Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-15-01 

NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries 

Lionfish Response Plan (2015-2018) 

Responding, Controlling, and Adapting to an Active Marine Invasion 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries February 2015 
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series 

The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, part of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, serves as the trustee for a system of 14 marine protected 

areas encompassing more than 170,000 square miles of ocean and Great Lakes waters. 

The 13 national marine sanctuaries and one marine national monument within the 

National Marine Sanctuary System represent areas of America’s ocean and Great Lakes 

environment that are of special national significance. Within their waters, giant 

humpback whales breed and calve their young, coral colonies flourish, and shipwrecks 

tell stories of our maritime history. Habitats include beautiful coral reefs, lush kelp 

forests, whale migrations corridors, spectacular deep-sea canyons, and underwater 

archaeological sites. These special places also provide homes to thousands of unique or 

endangered species and are important to America’s cultural heritage. Sites range in size 

from one square mile to almost 140,000 square miles and serve as natural classrooms, 

cherished recreational spots, and are home to valuable commercial industries. 

Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine 

sanctuary has a tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research, 

monitoring and enforcement programs vary accordingly. The integration of these 

programs is fundamental to marine protected area management. The Marine 

Sanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and supports this integration by providing a 

forum for publication and discussion of the complex issues currently facing the sanctuary 

system. Topics of published reports vary substantially and may include descriptions of 

educational programs, discussions on resource management issues, and results of 

scientific research and monitoring projects. The series facilitates integration of natural 

sciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences, education, and policy development to 

accomplish the diverse needs of NOAA’s resource protection mandate. All publications 

are available on the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Web site 

(http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov). 
 

 

 

NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries 

Lionfish Response Plan (2015-2018) 

Responding, Controlling, and Adapting to an Active Marine Invasion 

Michelle A. Johnston1, Stephen R. Gittings2, and James A. Morris, Jr.3 

1 NOAA Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA Galveston 

Laboratory, 4700 Avenue U, Bldg. 216, Galveston, TX 77551 

2 NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910 

3

 NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Fisheries and 

Habitat Research, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 28516 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Acting Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Kathryn Sullivan, Ph.D. 

 Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Ocean Service 

Russell Callender, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

Daniel J. Basta, Director 

February 2015 

Silver Spring, Maryland 

 Mary Erickson, Director 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 
Disclaimer 

Report content does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use. 

Report Availability 

Electronic copies of this report may be downloaded from the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries web site at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov. 

Cover 

Lionfish at the East Flower Garden Bank. Photo Credit: Amanda Sterne, Texas A&M 

University Galveston 

Suggested Citation 

Johnston, M.A., Gittings, S.R., and Morris, J.A., Jr. 2015. NOAA National Marine 

Sanctuaries Lionfish Response Plan (2015-2018): Responding, Controlling, and Adapting 

to an Active Marine Invasion. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-15-01. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 55 pp. 

Contact 

Michelle A. Johnston, michelle.a.johnston@noaa.gov, Mailing address: NOAA Flower 

Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA Galveston Laboratory, 4700 Avenue 

U, Bldg. 216, Galveston, TX 77551. Phone: 409.621.5151 x 127 
Summary 

The explosion of the Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans and Pterois miles) is a serious threat 

to Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean coral reefs, with potential long-term consequences 

affecting native fish communities and habitats. Lionfish are well-known for their venomous 

spines, rapid colonization rate, and generalist preferences for both habitat and diet. Invasive 

lionfish are capable of causing significant impacts to biodiversity and recovery of coral reefs, a 

result of their high densities and predation rates on native fish communities. 

The National Marine Sanctuary Act resource protection mandate aims to “maintain the natural 

biological communities in the national marine sanctuaries, and to protect, and, where 

appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecological processes.” As it 

relates to the lionfish invasion, the goal of NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuaries Lionfish 

Response Plan is to minimize ecosystem degradation in affected sanctuaries so that benthic 

habitat does not degrade and sanctuaries continue to serve as refuges for native reef fish species. 

Lessons learned from the lionfish invasion will make managers better capable of dealing with 

future invasions by other species, should they occur. 

This plan aims to identify critical actions needed to minimize the impact of this unprecedented 

marine invasion. Four national marine sanctuaries have been invaded by lionfish – Gray’s Reef, 

Florida Keys, Flower Garden Banks, and Monitor. The plan recommends science, service, and 

stewardship activities for the first three sanctuary sites, as activities at the Monitor are much 

more limited and will only be discussed briefly. Prior actions by the sanctuaries to deal with 

lionfish, as well as future activities, rely on collaborations among agency programs and offices, 

as well as partners outside NOAA, including international collaborations around the wider 

Caribbean. 

This response plan summarizes information on the scope and status of the lionfish invasion, the 

threats posed to national marine sanctuaries, and the challenges to managing the invasion. It also 

summaries current activities taking place, as well as calls for actions to be planned, coordinated, 

and supported nationally or regionally and actions specific to the individual marine sanctuaries 

within the invaded range. All actions are directed at management measures that will minimize 

impacts caused by the invasion, specifically in the areas of monitoring, control, research, and 

education and outreach. These actions are consistent with those called for in the National Ocean 

Policy Implementation Plan and other local, regional and national plans specific to the lionfish 

invasion. 

i 
Key Words 

Invasive species, lionfish, Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary, Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary, Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA 

Acronyms 

ANSTF Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

CFP Ciguatera Fish Poisoning 

CRCP Coral Reef Conservation Program (NOAA) 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FGBNMS Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (NOAA) 

FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (NOAA) 

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

GREAT Gulf Reef Environmental Action Team 

GRNMS Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary (NOAA) 

KAP Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perception 

MEERA Marine Ecosystem Event Response and Assessment 

MNMS Monitor National Marine Sanctuary (NOAA) 

NCCOS National Centers for Coast Ocean Science (NOAA) 

NCRMP National Coral Reef Monitoring Program 

NGO Non-Governmental Organization 

NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPS National Park Service 

NSU Nova Southeastern University 

ONMS Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

REEF Reef Environmental Education Foundation 

ROA Research Only Area 

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle 

SEGOM Southeast and Gulf of Mexico Region 

SPA Sanctuary Preservation Area 

TAMUCC Texas A&M Corpus Christi 

TAMUG Texas A&M Galveston 

TER Tortugas Ecological Reserve 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

UNCW University of North Carolina at Wilmington 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UTB University of Texas Brownsville 

ii 
Table of Contents 

Topic Page 

Summary .............................................................................................................................. i
 

Key Words .......................................................................................................................... ii
 

Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ ii
 

Table of Contents............................................................................................................... iii
 

List of Figures and Tables................................................................................................... v
 

Chapter 1. About this Plan .................................................................................................. 1
 

1.1 Purpose...................................................................................................................... 1
 

1.2 Rationale ................................................................................................................... 2
 

1.3 Scope......................................................................................................................... 3
 

1.4 Issues, Concerns, and Threats ................................................................................... 4
 

1.5 Challenges Hampering Effective Lionfish Control .................................................. 5
 

1.6 Connections and Relevance ...................................................................................... 6
 

Chapter 2. A Plan for Action ............................................................................................. 8
 

2.1 National and Regional Response Actions ................................................................. 9
 

I. Monitoring............................................................................................................ 10
 

II. Control.................................................................................................................. 10
 

III. Research.............................................................................................................. 11
 

IV. Education and Outreach...................................................................................... 11
 

Chapter 3. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary ........................................................ 13
 

3.1 Status of the Invasion.............................................................................................. 13
 

3.2 Resources at Risk.................................................................................................... 14
 

3.3 Sanctuary Response Actions................................................................................... 14
 

I. Monitoring............................................................................................................. 16
 

II. Control.................................................................................................................. 18
 

III. Research.............................................................................................................. 21
 

IV. Education and Outreach...................................................................................... 24
 

Chapter 4. Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary ......................................... 26
 

4.1 Status of the Invasion.............................................................................................. 27
 

4.2 Resources at Risk.................................................................................................... 28
 

4.3 Sanctuary Response Actions................................................................................... 29
 

I. Monitoring............................................................................................................. 30
 

II. Control.................................................................................................................. 32
 

III. Research.............................................................................................................. 35
 

IV. Education and Outreach...................................................................................... 37
 

Chapter 5. Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary ......................................................... 39
 

5.1 Status of the Invasion.............................................................................................. 39
 

5.2 Resources at Risk.................................................................................................... 39
 

5.3 Sanctuary Response Actions................................................................................... 40
 

I. Monitoring............................................................................................................. 41
 

II. Control.................................................................................................................. 43
 

iii 
III. Research.............................................................................................................. 44
 

IV. Education and Outreach...................................................................................... 44
 

Chapter 6. Recommendations ........................................................................................... 46
 

6.1 The Path Forward.................................................................................................... 46
 

6.2 Resources ................................................................................................................ 46
 

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 48
 

References......................................................................................................................... 49
 

Appendix A. NOAA NCCOS Invasive Lionfish Factsheet .............................................. 52
 

........................................................................................................................................... 54
 

Appendix B. National Invasive Lionfish Prevention and Management Plan Key Messages
 

iv 
List of Figures and Tables 

Figure/Table Number and Title Page 

Figure 1. Lionfish are invasive species native to the Indo- Pacific region. Photo: 

FGBNMS/Schmahl. ...................................................................................................... 1
 

Figure 2. Confirmed lionfish sightings throughout the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean. Map: USGS, 2015. ..................................................................................... 2
 

Figure 3. Map of the national marine sanctuary system. Map: NOAA/ONMS. ................ 3
 

Figure 4. Lionfish observed during a ROV survey over deep coralline algae reefs on 

banks in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico at approximately 120 meters. Photo: 

FGBNMS/UNCW-UVP. .............................................................................................. 5
 

Figure 5. The Celebrity Chef Lionfish Challenge, hosted by the National Marine 

Sanctuary Foundation, the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, and Seaweb as part 

of the 2015 SeaWeb Seafood Summit 2015, allowed for a unique outreach 

opportunity for guests to sample lionfish dishes, and learn about the invasion as well 

as national marine sanctuaries. Photos: Michelle Johnston and Brian Barber. .......... 12
 

Figure 6. Bathymetric map of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. .................. 13
 

Figure 7. Fish swim above the reef at the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Photo: 

NOAA/FKNMS. ......................................................................................................... 14
 

Figure 8. Fish survey conducted within the TER. Photo: FGBNMS/Nuttall. .................. 17
 

Figure 9. Lionfish safe handling and collection workshops are free trainings. They are a 

requirement for a Sanctuary permit to remove lionfish from SPAs with handnets). 

Photo: NOAA/FKNMS............................................................................................... 19
 

Figure 10. REEF receives permits from the FKNMS and the state of Florida to host 

derbies in the sanctuary. Photo: REEF. ...................................................................... 20
 

Figure 11. Lionfish spotted during a transect survey. Photo: REEF. ............................... 22
 

Figure 12. Lionfish removal can be an effective control method in priority areas. Photo: 

Alex Mustard. ............................................................................................................. 22
 

Figure 13. REEF staff deploy a ROV to conduct surveys assessing lionfish populations 

Figure 14. FKNMS and REEF partner to hold training workshops, a requirement for 

Figure 15. Tasty lionfish ceviche and fried lionfish served at the Upper Florida Keys 

near deep water lobster traps off Key Largo, Florida. Photo: REEF. ......................... 23
 

derby participation. Photo: REEF............................................................................... 25
 

Lionfish Derby. Photo: NOAA/FKNMS. ................................................................... 26
 

Figure 16. Bathymetric map of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. .. 27
 

Figure 17. A yellow mouth grouper and creolefish swim above the reef at the FGBNMS.
 

..................................................................................................................................... 29
 

Figure 18. Random transect taken within the East FGB long-term monitoring study site. 

Photo: FGBNMS/Schmahl.......................................................................................... 31
 

Figure 19. Stomach contents are analyzed from lionfish removed from the FGBNMS to 

determine what native fish fishes are eaten by lionfish. Photo: FGBNMS/Drinnen. . 33
 

Figure 20. Permitted lionfish removal at FGBNMS. Photo: FGBNMS/Schmahl. ........... 34
 

v 
Figure 21. Fish survey conducted at the FGBNMS. Photo: FGBNMS/Eckert. ............... 36
 

Figure 22. Lionfish handling workshop hosted by REEF at the FGBNMS Office in 

Figure 23. Bathymetric map of the Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary. Map: 

Figure 24. Black sea bass at Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary. Photo: 

Figure 25. Acoustic tag insertion in the underbelly of a Scamp at GRNMS. Photo: 

Galveston , TX. Photo: FGBNMS/Drinnen. ............................................................... 38
 

NOAA/ONMS. ........................................................................................................... 39
 

NOAA/GRNMS.......................................................................................................... 40
 

NOAA/Park................................................................................................................. 42
 

Figure 26. Juvenile lionfish removed from GRNMS in 2015. ......................................... 43
 

Figure 27. The Ocean Film Festival is held annually in Savannah, GA. Photo: 

NOAA/GRNMS.......................................................................................................... 45
 

Table 1. Priority actions by staff working nationally, regionally, or at one of the three 

national marine sanctuaries responding to the lionfish invasion (see following 

sections for descriptions). Symbols are characterized as: √ completed, > ongoing, 

+ needed or planned..................................................................................................... 8
 

Table 2. Activities conducted by staff and partners at Florida Keys National Marine 

Table 3. Priority activities currently conducted by staff and partners at Flower Garden 

Sanctuary..................................................................................................................... 15
 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary. ............................................................................. 29
 

Table 4. Priority activities currently conducted by staff and partners at the Gray’s Reef 

National Marine Sanctuary. ........................................................................................ 41
 

vi 
Chapter 1. About this Plan 

1.1 Purpose 

The purpose of this plan is to guide national marine sanctuaries and their partners in 

addressing the invasion of the lionfish in national marine sanctuaries within the southeast 

region of the United States. The plan is the guiding document for protecting national 

marine sanctuary resources and is intended to facilitate collaboration in national marine 

sanctuaries by: 

	 Implementing monitoring
 

activities to track the 

invasion and evaluate 

effectiveness of management 

actions, 

	 Controlling invasive 

lionfish populations where 

possible, using coordinated 

and effective methods,
 

	 Establishing research 

priorities to guide 

investigators by identifying 

highest priority research 

questions and science needs,
 

	 Using education and outreach approaches that generate public support and 

foster stewardship, 

	 Providing mechanisms for collaboration among regional sanctuary staff and 

partners, and 

	 Adapting management actions in response to information learned from
 

monitoring, research and control activities. 

This plan acts as a guide for lionfish management at national marine sanctuary sites in the 

southeast region of the United States, and complements existing response plans, 

including the Regional Strategy for the Control of Invasive Lionfish in the Wider 

Caribbean (Gomez Lozano et al. 2013), the National Invasive Lionfish Prevention and 

Management Plan (Invasive Lionfish Control Ad-hoc Committee of the Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Task Force, 2015), the NOAA Invasive Lionfish Action Plan (Morris 

and Harmon, in prep), the National Park Service Lionfish Response Plan (McCreedy et 

al. 2012), and the Invasive Lionfish Control and Management Action Plan of Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary (NOAA 2011). While this plan specifically applies to 

national marine sanctuaries, it is recognized that close coordination and cooperation with 

Figure 1. Lionfish are invasive species native to the IndoPacific region. Photo: FGBNMS/Schmahl. 

1 
 

other organizations and agencies across both domestic and international boundaries and 

jurisdictions is essential for success. 

1.2 Rationale 

Two species of Indo-Pacific lionfish (Red Lionfish, Pterois volitans and Devil Firefish, 

Pterois miles) have become established on continental shelf areas throughout the 

southeast United States, the Caribbean Sea, and much of the Gulf of Mexico. The range 

of these invasive predators is still expanding, and they are expected to reach areas as far 

south as Uruguay (Morris and Whitfield 2009). 

While these are not the 

first invasive marine fish 

species to be documented 

in the region, they are the 

most successful (Schofield 

et al. 2009). The IndoPacific lionfish invasion 

may become one of the 

top transformative human 

impacts to occur on 

Atlantic coral reefs. It 

follows on the heels of 

recent acute stressors such 

as several high impact 

coral disease and 

bleaching events since the 

late 1970s and the mass 

die-off of the long-spined 

sea urchin (Diadema antillarum) in the early 1980s; some of these stressors are also 

correlated to changing climate and ocean conditions. The lionfish invasion also 

exacerbates the impacts of historical and ongoing overfishing. Each of these stressors has 

unmistakably and dramatically altered reef communities and their interactions may 

compound to produce irreversible ecological and economic damage to reef communities 

of the Atlantic. 

Lionfish eradication is considered impractical with current knowledge and technology 

given the species’ high densities, broad depth distribution (surface to 300 m), and rapidly 

growing populations. However, controlling lionfish densities at the local scale (e.g., 

individual reef up to hundreds of square kilometers) can be successful and may lead to 

the recovery of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Frazer et al. 2012; de León et al. 

2013; Green et al. 2014). As it relates to invasive species, the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries aims to prevent marine sanctuary ecosystem degradation within the invaded 

range so that they continue to serve as refuges for native species. Interagency 

Figure 2. Confirmed lionfish sightings throughout the Atlantic, Gulf 

of Mexico, and Caribbean. Map: USGS, 2015. 

2 
 

collaboration across the entire invaded range will be required for successful large scale 

control of the invasive species. 

1.3 Scope 

The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries serves as the trustee for a network of 14 

marine protected areas encompassing more than 170,000 square miles of marine and 

Great Lakes waters. The network includes a system of 13 national marine sanctuaries and 

the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. 

Figure 3. Map of the National Marine Sanctuary System. Map: NOAA/ONMS. 

The area targeted by this plan is the southeast region within the national marine sanctuary 

system. The current sites of specific concern include: 

 Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary, 57 km2, 32 km off Sapelo Island, 

Georgia 

 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 9,933 km2 area surrounding the Florida 

Keys archipelago 

 Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, 146 km2, 110-170 km 

southeast of Galveston, Texas 

A fourth marine sanctuary, the Monitor, has also reported lionfish, but there are no 

specific plans to respond to the invasion, as it is not expected to affect the value or quality 

of maritime heritage artifacts on the Monitor, or the shipwreck site itself. That site, 

therefore, is not included in this plan. It is worth noting, however, that the sanctuary 

issues permits for diving on the Monitor, and requests that permitees report and provide 

images or video of lionfish, if seen. Furthermore, lionfish could affect access to the 

wreck, as they pose an acute safety threat to divers, including recreational divers, 

sanctuary staff, and researchers. Sanctuary staff currently discusses the lionfish problem 

3 
at outreach events as a way of informing the public about on-going ocean conservation 

and safety issues. An action plan for the Monitor sanctuary will be developed, and for 

any newly designated marine sanctuary sites in the region, if a decision is made that the 

invasion significantly threatens sanctuary resources or safety, and specific activities are 

needed to address it. 

1.4 Issues, Concerns, and Threats 

With the globalization of commerce and trade, invasive species have become a concern in 

virtually all marine ecosystems. Transportation of goods by larger and faster ships, 

international trade in live animals and plants, and changing ocean conditions caused by 

pollution and climate change, for example, all put ecosystems at greater risk of invasions. 

This is particularly true for ecosystems already under pressure from local sources of 

pollution, overuse, climate change, and other stressors (Albins and Hixon 2011). 

The lionfish invasion in the northwest Atlantic Ocean occurred slowly after the initial 

discoveries around 1985, then rapidly after 2000 (Schofield 2009). Primary reasons for 

the invasion’s success include prolific breeding and an apparent lack of Atlantic predators 

or other controls (Mumby et al. 2011; Hackerott et al. 2013). The invasion is resulting in 

declining native fish biomass in certain places because of extremely high predation rates 

by lionfish on native species, and rapidly growing populations that occur over a wide 

depth distribution (Albins and Hixon 2008; Green et al. 2012). This disrupts food webs 

and alters critical ecosystem functions, thus reducing an ecosystem’s resilience (the 

capacity for maintenance and self-renewal) (Lesser and Slattery 2011). The high 

abundance and lack of effective tools and techniques to remove lionfish from deep water 

make eradication impractical. 

The first evidence of invasion in Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary was in 2007, 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in 2009, and Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary in 2011. Concern over the ecological effects of lionfish in marine 

sanctuaries has increased as new findings have emerged. Ecological impacts are 

expected to occur mainly through the reduction of native reef fish and invertebrate 

populations caused by lionfish predation. Consumption of juveniles of large native reef 

fish may also hamper stock recovery of key economically and ecologically important 

species (Morris and Whitfield 2009). It has become clear that the integrity of reef 

ecosystems in national marine sanctuaries of the southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

region is at considerable risk from the lionfish invasion (Albins and Hixon 2011; 

Ruttenberg et al. 2012). 

Though the lionfish invasion represents a major ecological threat to national marine 

sanctuaries, there are also short and long-term social and economic consequences for 

communities that depend on sanctuary resources and the ecosystem services they provide. 

Some of these include provisioning services, like food and ornamental species; regulating 

services, such as biodiversity; and cultural services, like tourism, recreation, science, and 

education (Gittings et al. 2013). Lionfish represent a safety risk to recreational divers, 

snorkelers, swimmers, and anglers because of their venomous spines. In some areas, 

4 
 

lionfish may also contribute to the decline of commercially and recreationally important 

fish and invertebrates, including species caught for local consumption (Green et al. 2012, 

2014). Tourism is also potentially affected by the reduction in biodiversity, which can 

lead to declines in popularity of dive destinations. Thus, controlling the impacts of 

lionfish is among the higher priorities for sanctuary management in this region. 

National marine sanctuaries are focal areas for research, education and outreach, and 

enforcement, all of which could facilitate lionfish control. They also allow for adaptive 

management, whereby action plans can be developed and altered to address emerging 

threats. Sanctuaries serve as sentinel sites, where sustained observations of ecosystem 

conditions allow for a greater understanding of underlying drivers of change, as well as 

an early warning capacity to enable rapid response and intervention. Together, the high 

ecological value, iconic status, and existing capabilities make national marine sanctuaries 

priority areas for conservation in the face of this significant threat to reef communities of 

the northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. 

1.5 Challenges Hampering Effective Lionfish Control 

Science and conservation communities, including national marine sanctuary staff, have 

worked to understand, track, and respond to the lionfish invasion. To date, the affected 

national marine sanctuaries have implemented activities that could lead to effective 

controls of lionfish 

populations, but 

additional and 

sustained efforts are 

required for long-term 

success. Competing 

priorities and a lack of 

capacity have hindered 

control efforts through 

2015. For example, 

the lack of techniques 

available for lionfish 

removal below nodecompression diving 

depths and challenges 

involving logistics and 

funding in remote 

locations have 

hindered large-scale 

implementation of 

control measures. 

In addition, there are still many unanswered questions about what approaches may be 

most effective in controlling the invasion. Perhaps the most important is whether natural 

controls will emerge with time as the invasion progresses, reducing the need for, or 

Figure 4. Lionfish observed during a ROV survey over deep coralline 

algae reefs on banks in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico at 

approximately 120 meters. Photo: FGBNMS/UNCW-UVP. 

5 
 

working in concert with human intervention. For example, an undisturbed, highly 

diverse ecosystem, such as a marine protected area, may be more resistant than a system 

that is already stressed and lacks protections from stressors, such as fishing pressure. 

Predation, parasitism, and diseases would appear to be the most likely mechanisms for 

natural population control. Observations suggesting natural biotic resistance via 

predation by large groupers and other species (Mumby et al. 2011) raise the idea of 

closures to, or reductions in fishing, in order to restore large predators. Recent work has 

not supported this concept (Hackerott et al. 2013; Valdivia et al. 2014), but it could be 

further tested in national marine sanctuaries, national parks, and other marine protected 

areas, where marine reserve research and monitoring efforts provide a foundation for this 

research. There is also a need to continue studies to better understand the level of effort 

required to control local populations and to explore new, untested control measures. 

1.6 Connections and Relevance 

The consequences of the lionfish invasion are not just a concern for national marine 

sanctuaries. The unprecedented scale of this invasion has the attention of higher levels of 

governments across the United States Southeast and Caribbean region (Morris 2012). It 

is a problem of international dimension with economic effects that are likely to be felt by 

recreational and commercial anglers, dive operators, resorts, hotels, restaurants, and 

countless other coastal stakeholders. Internationally, several island nations have 

developed plans for action. In the United States, the National Ocean Policy 

Implementation Plan calls for federal agencies to take actions “...to improve our ability 

to detect and reduce invasive species in coastal and ocean habitats to protect commercial 

and recreational fish stocks, help sustain the jobs and industries that depend upon 

healthy coastal aquatic ecosystems, and save millions of dollars in lost revenue and 

avoided infrastructure damage” (National Ocean Council 2013). 

A similar call for action also appeared in the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Bill in 2013 (H.R.5326) and two House Resolutions raising 

awareness and capacity building needs specifically for invasive lionfish (H.R. 132 of the 

112th Congress and H.R. 67 of the 113th Congress). The National Park Service developed 

and implemented a Lionfish Response Plan that identified the threat of lionfish to 

national parks and instructions for developing control plans tailored to specific park 

needs (McCreedy et al. 2012). Recently, the National Invasive Lionfish Prevention and 

Management Plan (2015) was prepared by an ad-hoc group with representatives from 

state, regional, and federal government entities, academia, non-profit organizations, and 

industry. Its purpose is to serve as a guide to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 

(ANSTF) and other interested parties involved in managing lionfish and natural resources 

in U.S. waters. 

The need for the NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries Lionfish Response Plan is to 

respond to these calls for action, and to outline specific actions to be taken within 

sanctuaries based on guidance provided by these and other planning efforts. In proposing 

these actions, however, the plan also supports calls for interagency coordination and all 

6 
eight goals of the interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Strategic Plan (2013­

2017) (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 2012), and all seven goals of the National 

Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (2012). This plan most directly 

supports Goal 7: “Reduce non-climate stressors to help fish, wildlife, plants, and 

ecosystems adapt to a changing climate.” This plan’s actions draw heavily on the draft 

NOAA Invasive Lionfish Action Plan (Morris and Harmon, in prep) and address its five 

goals: 

	 Develop and implement localized lionfish control plans, 

	 Enhance research on lionfish ecology to improve and develop methods for 

lionfish population control, 

	 Develop and implement the use of standard monitoring methods, 

	 Implement lionfish sociocultural and economic assessments across impacted 

sectors, and 

	 Improve lionfish ecological impact assessments. 

A number of the research priorities listed in the National Invasive Lionfish Prevention 

and Management Plan (2015) are also identified as priorities for the national marine 

sanctuaries. In addition, this plan contributes to the National Ocean Services priorities to 

enhance place-based conservation and resilience, and addresses research priorities of both 

the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science and the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2. A Plan for Action 

The actions proposed in this plan will provide guidance and enable each affected national 

marine sanctuary to continue to respond, control, and adapt to the lionfish invasion. They 

take advantage of the assets available at marine sanctuary facilities to focus removal, 

monitoring, and research efforts, and strengths in education and outreach to engage the 

public and support the need to spread information about this problem. Because of its 

high profile and the likely impacts of the lionfish invasion, this issue has the potential to 

invigorate public attention and action on behalf of marine conservation in general - a 

potentially significant positive outcome from the crisis. It also provides an opportunity to 

highlight NOAA’s science, service and stewardship roles on behalf of the American 

public. 

The actions proposed (Table 1) are separated into groups coordinated primarily by the 

national and regional offices, and those facilitated by the individual national marine 

sanctuary sites. It is recognized, however, that many of the same people will be working 

at multiple levels, and considerable integration of activities will occur. The actions are 

further divided into four categories: monitoring, control, research, and education and 

outreach. 

Table 1. Priority actions by staff working nationally, regionally, or at one of the three national 

marine sanctuaries responding to the lionfish invasion (see following sections for descriptions). 

Symbols are characterized as: √ completed, > ongoing, + needed or planned. 

Category Focus Area/Project National & 

Regional 

Florida 

Keys 

Flower 

Garden 

Banks 

Gray’s 

Reef 

Tracking Protocols > > > > 

Impact Protocols + > > + 

Condition Reports > > > > 

NCRMP* > > > 

Tortugas Reserve > 

Monitoring 

Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF) 

Volunteer Fish Survey Project 

FGB Long-Term 

Monitoring 

> > √

> 

Stetson Bank LongTerm Monitoring > 

Research Area > 

Invertebrate Disturbance > 

Acoustic + 

Identify Priority Areas + √ √

Permitting Mechanisms > √ √ + 

Regulatory Impediments + √

Capture/Trap 

Technologies > + 

Control Market Development + 

Incentivizing Control + 

Targeted Removals Permitted Volunteers 

Derbies 

> 

> 

> 

+ 

+ 

“Eat Lionfish” 

Campaign > > 

Diets + > > + 

Resistance & Resilience + + 

Research Biological Controls + + 

Ciguatera > > 

KAPs** + + 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

Category Focus Area/Project National & 

Regional 

Florida 

Keys 

Flower 

Garden 

Banks 

Gray’s 

Reef 

Biology & Ecology Removal Effectiveness > > 

Recolonization > + > 

Impacts to Native 

Species > > 

Habitat Utilization > > 

Research Age & Growth 

Attraction Devices 

> 

+ 

> 

Impacts of Hunting + 

Movement + + 

Seasonal Variation > 

Tissue Collection > > > 

Spiny Lobster Fishery > 

Socioeconomics Economic Sector Impacts > 

Impact on Perceptions √

Training + > > > 

Lionfish Messaging > > > > 

Curriculum + 

Education & 

Outreach 

Conservation Messaging 

New web content 

NOAA Working Group 

> 

+ 

> > > 

+ 

Partnerships > > > + 

Handling Workshops > > √

Events & Materials > > > 

* NCRMP – National Coral Reef Monitoring Program administered by the NOAA Coral Reef 

Conservation Program 

** Studies on knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions about lionfish and their impacts 

2.1 National and Regional Response Actions 

To date, the primary responses to the lionfish invasion in national marine sanctuaries 

have occurred at the local level, and involve removal, research, monitoring, and 

education and outreach. However, there are several activities that would benefit from 

regional, national, or international coordination, planning, or support. The lionfish 

problem is widespread, yet the drivers of change are fairly consistent across the affected 

range, so there may be economies of scale realized by regional and national actions. 

There are also agency and interagency initiatives that can both support and benefit from 

these actions. 

A responsibility of the National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) system is to protect ecosystem 

integrity in marine sanctuaries, as resource protection is mandated by the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). One of the specified purposes of the NMSA is to 

“...protect, and where appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, 

and ecological processes” of the marine sanctuaries. The Act also calls for “...models of, 

and incentives for, ways to conserve and manage these areas, including the application 

of innovative management techniques.” These purposes, including provisions of the 

NMSA and regulations of the individual marine sanctuaries must be considered in 

dealing with the lionfish issue. NMSA also authorizes the issuance of permits for 

otherwise prohibited activities. For example, where a banned activity such as 

spearfishing at Gray’s Reef, Flower Garden Banks, or some areas of the Florida Keys 

9 
National Marine Sanctuary, is deemed the most efficient lionfish removal technique, 

permits may be issued for targeted removals. The same is true for removals related to 

research. 

At both Flower Garden Banks and Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuaries, regulations 

that may influence lionfish response include prohibitions on anchoring, injuring biota or 

bottom formations (this could occur during removals), and the use or possession of 

spearfishing equipment, traps, or fish caught using them. Pertinent prohibitions in Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary include injury to coral or live rock, alteration of the 

seabed, and harvesting of marine life, and in certain areas, prohibitions on anchoring, 

spearfishing, trapping, and collecting any organisms. The national and regional offices of 

ONMS will work with all three sanctuaries to develop clear messaging and approaches 

for facilitating lionfish response, recognizing site-specific regulations. 

Monitoring, control, research, and education and outreach activities that could be 

coordinated at the regional or national level to respond to the lionfish invasion include: 

I. Monitoring 

Monitoring is a critical part of adaptive management for lionfish control, as trends 

provide an indicator of how lionfish populations and the fish community are responding 

to management actions or biotic controls. Because lionfish are a new stress in marine 

sanctuaries, monitoring their populations and effects may require new techniques, or 

adapting protocols in current monitoring programs. 

 Work with individual marine sanctuaries to identify or establish appropriate 

protocols for tracking progress of the invasion and evaluating status and change in 

impacts associated with lionfish. 

 Work with sanctuaries to incorporate lionfish information and discussions into 

invasive species sections of condition reports. 

 Develop or adopt monitoring protocols that will allow comparison of lionfish 

populations and impacts at various sites. 

 Provide access to and sharing of regional data and protocols to enhance adaptive 

management. 

II. Control 

Based on current research and available technology, it is generally accepted that 

eradication of lionfish throughout the region is not feasible. However, recent research is 

showing that local control of lionfish populations to levels that will minimize ecological 

and economic impacts in priority areas may be possible (Frazer et al. 2012; Green et al. 

2014). Control measures are likely to vary depending on the level of invasion, 

measurable impacts to the native coral reef community and human health, and available 

control resources. Furthermore, regulatory impediments to public involvement in 

removals must be reduced and the development of new technologies for lionfish control 

must be considered. 

10 
	 Work with sanctuary sites to develop and apply criteria to identify priority areas 

for removal, removal frequency, monitoring, and outreach. 

	 Consider ways to facilitate permitting while ensuring safe and effective removals 

(e.g., evaluate use of a call-in permitting system based on experiences of the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary). 

	 Consider whether other currently restricted activities should be allowed, such as 

granting exceptions to no-take reserves or permitting spearfishing in restricted 

areas. 

	 Develop responsible capture technologies that enable control of populations in 

both shallow and deep water habitats without causing harm to the natural 

resources (e.g., bycatch, marine debris, entanglement). 

	 Incentivize technology and other control measures through innovative means, 

such as awards, market development, and social networking. 

III. Research 

Despite a decade or more of valuable research on lionfish in invaded areas, there is still 

much to be learned about lionfish biology and ecology that will inform the methods and 

approaches to population control. Research is also needed to understand the invasion’s 

impacts on both natural and human systems, and the response of these systems to control 

actions. 

 Track temporal changes and selectivity within lionfish diets in relation to prey 

availability and impacts to native species. 

 Identify factors influencing resistance and resilience of different sanctuary 

ecosystems, and marine protect areas as a tool for natural control. 

 Facilitate and encourage research in lionfish population ecology to better 

understand the variation in lionfish control efficacy. 

 Assess relative impact of control approaches, including the development of 

adaptive control plans. 

 Facilitate investigations of biological controls such as predation, disease, and 

parasites, as well as intervention options (e.g., genetic modification). 

	 Facilitate and encourage research in marine sanctuaries related to comparative 

toxicology, ciguatera testing, and social sciences related to ciguatera fish 

poisoning. 

	 Track changes in knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of sanctuaries and 

conservation issues resulting from awareness generated by the lionfish invasion 

(e.g., Scyphers et al. 2014). 

IV. Education and Outreach 

Dealing with the lionfish invasion will require broad support from the public, 

necessitating a significant investment in outreach and education. But the lionfish issue is 

also an excellent tool for educating the public about invasive species, as well as a starting 

point for other topics such as coral reef biology and marine conservation more generally. 

11 
 

 

	 Encourage and promote best practices for training conducted in the region. 

	 Identify and convey important messages related to lionfish impacts, controls, and 

consumption (e.g., the risk of ciguatera from eating lionfish). 

	 Support the development of curriculum relating lionfish to ecological principles 

about invasive species for both national and site levels. This could be part of a 

larger curriculum on invasive species that applies more broadly (e.g., “Respond, 

Control, and Adapt”). 

	 Promote conservation behavior through outreach focused on the human role in 

causing and exacerbating the lionfish invasion, as well as highlighting the 

successes of ongoing control efforts and partnerships. 

	 Work with NOAA invasive species initiatives, and create a lionfish working 

group at NOAA to coordinate agency response activities. 

	 Conduct evaluations of education and outreach efficacy for individual programs. 

Figure 5. The Celebrity Chef Lionfish Challenge, hosted by the National Marine 

Sanctuary Foundation, the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, and Seaweb as 

part of the 2015 SeaWeb Seafood Summit 2015, allowed for a unique outreach 

opportunity for guests to sample lionfish dishes, and learn about the invasion as well 

as national marine sanctuaries. Photos: Michelle Johnston and Brian Barber. 

12 
Chapter 3. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

3.1 Status of the Invasion 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) is one of the largest marine protected 

areas in the United States, encompassing 9,933 square kilometers. Marine zones for 

multiple uses, including highly protected "no-take" areas (currently 6% of the sanctuary), 

have been in place since 1997. Approximately 60% of the sanctuary is State of Florida 

waters, and 40% is federal waters. FKNMS shares boundaries with three national parks 

and overlaps with four national wildlife refuges, six state parks, and three state aquatic 

preserves. FKNMS surrounds the Florida Keys community of more than 72,000 yearround residents and 3-million annual visitors (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

2011). 

Figure 6. Bathymetric map of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. 

Map: NOAA/ONMS. 

Lionfish were introduced off the Atlantic coast of Florida in the 1980s, but did not reach 

the FKNMS until 2009 (Schofield 2009, 2010; Ruttenberg et al. 2012). Between January 

and September 2009, thirteen lionfish sightings were reported in FKNMS, of which ten 

were confirmed; eight of those were successfully captured and removed. Shortly 

thereafter, lionfish populations exploded in the Florida Keys, as elsewhere. They are now 

present in nearly all habitats where natural or manmade relief provides structure. Lionfish 

abundance has increased in FKNMS since 2009, and is predicted to affect the native fish 

population. In some shallow reefs of the nearby Bahamas for example, lionfish represent 

up to 40% of reef fish biomass, and have reduced native biomass by 65% (Green et al. 

2012). 

13 
3.2 Resources at Risk 

FKNMS helps protect more 

than 6,000 species of marine 

life, including the world’s 

third largest barrier reef, and 

one of the largest seagrass 

communities in this 

hemisphere. The sanctuary 

surrounds approximately 

1,700 islands and includes 

mangrove, seagrass, 

hardbottom, and coral reef 

habitats in coastal and 

oceanic waters. This 

ecosystem support fisheries 

and recreational activities 

that provide income for local 

economies and recreational 

opportunity to millions of 

people, annually. NOAA 

estimates that coral reefs in southeast Florida have an asset value of $8.5 billion, 

generating $4.4 billion in local sales, $2 billion in local income, and 70,400 full and parttime jobs (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2011). 

How much economic impact the lionfish invasion may have on the Florida Keys is 

unknown, but there is ample evidence to suggest that the threat to ecosystems is large, 

and the economic impact could be as well. Lionfish compete for space and food with 

commercially and recreationally important reef-fish species, such as snapper, grouper, 

hogfish, and others. They also consume juveniles of these and many other species, which 

poses significant risk for reef-fish populations and threatens to prevent stock rebuilding 

efforts. Herbivorous fishes are also lionfish prey, which could lead to uncontrolled 

growth of algae on reefs, exacerbating an already stressed coral reef ecosystem. And 

because the lionfish prey base includes fish and invertebrates, their impact on reef food 

webs could be pervasive and severe. 

3.3 Sanctuary Response Actions 

Lionfish were first observed in FKNMS in 2009, and numerous response actions have 

taken place in an attempt to control this invasion. Table 2 lists past and some current 

responses, projects, and areas of focus on the lionfish invasion involving density control, 

research, monitoring, and education and outreach through 2014. 

Figure 7. Fish swim above the reef at the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary. Photo: NOAA/FKNMS. 

14 
 

 

 

 

Table 2. Activities conducted by staff and partners at Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. 

Category Focus Area/Project Brief Description 

Monitoring 

Permitting FKNMS provides research permits for monitoring and tagging lionfish. 

CRCP NCRMP National Coral Reef Monitoring Program. Lionfish abundance and size 

conducted along reef-wide random belt transects. 

Various projects of opportunity Other projects that record lionfish presence while sampling/monitoring 

stations. 

Citizen science Citizens are encouraged to report sightings of lionfish to either REEF or the 

Marine Ecosystem Event Response and Assessment (MEERA) program. 

Lionfish derbies Data are regularly gathered on populations, size structure, and removal effort. 

Control 

FKNMS Invasive Lionfish 

Control and Management Action 

Plan 

NOAA, REEF, and Mote Marine Lab developed action plan over a two-year 

period (2011). 

Permitting 

FKNMS permits people who have been through a sanctioned workshop to 

remove lionfish from 18 Sanctuary Preservation Areas. Over 800 permits 

issued to date. FKNMS permits on-water professionals to remove lionfish 

from no-take areas using pole spears. 

Derbies FKNMS and REEF have partnered to promote lionfish removal and control 

using ‘derbies.’ 

State of Florida laws changed 

Florida law has been updated to address the lionfish invasion: 1) there is no 

fishing license required to harvest lionfish, 2) there is no bag or size limit 

within State waters, 3) participants are permitted in approved tournaments 

and other organized events to spear lionfish or other invasive species in areas 

where spearfishing is not allowed, with exceptions, 4) harvest of lionfish is 

allowed when diving with a rebreather, 5) import of live lionfish and breeding 

for the aquarium trade is banned 

Research 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

– Hg Concentrations 

Testing and reporting of mercury concentrations of lionfish with researchers 

from USGS and University of Florida. 

USGS – non-native species 

database Sightings reported and entered into USGS non-native species database. 

Tag recapture 

Nova Southeastern University (NSU) worked in Tennessee Reef Special Use 

Area on tag and capture research to determine habitat utilization 

characteristics. 

Lionfish target density 

Stephanie Green at Oregon State University researching effectiveness of 

lionfish removals in priority areas and recolonization rates to set removal 

frequency targets. 

Lionfish derbies Data are gathered on populations, size structure, fecundity, age/growth, and 

removal effectiveness. 

Education & 

Outreach 

Non-native species guide REEF, USGS, NOAA – Published 2012 

Regular lionfish outreach and 

training workshops 

REEF and FKNMS – FKNMS permit requirement for removing lionfish 

within Sanctuary Preservation Areas. 

Social media (e.g., Facebook 

and twitter) 

Regular updates to the public about training workshops, derbies, and special 

events. 

In addition to the primary responses above, there are numerous activities and research 

needs that would benefit the sanctuary. Monitoring, control, research, and education and 

outreach activities that are in place, or could be coordinated to help respond to the 

lionfish invasion, are further described in detail below. 

15 
I. Monitoring 

Purpose: Collect information to monitor trends in lionfish populations in FKNMS and the 

effectiveness of control programs in order to assess and adjust actions through adaptive 

management. 

Several key questions marine resource managers will need to address through lionfish 

monitoring include: 

 How is the lionfish population, including distribution, demographics, and 

condition, changing over time in FKNMS? 

 What locations (depths, habitat types, etc.) are colonized or recolonized most 

quickly? 

	 How effective is removal in controlling lionfish abundance and how are native 

fish and invertebrate populations responding over time frames from months to 

years? 

	 How much effort is required to control lionfish in FKNMS, and what capacity 

needs to be in place to make this effort sustainable? 

Currently, a range of monitoring projects occurs in FKNMS. Those that can be or have 

been adapted to include monitoring for lionfish are: 

1. NOAA National Coral Reef Monitoring Plan. NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation 

Program (CRCP) implemented the National Coral Reef Monitoring Plan (NCRMP) in 

2013. It is designed to support conservation of the Nation’s coral reef ecosystems 

through documenting and understanding the status and trends of the Nation’s reefs. 

Through NCRMP, NOAA will clearly and concisely communicate results of nationalscale status and trends monitoring to national, state, and territorial policy makers, as well 

as resource managers and the general public every four years. The NCRMP focuses on 

the following four priority themes: benthic communities (especially corals), reefassociated fish communities, climate change and ocean acidification, and socioeconomic 

human dimensions related to perceptions of and interactions with coral reef ecosystems. 

Benthic and fish monitoring will be conducted on a biennial basis in the U.S. 

Atlantic/Caribbean, and every three years in the U.S. Pacific. 

Status: Beginning 2014 

Implementation: Benthic and fish monitoring using a stratified random 

sampling design throughout shallow water coral reefs (0-30m) in Florida 

(Martin to Monroe Counties) is scheduled to begin in 2014 and continue 

on a biennial basis. NCRMP will monitor coral cover, coral community 

structure, rugosity, incidence of bleaching and disease, and associated 

measures of fish community structure (abundance, diversity, size 

structure, key species) as quantified using the reef visual census method 

(RVC). Lionfish abundance and size will be documented in the FKNMS 

fish surveys, along with associated habitat type and depth in benthic 

surveys. 

16 
2. Tortugas Ecological Reserve Monitoring. The FKNMS Tortugas Ecological Reserve 

(TER) is located at the westernmost extent of the sanctuary. In partnership with NCCOS, 

NOAA Fisheries, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), 

FKNMS has continued to monitor the performance of the TER, including the response of 

fishes to this the current level of protection provided by the reserve. Monitoring is also 

underway in the adjacent Dry Tortugas National Park, where lionfish abundances and 

distribution have been documented for the last two years. 

Status: Initiated 2000 / Ongoing annually 

Implementation: Benthic and fish monitoring using a stratified random 

sampling design throughout shallow water coral reefs (0-30m) in TER is 

conducted every two years. Lionfish abundance and size are now 

documented in the TER fish surveys, along with associated habitat type 

and depth in benthic surveys. Lionfish are also removed during this 

survey, to the extent practicable. Information gained from fish surveys 

may provide insight on whether biotic resistance will limit lionfish 

populations in the TER. 

Figure 8. Fish survey conducted within the TER. Photo: FGBNMS/Nuttall. 

3. REEF Marine Zone Monitoring. Starting in 1997, REEF has conducted fish counts 

using its Advanced Assessment Team (AAT) as part of the FKNMS Zone Monitoring 

Program. The main purpose of this project is to evaluate the effect of harvest restrictions 

on the fish assemblages at no-take zones within FKNMS. 

Status: Initiated 1997 / Ongoing, but opportunistic and no longer annual 

Implementation: Reef fish populations were regularly surveyed for 

comparisons between fully protected marine zones and reference sites 

17 
 

from 1997 to 2002, and opportunistically since 2003. The AAT conducted 

a minimum of 6 roving diver surveys at each no-take site, and at reference 

areas that are similar to the protected sites but where harvest has not been 

restricted. Lionfish are included in roving diver surveys to determine if 

there are differences in lionfish abundance in no take-sites and reference 

sites. 

4. Florida Keys Reef Fish Monitoring. NOAA’s Southeast Fisheries Science Center, in 

cooperation with the University of Miami, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, and the National Park Service, conduct annual scuba surveys of the coral 

reef fish communities along the Florida Keys coral reef tract. 

Status: 1980-2013 

Implementation: Using a habitat stratified sampling design, the program 

included approximately 350 sites annually. Project information has been 

used in stock assessments for reef-associated species, evaluating efficacy 

of marine zones in FKNMS, and assessment of changes in fish 

communities over the past 30 years. Community-level effects of the 

lionfish invasion are of particular concern to sanctuary management, and 

those effects are now monitored as part of NCRMP. 

II. Control 

Purpose: Develop measures to assess effectiveness and maximize efficiency of lionfish 

control strategies leading to more effective resource protection in FKNMS. The activities 

below depend on and address the needs of an actively involved public responding 

cooperatively to the lionfish invasion. Because eradication is unlikely, our response will 

require a continual commitment to control, and for area the size of the FKNMS, this will 

require a large number of participants. 

1. Identify and prioritize FKNMS marine zones requiring active lionfish control. 

The lionfish invasion requires assessment of critical and priority habitat towards which 

mitigation resources should be focused. It is prudent to prioritize FKNMS habitats (or 

marine zones) that should become focused removal areas. 

Status: Initiated 2009 / Currently under review 

Implementation: Combining community sentiment with best available 

science, develop a map of the FKNMS highlighting priority lionfish 

removals areas, consistent with NOAA policy and FKNMS management 

plan. 

2. Establish permitting requirements and opportunity for removing lionfish from 

fully-protected (no-take) marine zones. FKNMS uses 24 “no-take” zones (Sanctuary 

Preservation Areas, Ecological Reserves, and Research Only Areas) to facilitate multipleuse and to protect coastal and ocean resources including coral reefs, seagrass meadows, 

mangroves, and shipwrecks. There are four zones types, one of which is called a 

Sanctuary Preservation Area or SPA, allowing regular visitation by the public, who 

primarily engage in snorkeling and diving activities. Reporting and removing invasive 

18 
lionfish from these zones is a management priority. A special permit was developed to 

allow the general public to remove invasive lionfish from the 18 SPAs with hand nets and 

slurp guns. Over 800 divers have been permitted as of 2014. 

Status: Initiated 2009/ Ongoing 

annually 

Implementation: After 

completing an FKNMS 

approved lionfish workshop, 

members of the public are 

authorized via a sanctuary 

permit to remove lionfish from
 

the 18 SPAs (gear restrictions 

apply). FKNMS permit is not 

required to remove lionfish from
 

areas outside the no-take zones 

(94% of FKNMS), but gear 

restrictions are applicable.
 

As the invasion progresses, 

permitting requirements may 

need to be re-evaluated and 

additional resources for 

improving efficiency of 

collection strategies and 

reducing impacts of collections 

to the FKNMS may be 

considered. This may include 

adjusting gear restrictions. 

3. Conduct targeted removals to control lionfish densities. By educating and training 

the public, partners, and resource managers in best collection and handling practices, 

community involvement in opportunistic removal of lionfish from sanctuary waters is 

facilitated. 

Staff and Permitted Volunteer Removals 

Status: Initiated 2009/ Ongoing annually 

Implementation: Individuals including staff, volunteers, and researchers 

are trained to respond and safely remove lionfish, as well as gather 

important ecological and biological data through dissections, tissue 

sampling, and archival of specimens. Permits are required to remove 

lionfish from the FKNMS zones. Data is available to be shared with 

MEERA, REEF, and National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

(NCCOS), etc., for further distribution. 

Figure 9. Lionfish safe handling and collection 

workshops are free trainings. They are a 

requirement for a Sanctuary permit to 

remove lionfish from SPAs with handnets). 

Photo: NOAA/FKNMS. 

19 
 

 

 

 

Lionfish Derbies 

Status: Initiated 2010/ Ongoing annually 

Implementation: FKNMS partners with REEF to train key users and 

derby participants to safely and effectively remove lionfish from sanctuary 

waters. Geographic and morphometric/meristic data are recorded for each 

lionfish removed and entered into the REEF lionfish database. Focused, 

intensive removals are repeated on a regular basis in an attempt to keep 

lionfish densities low in local areas. 

In 2013, REEF in 

partnership with Dr. 

Stephanie Green 

(OSU), with funding 

from FL Sea Grant, 

began assessing 

effects of single-day 

lionfish removal 

events on lionfish 

population and size 

structure. Lionfish 

density and size are 

being assessed before 

and after derby events 

at a total of 64 sites in 

the upper Florida 

Keys and Biscayne 

National Park to 

determine percentage 

of the population 

removed and effects 

on size structure of the 

population. Quarterly 

surveys are 

documenting 

recruitment following 

derby removals. 

Bycatch in the Trap Fishery 

Status: Ongoing 

Implementation: Significant numbers of lionfish are removed through 

bycatch in the Florida Keys lobster trap fishery. One fisherman reported 

over 6,000 lbs of lionfish captured in a single year. Data are reported to 

FWC as part of the Saltwater Product Licensing requirements. 

Figure 10. REEF receives permits from the FKNMS 

and the state of Florida to host derbies in the 

sanctuary. Photo: REEF. 

20 
 

 

 

Aquarium Trade 

Status: Ongoing 

Implementation: Lionfish are being collected and sold through the marine 

life trade in the Florida Keys, no longer from overseas. Data are reported 

to the FWC. 

III. Research 

Purpose: Increase research activities to better understand lionfish biology and ecology, 

and further advance methods for lionfish population control in FKNMS. Research is also 

needed to understand the associated impacts on natural and human systems in the Florida 

Keys. 

1. Lionfish ecology and impacts. Lingering questions about the ecology of lionfish still 

hinder the development of long-term control measures. Additional research is needed to 

better understand the following: 

 Research on aging and genetics of lionfish 

Status: Initiated 2009/ Ongoing 

Implementation: Research is underway at NCCOS Center for Coastal 

Fisheries and Habitat Research to develop aging methods for invasive 

lionfish. Otoliths and tissue samples are sent to the NOAA NCCOS 

Lionfish Tissue Repository in Beaufort, NC and archived for studies on 

age, growth, diet, genetics, and stable isotope analysis. 

 Study ecological impacts on native fish and benthic communities in shallow and 

deep reefs 

Status: Initiated 2010/ Ongoing 

Implementation: Dr. Stephanie Green (Oregon State University), Lad 

Akins (REEF), and NSU are examining the response of native reef fish 

community structure to lionfish population density at 12 nearshore patch 

reefs (~5m) and 14 offshore continuous reefs (~20m) between Tennessee 

ROA and Carysfort SPA. The relationship between lionfish densities and 

native fish populations will be used to calibrate an ecological model of 

predicted density thresholds at which lionfish deplete their fish prey base, 

which can be used to identify targets for population control. An extension 

of this study is also taking place in Biscayne National Park and Buck 

Island Reef National Monument. 

 Determine habitat utilization characteristics of lionfish on both shallow and deep 

reefs 

Status: Initiated 2010/ Ongoing 

Implementation: Dr. Stephanie Green (Oregon State University), Lad 

Akins (REEF), and NSU are also examining drivers of recolonization in 

the sanctuary, which vary with habitat structure and connectivity, fish 

community assemblage, and oceanographic processes. An extension of 

21 
 

this study is also taking place in Biscayne National Park and Buck Island 

Reef National Monument. REEF, in partnership with Dr. Green, is 

assessing microhabitat occupancy and recruitment fidelity at eight sites in 

the upper Florida Keys. Data will be used to determine microhabitat 

preference, recruitment and use patterns with varying lionfish density at 

removal and control sites. 

Figure 11. Lionfish spotted during a transect survey. Photo: REEF. 

 Determine effectiveness of lionfish removals in priority areas and recolonization 

rates to set removal frequency targets to effectively mitigate ecosystem impacts 

Status: Initiated 2012/ Ongoing 

Implementation: Dr. 

Stephanie Green 

(Oregon State 

University) and Lad 

Akins (REEF), in 

partnership with NSU 

and funded through 

Mote, NOAA CRCP, 

Florida Sea Grant 

and the David. H. 

Smith Conservation 

Program are 

assessing 1) factors 

affecting catch per 

unit effort of lionfish 

by divers over time 

and across sites, 

Figure 12. Lionfish removal can be an effective control 

method in priority areas. Photo: Alex Mustard. 

22 
 

 

including gear type, fish behavior and the effect of habitat on catch, in 

order to determine the level of effort required to keep lionfish densities 

below target impact thresholds, and 2) habitat and biotic community 

characteristics driving recolonization rates. An extension of this study is 

taking place at Biscayne National Park and Buck Island Reef National 

Monument. Tagging and re-sighting lionfish at sites in the Florida Keys 

Research Only Areas (ROA) is providing information on lionfish 

movement in response to removals at adjacent sites. These data will feed 

into a model to provide resource managers guidance on frequency of 

visitation and level of removal needed to minimize lionfish predation 

impacts. 

 Investigate the effectiveness of different methods of attracting lionfish in support 

of trap development 

Status: Initiated 2013/ Ongoing 

Implementation: Preliminary research has been initiated at NCCOS Center 

for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, REEF, and the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries to develop lionfish attraction devices. 

Researchers at Biscayne National Park (Kristian Rogers) and University of 

Miami (Dr. Evan D’Alessandro) are assessing the efficacy of a lionfishspecific trap device as compared to traditional diver removal in waters of 

the Park and FKNMS. 

 Assess deepwater lionfish populations in relation to lobster fishery bycatch of 

lionfish 

Status: Initiated 2014/ 12 months 

Implementation: 

Through a Sea 

Grant funded 

project, Lad 

Akins (REEF) 

working with 

Dr. Stephanie 

Green (OSU) 

and Dr. James 

Morris (NOAA) 

are using a ROV 

to assess 

deepwater (40­

60 m) lionfish 

populations in 

comparison to 

catch of lionfish 

in the same areas 

in the lobster 

trap fishery. 

Figure 13. REEF staff deploy a ROV to conduct surveys 

assessing lionfish populations near deep water lobster traps off 

Key Largo, Florida. Photo: REEF. 

23 
 

 

 

 

 Assess impact to reefs caused by divers and others hunting lionfish 

Status: Research needed
 

2. Socioeconomic impacts. The lionfish invasion represents a socioeconomic threat, 

contributing to the decline of ecologically and commercially important species of fish in 

the Southeast U.S. Socioeconomic impacts remain largely unquantified, and analyses are 

needed across all potentially impacted economic sectors, including commercial fishing, 

recreational fishing, tourism, and food services. High priority research questions 

investigating lionfish socioeconomic impacts in the FKNMS include: 

 Assess lionfish impacts on the spiny lobster fishery
 

Status: Initiated 2012
 

Implementation: Research underway by graduate student at the University 

of Miami in partnership with REEF is documenting the presence of 

lionfish in the commercial lobster trap fishery in relation to trap location 

and by-catch, and effects on the target lobster catch to determine impacts 

on the fishery. Data on trap catch is being recorded and assessed monthly 

in the Middle Keys during the lobster fishing season (August – March). 

Cameras are being deployed on a subset of traps to assess lobster-lionfish 

interactions. 

	 Assess economic impacts of the lionfish invasion on affected sectors of the 

community (fishing, tourism, recreation, ornamental fish collection, 

biotechnology) 

Status: Research needed 

	 Determine how perceptions of stakeholders (e.g., recognition and appreciation) 

have changed over time, particularly regarding conservation requirements related 

to lionfish. 

Status: Initiated 2013 

Implementation: An ongoing collaboration between REEF and NSU is 

using lionfish derbies to gauge economic expenditures and impacts of 

participants. The same survey will also assess participant attitudes and 

experiences regarding lionfish, including how these experiences have 

changed since the invasion started. 

IV. Education and Outreach 

Purpose: Conduct outreach and education to FKNMS stakeholders and the general public 

about invasive species (e.g., lionfish). 

1. Continue and strengthen key partnerships. Existing and new partnerships are 

needed to educate the public about lionfish, enact rapid response protocols and removals, 

and to assist with scientific investigations related to invasive marine species. 

Status: Implemented 2008/ Ongoing annually 

24 
Implementation: Since 2009, REEF has been working in close partnership 

with FKNMS and partners throughout the region to help develop lionfish 

response plans, train resource managers and dive operators in effective 

collecting and handling techniques, and conduct cutting edge research to 

help address the invasion. REEF enlists divers and snorkelers to join 

organized lionfish research and removal projects and encourages public 

participation in helping address the invasion. 

2. Conduct lionfish handling workshops. Training workshops educate the public on 

safe handling practices and promote detection and removal of lionfish from FKNMS 

waters. 

Status: Implemented 2010/ Ongoing annually 

Implementation: FKNMS partners with REEF to organize and execute 

training workshops that promote safe detection and removal of lionfish. 

Workshops target the general public, dive operators, lionfish derby 

participants, NGOs, and 

state and federal agency 

field staff. Outreach 

materials about lionfish 

threats to human health 

are distributed to the 

public through print, web, 

and social media outlets. 

Online awareness 

modules for the general 

public including 

awareness and reporting, 

safe handling, dissection, 

and processing of lionfish 

for human consumption 

are currently in 

development by REEF. 

Successful completion of 

these workshops is a 

requirement of the permit 

that allows stakeholders to 

remove lionfish from the 

FKNMS SPAs. 

3. Increase public awareness and distribute outreach information. Key messaging 

is needed to explain the damaging ecological impacts of lionfish and to promote 

awareness, detectability and central reporting of lionfish in the FKNMS (Appendix A 

and B). This includes distribution of stickers, flyers, fact sheets, and other outreach 

materials to dive shops, NGOs, state and federal agencies, and schools. 

Status: Implemented 2008/ ongoing annually 

Figure 14. FKNMS and REEF partner to hold training 

workshops, a requirement for derby participation. 

Photo: REEF. 

25 
Implementation: Outreach material is distributed by REEF, Mote Marine 

Lab, FKNMS, and NCCOS. Social media networks, including Facebook 

and Twitter, are also utilized to distribute information. A June 2008 

workshop in Marathon, FL, hosted by NCCOS, REEF, and USGS 

provided direct outreach on lionfish to representatives from over 30 

institutions in South Florida. Various media outlets have covered the 

lionfish invasion along the Southeast U.S. and the Caribbean including 

newspapers, magazines, and major networks news coverage. 

4. Consume Lionfish and promote “Eat Lionfish” campaigns 

Status: Implemented 2009/ Ongoing annually 

Implementation: It is unlikely that lionfish will be eradicated from 

FKNMS, but their densities can be controlled locally through removal, and 

consumption is a side benefit. Lionfish are a delicious and 

environmentally conscientious seafood choice considering many native 

reef-fish species are heavily exploited. REEF recently released The 

Lionfish Cookbook, co-authored by Trish Ferguson and Lad Akins, 

providing recipes and information on the invasion and proper handling and 

preparation techniques. Recipes from the cookbook, such as lionfish 

ceviche, are prepared after REEF derby events held in the FKNMS. In 

addition, lionfish by-catch in lobster traps has created a small market to 

sell lionfish to local restaurants. Several lobster fisherman and fish houses 

have created a commercial market for lionfish caught in lobster traps by 

selling fresh fish to restaurants from Florida to New York. Tracking of the 

changing market for lionfish could serve as a way to evaluate the 

effectiveness of these efforts. 

Figure 15. Tasty lionfish ceviche and fried lionfish served at the Upper 

Florida Keys Lionfish Derby. Photo: NOAA/FKNMS. 

26 
Chapter 4. Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary 

4.1 Status of the Invasion 

Located in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary (FGBNMS) includes three separate areas, known as East Flower Garden Bank, 

West Flower Garden Bank, and Stetson Bank. The banks range in depth from 16 to 150 

meters, perched atop underwater hills formed by rising domes of ancient salt, and support 

several distinct habitats, including the northernmost coral reefs in the continental United 

States (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2008a). 

Stetson Bank is located 113 km south of Galveston, Texas, and 48 km northwest of West 

Flower Garden Bank. Depths at Stetson range from 17 meters to 52 meters. Though reef 

corals occur on Stetson Bank, environmental conditions, which include more extreme 

fluctuations in temperature and turbidity than at the Flower Gardens, do not support the 

growth of reefs like those found at East and West Flower Garden Banks (FGB) (Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries 2008a). 

Figure 16. Bathymetric map of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. 

Map: NOAA/ONMS. 

27 
After their introduction off the Florida coast in the 1980s, lionfish reached the Gulf of 

Mexico in 2009 (Schofield 2010; Aguilar-Perera and Tuz-Sulub 2010). In the fall of 

2010, lionfish were observed at Sonnier Bank (one of numerous shallow banks in the 

northwestern Gulf of Mexico) and nearby oil and gas platforms. In July of 2011, lionfish 

were observed on all three banks of the FGBNMS. The Flower Garden Banks long-term 

monitoring program has helped document the appearance and rapid spread of lionfishes 

in the sanctuary, as well as surrounding banks in the Northwest Gulf of Mexico. Between 

2011 and 2012, lionfish sightings have increased 10-fold. In addition to distribution and 

abundance changes, researchers are studying lionfish diet through stomach content 

analysis and providing data and samples for age/growth and genetic studies. While fish 

biomass at the FGBNMS remains high, the invasion is still in the early stages, and 

negative impacts on the reef community may not be seen for several years. The 

FGBNMS currently works to remove lionfish when possible. However, a more focused 

effort is needed to control the population and to understand control targets and other 

effective control mechanisms that would minimize ecosystem-level impacts. 

4.2 Resources at Risk 

Brain and star corals dominate the coral caps of the East and West FGB. There are at 

least 23species of coral on the coral cap between 30-40 m, and over 50% coral cover 

(Johnston et al. 2013). Somewhat less well known is the deepwater habitat of the FGB 

that makes up over 98% of the area within the sanctuary boundaries. Habitats below 

recreational scuba limits include algal nodule fields, coralline algae reefs, deep coral 

habitat, mud flats, mounds, mud volcanoes and at least one brine seep system (Nuttall et 

al. 2013). Different assemblages of sea life reside in these deeper habitats, including 

extensive beds of coralline algae pavements and algal nodules, colorful sea fans, sea 

whips, black corals, and basket and feather stars. 

The benthic habitat of FGBNMS provides critical protection, food, and shelter for the 

associated fish community. At least 297 species of fish have been documented within the 

sanctuary, including colorful reef inhabitants such as parrotfish, wrasse, angelfish, 

damselfish, chromis, and squirrelfish. The conspicuous deeper water fish in the 

sanctuary include predators like grouper and snapper, scamp and marbled grouper, and 

large schools of smaller prey fish like roughtongue and threadnose bass. Commercially 

targeted species include the snapper, grouper, jacks, and mackerel (Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries 2008a). 

Stetson Bank has distinct sandstone pinnacles that push out of the seafloor for 457 meters 

along the northwest face of the bank. An area referred to as the "flats" stretches out 

behind the pinnacles region, and it is dotted with low relief outcroppings. The pinnacles 

of Stetson Bank were previously dominated by fire coral and sponges, though recent 

bleaching and other events have caused dramatic declines in certain species. There are at 

least ten coral species at Stetson Bank, but with the exception of fire coral and a large 

area of Madracis decactis, algae, sponges and rubble dominate benthic cover, and the 

28 
 

bank does not harbor a true coral reef. Sponges, gorgonians and black corals dominate 

outcroppings at deeper depths (50 to 60 m) (DeBose et al. 2012). 

Figure 17. A yellowmouth grouper and creolefish swim above the reef at the FGBNMS. 

Photo: FGBNMS/Schmahl. 

4.3 Sanctuary Response Actions 

Since the first lionfish was observed at the FGBNMS in 2011, numerous actions have 

taken place, and many projects adapted or created, to manage this invasive species. To 

date, the primary responses, projects, and areas of focus on the lionfish invasion 

involving control, research, monitoring, and education and outreach at the FGBNMS are 

listed below (Table 3). 

Table 3. Priority activities currently conducted by staff and partners at Flower Garden Banks 

National Marine Sanctuary. 

Category Focus Area/Project Brief Description 

CRCP NCRMP National Coral Reef Monitoring Program. Lionfish abundance and size conducted 

along reef-wide random belt transects. 

Monitoring 

FGB Long-Term 

Monitoring 

Lionfish abundance and size documented on Bohnsack fish surveys within study 

sites. 

Stetson Monitoring Lionfish abundance and size documented on Bohnsack fish surveys within study 

sites. 

Citizen science reporting Lionfish sightings reported to the Sanctuary through an online report form. 

Control Identify Priority Areas Priority areas for lionfish control include buoyed areas on the FGBNMS reef cap. 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Focus Area/Project Brief Description 

Control 

Permitting Mechanisms Select individuals are authorized via a permit and letter of authorization to remove 

lionfish from priority areas. 

Targeted Removals Staff and permitted volunteers are trained and issued permits to safely remove 

lionfish. 

Diet Stomach contents analyzed from all lionfish fish removed from the FGBNMS. 

Ciguatera Partner with NOAA NCCOS and FDA to test lionfish for ciguatera fish poisoning. 

Mercury Lionfish screened for mercury levels at the FGB. 

Research 

Habitat Utilization Collect data on density, distribution, and habitats utilized on shallow and deep reefs 

through diver surveys and ROV surveys. 

Age and Growth Partner with NOAA NCCOS and TAMU-CC for otolith analysis. 

Tissue collection Partner with TAMU-CC and UTB for genetic analysis and gene mapping. 

Gulf Mapping Partner with TNC for GIS analysis and map products documenting a time series of 

the Gulf of Mexico invasion. 

Training and Handling 

Workshops 

Partner with REEF, Houston Zoo, and Texas State Aquarium to host lionfish safe 

handling workshops. 

Education 

& Outreach 

Lionfish messaging Development of messages and facts incorporated in presentations given to dive clubs 

and community organizations. Work with local schools on "Host a Lionfish" in your 

classroom week. 

Partnerships Key partners to date have included Fling Charters, REEF, NOAA NCCOS, TX State 

Aquarium, TAMUCC, TAMUG, UTB, The Nature Conservancy, the FDA, Haven, 

and The Houston Zoo. 

Special Events Host Ocean Discovery Day and partner with Houston restaurants to hold special 

lionfish dinner events. 

Outreach Materials Develop facts sheets and sighting forms. Partner with Moody Gardens and Gladys 

Porter Zoo on aquarium exhibits and provide lionfish for aquaria. 

In addition to the primary responses in place, there are additional activities and research 

needs that would benefit the sanctuary. Monitoring, control, research, and education and 

outreach activities that are in place, or could be coordinated to help respond to the 

lionfish invasion, are further described in detail below. 

I. Monitoring 

Purpose: Collect information to monitor trends of the lionfish population in the FGBNMS 

and the impacts of control programs in order to assess and adjust actions using adaptive 

management principles. 

Several key questions face sanctuary management in the struggle to deal with the lionfish 

invasion: 

 How is the lionfish population, including density, distribution, and size structure 

changing over time in the FGBNMS? 

 What locations (depths, habitat types, banks) are colonized or recolonized most 

quickly? 

	 What is the most effective methods of lionfish control considering the unique 

nature of the FGBNMS (e.g., fairly deep reefs and large areas beyond recreational 

diving limits). 

30 
 How effective is removal in controlling lionfish and how are native populations 

responding? 

 How much effort is required to control lionfish in the FGBNMS, and is this effort 

sustainable? 

Currently, there are two primary annual monitoring programs conducted by FGBNMS 

staff, one occurring at East and West FGB and one specific to Stetson Bank. The national 

coral reef monitoring program occurs biannually. All programs include fish surveys and 

monitoring for lionfish: 

1. East and West Flower Garden Banks Long-Term Monitoring. The long-term 

monitoring program was initiated in 1988 by the Minerals Management Service (now the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [BOEM]) to insure protective measures regulating 

potential impacts of offshore oil and gas development. Since 2009, the FGBNMS has 

conducted the long-term monitoring and BOEM continues to support the cost of half of 

the monitoring effort through an interagency agreement with the FGBNMS. In more than 

20 years of continuous monitoring, the coral reefs of East and West FGB have 

maintained high levels of coral cover (above 50%), suffered minimally from hurricanes, 

coral bleaching, and disease outbreaks, and supported relatively diverse and abundant 

fish populations as well as other vertebrate and invertebrate species. 

Status: Initiated 1988 / Ongoing annually 

Implementation: Single 100 x 100 m study sites at the East and West FGB 

are used to monitor benthic community structure (coral cover, relative 

dominance, and species diversity), accretionary and encrusting growth 

rates, water quality parameters, and fish communities as indicators of reef 

health. Lionfish abundance and size are documented in the fish surveys, 

along with associated habitat type and depth. 

Figure 18. Random transect taken within the East FGB long-term monitoring study 

site. Photo: FGBNMS/Schmahl. 

31 
2. Stetson Bank Monitoring. Stetson Bank was first studied in 1974, but annual 

monitoring, first by the Gulf Reef Environmental Action Team (GREAT), and later by 

FGBNMS, did not begin until 1993. Over the course of this monitoring, a major shift in 

community structure occurred, in which the coral-sponge community was replaced by an 

algal-dominated community. During the initial years of monitoring, the coral community 

at Stetson Bank was relatively stable, but in the late 1990s, sponge cover began to decline 

and in 2005, the benthic community underwent a significant change when living coral 

cover declined from 30% to less than 8% and sponges declined to less than 20% benthic 

cover. The combined effects of hurricane impact, elevated temperatures, coral bleaching, 

and perhaps the influence of coastal runoff, contributed to the shift. 

Status: Initiated 1993 / Ongoing annually 

Implementation: Repetitive photo stations at Stetson Bank are used to 

capture images from the same places every year. Currently, 

approximately 50 stations are marked by metal pins embedded in the reef, 

with number tags attached. Repetitive photo analysis is used to monitor 

benthic community structure. Water quality parameters are measured and 

fish community surveys are conducted. Lionfish abundance and size are 

documented in the Stetson Bank fish surveys, along with associated 

habitat type and depth. 

3. NOAA National Coral Reef Monitoring Plan. The program was implemented at the 

East and West FGB in 2013 to track benthic communities (especially corals), reefassociated fish communities, climate change and ocean acidification, and socioeconomic 

human dimensions related to perceptions of and interactions with coral reef ecosystems. 

Benthic and fish monitoring will continue on a biennial basis, as with other reefs in the 

U.S. Atlantic/Caribbean. 

Status: Initiated 2013/ Ongoing biennially 

Implementation: Benthic and fish monitoring using a stratified random 

sampling design at the East and West FGB. NCRMP monitoring protocols 

include coral cover, coral community structure, rugosity, incidence of 

bleaching and disease, and associated measures of fish community 

structure (abundance, diversity, size structure, key species). Lionfish 

abundance and size are documented in reef-wide fish surveys at the East 

and West FGB, along with associated habitat type and depth in benthic 

surveys. 

II. Control 

Purpose: Ensure that populations in priority locations remain below levels that could alter 

ecosystem integrity. This requires development of measures to assess effectiveness and 

maximize efficiency of lionfish control. 

Implementing control targets (managing populations at levels that will minimize 

ecological and economic impacts within FGBNMS priority areas) and allocating 

resources according to removal priorities will provide FGBNMS managers with 

32 
 

 

 

measurable goals for removal activities. Collaborative efforts among community 

stakeholders and partners will promote buy-in and enhance removal activities. 

1. Identify and prioritize FGBNMS priority areas requiring active lionfish control. 

The lionfish invasion requires assessment of critical and priority habitat towards which 

mitigation resources should be focused. As demonstrated in the Bahamas and some 

parts of the Caribbean, lionfish are capable of reaching high densities within a couple of 

years. It is prudent to assess which areas of the FGBNMS should be focused removal 

areas, especially as the invasion progresses. 

Status: Initiated 2012/ Ongoing 

Implementation: Through monitoring and previous habitat 

characterization efforts, as well as stakeholder use of sanctuary areas, 

priority areas for lionfish control in the FGBNMS include all buoyed areas 

on the reef cap of the East FGB (seven buoys), West FGB (5 buoys), and 

Stetson Bank (five buoys). Because the majority of the FGBNMS is below 

diveable depths using SCUBA, lionfish removal/control areas include 

diveable areas of a 100-m radius around all mooring buoys. Lionfish 

removal within a 100 m radius of all mooring areas was initiated in 2013. 

Morphometric/meristic data are recorded for each lionfish removed, 

tissues and fins clips are sampled, and gut contents are analyzed in 

partnership with TAMUCC. 

Figure 19. Stomach contents are analyzed from lionfish removed from the FGBNMS to 

determine what native fish fishes are eaten by lionfish. Photo: FGBNMS/Drinnen. 

33 
2. Establish permitting requirements for lionfish removal. Proper permitting will 

encourage the reporting of lionfish and allow the collection of lionfish within buoyed 

zones. 

Status: Initiated 2012 / Ongoing 

Implementation: Select individuals are authorized via permit and a letter 

of authorization (LOA) to remove lionfish from the FGBNMS buoy zones. 

 All researchers with permits are requested to report all lionfish sightings, 

along with geographic and morphometric/meristic data, to FGBNMS 

management. Gear is restricted to nets and pole spears. As the invasion 

progresses, permitting requirements may need to be re-evaluated and 

additional resources for improving efficiency of collection strategies and 

reducing impacts of collections to the FGBNMS may be considered. 

 Additional collection gear may also have to be allowed for controlling 

populations in new target areas, such as deep water. 

3. Facilitate community involvement in targeted removals. Through education and 

training, members of the public, partners, and resource managers will be knowledgeable 

of best collection and handling practices. 

Staff and Permitted Volunteer Removals 

Status: Initiated 2012/ Ongoing 

Implementation: Select individuals (staff, volunteers, researchers) are 

trained and issued permits to respond and safely remove lionfish, as well 

as gather important ecological and biological data through dissections, 

tissue sampling, and archival of specimens. 

Figure 20. Permitted lionfish removal at FGBNMS. Photo: FGBNMS/Schmahl. 

34 
 

 

 

Lionfish Derbies 

Status: To be implemented in 2015 

Implementation: The FGBNMS will partner with REEF, Oregon State 

University, the Texas State Aquarium, Fling Charters, and the National 

Marine Sanctuary Foundation to train researchers and divers from the 

community to effectively remove lionfish from sanctuary waters for the 

first ever Texas removal event in 2015. The focus will be a four-day 

permitted research and removal event within the FGBNMS, using both net 

and pole spear collecting methods. Important ecological and biological 

data will be gathered through dissections, tissue sampling, and archival of 

specimens. This pilot project will determine the extent to which focused, 

intensive removals repeated on a regular basis can keep lionfish densities 

low in the FGBNMS priority areas. 

III. Research 

Purpose: Increase research activities to better understand factors influencing lionfish 

population control in the FGBNMS. Research is needed on the biology, ecology, and 

potential impacts of the species, namely the response of other marine sanctuary resources 

to the invasion. This will help managers design appropriate tools and targets for control, 

based on best available science. 

High priority research in support of adaptive management includes: 

1. How relatively undisturbed ecosystems like the FGBNMS respond to the lionfish 

invasion 

Status: To be implemented in 2015 

Implementation: FGBNMS staff will investigate whether 

relatively undisturbed communities with healthy fish communities, 

including large predators, respond differently to the lionfish invasion than 

those of other reefs. Fish surveys will be conducted outside removal zones 

(buoy areas) at the FGBNMS in 2015 to determine if the FGBNMS 

exhibits signs of biotic control, specifically whether consumption by large 

predators impedes lionfish population growth. 

2. Determine the level of risk from ciguatera associated with lionfish at the FGBNMS 

Status: Initiated 2013 

Implementation: FGBNMS staff are partnering with the FDA and NOAA 

NCCOS to test lionfish from the FGBNMS for ciguatera fish poisoning 

(CFP). Based on several FDA-confirmed reports of CFP following 

consumption of other fish caught in the sanctuary, the FDA advises that 

seafood processors avoid purchasing certain fish species, including 

lionfish, from the area. Once tests are complete, the information will be 

provided to the FDA for possible re-evaluation of the advisory. 

35 
 

 

3. Determine effectiveness of lionfish removals in priority areas, as well as 

recolonization rates, to set removal frequency targets that effectively mitigate ecosystem 

impacts 

Status: To be implemented in 2015 

Implementation: FGBNMS staff is partnering with REEF, Dr. Stephanie 

Green from Oregon State University, the Texas State Aquarium, the 

National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, and Fling Charters to hold a 

lionfish derby and research cruise in 2015. The effort will help determine 

the effectiveness of removals by divers at the Flower Garden Banks, and 

the rate of recolonization following removal. Combined with temporal 

information on other fish species, including those that serve as prey for 

lionfish, control levels will be determined. This information will help 

FGBNMS managers determine frequency of removal required to protect 

key resources. 

4. Assess the ecological impacts of lionfish on native fish and benthic communities in 

shallow and deep reefs 

Status: Initiated 2012/ Ongoing 

Implementation: Annual monitoring on the shallow reef cap will provide 

information on impacts to native fish and benthic communities through 

fish surveys, benthic surveys, and lionfish gut content analysis. Deep 

surveys using ROV footage will provide information on fish and benthic 

communities in depths below recreational dive limits. Future captures of 

lionfish in deep water would enable gut content analysis and comparative 

studies of impacts in shallow vs. deep water. 

Figure 21. Fish survey conducted at the FGBNMS. Photo: FGBNMS/Eckert. 

36 
 

 

5. Determine habitat utilization characteristics of lionfish on both shallow and deep 

reefs 

Status: Initiated 2012/ Ongoing 

Implementation: Annual monitoring and NCRMP studies currently 

provide information on lionfish density, distribution, and habitats utilized 

on the coral cap. ROV surveys provide information on lionfish density and 

habitats used in depths below recreational dive limits. This data can be 

used to target removal efforts and inform the design of traps or other 

devices to capture or kill lionfish. 

6. Research on lionfish movement through tagging and photo identification to 

determine if lionfish move across the reef cap or exhibit site fidelity, as understanding 

site fidelity will help managers target removal efforts and assess the spatial extent of the 

threats to potential prey. 

Status: Research needed 

IV. Education and Outreach 

Purpose: Conduct outreach and education about lionfish and the FGBNMS to 

stakeholders and the general public. Lionfish is an excellent subject for educating the 

public about invasive species, as well as a starting point for other topics such as coral reef 

biology and marine conservation in the FGBNMS. 

1. Continue and strengthen partnership with the Reef Environmental Education 

Foundation (REEF) to educate the public about lionfish, hold lionfish derbies, and assist 

with scientific investigations related to invasive marine species. 

Status: Implemented 2012/ Ongoing 

Implementation: The Reef Environmental Education Foundation is a 

grassroots organization that seeks to conserve marine ecosystems by 

educating, enlisting and enabling divers and other marine enthusiasts to 

become active ocean stewards (Scyphers et al. 2014) and citizen scientists. 

Since 2012, REEF has been working in close partnership with the 

FGBNMS and partners throughout the region to help develop lionfish 

response plans, train resource managers and dive operators in effective 

collecting and handling techniques, and conducting cutting edge research 

to help address the invasion. 

2. Conduct lionfish handling workshops to educate and train the public in safe handling 

practices to promote detection and removal of lionfish from FGBNMS waters. 

Status: Implemented 2013/ Ongoing 

Implementation: The FGBNMS partners with REEF to organize and 

execute training workshops to promote safe detection and removal of 

lionfish. Workshops target dive operators, lionfish derby participants, 

NGOs, and state and federal agency field staff. Outreach materials on 

threats to human health are distributed to the public through print, web, 

and social media outlets. In 2013, the first three REEF lionfish handling 

37 
 

workshops were held in Texas to educate and train the public. Handling 

workshops will also be held before each lionfish derby event. Other 

partners that could be engaged for similar workshops include Sea Grant, 

NOAA Fisheries, and regional aquaria. 

Figure 22. Lionfish handling workshop hosted by REEF at the FGBNMS Office in
 

Galveston , TX. Photo: FGBNMS/Drinnen.
 

3. Increase public awareness through outreach and information on the damaging 

ecological impacts of lionfish. This will promote awareness, detection, and central 

reporting of lionfish in the FGBNMS. It includes participation in events and evaluation 

of participants as well as distribution of stickers, flyers, fact sheets, and other outreach 

materials to dive shops, aquariums, state and federal agencies, and schools (Appendix A 

and B). 

Status: Implemented 2012/ ongoing 

Implementation: FGBNMS staff has given lionfish presentations to local 

schools, dive clubs, NGOs, and restaurants in Galveston and Houston. 

Staff have also partnered with the Moody Gardens Aquarium, Texas State 

Aquarium, and Brownsville Aquarium to create lionfish displays. Social 

media networks, including Facebook and Twitter, are also utilized to 

distribute information. Live lionfish are used for education and outreach 

purposes at the FGBNMS office and when visiting school groups and at 

public outreach events. FGBNMS sighting forms are made available to the 

dive community for reporting purposes. 

38 
Chapter 5. Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary 

5.1 Status of the Invasion 

Located 17.5 nautical miles offshore of Sapelo Island, Georgia, and 40 miles south of 

Savannah, Georgia (the second busiest port on the eastern seaboard), Gray’s Reef 

National Marine Sanctuary (GRNMS) encompasses 22 square nautical miles. Gray’s 

Reef offers some of the best recreational fishing and diving to be found in the Southeast 

Atlantic region. 

Lionfish were first 

observed within 

GRNMS in 2007, but 

were not sighted again 

until 2012 when 28 

lionfish were observed 

by staff, scientific, and 

volunteer divers. In 

2013, only 15 were 

observed, however, 

time offshore to 

conduct research was 

limited. As of mid2014, two 3-cm 

lionfish were seen 

during June. To date, 

small numbers of 

lionfish have been 

observed within 

sanctuary boundaries, 

and the fish are not 

thought to overwinter 

due to low 

temperatures. It may 

be significant, 

however, that higher 

densities of lionfish 

are seen on deeper 

reefs offshore of 

GRNMS. 

5.2 Resources at Risk 

Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary protects particularly dense patches of productive 

hard bottom habitat. Comparable habitats are sparsely distributed from Cape Hatteras, 

Figure 23. Bathymetric map of the Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary. Map: NOAA/ONMS. 

39 
 

NC, to Cape Canaveral, FL, on the inner- and mid-shelf of the South Atlantic Bight. 

Influenced by complex ocean currents, this area serves as a crossroads for both temperate 

and sub-tropical species. 

Algae and invertebrates grow on the exposed rock surfaces and ledges of Gray’s Reef. 

The dominant invertebrates include sponges, bivalves, barnacles, fan corals and other soft 

corals, hard coral, sea stars, crabs, lobsters, snails, and shrimps. The reef hosts numerous 

species of fish including black sea bass, snappers, groupers, and mackerels. Since Gray's 

Reef lies in a transition area between temperate and tropical waters, fish population 

composition changes seasonally. Loggerhead sea turtles use Gray's Reef year-round for 

foraging and the reef is part of the only known winter calving ground for the highly 

endangered North Atlantic right whale (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2008 b). 

Figure 24. Black sea bass at Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary. Photo: NOAA/GRNMS. 

5.3 Sanctuary Response Actions 

Since lionfish were first observed in the Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary in 2007, 

several actions have taken place, and projects adapted, to manage this invasive species. 

To date, the primary responses, projects, and areas of focus on the lionfish invasion 

involving control, research, monitoring, and education and outreach at the GRNMS are 

listed below (Table 4). 

40 
 

Table 4. Priority activities currently conducted by staff and partners at the Gray’s Reef National 

Marine Sanctuary. 

Category Focus Area/Project Brief Description 

Research Area Monitoring Lionfish abundance and size collected on ledge habitat along 50 meter transects. 

Monitoring 

Opportunistic Lionfish Surveys Abundance and size of lionfish observed during dive operations conducted for various 

purposes. 

Invertebrate Disturbance 

Monitoring 

Lionfish observed during this project are noted and removed when possible 

Acoustic Monitoring Lionfish observed during this project are noted and removed when possible. 

Control Targeted removals Staff and trained volunteers remove lionfish when encountered. 

Habitat utilization Collect data on size, distribution and habitats where lionfish are observed. 

Research Lionfish genetics Collect tissue samples from lionfish for USGS genetics research. 

Lionfish tissue repository Contribute lionfish from GRNMS to the NOAA NCCOS Lionfish Tissue Repository. 

Education 

& Outreach 

Outreach Materials Siting report form on web site. 

Lionfish messaging Provide information on lionfish in presentations and at special events. 

In addition to the primary responses in place, there are additional activities and research 

needs that would benefit the sanctuary. Monitoring, control, research, and education and 

outreach activities that are in place, or could be coordinated to help respond to the 

lionfish invasion, are further described in detail below. 

I. Monitoring 

Purpose: Collect information to monitor lionfish population trends in GRNMS and the 

impacts of control programs in order to assess and adjust actions using adaptive 

management principles. 

Several key questions facing resource managers at Gray’s Reef can be addressed through 

monitoring: 

 How is the lionfish population changing over time in the sanctuary? 

 To what extent do seasonal changes in oceanographic conditions control lionfish 

populations at Gray’s Reef? 

 What source populations supply recruits to Gray’s Reef? 

 At what point is removal of lionfish needed at Gray’s Reef to limit impacts to 

native populations? 

 How much effort is required to control lionfish in the GRNMS, and is this effort 

sustainable? 

Currently, there are three primary monitoring efforts at GRNMS that are being adapted to 

include monitoring for lionfish: 

41 
1. Research Area Monitoring. Under a new regulation that went into effect December 

4th, 2011, the southern third of GRNMS is now a research area where scientists are able 

to study the impact of human activities on the sanctuary's marine resources. Fishing and 

diving are prohibited in the research area. Vessels are allowed to pass through the 

research area, but only without stopping. Monitoring is currently being conducted to 

investigate differences in the benthic and fish communities inside and outside the 

research area. 

Status: Initiated 2011/ Ongoing annually 

Implementation: Benthic and fish monitoring using a stratified random 

sampling design began in 2011. Forty repetitive sites are visited annually. 

Lionfish abundance and size are documented in the surveys, along with 

associated habitat type and depth. 

2. Invertebrate Disturbance Monitoring. GRNMS staff partners with Georgia Southern 

University to monitor cleared plots of substrate for recruitment and colonization and 

succession of invertebrates to determine how long it will take recruits to re-establish on 

damaged areas of substrate. 

Status: Initiated 2013/ Ongoing bi-monthly 

Implementation: Plot photographs taken by scientific divers document 

change over time. Lionfish observed are documented in the surveys, along 

with associated habitat type and depth in benthic surveys. The data help 

track temporal/seasonal changes in lionfish abundance and distribution. 

3. Acoustic Monitoring. Several commercially and recreationally important snapper and 

grouper species are found in GRNMS. Scientists have some information on the habitat 

preferences of these fish; however they have little information on their movement 

patterns. Therefore, fish are acoustically monitored to determine how long managed fish 

species (red snapper, gag grouper, scamp grouper, and black sea bass) reside in the 

sanctuary. 

Status: Initiated 2008 / Ongoing annually (data downloaded quarterly) 

Implementation: 

Fish are surgically 

implanted with 

acoustic tags that 

emit a unique 

signal. Acoustic 

receivers placed 

around the 

sanctuary to listen 

for these tags. 

When a fish is 

detected, the 

receiver records 

the date and time 

that the fish was 

in the vicinity of Figure 25. Acoustic tag insertion in the underbelly of a Scamp 

at GRNMS. Photo: NOAA/Park. 

42 
the receiver. The tags last for several years. Acoustic receivers are 

recovered by divers and data is downloaded and analyzed. Lionfish 

observed during field visits are documented, along with associated habitat 

type and depth, to help determine seasonal variation at GRNMS. 

II. Control 

Purpose: Ensure that populations in priority locations remain below levels that could alter 

ecosystem integrity (based on prior studies and surveys of potentially affected species). 

Control measures at Gray’s Reef may vary through time, as recruitment and abundance 

are likely to be highly variable. Measurable impacts to native species would also be 

expected to vary. And because cold temperatures may limit lionfish densities in the 

winter, lionfish may only be a seasonal concern. Nevertheless, levels of impact could be 

high in some years, so controls measures may at times be appropriate. 

1. Conduct opportunistic removals using GRNMS staff and permitted volunteer divers. 

Proper collection and handling practices will facilitate removal of lionfish from sanctuary 

waters. 

Status: Initiated 2012/ Ongoing 

Implementation: Select individuals (staff, volunteers, researchers) are 

trained to respond and safely remove lionfish, as well as gather important 

ecological and biological data through dissections, tissue sampling, and 

archival of specimens. Because lionfish densities are currently low at 

Gray’s Reef, only opportunistic removals are conducted both inside and 

on structures in waters adjacent to the sanctuary (e.g. Navy towers). 

GRNMS will monitor the situation closely as the invasion progresses, and 

adapt management as needed. Furthermore, GRNMS staff is working 

alongside FKNMS and FGBNMS, and with partners such as REEF, in 

formulating plans for detection, reporting, and monitoring. 

Figure 26. Juvenile lionfish removed from GRNMS in 2015. 

Photo: GRNMS/Fangman. 

43 
 

 

 

III. Research 

Purpose: Use research activities to better understand factors influencing lionfish 

population control in GRNMS. Though some research has begun in the GRNMS, there 

are topics that still need to be investigated. High priority research areas include: 

1. Determine the seasonal variability of lionfish occurrences in GRNMS 

Status: Initiated 2013 

Implementation: GRNMS staff is currently investigating factors affecting 

lionfish seasonality in the sanctuary, as temperature tolerance appears to 

control population densities. GRNMS is currently monitoring water 

temperatures, and correlating these with lionfish observations made in the 

monitoring studies. 

2. Contribute to the NOAA NCCOS Lionfish Tissue Repository 

Status: Initiated 2012 / Ongoing 

Implementation: Lionfish removed from GRNMS are sent to the NOAA 

NCCOS Lionfish Tissue Repository in Beaufort, NC for studies on age, 

growth, and stable isotope analysis. Morphometric/meristic data are 

recorded for each lionfish, tissues and fins clips are sampled, and gut 

contents are analyzed to determine diet habits and assess consumption 

impacts at Gray’s Reef. 

3. Contribute to USGS Genetics Investigation 

Status: Initiated 2014 / Ongoing 

Implementation: Tissue samples from lionfish removed from GRNMS are 

collected and sent to researchers at the USGS in Gainesville, FL for 

genetics investigations into population connectivity. 

IV. Education and Outreach 

Purpose: Conduct outreach and education about lionfish and GRNMS to stakeholders and 

the general public. Gray’s Reef staff use lionfish as a tool to teach constituents about 

invasive species. They also use them to address other topics such as hard bottom ecology 

and marine conservation generally. 

1. Renew partnership with the REEF to educate the public about lionfish and assist 

with scientific investigations related to invasive marine species. 

Status: Implemented 2013/ Not currently active 

Implementation: REEF worked with GRNMS and partners throughout the 

region to help develop lionfish response plans, train resource managers 

and dive operators in effective collecting and handling techniques, and 

conduct cutting edge research to help address the invasion. 

2. Increase public awareness and distribute outreach information on the damaging 

ecological impacts of lionfish. This includes creating web content, distribution of 

44 
stickers, flyers, fact sheets, and other outreach materials to dive shops, aquariums, state 

and federal agencies, and schools (Appendix A and B). 

Status: Implemented 2012/ Ongoing 

Implementation: GRNMS staff has given lionfish presentations to local 

schools, dive clubs, and NGOs. GRNMS staff have also partnered with the 

Georgia Aquarium and University of Georgia’s Marine Extension Service 

Aquarium to create GRNMS displays and raise lionfish awareness. Social 

media networks, including Facebook and Twitter, are also utilized to 

distribute information. Lionfish information is distributed at public 

outreach events, such as the Savannah Ocean Film Festival. 

Figure 27. The Ocean Film Festival is held annually in Savannah, GA. 

Photo: NOAA/GRNMS. 

3. Promote “Eat Lionfish” campaigns. 

Status: Implemented 2002/ Ongoing 

Implementation: While many native fish species are under immense 

fishing pressure and in need of protection, lionfish are a delicious and 

environmentally conscious seafood choice. REEF recently released The 

Lionfish Cookbook, co-authored by Trish Ferguson and Lad Akins, 

providing not only recipes, but information on the invasion and proper 

handling and preparation techniques. “Eat Lionfish” information is 

distributed to local Savannah restaurants and at public outreach events. 

45 
Chapter 6. Recommendations 

6.1 The Path Forward 

While NOAA’s national marine sanctuaries in the Southeast Region have already 

implemented some activities described in this plan, the remaining response actions still 

need to be implemented to promote long-term protection. Recommended actions in this 

plan serve as a guide to address key national marine sanctuary priorities for management 

including monitoring, control, research, and education and outreach (see Table 1). Each 

national marine sanctuary will address increases in lionfish populations by assessing their 

distribution through monitoring and safely removing them in targeted priority areas 

through control programs. This requires both immediate action and resources at national 

marine sanctuary sites, but also regional and national coordination and support. Each 

sanctuary will identify specific needs, resources, partnerships, and management strategies 

that best prepare it for action. The plan should be evaluated and updated on a regular 

basis to include further actions as the lionfish invasion progresses and needs change at 

individual national marine sanctuary sites. 

6.2 Resources 

With limited budgets and competing priorities facing national marine sanctuaries, a 

response plan clearly identifying needs will help site managers identify staff members 

with the skills needed to carry out new and different roles. Below are leadership roles we 

believe are needed to help execute lionfish actions within NOAA’s Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries. It should be recognized, however, that people may assume multiple 

roles depending on available staff and resources. 

	 Site Coordinator - Responsible for leading all activities arising in the course of 

monitoring, control, research, and outreach and education at a sanctuary site. This 

person must keep pace with current research and outreach within the area, apply 

for funding, and build partnerships with the local community to increase lionfish 

awareness and volunteer participation, if appropriate. 

	 Regional Coordinator - Responsible for staying informed of lionfish activities at 

the national and regional levels, and within all three affected national marine 

sanctuaries (Florida Keys, Gray’s Reef, and Flower Garden Banks). When 

appropriate, this person will need to coordinate efforts with staff and partners at 

the sites, including, for example, attending meetings and facilitating partner 

collaboration. This person is also responsible for updating the response plan as 

new needs arise. 

	 National Coordinator - Responsible for working closely with the regional 

coordinator to stay abreast of lionfish activities within national marine 

sanctuaries. The National Coordinator is also responsible for raising awareness 

about lionfish impacts on national marine sanctuary resources at the national 

level, and helping establish partnerships with other federal agencies, non46 
governmental organizations, foundations, and universities to support monitoring, 

control, research, and education and outreach activities at individual sites. 

Together, the coordinators will regularly inform program leadership on progress of the 

lionfish invasion, the latest understanding of impacts, and the status of response activities 

described in this plan, and recommend resource allocations (staff, funds, and time) 

required for future response. 

47 
Acknowledgements 

The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries would like to acknowledge the assistance and 

efforts of subject area experts and National Marine Sanctuary staff who, by participating 

in meetings, conference calls, on the ground activities and research, as well as provided 

reviews, comments, expertise, and content, contributed to the completion of this 

document: Dan Basta (ONMS), Billy Causey (ONMS SEGOM), Sean Morton, Scott 

Donahue, Beth Dieveney, and Joanne Delaney (FKNMS), George Sedberry and Sarah 

Fangman (GRNMS), and G.P. Schmahl, Emma Hickerson, and John Embesi (FGBNMS). 

We would also like to acknowledge those that provided thorough reviews and content of 

this document: Cliff McCreedy (NPS), J. Derek Hogan (Texas A&M – Corpus Christi), 

Pamela Schofield (U.S. Geological Survey), Stephanie Green (Oregon State University), 

and Lad Akins (REEF). 

48 
 

References 

Albins, M.A., Hixon, M.A., 2011. Worst case scenario: potential long-term effects of 

invasive, predatory lionfish (Pterois volitans) on Atlantic and Caribbean coral-reef 

communities. Environ. Biol. Fishes. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10641-011-9795-1. 

Albins, M.A., Hixon, M.A., 2008. Invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans reduce 

recruitment of Atlantic coral-reef fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 367: 233–238 pp. 

Aguilar-Perera A. and Tuz-Sulub A. 2010. Non-native, invasive red lionfish (Pterois 

volitans [Linnaeus, 1758]: Scorpaenidae), is first recorded in the southern Gulf of 

Mexico, off the northern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Aquatic Invasions. Vol 5: S9–S12 

pp. 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. 2012. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 

Strategic Plan (2013-2017). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 29 pp. 

Debose J.L., Nuttall M.F., Hickerson E.L., Schmahl G.P. 2012. A high-latitude coral 

community with uncertain future: Stetson Bank, northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Coral 

Reefs. Volume 32: 255-267 pp. 

de León R., Vane K., Bertuol P., Chamberland V.C., Simal F., Imms E., Vermeij M.J.A. 

2013. Effectiveness of lionfish removal efforts in the southern Caribbean. Endangered 

Species Research. Vol. 22: 175–182 pp. 

Thomas K. Frazer, T.K., Jacoby C.A., Edwards M.A., Barry S.C., Manfrino, C.M. 2012. 

Coping with the Lionfish Invasion: Can Targeted Removals Yield Beneficial Effects? 

Reviews in Fisheries Science, 20(4):185-191ik./ pp. 

Gittings, S.R., Tartt M., Broughton K. 2013. National Marine Sanctuary System 

Condition Report 2013. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 

33 pp. 

Green, S.J., Akins, J.L., Maljkovic, A., Côté, I.M., 2012. Invasive lionfish drive Atlantic 

coral reef fish declines. PLoS One. Vol 7: e32596. 

Green S.J., Dulvy N.K., Brooks A.L.M., Akins J.L., Cooper A.B., Miller S., Côté I.M. 

2014. Linking removal targets to the ecological effects of invaders: a predictive model 

and field test. Ecological Applications 24: 1311-1322. 

Hackerott S, Valdivia A, Green SJ, Côte ́ IM, Cox CE, et al. 2013. Native predators do 

not influence invasion success of Pacific Lionfish on Caribbean Reefs. PLoS ONE 8(7): 

e68259. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068259 

H.R.5326. 2013. Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. 

112th Congress (2011-2012). Washington, D.C. 

Johnston M. A., Nuttall M.F., Eckert R.J., Embesi J.A., Slowey N.C., Hickerson E.L., 

Schmahl G.P. 2013. Long-term monitoring at the East and West Flower Garden Banks 

National Marine Sanctuary, 2009–2010, volume 1: technical report. U.S. Dept. of 

Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, Louisiana. OCS Study BOEM 2013-214. 202 pp. 

49 
Lesser M.P. and Slattery M. 2011. Phase shift to algal dominated communities at 

mesophotic depths associated with Lionfish (Pterois volitans) invasion on a Bahamian 

Coral Reef. Biological Invasions 13(8):1855-1868 pp.
 

Gomez Lozano R., Anderson L., Akins J.L., Buddo D.S.A., Garcia-Moliner G., Gourdin 

F., Laurent M., Lilyestrom C., Morris J.A. Jr., Ramnanan N., Torres R. 2013. Regional 

Strategy for the Control of Invasive Lionfish in the Wider Caribbean. International Coral 

Reef Initiative, 31 pp.
 

McCreedy C., Toline C. A., and McDonough V. 2012. Lionfish response plan: A 

systematic approach to managing impacts from the lionfish, an invasive species, in units 

of the National Park System. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/WRD/NRR—
 

2012/497. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 99 pp. 

Morris, J.A., Jr. (Ed.). 2012. Invasive Lionfish: A Guide to Control and Management. 

Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Special Publication Series Number 1, Marathon, 

FL. 113 pp. 

Morris, J.A., Jr. and M. Harmon. In prep. Invasive Lionfish Action Plan: Understanding 

and mitigating lionfish impacts on United States marine ecosystems and providing 

leadership to a Caribbean-wide response. NOAA NCCOS Internal Report. 

Morris J.A. Jr., and Whitfield P.E. 2009. Biology, ecology, control and management of 

the invasive Indo-Pacific Lionfish: an updated integrated assessment. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS NCCOS 99, 57 pp.
 

Mumby P.J., Harborne A.R., and Brumbaugh D.R. 2011. Grouper as a natural 

biocontrol of invasive lionfish. PLoS ONE 6(6): e21510. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021510 

National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership. 2012. National Fish, 

Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. Association of Fish and Wildlife 

agencies, Council on Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 112 pp. 

National Invasive Lionfish Prevention and Management Plan. 2015. Invasive Lionfish 

Control Ad-hoc Committee of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.
 

National Ocean Council. 2013. National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan. Executive 

Office of the President. National Ocean Council. Washington, D.C. 32 pp. 

Nuttall M.F., Johnston M.A., Eckert R.J., Embesi J.A., Hickerson E.L., Schmahl G.P. 

2014. Lionfish (Pterois volitans [Linnaeus, 1758] and P. miles [Bennett, 1828]) records 

within
 

mesophotic depth ranges on natural banks in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. 

Bioinvasion Records. 3(2) 111-115. 

Nuttall M.F., Hickerson E.L., Eckert R.J., Embesi J.A., Johnston M.A., Schmahl G.P. 

2013. Fish communities associated with benthic biological zones at the Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary and other banks in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. 

In: 66th Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Book of Abstracts, Corpus Christi, 

50 
USA, November 4-8, 2013, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, USA, 

176 pp. 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 2011. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Condition Report 2011. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 

105 pp. 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 2008a. Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary Condition Report 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 

49 pp. 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 2008b. Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary 

Condition Report 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 

42 pp. 

Ruttenberg, B.I., Schofield, P.J., Akins, J.L., Acosta, A., Feeley, M.W., Blondeau, J., 

Smith, S.G., Ault, J.S., 2012. Rapid invasion of Indo-Pacific lionfishes (Pterois volitans 

and Pterois miles) in the Florida Keys, USA: evidence from multiple pre-and postinvasion data sets. Bull. Mar. Sci. 88, 1051–1059 pp. 

Schofield, P.J., 2009. Geographic extent and chronology of the invasion of non-native 

lionfish (Pterois volitans [Linnaeus 1758] and P. miles [Bennett 1828]) in the Western 

North Atlantic and Caribbean Sea. Aquat. Invasions 4, 473–479 pp. 

Schofield, P.J., 2010. Update on geographic spread of invasive lionfishes (Pterois 

volitans [Linnaeus 1758] and P. miles [Bennett 1828]) in the Western North Atlantic 

Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Aquat. Invasions 5, S117–S122 pp. 

Schofield, P. J., Morris, J.A., Jr., Akins, L. 2009. Field Guide to Nonindigenous Marine 

Fishes of Florida. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 92. 

Scyphers, S.B., Powers, S.P., Akins, J.L., Drymon, J.M., Martin, C.W., Schobernd, Z.H., 

Schofield, P.J., Shipp, R.L. and Switzer, T.S. 2014. The role of citizens in detecting and 

responding to a rapid marine invasion. Conservation Letters. doi: 10.1111/conl.12127 

Valdivia, A., Bruno, J.F., Cox, C.E., Hackerott, S., Green, S.J. 2014. Re-examining the 

relationship between invasive lionfish and native grouper in the Caribbean. PeerJ 2:e348 

http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.348 

51 
Appendix A. NOAA NCCOS Invasive Lionfish Factsheet 

Biology 

 Lionfish may live decades and reach sizes up to 47cm (19 inches). 

 Lionfish inhabit all marine habitat types and depths (shoreline to over 1000’). 

 Lionfish possess venomous spines capable of deterring predators and inflicting 

serious stings and reactions in humans. 

 Lionfish temperature tolerance is approximately ~10 – 35C. 

 Lionfish become sexually mature in less than one year and spawn in pairs. 

 A single female lionfish spawns over ~2 million eggs/year. 

 Lionfish eggs are held together in a gelatinous mass and are dispersed by currents. 

 Lionfish larval duration is ~25 days. 

Ecology 

 Lionfish can reach densities higher than 200 adults per acre.
 

 Lionfish are generalist carnivores that consume >70 species of fish and many 

invertebrate species, with prey exceeding half the lionfish’s body size. 

 Many lionfish prey are commercially, recreationally, and ecologically important. 

 Native predators have been observed to exhibit avoidance for lionfish. 

 Lionfish have very few parasites compared to native species. 

 Lionfish exhibit site fidelity. 

 Lionfish have high affinity for structure and feed primarily during dawn and dusk 

time periods. 

Invasion history 

 Lionfish was first documented as established off the coast of North Carolina in 

2000. 

 Two visually identical species (Pterois miles and P. volitans) of lionfish were 

introduced into the Atlantic via the U.S. aquarium trade beginning in the 1980’s. 

 Lionfish are widespread throughout the Southeast U.S., Caribbean, and are 

presently invading the Gulf of Mexico. 

 Lionfish are expected to invade South America as far south as the northern coast 

of Argentina. 

 Lionfish have established throughout most of the Caribbean in less than five 

years. 

Ecological impacts 

 Impacts to biodiversity and resilience of coral, hardbottom, and artificial reefs. 

 Potential reduction of ecologically important species such as cleaners, herbivores, 

and forage fishes. 

 Interactions with other reef stressors could exacerbate lionfish impacts (e.g., 

ocean acidification, fishing impacts, etc.) 

 Cascading impacts across food webs is possible (e.g., predation on herbivores, 

increased macroalgae, decreased coral biomass). 

 Potential impacts to species of concern (Nassau grouper, Warsaw grouper, 

speckled hind, striped croaker, key silverside). 

52 
	 Scale of ecological impacts is high in magnitude and geographically broad (North 

Carolina to the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico). 

Socioeconomic impacts 

 Potential impacts to stock rebuilding efforts for commercially important species. 

 Economic losses for commercial fishermen include loss of fishing days when 

envenomation occurs and reduction of native species catch rates. 

 Potential economic loss in the trade of native marine ornamental species. 

Human health impacts 

 Lionfish sting symptoms include tachycardia, hypertension, hypotension, 

seizures, chest pain, abdominal pain, swelling, pain, and subdermal necrosis at the 

sting site, and temporary paralysis to all extremities. 

 Long term health impacts of repeated envenomations are unknown. 

 Divers, fishermen, and swimmers are at increased risk of envenomation at 

locations where lionfish have reached high densities. 

 Envenomation risk to bathers/swimmers increases at locations with structure such 

as piers, breakwaters, and confined tidal swimming pools. 

 Lionfish, similar to native reef fish, may cause ciguatera fish poisoning in some 

locations. 

Control 

 Control plans that support sustained removals can significantly reduce local 

lionfish densities. 

 Tools for local lionfish control include commercial harvesting as a food fish, 

harvesting juveniles for the aquarium trade, sport tournaments, and adopt-a-reef 

and other citizen-based removal efforts. 

 Based on current technology, lionfish eradication at the regional scale is likely not 

feasible given the expansive depths and geography of lionfish habitat. 

53 
 

 

 

 

Appendix B. National Invasive Lionfish Prevention and Management 

Plan Key Messages 

In order to capture and retain public attention, it is important for resource managers to 

distill and refine the considerable knowledge about lionfish into a subset of key 

messages. Concise messages should be designed to elicit the changes in perception 

and behavior necessary to support program goals, and it is important that messaging by 

all sites and partners is consistent within education and outreach activities. 

Further, key messages necessarily vary by audience and may change over time in 

response to various control strategies and new understanding. Effective programs 

should periodically re-evaluate and update these messages. The following are key 

components from the National Invasive Lionfish Prevention and Management Plan 

(2015) for communication pertaining to the lionfish invasion: 

Impacts from Invasion 

	 Lionfish are an invasive species and are detrimental to native systems. They are 

not native to western Atlantic waters and are capable of causing negative impacts 

to native marine life, ecosystems, economies, and human health. 

	 Invasion progresses rapidly. Even though initial sightings of lionfish in a new 

area can be sporadic over time and space, the invasion progresses rapidly. Most 

countries have experienced invasion progression from the first sighting to 

multiple lionfish occurring on most sites in less than two to three years. 

	 Impacts from lionfish may be severe. Recent research indicates that lionfish 

impacts can be severe and affect broad spectrums of the environment, including 

economically important species like juvenile grouper and snapper and 

ecologically important species like grazers and cleaners (e.g., parrotfish, cleaner 

shrimp and fish). 

Pathways 

	 Aquarium releases are a source of the invasion. Genetic research and 

monitoring of lionfish distribution suggest that the source of introduction is 

likely to have been multiple releases of aquarium specimens off the coast of 

southeast Florida. 

	 Eggs and larvae are transported via ocean currents. Lionfish are distributed to 

new areas in this way. 

Control Measures 

	 Natural predation is not controlling the invasion. While some incidental predation 

or conditioned feeding on captured lionfish occurs, it appears that these are not 

controlling predators of lionfish in this region. 

	 Community involvement is necessary. To effectively address the lionfish 

invasion, we must develop wide-scale support and the involvement of the local 

communities. 

54 
	 We can make a difference: Local control can be effective. Local control efforts, 

including adopt-a-reef type programs and the development of food-fish markets 

are showing success. Areas that promote and conduct regular removals are 

showing fewer lionfish than non-removal areas, though removals will need to be 

long-term in nature due to recruitment of lionfish from upstream populations (see 

eggs and larvae message above). 

	 Eradication is not likely. Under current technologies and considering the spatial 

extent and severity of the invasion, eradication is not a likely outcome. Honest 

dialogue regarding this issue is important in developing accurate and achievable 

outcomes and subsequent strategies. Additionally, statements regarding the 

possible eradication or prevention of lionfish establishment will set up a situation 

of distrust and damage credibility as these goals are unmet. 

Human Safety Concerns 

 Lionfish are edible. In their native range, lionfish are considered a delicacy and 

are consumed regularly. Human health concerns associated with eating reef fish 

include ciguatera poisoning and mercury intake. Some lionfish have been found 

to carry the ciguatera toxin in known hotspot locations, though the spatial extent 

of the toxin is not well understood. Managers should implement the same 

caution for lionfish as they do for other reef fish. 

 Venom (typically injected to cause harm) does NOT equal poison (typically 

ingested to cause harm). Lionfish possess venomous dorsal, anal, and pelvic 

spines for defense. The meat of lionfish does not contain poison. 

55