries off northeastern Brazil. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63:883-896.

Fodrie, F.J., Heck, K.L., Powers, S.P., Graham, W.M. and Robinson, K.L. (2010). Climaterelated, decadal-scale assemblage changes of seagrass-associated fishes in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Global Change Biology, 16: 48 59. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01889.x Garcia-Cagide, A.R., Claro, R. and Koshelev, B.V. 1994. Reproduccion. P. 187-262. In: R. Claro (Ed) Ecologia de los peces marinoa de Cuba. Inst. Oceanol. Acad. Cienc. Cuba. And Cen. Invest. Quintana Roo (CIQRO) Mexico. Gillig, D., Griffin, W.O. and Ozuna, T. 2001. A bioeconomic assessment of Gulf of Mexico red snapper management policies. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:117-129. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2011. Commercial fishing regulations for Gulf of Mexico federal waters. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL. 12 p. Karlsson, S., Saillant, E. and Gold, J.R. 2009. Population structure and genetic variation of lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Biology DOI 10.1007/s00227-009-1217-y. 15 p. Luckhurst, B.E., Dean, J.M. and Reichert, m. 2000. Age, growth and reproduction of the lane snapper Lutjanus synagris (Pisces: Luthanidae) at Bermuda. Marine Ecology Progress series 203:255-261. Manickchand-Dass, S. 1987. Reproduction, age and growth of the lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus), in Trinidad, West Indies. Bulletin of Marine Science 40:22-28. Manoch, C.S. and Mason, D.L. 1984. Age, growth and mortality of lane snapper from southern Florida. NE Gulf Science 7:109-115. Matos-Caraballo, D. 2000. Overview of Puerto Rico s small scale fisheries statistics: 1994-1997. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 51:21-231. Matos-Caraballo, D. 2008. Lessons learned from the Puerto Rico s commercial fishery, 1988-1008. Proceedings of the 61st Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. 7 p. Morgan, L.E. and Chuenpagdee, R. 2003. Shifting gears: addressing the collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Pew Science Series. Washington, DC Island Press. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. Annual report to congress on the status of US fisheries-2001. US Department of Commerce NOAA, National Marine fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005. Annual report to congress on the status of US fisheries-2001. US Department of Commerce NOAA, National Marine fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010a. Summary of stock status for FSSI stocks, 4th quarter 2010. NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division. 44 p. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2010b Clarification on the new seasonal closure of Bajo de Sico in the US Caribbean. Southeast Fishery Bulletin FB10-111. 1 p. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011. Seasonal prohibition on the possession of mutton and lane snapper in US Caribbean federal waters begins at 12:01 am, local time, April 1, 2011. Southeast Fishery Bulletin FB11-024. 1 p. Randall, J.E. 1967. Food habits of reef fishes of the West Indies. Study of Tropical Oceanography 5:665-847. Riviera-Arriaga, E., Arreguin-Sanchez, F., Lara-Dominguez, A.L., Sanchez-gil, P. and Yanez- Arancibia, A. 1994. A niche overlap in two tropical fishes Lutjanus synagris and Polydactylus octonemus of the southern Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Fish Biology 45. Rodriguez-Pino, Z. 1962. Estudios estadisticos y biologicos sobre la biajaiba (Lutjanus synagris). Notas Pesqueras, Havana, Cuba. Nota 2:1-16. Smithsonian Marine Station (SMS). 2007. Lutjanus synagris (lane snapper). Online: www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/lutjan_synagr.htm. 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). 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). 1991. Amendment Number 4 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). 1997. Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region including a final supplemental environmental impact statement, initial regulatory flexibility analysis

regulatory impact review and social impact assessment. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Amendment 10 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). 2003. Data report of SEDAR 4, Atlantic and Caribbean deepwater snapper-grouper, Caribbean species. SEDAR4-SAR2. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. 196p. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2005. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic. SAFMC Charleston, SC. 130 o. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2008. Amendment Number 15B, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Assessment 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). 2010a. Amendment 17B to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper fishery of the South Atlantic region with Environmental assessment, initial regulatory flexibility act analysis, regulatory impact review and social impact assessment/fishery impact statement. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC. South East Regional Office (SERO). 2010. Species grouping for Gulf reef fish FMU. SERO- LAPP-2010-01. 36 p. Valle-Esquivel, M. and Diaz, G. 2003. Preliminary estimation of reported landings, expansion factors and expanded landings for commercial fisheries of the United States Virgin Islands. SEDAR4-DW-08 Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-2003-0027. 51 p. Workman, I.K. and Foster, D.G. 1994. Occurrence and behavior of juvenile red snapper, Lutjanus camprehanus, on commercial shrimp fishing grounds in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Fisheries Review 56:9-11.