Issuu

18962

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 68 / Monday, April 12, 2021 / Notices

action qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this case with the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species. The NMFS Office of Protected Resources is authorizing the incidental take of four species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA: Fin, sei, sperm, and North Atlantic right whales. We requested initiation of consultation under section 7 of the ESA with NMFS GARFO on March 5, 2021, for the issuance of this IHA. On April 2, 2021, NMFS GARFO concurred with our determination that our issuance of the IHA to Skipjack is not likely to adversely affect the North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm whale or the critical habitat of any ESA-listed species or result in the take of any marine mammals in violation of the ESA. Authorization

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

NMFS has issued an IHA to Skipjack for the potential harassment of small numbers of 16 marine mammal species incidental to the conducting marine site characterization surveys offshore of Delaware in the area of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS–A 0519) and along potential submarine cable routes to a landfall location in Delaware provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are followed. Dated: April 6, 2021. Catherine Marzin, Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2021–07419 Filed 4–9–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:37 Apr 09, 2021

Jkt 253001

[RTID 0648–XB013]

New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery

Management Council’s is convening an ad-hoc social science sub-panel of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) via webinar to conduct a peer review of Northeast Multispecies and Atlantic Scallops Specifications via webinar to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: This webinar will be held on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, beginning at 9 a.m. Webinar registration URL information: https:// attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/ 4051555626669408784. Call in information: Phone: +1 (914) 614–3221; Access Code: 429–619–243. ADDRESSES: Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda The SSC Social Science Subpanel will meet to receive presentations on Groundfish Framework Adjustment 59 and Scallop Framework Adjustment 32 social and economic impact analyses. The presentations and discussion will be part of the Subpanel’s review of social and economic impact analyses for Council actions that adjust fishery specifications. There will be opportunities for public input and comment. Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council’s intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: April 7, 2021. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2021–07416 Filed 4–9–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RTID 0648–XA984]

Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery

Management Council (CFMC) will hold the 173rd public meeting (virtual) to address the items contained in the tentative agenda included in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. DATES: The 173rd CFMC public meeting (virtual) will be held on April 27, 2021, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on April 28, 2021, from 8:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The meeting will be at AST (U.S. Caribbean time, presently same as EST). ADDRESSES: You may join the 173rd CFMC public meeting (virtual) via Zoom, from a computer, tablet or smartphone by entering the following address: Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/ 83060685915?pwd= VmVsc1orSUtKck8xYk1 XOXNDY1ErZz09 Meeting ID: 830 6068 5915 Passcode: 995658 One tap mobile +17879451488,,83060685915#

E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM

12APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 68 / Monday, April 12, 2021 / Notices

—St. Thomas/St. John, USVI—Nicole Greaux, Liaison Officer STT/SJ —St. Croix, USVI—Nikita Charles, Liaison Officer STX —Puerto Rico—Wilson Santiago, Liaison Officer PR

,,,,,,0#,,995658# Puerto Rico +17879667727,,83060685915# ,,,,,,0#,,995658# Puerto Rico Dial by your location +1 787 945 1488 Puerto Rico +1 787 966 7727 Puerto Rico +1 939 945 0244 Puerto Rico Meeting ID: 830 6068 5915 Passcode: 995658 In case there are problems and we cannot reconnect via Zoom, the meeting will continue using GoToMeeting. You can join the meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https:// global.gotomeeting.com/join/ 971749317. You can also dial in using your phone. United States: +1 (408) 650–3123 Access Code: 971–749–317. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1903, telephone: (787) 398–3717. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following items included in the tentative agenda will be discussed:

—Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition for the Harvest of Managed Reef Fish, Draft Gear Amendment I to the IBFMPs— Marı́a López-Mercer, SERO/NOAA Fisheries —Modification of Spiny Lobster Reference Points Based on Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 57 Stock Assessment, Draft Amendment Revisions—Sara Stephenson, SERO/NOAA Fisheries

10:45 a.m.–11 a.m.

12:30 p.m.–1:30 p.m.

11 a.m.–11:30 a.m.

—Lunch

—Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program and Visualization in Marine Biodiversity Observation Network—Miguel Figuerola, Coral Reef Specialist, DNER and Caricoos Contractor and Jorge R. Garcı́a-Sais, Reef Research Inc., DNER Contractor

April 27, 2021

3 p.m.–4 p.m.

9 a.m.–10 a.m. —Call to Order —Roll Call —Adoption of Agenda —Consideration of 172nd Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions —Executive Director’s Report —Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) Update —Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) Update

—Listening Session of President Biden’s E.O. Titled the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad: E.O. 14008 Section 216(c)—Paul Doremus, NOAA Fisheries

10 a.m.–11 a.m. (15 Minutes Each Presentation) —Scientific and Statistic Committee (SSC) Report—Richard Appeldoorn, SSC Chair —Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Technical Advisory Panel (EBFMTAP) Report—Sennai Habtes, EBFMTAP Chair —Puerto Rico Port Sampling and Catch Validation Project (August 2017– December 2019) Report—Todd Gedamke, MER Consultants, LLC —Presentation on Regional Electronic Technologies Plan: 2020–2024— Jessica Stephen, SERO/NOAA Fisheries

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

18963

11 a.m.–11:30 a.m. —Evaluation of Marine Reserves in the U.S. Caribbean—Diana Beltrán, CFMC Contractor 11:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. —Island-Based Fishery Management Plans (IBFMP) Proposed Rule Status—Marı́a López-Mercer, SERO/NOAA Fisheries

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:37 Apr 09, 2021

Jkt 253001

1:30 p.m.–2:30 p.m. CFMC 5-Year Strategic Plan—Michelle Duval, CFMC Contractor 2:30 p.m.–3 p.m. —DAP Reports (10 minutes each) —St. Thomas/St. John—Julian Magras, Chair —Puerto Rico—Nelson Crespo, Chair —St. Croix—Edward Schuster, Chair

4 p.m.–4:15 p.m. —Public Comment Period (5 minutes each) 4:30 p.m.–5 p.m. —Closed Session —SSC and Panels Membership April 28, 2021

—Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat Designation—Jennifer Lee, SERO/ NOAA Fisheries —Queen Conch Status Review Update— Jennifer Lee, SERO/NOAA Fisheries

11:30 a.m.–12 p.m. —USVI Compatible Regulations with Federal Waters—Carlos Farchette, CFMC Member —Recreational Fishing License Program for the USVI —Puerto Rico Electronic Data Reporting—Damaris Delgado, DNER 12 p.m.–1 p.m. —Lunch 1 p.m.–2 p.m. —Enforcement Reports (15 minutes each): —Puerto Rico—DNER —USVI—DPNR —U.S. Coast Guard —NOAA Fisheries/OLE 2 p.m.–3 p.m.

8:45 a.m.–9 a.m. —Call to Order —Roll Call —SSC and Panels Appointments 9 a.m.–9:30 a.m. —Overview of the Aquaculture Opportunity Areas Initiative—Jess Beck-Stimpert, SERO/NOAA Fisheries 9:30 a.m.–9:45 a.m. —Aquaculture Project, Parcelas Suárez, Loı́za—David Miranda 9:45 a.m.–10:15 a.m. —Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Report—Alida Ortı́z, Chair —St. Thomas/St. John Initiative —Social Network Report—Cristina Olán, CFMC Contractor

—Other Business 3 p.m.–3:30 p.m. —Public Comment Period (5 minutes each) —Next Council Meetings —Adjourn Note (1): Other than starting time and dates of the meetings, the established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. To further accommodate discussion and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice. Changes in the agenda will be posted to the CFMC website, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram as practicable.

10:15 a.m.–10:45 a.m.

Note (2): Financial disclosure forms are available for inspection at this meeting, as per 50 CFR part 601.

—CFMC Liaison Officers Report (10 minutes each)

The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM

12APN1

18964

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 68 / Monday, April 12, 2021 / Notices

completion of agenda items. The meeting will begin on April 27, 2021, at 9 a.m. AST, and will end on April 28, 2021, at 3:30 p.m. AST. Other than the start time on the first day of the meeting, interested parties should be aware that discussions may start earlier or later than indicated in the agenda, at the discretion of the Chair. Special Accommodations Simultaneous interpretation will be provided. Se proveerá interpretación en español. Para interpretación en español puede marcar el siguiente número para entrar a la reunión: US/Canadá: llame al +1–888–947– 3988, cuando el sistema conteste, entrar el número 1*9999996#. For English interpretation you may dial the following number to enter the meeting: US/Canada: call +1–888–947–3988, when the system answers enter the number 2*9999996#. For any additional information on this public virtual meeting, please contact Diana Martino, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918–1903, telephone: (787) 226–8849. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: April 7, 2021. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2021–07414 Filed 4–9–21; 8:45 am]

connection option. Details on the proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials will be posted at the MAFMC’s website: www.mafmc.org. Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674–2331 or on their website at www.mafmc.org. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526–5255. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the bluefish allocation and rebuilding amendment and public hearing document. The public comment period will remain open until April 23, 2021. At this meeting, we will recruit feedback from the advisors on the proposed alternatives. This feedback, in conjunction with the public comments will be incorporated into the public comment summary document to be presented to the Council during final action in June. Special Accommodations The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to K. Collins, (302) 526–5253, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: April 7, 2021. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[FR Doc. 2021–07413 Filed 4–9–21; 8:45 am]

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

[RTID 0648–XA973]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Management Council’s (MAFMC) Bluefish Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting, jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Bluefish Advisory Panel. DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 27, 2021, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only

21:37 Apr 09, 2021

Jkt 253001

Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery

VerDate Sep<11>2014

[RTID 0648–XA998]

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public online workshop. SUMMARY: The Pacific Sablefish

Transboundary Assessment Team (PSTAT), in collaboration with the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), Department of Fisheries

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

and Oceans (DFO), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), and North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), is holding a public workshop to solicit feedback on the ongoing range-wide sablefish management strategy evaluation (MSE). The Sablefish MSE Workshop is open to the public. DATES: The Sablefish MSE Workshop will be held Tuesday, April 27, 2021 through Wednesday, April 28, 2021 beginning at 1:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) and ending at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, reconvening at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday and ending at 5 p.m. or when business for the workshop has been completed. ADDRESSES: The Sablefish MSE Workshop will be an online meeting. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements will be provided at https://www.pacificsable fishscience.org/. You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov) or contact him at (503) 820–2412 for technical assistance. Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Melissa Haltuch, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, (206) 860– 3480; Ms. Kari Fenske, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, (907) 789–6653; Mr. Chris Lunsford, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, (907) 789–6008; Dr. Brendan Connors, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, (250) 858–7028; Dr. Diana Stram, North Pacific Fishery Management Council, (907) 271–2806; or Mr. John DeVore, Pacific Fishery Management Council, (503) 820–2413. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Sablefish MSE Workshop is to engage fishery stakeholders, Alaska Native and Tribal governments, First Nations, scientists, managers, and nongovernmental organization (NGO) staff from each region during this two-day workshop that will foster discussions among regions about sablefish science and management. The workshop will introduce the basic premise, goals, and utility of an MSE and participants’ roles in the process. The successful sablefish MSE experience from British Columbia will be introduced, along with the range of time horizons for incorporating stakeholder input into this Sablefish MSE. Then the Operating Model (OM) structure and justification for focusing on the entire NE Pacific, rather than the

E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM

12APN1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .............................................. 1 Table of Motions ............................................... 3 Call to Order and Roll Call .................................... 4 Adoption of Agenda ............................................. 5 Consideration of 171st Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions . 7 Executive Director’s Report .................................... 7 Five-Year Strategic Plan Update ................................ 9 Scientific and Statistical Committee Report ................... 20 Spiny Lobster Framework Amendment ............................. 26 Gear Amendment to the Island-Based FMPs, Deepwater Snapper Gear Options Paper ................................................. 41 Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Plan Technical Advisory Panel Report ........................................................ 52 St. Croix Territory/Federal Compatible Fishing Regulations .... 54 University of Humacao Presentation ............................ 62 Queen Conch Rebuilding Plan ................................... 62 Public Comment Period ......................................... 67 Deepwater Snappers and Reef Fishes in the U.S. Caribbean: Ageing Validation Using Bomb Radiocarbon and Preliminary Longevity Estimates ..................................................... 71 Research on Queen Snapper in Puerto Rico ...................... 79 Queen Triggerfish Reproductive Biology in the U.S. Caribbean .. 88 Proposed Critical Habitat for Five Caribbean Corals ........... 93 Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Report .................. 99 Enforcement .................................................. 111 Puerto Rico DNER ........................................ 111 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

U.S. Coast Guard ........................................ 113 USVI DPNR ............................................... 113 NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement ................ 114 Other Business ............................................... 115 Designation of Fishing Safe Zones ....................... 115 Public Comment ............................................... 118 Adjournment .................................................. 128 - - -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TABLE OF MOTIONS PAGE 111: Motion to accept the report from Dr. Alida Ortiz and Christina Olan and to support the proposals suggested for outreach and education with the participation of the U.S. Virgin Islands fishers and scientists, as well as those in Puerto Rico. The motion carried on page 111. - - -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 172ND REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Webinar DECEMBER 8-9, 2020 The Caribbean Fishery Management Council convened via webinar on Tuesday afternoon, December 8, 2020, and was called to order at 1:00 o’clock p.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL MARCOS HANKE: Good afternoon, everyone. It’s 1:06 p.m., and we are going to start the 172nd CFMC Virtual Meeting. Good morning, and welcome, everyone. We’re going to have a very productive meeting at this time, and we’re going to start with the roll call. Today is December 8, 2020. Natalia, can you help me? NATALIA PERDOMO: Yes. Please, if there’s anyone that has their number or their email or their name, and you can update it, so we can call your name properly, that would be appreciated. I am going to start with Miguel Rolon, Graciela-Garcia Moliner, Liajay Rivera, Marco Hanke, Alida Ortiz, María de los Irizarry, Tony Blanchard, Christina Olan, Diana Martino, Edwin Font, Guillermo Cordera, Julian Magras, Hector Ruiz, Jesus Rivera, Jocelyn D’Ambrosio, Katie Siegfried, Kevin McCarthy, Loren Remsberg, Michelle Duval, Michelle Scharer, Nikita Charles, Orian Tzadik, Richard Appeldoorn, Iris Oliveras, Adyan Rios, Wilson Santiago, Vanessa Ramirez, Shannon Calay, Sarah Stephenson. If I missed anyone, please identify yourself. NELSON CRESPO:

This is Nelson.

NATALIA PERDOMO:

Thank you, Nelson.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Carlos Farchette.

NATALIA PERDOMO:

Thank you, Carlos.

EDWARD SCHUSTER:

Edward Schuster here.

MARCOS HANKE:

Do we have anybody else?

NATALIA PERDOMO: NICOLE GREAUX: NATALIA PERDOMO:

Nicole. Nicole Greaux. Thank you, Nicole. 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

EDWARD SCHUSTER: Did you get me, Natalia? Schuster, St. Croix DAP Chair. NATALIA PERDOMO:

Yes.

Thank you, Edward.

EDWARD SCHUSTER:

Okay.

Thanks.

This is Edward

MIGUEL BORGES:

Miguel Borges, NOAA Fisheries Law Enforcement.

MARCOS HANKE:

Anybody else that we didn’t call that is present?

ESTHER VELEZ:

Esther Velez, copywriter of Sea Grant Program.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Esther. Anybody else? Hearing none, I think we can proceed, and we will recognize the people as they connect themselves to the meeting. Thank you, Natalia, for the help. On the Adoption of the Agenda, I will pass the mic to Graciela, and we have some last-minute changes to add, Graciela? ADOPTION OF AGENDA GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Good afternoon, everyone. We need to include, under -- We have received Edwin Font’s public comment, and so that can be included either under the discussion of the deepwater snapper here or under other comments. We do have a short Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Technical Advisory Panel report, but, instead of Sennai Habtes, it would be Orian Tzadik who would be presenting the review, and we are not going to have the presentation by Raimundo Espinoza on the squid fishing project. Then we won’t have students presenting on the assessment of COVID-19 impacts on commercial fishing associations in Puerto Rico, and that will be Marcos Hanke. Tomorrow, right before Enforcement, at 10:15, we will have a presentation on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for threatened Caribbean Corals. MARCOS HANKE:

What time, Graciela, again?

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: That would be at 10:15 in the morning. Mr. Chair, that’s all I have as modifications to the agenda. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Graciela. adopt the agenda. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

I need a motion to

I move to adopt the agenda as written. 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE:

Second. Thank you, Carlos Farchette, and thank you, Tony.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: May I request the adoption of the agenda as modified, as I read the changes to the agenda, please? MARCOS HANKE:

Do you agree, Carlos?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Yes, I do. I need to add something for Other Business. Is this the right time to do that? MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I would like to add, to Other Business, maybe either today, after Julian, or tomorrow sometime, but safe fishing zone designation. MIGUEL ROLON:

Other Business is tomorrow.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

MIGUEL ROLON: Can you repeat what you want, Carlos, so Graciela can add it to the agenda? GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Other Business tomorrow? CARLOS FARCHETTE: Bank, St. Croix.

What’s the name of the title for the

Designating a safe fishing zone area of Lang

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Thank you. You would be presenting that, or who would be presenting that? CARLOS FARCHETTE: I will present that. on that, and it won’t take very long.

I sent Natalia one slide

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos. Let’s move on with the adoption of the agenda. Carlos, can you restate your intention to adopt the agenda as discussed? CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

I move to adopt the agenda as modified.

Thank you.

Tony. 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE:

Second.

Thank you very much, Tony.

The agenda is adopted.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, if there is no opposition, then the agenda is adopted, but you have to take a vote. MARCOS HANKE: Any opposition to the adoption of the agenda? Hearing none, the agenda is adopted. Thank you, Miguel. Now Consideration of the Verbatim Transcription of the previous meeting, the 171st. Any comments? We need a motion. CONSIDERATION OF 171ST COUNCIL MEETING VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTIONS CARLOS FARCHETTE: I move to accept the verbatim for the 171st, the council verbatim minutes. MARCOS HANKE: TONY BLANCHARD:

Thank you, Carlos.

Is there a second?

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: It’s seconded by Tony Blanchard. Any opposition? The verbatim transcription is adopted, and now we will go to the Executive Director’s Report. Miguel. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very quick, just to mention that the budget for 2021 is being prepared as we speak, and probably they will let us know today, and Paul Doremus is going to address that at the meeting with the Washington people. We do not foresee any problems with the budget. It has been very well received by all the councils. In the case of 2020, the monies that we saved for not having in-person meetings will be used for outreach and education, and so you will hear a little bit more when we get to the report tomorrow by Dr. Alida Ortiz. In addition, we have some funding that will be received from NOAA Fisheries for international working groups that we coordinate and co-host with the WECAFC secretariat, and those are the spawning aggregation working group, the queen conch working group, and the new dolphin wahoo working group, and that probably will be an inperson meeting, if the people are allowed to travel, depending on the COVID situation by the end of the third quarter of 2021. In addition, we are going to have a presentation that you will hear by Christina Olan, and the monies that were approved for the 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

coral reef and other species in the habitat section call for outreach and education of the scientific work being done using those funds, and so we have a proposal, and I would like to also -- When we hear the proposal, I would like to have a motion from the council approving the proposal, given the monies involved. It will have three parts, and you will see that presentation. We also have hired Dr. Diana Beltran, and she’s going to be working on the answer to the question that was posed by fishers, by Julian and Tony, in the meeting that we held sometime ago, with Alida and Ruth, which is what is happening in the marine reserves that we have, and so we are going to have two parts. The first one will be an outreach and education project with Sea Grant and CARICOOS, and we are going to follow the recommendations by the fishers, which is to have outreach and education materials depicting the areas that we closed in the EEZ and why, when, the species included, and, in addition, we will have some material to identify the species that are underutilized and those species that can be fished without any problems, regarding the not overfishing and not overfished situation with any of them. We also have then Dr. Beltran looking at that information, and so will do literature research, and she’s an expert on marine reserves, and, actually, her dissertation was done in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and that work will be done by the end of March, and so it will be presented at the April meeting of 2021. We also are involved with the NOAA Seafood Inspection and International Fisheries in Washington and coordinating with them on three projects, and one of them is the big fish communication strategy, which was presented to you some ago, and the communication strategy will have a group of people preparing videos for the protection -- Calling for the protection of the spawning aggregation of snappers and groupers. That will be done in 2021 too, and the first half of that already has been done, and Christina Olan is working on the posting of those videos, and you will see them on the YouTube channel in 2021. The other thing that I was going to mention to you, and this is the last part, is we are going to amend our SOPPs, if we ever get them back, but I have been in conversation with Morgan Corey, and she is the coordination for the regional fishery management councils and National Marine Fisheries Service, and she suggested, and that’s what we are going to do, a memo to the record stating that the council will be teleworking until the end of 2021. Even though we may have people vaccinated and everything in 2021 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

against COVID, most people are not going to travel to meetings in 2021, and so we are going to do the teleworking, and the staff will be going to the office once a week, at least, and they will be continuing the operation of the council as of now. Actually, my hats off to the staff people, because members that we have of Natalia, Liajay, Luz, and Christina, they have been working with us and doing more than they are supposed to by teleworking, and so it works, and so, next year, we will continue teleworking until the end of December, and it will be until December 31, and, if we are going to have an in-person meeting, probably that will be by the end of the year, at the December meeting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you have any questions, let me know. MARCOS HANKE: I don’t have any questions, Miguel. Thank you for the report. Does anybody have a question for Miguel, very quick, before we proceed? Hearing none, the next item on the agenda is the Five-Year Strategic Plan Update and Michelle Duval. Welcome, Michelle. The floor is yours. FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and council members, for allowing me to be here today to give you an update on your strategic planning process. Where are we? We’ve been at this for a while now, and so we began our data-gathering phase in the spring, with our reaching out to stakeholders to collect their feedback with regard to priorities that they thought the council should consider for development of its five-year strategic plan, and so, in the spring, we launched an online survey, and I provided the DAPs and the council, as well as the O&E AP, some updates on that in June. Then we ran into a few challenges, one of those being COVID, and then we also had some other procedural challenges, and so we had to develop an alternative approach, and so we did that in July, focusing on a virtual stakeholder input approach, and we implemented that starting in August, and so we had the O&E AP, the district advisory panels, and the council participate in virtual input sessions, facilitated input sessions, that were focused on four different theme areas with regard to future priority development. We also, for folks who were not able to attend one of these public meetings, we also developed an online public comment form that allowed participants to also provide input with regard to those four theme areas as well, and I will talk about that a little bit later, and then, in November, and just in the early part of this month, I have completed the draft stakeholder input report, and 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Miguel sent everybody a copy of the executive summary of that, and so we’re just finalizing a few last-minute edits on that. Just as a reminder, these are the four public input discussion themes that our alternative approach was focused on: resource health, social and cultural and economic issues, management and operational issues, and communication and outreach. If you recall, we had a discussion, a review and discussion, brief discussion, of the different issues or topics within each one of these themes, and then we asked participants at the DAP meetings, as well as council members, to provide sort of their top-five priorities within each of the themes, with the exception of communication and outreach. Because all of the communication and outreach issues were considered to be important, we asked folks for suggestions and recommendations for future consideration as the council moves forward. I just wanted to quickly review the issues, and so you all saw these tables at your September council meeting, and so this is just a list of the resource health issues that were discussed, and the Xs represent the priorities that were selected by the different groups, and the exception is now this table has a row for the council. All I wanted to do here was just highlight where sort of some of the major overlaps are, and so you can see, the row that’s highlighted in yellow, this was a common priority among all four groups, and that was enforcement, and then followed by the rows that are highlighted in gray, and so this was a common priority among three out of the four groups, and the first one of those was erosion and sedimentation, and the next was habitat loss and destruction and creation and rehabilitation. Just moving on to the same table for the social, cultural, and economic issues, again, these were the top-five priorities selected by each one of the groups, and we have added the council to this table. Again, there were several more, a total of three common priorities among all four groups, the first being the closed seasons and stock assessments for affected species and evaluation of the council’s seasonal and area closures. Then illegal and unlicensed commercial fishers and inadequate enforcement, and so all those highlighted in yellow were common among all four groups. Then, just followingup, lack of social and economic data and infrastructure needs were common to three of the groups. 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Moving on to management and operational issues, this was the list of topics that was discussed, and, again, the two issues here that were listed as priorities common to all four groups were accurate and timely commercial and recreational data collection and enforcement of existing regulations. Then highlighted in the gray, following-up, these were issues that were common to at least three of the four groups, and those were fisher involvement and data collection and territorial licensing requirements. Again, as I mentioned earlier, for communication and outreach, only the O&E AP was asked to prioritize a list of what was originally six issues. When the DAPs reviewed the list of six communication and outreach issues, they also made some suggested additions and edits, primarily expanding communications to other groups as well as expanding the roles of fisheries liaisons, to increase liaison understanding of issues, and so this list that you see here on the screen is the communication and outreach topics, as modified by the DAPs. I just wanted to really highlight, I think, some of the topics that were most discussed among all of the different groups primarily, and all topics were important, and everyone agreed that, in general, more communication and outreach is needed, both generally as well as for specific groups or areas or for specific issues. Everyone also noted that the variety of communication tools is really a constantly-evolving thing, depending on the audiences that we’re trying to reach, and that there should be consideration of generational preferences in communication types. One of the other major topics was improving general public awareness of fisheries issues and that this is really important to help build understanding of and support for local fisheries and fishing communities, as well as just an increased knowledge of the relationships between like non-fishing activities and the resource. Clarity and simplicity of presentations and communications was really a big concern, and I think the DAP chairs really highlighted that during your last meeting, that this is really critical to engaging more fishers, as well as more members of the general public, in the council process, and it can be intimidating sometimes to come to a council meeting and not understand some of the complex concepts that the council addresses. Then, finally, there was a lot of discussion about additional inperson outreach, and, clearly, that’s been impacted by the pandemic this year, as well as the expansion of the liaison roles and the 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

important roles that the liaisons play in terms of helping fishers to understand issues under consideration and ensure that their feedback is incorporated into the process. Then I just wanted to talk briefly about the online public comment form, and so, again, this was an additional opportunity for members of the public to provide feedback to the council regarding what they thought might be issues of importance under the four themes, and so we had a series of open-ended questions that were phrased as, given your experience and knowledge, what do you feel are the most important issues impacting a particularly theme area, and then we also had one final question at the end that allows folks to provide any final thoughts on anything they thought the council might want to consider. The comment forms were in English and Spanish, and we had separate forms for each of the islands, for each of the districts, and so we had that available for five weeks, and we had a total of ten respondents, and only the Puerto Rico form was used. Just to quickly highlight some of the major responses that were received under each of the areas, the little number in parentheses just represents the number of people, or the number of respondents, who provided that as a recommended priority, and so, under resource health, most folks thought that coastal development, pollution, and habitat loss and destruction were priorities that the council should consider, but climate change, harvest of juvenile or undersized fish, and the lack of enforcement presence were also noted by a few folks, and then someone suggested also consideration of -- Considering rotating the seasonal area closures. Under the social, cultural, and economic concerns theme, we had six individuals that cited illegal and unlicensed fishing as a priority that needed to be considered, and one of those folks also noted a failure of even licensed fishers to report at times. A couple of folks noted that there was, in general, they felt a lack of education and knowledge and that more education would be helpful, both for the general public as well as fishers. Then there were a few other issues, such as the rising costs of seafood, lack of infrastructure, and aging of fishermen and a lack of young entrants into the fishery who had a good conservation ethic. Moving on to management and operational issues, there were several topics here that several folks mentioned, the first being enforcement of existing regulations and having some regulatory compatibility. The next was just having better education for 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

fishers and the public with regard to the rule, and the next was -- Some folks noted difficulties and delays in the licensing process, and I think that was really referring to the territorial licensing process, which the council doesn’t necessarily deal with. Then just other folks mentioned having limits on possession of fish species, as well as limiting the allowable fishing areas and then also having accurate commercial and recreational catch data, and then, finally, with regard to communication and outreach, several folks mentioned the need for and support of electronic tools and social media, videos and webinars, but others also emphasized the importance of having paper and traditional media, like newspapers and television. Folks supported in-person outreach, in the form of like roundtables, and, also, there were suggestions for having like a stakeholder orientation, where people could be made aware of the different types of communication tools that were available, as well as having sector-specific communication plans and education materials that were boat-friendly, so that fishers could take these materials on the boats and they wouldn’t be ruined. Then, finally, we also conducted some management partner outreach, and so the council’s management partners are the territorial agencies, territorial governments, as well as NOAA Fisheries, and so these are just categorized into a couple of different slides, the first one being suggestions for priorities as well as mutual objectives of things that are of interest to both the council and the management partners. One of those is continued support for improving data collection and data management, and so not just the catch reporting, but also social and economic data, continuing to strengthen relationships, and so that includes stakeholder relationships. Community involvement and outreach, as well as federal and territorial partnerships, evaluating the effectiveness of existing management approaches, to ensure that they’re meeting the council’s management goals and objectives, continuing to move forward with implementation of ecosystem-based approaches, as well as collaborating on regulations and having regulatory collaboration and consistency, and then increased support for scientific and assessment capacity and resources. Then there were just a few suggestions with regard to partnerships and process, and so ensuring that the council’s habitat protection initiatives and the essential fish habitat designations and the review process are aligned. 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Then continuing to maintain the council’s Caribbean-wide partnerships, such as those with WECAFC, working towards enhancing communication and information exchange across all partners, so that everybody is aware of what’s going on and who is doing what in the U.S. Caribbean, and then also making sure that everyone has consistent messaging among the management partners for these issues of mutual importance, such as the importance of recreational data collection. Just in terms of next steps, all of this feedback that we’ve collected will inform the development of the framework for the council’s strategic plan, and so that will start first thing in 2021, and Miguel and I were talking, and I think what I would like to do is to be able to present the council with a draft framework, where you all could see the structure of the plan, in terms of the major goals for each of the different -- Each of the council’s different districts. Then, once the council is satisfied with that, then we can move forward with filling in the development of objectives and strategies, and so hopefully we would have a draft strategic plan by your April meeting, and that would be reviewed by you all, by the council, by the district advisory panels, by the Outreach & Education Advisory Panel, and that feedback would be used to modify the plan as needed. Also, recommending that, once a draft has been approved, that the council also have that plan available for public comment. Once that public comment has been received, we would present that public comment to you all and make any modifications that the council would like to see, and then, by late 2021, or late summer of 2021, you would have a final strategic plan, and so, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will -- I still have the presentation here, but I’m happy to take any questions. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Great presentation, Michelle. Thank you very much. The floor is open for questions. Any questions? Go ahead, Carlos. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Thank you, Michelle. That was a good presentation here, and my only question is, when it comes to the area where it says coastal development and pollution, and also lack of infrastructure, I think you are referring to like fish markets and ramps, and all of that falls within the territorial jurisdiction, and so that would be coordinated -- I guess the responses to these questions will be coordinated through the commissioner of DPNR, and is that what I am looking at in the 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

future? MICHELLE DUVAL: Let me just go to the slide, and I think that -I think this is where you’re seeing this, this slide right here, where we’re talking about infrastructure needs, and is that what you’re referring to, Carlos? CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes, that’s one of them.

MICHELLE DUVAL: As well as some of the comments that were received with regard to the lack of infrastructure, I think, from the comment form as well? CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Right.

MICHELLE DUVAL: So I do anticipate that that feedback -- As you have pointed out, that’s really more of a territorial issue, and that those comments would certainly be provided to both the USVI DPNR and well as the Puerto Rico DRNA, and certainly the council can highlight the importance of that, or note the importance of those, and provide support for the territorial governments, in terms of encouragement, if this ends up being a priority that the council chooses to move forward with in different regions. Communicating that to the governments would be the way that I would anticipate the council might consider moving forward. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. Just one more question, because I think I had mentioned it before, but I don’t see any Xs on forage fish, and I don’t know where that slide is, forage fish or -MICHELLE DUVAL: CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Abundance of baitfish or forage. Right.

MICHELLE DUVAL: So I think one of the things, and I believe that Miguel mentioned this, as we started all those virtual public sessions, is that these were -- We did this to -- Because the council can’t work on every issue all at once, all at the same time, this was a way to try to determine some priorities, and so, just because there’s not an X on abundance of baitfish and forage, it doesn’t mean that the council wouldn’t necessarily work on those things, and it doesn’t mean that the council wouldn’t -- That you would cease any work that it is currently engaged in on those activities, but we do have to have a way to try to prioritize the council’s resources. So it doesn’t mean that this is not at all important, but that it might not be one of the first things that the council tackles. 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. I’m good with that. I guess, at some time in the future, because our St. Croix Fisheries Advisory Committee has been discussing managing baitfish, flyingfish and sprat, or whatever it’s called, but we can work on something when that comes up, and I guess we’ll have something to discuss. MICHELLE DUVAL: I agree, and that’s also a topic that is likely to be part of the council’s ecosystem-based fisheries management efforts, and it is being discussed under the development of the council’s fishery ecosystem plan, I would anticipate. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Okay.

Sounds good.

MICHELLE DUVAL:

Thank you, Carlos.

MARCOS HANKE:

Any other questions?

MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, you have Vanessa.

Thanks.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Marcos. Michelle, thank you for this great report, and I had the opportunity to check it out, and I was just thinking, and my question is about the participation on the online, that we only obtained ten participants, and are you planning, for the next steps, to use other kinds of -- Like sending a link directly by email, because some of the fishermen, that I see in their comments, when I put the online form, they were like -- They don’t want to answer. They want to participate, but they don’t want to answer, because they don’t know what it’s going to be used for, and so, for the next steps, and it’s a just a comment, but maybe we can make like a small introduction, in Spanish, of course, for these commercial fishermen and that we can send it more directly by email or by a WhatsApp link or something like that, that they feel comfortable with that. Thank you, and I know that you have been doing a lot of work with these reports and all these questions, and so, anything you need, we are here for you. Thanks. MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Vanessa, and that’s a great suggestion, and I think I would be happy to work with you more directly and figure out how we can try to use WhatsApp and other regular email and other means of ensuring that fishermen who want to participate are able to participate in this process, and so please let’s definitely keep in touch, so that we make sure that we get the word out to everyone. Thank you very much for that. MARCOS HANKE:

Anybody else have a question? 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

WILSON SANTIAGO: MARCOS HANKE:

I have a comment.

Go ahead, Wilson.

WILSON SANTIAGO: For Michelle, I have -- I am creating a database of contacts of all the PEPCO participants, and I have emails and telephone numbers, and so maybe we can use them to send out messages to all the participants, so they can comment. MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you so much, Wilson. That would be so helpful, and I am pretty sure I have your email information, and, if not, I can get it from Miguel, just to make sure that we’re getting the word out to people in the way that they prefer to be communicated with, and so thank you so much. WILSON SANTIAGO:

Just contact me, and we’ll work something out.

MICHELLE DUVAL:

Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: 7, please?

Anybody else?

MICHELLE DUVAL:

Michelle, can you go back to Slide

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE: I am just going to use this slide as trying to follow-up with what Carlos said. If it’s possible, in the future discussion about the strategic plan, if there is any way that we can highlight the things that we actually can decide and work directly on the council, versus the things that we’re going to recommend other agencies, or there is indirect participation from the council? MICHELLE DUVAL: Yes, we absolutely should highlight those things that are within the council’s direct purview, or direct control, versus those things that would need to be addressed by other agencies, and I think that’s very important, so that stakeholders understand exactly what the council is able to do versus what the council is able to communicate to other responsible agencies or entities, absolutely. MARCOS HANKE: I think that’s very important. Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to comment? WILSON SANTIAGO: MARCOS HANKE:

I would like to speak.

Go ahead, Wilson.

WILSON SANTIAGO:

It was last time, when I told Michelle about the 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

contacts, and I already spoke. MICHELLE DUVAL: I think Wilson is saying he already provided his suggestion for how to contact fishers in his database. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Hearing no more questions, I think it’s a great job, and do you have everything that you need from us, Michelle? MICHELLE DUVAL: I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all so much, and, like I mentioned, Miguel and I are working on just a few last edits to the full report, and that should be available soon. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. Miguel, a question. In the beginning, in your executive report, you mentioned something about a motion that was needed, and it was now? MIGUEL ROLON:

No, not for this.

MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

Perfect.

I was a little confused.

MIGUEL ROLON: The last part, Michelle, that we want to emphasize is that remember that, once this management plan is implemented, or this strategic plan is implemented, then we will have to have a sub-committee of council members and staff to go over the plan and see what are the milestones for every year. Then, each December, the council, as you are gathering here now, has to review the progress made in the previous year, and also the schedule for the next year, and so that’s when we are going to identify which action can be taken by the councils, as per the Magnuson Act, and which other actions will be just recommendations for the different agencies to undertake. Those two are really important once the strategic plan is implemented, and I believe that Michelle has said that a couple of times already in previous meetings. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. Thank you, Michelle, again. If we are ready, let’s go to the next item on the agenda, and the next item is the Scientific and Statistical Committee Report. Before you start, Richard, I would like to recognize people that are connected since a little while ago. Please state your name, people that were not on the roll call before. NICOLE ANGELI:

Nicole Angeli from the USVI DPNR.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Nicole. 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

DAMARIS DELGADO: to all.

Damaris Delgado from DNER in Puerto Rico.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Damaris.

JACK MCGOVERN:

Jack McGovern, NOAA Fisheries.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Jack.

AIDA ROSARIO:

Aida Rosario from Puerto Rico.

MARCOS HANKE:

Welcome, Aida Rosario.

MADELINE GUYANT: MARCOS HANKE:

Hello

Anybody else?

Thank you very much.

Welcome.

Next person.

This is Madeline Guyant with DPNR DFW.

Thank you.

JANNETTE RAMOS-GARCIA: This is Jannette Ramos-Garcia from the Puerto Rico Sea Grant Program. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Jannette.

Is there somebody else?

MATT WALIA: This is Matt Walia from the NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you very much.

MIGUEL BORGES: Enforcement.

Good afternoon.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Miguel.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Manny.

DANIELLE OLIVE: USVI DPNR.

Good afternoon. Thank you.

The next person?

Miguel Borges, NOAA Fisheries Law

MANNY ANTONARAS: Good afternoon. Office of Law Enforcement.

MARCOS HANKE:

Welcome.

Next person?

This is Manny Antonaras, NOAA Welcome.

Next.

This is Danielle Olive from the

Are we missing anybody else?

JAMES BRUCE: Good afternoon, everybody. This is Lieutenant James Bruce with the United States Coast Guard. MARCOS HANKE: Anybody else?

Welcome.

Thank you for attending the meeting.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

JOHN WALTER: Good afternoon, everyone. This is John Walter from NOAA Fisheries in Miami, and I’m representing the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, John. Thank you very much for connecting with the meeting. If we are missing anybody there, please send your name via the chat to recognize your presence. Go ahead, Richard. Thank you for your time. SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEE REPORT RICHARD APPELDOORN: Thank you. This is the report from the SSC, and we actually have three things, and one is our completed work on the ecosystem conceptual model, the second is looking at the spiny lobster constant OFL and ABC values, instead of the timevarying ones, and a little bit about Executive Order 13921: Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth. Our ecosystem conceptual model, I’ve shown you this before, and this is kind of where we’re working to, I think, and, as a way of summary, remember that we have eight sub-models, and those submodels have varying numbers of components. The sub-models are listed here, and the number of components are in parentheses, and, all in all, this leads to a potential of 64,000 connections in the model, and we were struggling with a way to deal with that kind of variability. This is what the model looks like in a spreadsheet form, and I showed this to you last time, and the boxes along the diagonal are the sub-component models, and those that kind of have a peachy color to them are connections within each sub-model, and so what we are working toward now are the connections between the various sub-models, and we had some ideas, from very early discussions, about potential connections, and those were illustrated in green, but we’re really not going to deal with those anymore at the moment. Our priority was the connections between components within each pair of sub-models, and we decided the first approach of this would be to identify the three most important connections, their direction, and that is to say is it a positive or negative relationship, and their strength, ranked as low, medium, or high, and we felt this was a way to start and focus the SSC as it evaluates the potential of 64,000 component-to-component connections, and it provides interim results for the council and for the EBFM TAP. These could also be made available to other interested groups, like the Lenfest project and the Center’s 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

existing status report. What we did is we worked through this sheet here, and, as you can see, you have the eight models, sub-models, represented in both the horizontal and vertical axes, and each member was asked to then fill out what he thought the highest priority -- The three highest-priority connections were, and so we might go to something like here is socioeconomic and economic factors, and how do they affect say habitat. We would go over here and find the sub-component driver in the socioeconomic model, and say, okay, what does it connect to, and is that a positive or negative relationship, or is it going to go both ways, and is it low, medium, or high in its strength, and so each person had to fill out each one of these squares for everything that is in white in this table. There is fifty-six sets of comparisons that each member was asked to make, and then we all brought that to the meeting and worked our way through them. As an example, and I actually showed this last time, but the three most important component connections from say socioeconomic and cultural drivers sub-model affecting fishing might be seafood imports and exports affecting commercial catch, market demand affecting commercial catch, and tourism affecting recreational fishing catch. In this case, two of the driver components affect the same target component, and that is commercial fishing catch. If you list all of the components of the sub-models, this is what that example would look like, with the arrows going from the driving sub-models, the socioeconomic and cultural components, and pointing to what sub-components in the fishing sub-model they are reacting to, and, graphically, it would look like this, but I’m not going to show any more of the connections in between the submodels, and so the connections within a sub-model are in blue, and the two-sub-models are there, and those connections between the sub-models are in yellow, going from the driving ones in red to the targets in blue. How we would fill this out in this form would be we have a driver component in the SEC sub-model, and it’s targeting a response component. We have directions, and these are positive relationships, whereas seafood imports and exports could go either way, because imports and exports tend to act in opposite directions, and then you might say one is medium and two are high, and remember this is just an example, and that’s not an actual result. 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

This, however, is an actual result, and this is, again, just one example out of the fifty-six sets that we looked at, and, in this particular example, it’s the competing uses of resources submodel, and we’re looking at land-based uses, because that’s the target sub-model, and you have, across here, the scores of the individual SSC members, and each one was asked to give their top three, and so, in each column, you will see three scores, and the numbers, 1, 2, and 3, are low, medium, and high, to give them a numeric value, and here are the target ones that were identified, and so, if you don’t see anything here, there was no connection between say artificial reefs and anything in land-based uses. Here, there were ten connections that were given priority by at least one SSC member, and those are the ones in blue here, and you can see that industrial waste was highlighted twice, and we get a number of different kinds of information that can be used by people developing the larger model, and that’s listed over here. If you come across here, most of the SSC members identified a connection between coastal development and urban runoff as being important, and, if it’s a strong relationship, they gave it a three, and so seven of the members identified that, and so the tally is how many members thought this was an important connection. The mean is the mean score that those seven people gave it, and there would also be a variance associated with that, and that’s not listed here, but that would be there, and, finally, there is the sum, which is just the sum of the scores across, and so that’s the same as the tally multiplied by the mean, and so this is another indicator, or a quantitative indicator, that can be used in developing a model, in terms of what kind of variance there is among the members in identifying these things and how important they are. This one in orange, again, is -- It has seven out of the eight people identifying it, and they all gave it a three, and it had the highest score of twenty-one. The next-most-important component was marina activity affecting other non-point-source discharges. Five of the SSC members gave this as one of their top three, but they said it was a medium impact, and so the scores were two across-the-board, for a sum of ten, and so, even though only two less people thought this was an important component, compared to the coastal development and urban runoff thing, the score, the sum, is much less than -- It’s less than half, because the strength of that connection, two, was considered to be less than the connection for the first one, which was three. 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

The only other -- If you wanted to come up with a third one, it would be this one, with only three people picking that, and there was some discrepancy about what the score would be, and so that’s an example, and, of course, we did this fifty-six times, and we discussed each one of these, and people were allowed to change their scores, because sometimes they would say there’s a connection between here, and someone else would say, no, that connection actually runs through another sub-component before it interacts with that one, and so you might want to change your score in light of that, and so we had a lot of discussion for each one of these fifty-six sets of comparisons that we did. Overall, the result was that we identified 484 connections between components across sub-models, and, if you counted the connections within the sub-models, we’ve now accounted for 788 connections within the conceptual model as a whole. This is what it now looks like, and I have now taken out the peach color for within the sub-models, and I have put red in the boxes where there is at least one score for a connection between one component in a sub-model and another one, and you can see there’s lots of red here, and so there’s lots of connections, and you can see places where you have a row of lots of red, which would be indicating that the component here is something that lots of other things target, whereas, if you come across, and here’s an example here, where you see lots of red going across, this is something where a component is hitting lots of targets, and so this driver is affecting a lot of things across-the-board, and I will identify those in a minute. There are thirty-six red boxes on this line, and this is natural disturbances under abiotic factors, and so the members of the SSC felt that natural disturbances were something that had a strong impact across lots of things, and you can see habitat, water quality, fishing, land-based uses, socioeconomic and cultural drivers, and so it’s one of the more -- It, in fact, was by far the most important single driver. The other two were much less, and there is only nineteen boxes for those, and this one is coastal development, and this one is regulatory structure, and that regulatory structure is nonfisheries regulatory structure, and so things that might affect land use and then affect erosion or something that, as opposed to directly affecting fisheries, like gear restrictions or quotas or closures, and so I think this emphasizes a point that’s already been made several times already this afternoon, that there’s a lot of things that are affecting fisheries that are outside the specific realm of the fisheries agencies. 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Looking the other way, there were four components that seemed to be affected by a lot of different things, and so inshore forage fishes were affected by nineteen sub-components in different models. As you might expect, coral reefs and seagrass beds are important habitats, and they were also affected by lots of different things in other sub-models, and fishing grounds, which is sort of a -- You can view it as sort of a habitat issue as well, and that was also strongly impacted by quite a number of subcomponents in the other sub-models. We started out with something like this, and now we have something like this, and I think, if we gave this a brown background and black-and-white colors, they would look fairly similar, and so I think we’ve made a lot of progress, but you can see how complex the system really is, and the nature of things might vary a little bit from island to island, but I think the overall structure of things is probably fairly standard across actually most fisheries, and what you would be changing might be the habitats and whatnot, but, for us, where we’re really driving at coral reef fisheries, this is going to be fairly standard. That’s where we are now, and this was done in September, and we’re going to, I think, wait to hear back on how far they would like us to go in finishing. Remember that this is just what came out of everybody’s top-three, and this does not mean that there are not more important connections to be made, but we just had to start someplace. The next topic was the spiny lobster three-year constant ABC, and this was fairly simple for us to do, actually, and so the SSC recommends that the approach to determining the three-year constant ABC for spiny lobster is to determine a three-year constant OFL and then to apply the constant buffer. The constant OFL was determined by taking just the three-year average of the OFL, and, when you do that, you get the following. With the current data available, the resulting recommended values for the years 2021, 2022, and 2023 constant OFLs are 420,000 pounds for Puerto Rico, 170,000 pounds for St. Thomas, and 167,000 pounds for St. Croix. For those same years, the constant ABCs would be almost 371,000 for Puerto Rico, 150,000 for St. Thomas, and 148,000 for St. Croix, and these values may change as new data is entered before this is actually implemented. I would just like to say why we chose that approach. You get the same answer if you take the -- These are the variable OFLs and ABCs for each island platform that were presented at the last 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

meeting, and an approach was recommended by the Center to just take the average of these, and you get the same answer as when you take the average of the OFLs and get that and then derive the ABC or if you just take the average of the ABCs, but there is a difference, and the difference is that, if you keep this OFL at 406,000, and you make this 370,000, you are increasing this value, and you are, therefore, reducing the space, if you will, between the -- Between what was 358,000 and 406,000 is now 370,000 and 406,000, which gives you a risk of -- A greater risk of overshooting your OFL, which you do not want to do. By taking the average of the OFLs, that value is larger for that year, and that gives you space between these two values, and so there is less of a risk for overshooting the OFL, and so that’s why we recommended to first take the average of the OFL and then apply the buffer to get to the ABC. Lastly, we had some language for Executive Order 13921, and I think the deadline for this, for the council to respond, has already passed, but this is what we had recommended, and it had to do with Section 2, Policy, and there were statements about providing good stewardship of public funds and stakeholder time and resources and safeguarding our communities and maintaining a healthy aquatic environment, and so, in addressing those, we said the following, or recommended. In light of the Executive Order 13921, the SSC recommends to the Caribbean Fishery Management Council that the necessary resources be made available to conduct resource surveys to determine the abundance of key marine resources in the U.S. Caribbean and to conduct quantitative stock assessments that can provide guidance on OFL limits, and that is to say Tiers 1, 2, and 3 of the ABC Control Rule. The gist behind this was, if we can reduce uncertainty, and we know that there is room in the fishery, we can open up that fishery for greater exploitation, with more certainty that things will be okay, and so that was our statement for that, and I think that was made available for the council, so they could respond to the Executive Order, and I think that’s it. If there are any questions, I can -MARCOS HANKE:

Any questions?

RICHARD APPELDOORN: I wanted to point out that the lobster OFL and ABC issue is going to be addressed in greater detail, I think by Sarah in the next presentation. 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. I don’t hear any questions, and I think we can keep going with the presentations, but, before I would like to recognize the presence of Laura. Thank you very much for attending our meeting, Laura. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:

Marcos, who are you addressing?

I am recognizing the presence of Laura.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: is present.

Her microphone is not working, but she

MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Thank you very much. We will keep going on the next presentation, please. I didn’t have any questions for Richard at this time. This will be the Ecosystem Conceptual Model Presentation. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: You jumped the spiny lobster and gear. Check your agenda, and so, after Richard, we have the spiny lobster framework amendment with Sarah Stephenson making the presentation. SPINY LOBSTER FRAMEWORK AMENDMENT SARAH STEPHENSON: This presentation will provide an overview of the action and preliminary alternatives for updating management reference points for spiny lobster following the accepted SEDAR 57 stock assessment, to be included in a framework amendment to each of the island-based fishery management plans. This is just a quick recap of major events, to-date, following the SEDAR 57 stock assessment for the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix spiny lobster stocks. At the October 2019 SSC meeting, the SSC determined that the SEDAR stock assessments were suitable for management advice. At the December 2019 council meeting, the SSC and the Science Center presented how spiny lobster management reference points would change following the change from a Tier 4 stock to a Tier 3 stock in the ABC Control Rule, and that is included in each of the island-based FMPs. Just as a quick reminder, Tier 4 stocks are considered to be data-limited with no accepted assessment, and Tier 3 stocks are considered data-limited with an accepted assessment. At the June 2020 council meeting, the council accepted a P* of 0.45 for spiny lobster, and that’s the risk of overfishing, for each island for use in Tier 3 of the control rule, and, at the August 2020 council meeting, the SSC presented ABC recommendations 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

for each year, for 2021 to 2026, and SERO staff presented options for setting ACLs from those variable ABCs that the SSC recommended. Following that options presentation, the council requested the SSC coordinate with the Science Center to provide a constant ABC for spiny lobster for each island group, based on SEDAR 57 and based on the first three years of the OFL projections, which would be 2021 to 2023. It was the council’s intent to request an interim assessment be conducted in 2023 that would update the OFL projections and get catch levels for 2024 and beyond. That brings us up-to-date following the September SSC meeting that Richard just summarized. Following the outcomes of that September SSC meeting, the interdisciplinary planning team, or the IPT, drafted a draft framework amendment to the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix FMPs that would modify spiny lobster management reference based on the SEDAR 57 stock assessment and Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule. Through a framework amendment, the council can more expeditiously adjust reference points and management measures in response to changing fishery conditions, and the list of framework measures that were included in the island-based FMPs include situations in which a new stock assessment or other information indicates changes should be made to the MSY, the OFL, the ABC, or other related management reference points and status determination criteria. A quick note that island-based FMPs would need to be implemented before this framework amendment for spiny lobster could be implemented, and the island-based FMPs are expected to be in place in 2021. For each island-based FMP, the amendment would update the maximum sustainable yield at MSY, and the overfished criteria, which is the MSST, and the overfishing criteria, which is the MFMT, based on the SEDAR 57 stock assessments. Two actions are included in the draft amendment. Action 1 would update the spiny lobster OFL, ABC, and ACLs, using either a constant catch or a variable catch approach, and Action 2 would update accountability measures for spiny lobster. For each action, the council could select a different alternative for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, or St. Croix, and, at this time, the IPT will be looking for feedback on how the council would like the alternatives to be developed for the amendment, and I will ask for that at the end, or you can make comments at the end 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

of the presentation. The SSC recommended both constant catch ABCs and variable catch ABCs for spiny lobster for each island for 2021 to 2023 based on the OFL projections during that same time period and using Tier 3 of the ABC control rule. Through Action 1, the council would select the preferred approach, either constant or variable, for specifying OFLs and ABCs and then the process for determining ACLs from the ABCs. Under the variable catch approach, ACLs would change from year to year for the 2021 to 2023 period. Under the constant catch approach, the ACL would be the same each year, and so the ACL in 2021 would be the same in 2022 and the same in 2023. Per council request, an interim assessment to update the OFL projections would be conducted in 2023, and that would be used to set catch levels for 2024 to 2026. Pending results from that interim assessment, a subsequent framework amendment would be developed at that time to update the spiny lobster OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs. The interim assessment would not update the MSY or MSY proxy, the MFMT, or the MSST specified in the SEDAR 57 stock assessments. It is possible that this process may not be complete and in place by 2024, and so you’ll see some of the text that deals with that in the next couple of slides. For Action 1, Alternative 1, it would not change the OFL, the ABC, or the ACL specified for spiny lobster under each island-based FMP. However, those ACLs exceed the ABCs recommended by the SSC following the SEDAR 57 stock assessments. The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies that catch levels cannot exceed the ABC recommended by the council’s SSC. Thus, Alternative 1 would not be valid under the MSA. It’s included in the draft document for NEPA analysis purposes. Under Alternative 2, the council would select the constant catch approach for specifying OFL and ABC for spiny lobster and use the constant catch ABC to derive the constant catch ACL, which would be set equal to the optimum yield for each stock under one of these following sub-alternatives. Sub-Alternative 2a would set the ACL equal to the ABC, and it would reflect no management uncertainty. Sub-Alternative 2b would apply a 5 percent management uncertainty buffer, which would set the ACL at 95 percent of the ABC, and Sub-Alternative 2c would apply a 10 percent management uncertainty buffer, which would set the ACL at 90 percent of the ABC. 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Just as a reminder, management uncertainty refers to uncertainty in the ability of managers to constrain catch so that the ACL is not exceeded and the uncertainty in quantifying the true catch amounts. Sources of management uncertainty could include late reporting, misreporting, underreporting of catches, or lack of sufficient in-season management. These management uncertainty buffers here are similar to those used in setting ACLs under the island-based FMPs. Alternative 2 would set ACLs for that 2021 to 2013 period, and the council could request the SSC discuss using the constant catch ABCs that were recommended for 2021 to 2023 beyond that time period, in the event that updated OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for spiny lobster are not in place by 2024. For Action 1, Alternative 3 would select the variable catch approach for specifying OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster for the 2021 to 2023 period, based on the SEDAR 57 stock assessments, and use the variable catch ABCs to derive the spiny lobster variable catch ACLs, which, again, would be set equal to the optimum yield for 2021 to 2023, under the sub-alternatives. Sub-Alternatives 3a through 3c reflect the same level of management uncertainty as Sub-Alternatives 2a through 2c. Pending council and SSC review, Alternative 3 would include the caveat that the variable catch OFL, ABC, and ACLs established for 2023 would be used for 2024 and beyond, until updated assessments and subsequent rulemaking are available and completed. Table 2.4 in the draft amendment document, which is on the council’s website, contains the preliminary constant catch ACLs for spiny lobster for each island, based on the constant catch ABCs recommended by the SSC, as reduced by the council’s management uncertainty buffers in Sub-Alternatives 2a through 2c, and so the first column with numbers, with data, reflects that no management uncertainty, where the ACL equals the ABC. The second column of numbers is the ACL has a 5 percent reduction buffer for management uncertainty, and the third column has the 10 percent reduction, and there is one for each island. These are preliminary numbers, because the OFL projections and resultant ABC and ACL estimates could be updated using finalized 2019 landings data before the council takes final action on the amendment, and I did verify with Richard Appeldoorn, and these numbers match the numbers that he presented in his presentation. Table 2.5 in the draft document contains the preliminary variable catch ACLs for spiny lobster for each of the three years, 2021 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

through 2023, based on the variable catch ABCs recommended by the SSC, reduced by those same management uncertainty buffers. Again, these numbers could be updated and included, or would be updated and included, in the final amendment. Under each island-based FMP, spiny lobster is considered a Tier 4a stock, and the OFL is defined, but it’s not quantified. Instead, a new reference point, the sustainable yield level, is quantified and used as the OFL proxy, and so, as mentioned earlier, following the SEDAR 57 stock assessments, spiny lobster stocks would be considered a Tier 3 stock, and the OFLs would be quantified, and so the language describing the overfishing determination process was revised in the draft amendment as follows. For both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, in the years that spiny lobster stock assessments are completed, overfishing would occur if the fishing mortality rate, which is F, exceeds the MFMT. In other words, if the ratio of F to MFMT is greater than one, then the stock is undergoing overfishing. In years without a spiny lobster stock assessment, overfishing would occur if the annual harvest exceeds the OFL, and so, in other words, if the landingsto-OFL ratio is greater than one, then the stock is undergoing overfishing. For Alternative 1, overfishing would be determined as described in the FMPs, which you can find that description in Chapter 5, Section 5.13.4 in each of the island-based FMPs. Through Action 2, the council would revise the years of landings data that would be compared to the ACL for triggering an AM for the spiny lobster stock under each FMP. At this time, Alternatives included in the draft framework amendment include using a threeyear average or a single year of landings, which I will discuss more on the next slide. The goal of the AM trigger is to evaluate whether landings exceeded the ACL that was in place and prevent exceedances going forward, and so this can be complicated by the data lag. For instance, for Caribbean stocks, complete landings data are generally available two years later, and it can also be complicated when ACLs change, as they will with this amendment. For example, if the new spiny lobster ACLs are in place in 2021, those landings data most likely will not be available until 2023, and so we, as the IPT, would want to make sure that the alternatives included in the amendment for revising the AM process take that data lag and the changing ACLs into account. The IPT will continue to work on this action and the effects analysis for the 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

alternatives. This is just a quick comparison of those draft alternatives included for the AM trigger, the three-year average or the single year. Using a three-year average as the AM trigger would continue the approach historically used for U.S. Caribbean stocks. Averaging landings over a three-year period would be expected to reduce the effects of variability in the landings data, which could be due to either biological factors, such as variations in year classes, or economic factors, such as changes in market demand. This approach would be expected to trigger AMs less frequently if the landings in one or more of the years were below, or well below, the ACL, as the low years would even out a high year of landings. However, when using averages, years with very high landings could trigger AMs in consecutive years. For example, if landings in 2021 were greatly above the ACL, then those landings may result in two or three years of consecutive AMs being triggered, because that high year of landings is used in the averaging process. On the other side, using a single year of landings to trigger an AM could reduce the effects of a year with really high landings, meaning that that year with high landings would only be used in the trigger evaluation once, and then it wouldn’t be used again. This approach is simpler to use when ACLs change frequently, for example following updated assessments, but this would be a change in the process historically used to trigger AMs, and using a single year only would not account for any of that variability in landings. Here’s a brief look at some of the other text included in the draft alternatives for triggering an AM, and that would be slightly different from the text in the island-based FMPs. Alternative 2 would use a ramp-up process, meaning a single year of landings followed by a two-year average followed by a three-year average, and thereafter a running three-year average to trigger an AM. This is similar, but it would not prescribe which years to use, as the island-based FMPs did. The alternative includes text that the ramp-up process would restart whenever the ACLs are reset, and this could prevent this AM process from needing to be revised again during a subsequent amendment. The alternative would keep the condition that would allow the RA, the Regional Administrator, in consultation with the council, to deviate from the specific time sequences used to trigger an AM, but it would modify the text from “based on data availability” to “based on the best scientific information available”. This would allow for more flexibility in the clause. 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

For example, if the expansion factors used to adjust the Puerto Rico commercial landings were determined to be too high or too low, then that data may not be considered the best scientific information available, and the RA and the council could use alternative years. Finally, this alternative would include options for using an arithmetic mean or a geometric mean to calculate average landings. The current process uses an arithmetic mean, and I will show you a quick example of how these two approaches work on the next slide. Then Alternative 3, which is that single year of landings, would include that same condition that would allow the RA, in consultation with the council, to deviate from the years used, based on best scientific information available. Here is the difference between a geometric mean and an arithmetic mean. They are different in how they’re calculated, and so consider three years of landings data, 300,000 in year-one, 300,000 in year-two, and then 600,000 in year-three. The arithmetic mean of these values would be 400,000, and so you add the three values and divide by three, and you get 400,000. The geometric mean of these values actually multiples the values together, and so 300,000 times 300,000 times 600,000, and then it takes the cube root, and it returns a slightly lower value, and so 377,976 pounds. Using a geometric mean generally returns a more conservative estimate, i.e. a lower number, and, as such, it may prevent an AM from being triggered, when compared to using the arithmetic mean. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council is proposing using a geometric mean for triggering an AM for post-season recreational AMs for their snapper grouper fishery, because their recreational landings data are highly variable. The Caribbean Council could consider using this approach and if it’s useful for considering variability in spiny lobster landings. Here are the next steps for development of the framework amendment following the successful spiny lobster assessments. Again, this amendment will not be able to be implemented until the islandbased FMPs are in place. The IPT would like council feedback on these alternatives included, including if there’s any that we haven’t thought of that you might like to see developed. The council could request that the Science Center update the OFL projections and the ABC estimates, using complete 2019 landings data, when they are available. The council could request that, at 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

the February 2021 SSC meeting, the SSC review the updated OFL projections and ABC estimates provided by the Science Center and discuss the shelf life of using those 2021 to 2023 OFLs and ABCs. The goal of the 2023 interim assessment would be to have those new values in place by 2024, but being able to use the 2021 to 2023 values into 2024 would give us the flexibility in getting those new numbers, including new ACLs, in place. The SSC could also give feedback on the use of arithmetic versus geometric means for ACL monitoring purposes. The IPT will continue to work on the Action 2 alternatives for revising the AM trigger, and it will prepare a more complete framework amendment that includes analysis of effects for each action and alternative, and staff will present that framework amendment at the April 2021 meeting for council review. With that, I will take any questions. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Sarah, for a great presentation. anybody like to make questions? Go ahead, Vanessa.

Would

VANESSA RAMIREZ: I just wanted to make a comment about the numbers. As I always say, we know that the data is not real, and I will just put an example of two of the main fish markets that we have in Cabo Rojo. Practically, between those two, they make more than 1,000 weekly of pounds of fish, just between those two, and we have ten in my town, and so, when we make the multiplication for the six days that they work, the number, the real number, of lobster that we are moving here is really high. Considering that, I always ask please to go for the highest number, because we know that we have a lot of commercial fishermen that are not reporting, because of they don’t complete the statistics, or because they lose their license, or because they are different kinds of situations with the license, and so how are we going to work with that, because, if we put less pounds, we know that the next year, 2021, 2022, and 2023, if they start reporting as they supposed to, and we hope that they continue doing that, with the new application and with the hope that all of them receive their license for the next year, and how are we going to work with that, if we put a less number? SARAH STEPHENSON: Thank you, Vanessa. I didn’t show it in this presentation, but all of our alternatives for triggering an AM would retain that clause that unless the NMFS Science Center determines that an overage occurred because data collection or monitoring improved, and so if we can look at the landings data and see that the overage was because more people were reporting, 33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

as opposed to maybe just that the catches were high, that we had the same level of reporting and catches were higher, then the Science Center, I think, could help inform us that that was the case, and then that clause would kick in. Even if the AM was triggered, it might not be applied, and so there is that potential that I didn’t show in this presentation, but that would be included in the amendment, and it’s included in the island-based FMPs, if that helps. VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

Thank you.

Anybody else from the Virgin Islands?

NICOLE GREAUX: My question was along the lines of Vanessa’s also, and so I do know that we are going to start getting more reporting, as far as recreational catch is considered too, and, if the geometric means is going to be used to do these product numbers and then the square root after, how do we -- But we’re not separating the commercial catch from the recreational catch, but, since this is going on until 2023, I do know that those numbers are going to be a little bit skewed from the base, and do you all have anything to use different variables, to make sure your numbers are as close to accurate as possible? SARAH STEPHENSON: Let me answer, I think, the commercial and recreational part. The ACLs that are included in the island-based FMPs and that would be in the spiny lobster amendment are only for the commercial sector, although, in the USVI, they would govern the recreational sector too, and that was because, when these were being set up, we didn’t really have any recreational landings data for the USVI or for spiny lobster and Puerto Rico. For spiny lobster, if it is determined that an AM needs to be applied, I think it would be how it has been in the past and that both sectors would be closed. Going forward, if we start getting better information and better data, like especially from the recreational sector, then that could go back to the SSC, or the Science Center, and they could help establish ACLs for that sector, and they could definitely include that data in the next round of maybe the spiny lobster full SEDAR assessment, whenever that’s going to be planned. Going forward, that data would be useful, and I’m just not quite sure, at this time, how it might fit in with what’s going to be outlined in this amendment, and I don’t know if that answered the second part of your question. 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

NICOLE GREAUX:

Yes, it does.

MARCOS HANKE:

Questions?

Thank you, Sarah.

Go ahead, Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I just wanted to know, and are we going to decide here today what action and alternative each island-based plan is going to decide on? Are we going to do that here today? SARAH STEPHENSON: That wasn’t our intent at this point, and we were just looking for kind of your general feedback on do these actions look okay. If you had a strong feeling one way or the other on say the constant catch or the variable catch, the council could make that known, but we’re not looking for you to select preferred alternatives at this point. We just kind of wanted to prepare you for what’s going to be coming in the amendment in April, and probably, at that time, we would be hoping that you would pick preferreds, but, if you have a preference, or a general feel of how you think you would like, for instance, St. Croix to be considered, I would definitely write that down as part of the rationale at this time. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. I think, at the last meeting, I did mention that I would prefer to see a constant ABC. One of the things that is happening here on St. Croix is that -- I think it happens every year, from November, December, and January, and conch seasons opens on November 1, and so a lot of the fishermen move from lobster diving to conch diving, because that’s what the consumer is waiting for, and so they kind of let up on the lobster harvest, and I just wanted to make sure that we don’t let that slide by. I am looking at constant, and I don’t know if there’s anybody else. Well, from the St. Croix District, it’s only Edward Schuster onboard here, and so -MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, if I may, a question for Sarah. Sarah, do you think that this presentation could be given to the DAPs, let’s say in the first quarter of 2021, so that we have an input from them before we -SARAH STEPHENSON:

Yes, we can definitely do that.

MIGUEL ROLON: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that -- Next year, we are planning to have a meeting of the DAPs, to go over the presentation that Richard just did, and Graciela, on the models, and, if the plan is implemented by that time, also we would address that, but I believe that the models and the spiny lobster could be done in let’s say a two-hour virtual meeting, or three, and it would be a matter of coordinating with Sarah and the chairs 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

of the DAPs to have this meeting, hopefully maybe in late February or the beginning of March, so that we will be ready to provide input to the team that is working. MARCOS HANKE: queue.

Thank you, Miguel.

We have John Walter in the

JOHN WALTER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things that we do need to separate here is the assessment, which right here is using the best data that’s available at the time of the assessment, and, importantly, is raised to a higher tier than previous assessments, and so we’re getting something we haven’t gotten before, which is the status of the stock. This is a big -- Actually, it’s a fairly substantial improvement here over our previous treatments for this species, and then what we’re all hearing, and have in the works, are a lot of improvements in the basic data collection, and so we’re going to be getting better data, because we’ve put the processes in place. What that means is that the assessment was using data that was only from the commercial fishery, and the recreational fishery -It was assumed that either part of that commercial fishery or some unknown and constant baseline. If that is growing in the future, we should be getting that information and taking it into account, and then, if it does indeed be proved that it’s a constant say 10 percent of the commercial, then it doesn’t change the stock status. However, we would also monitor the ACL by the data that goes into it, and I think that’s the question for how the ACL gets monitored. If there is an additional set of landings that haven’t been counted in the assessment, how we treat them needs to be considered, and that, I think, is a question that is still an open one. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE:

We have Roy.

Thank you very much, John.

ROY CRABTREE: Thanks, Marcos. Thanks, Sarah, for the presentation, and I think it was well done, and I just wanted to say that I agree with Carlos. I think my preference is the constant ACL, where it’s averaged over a series of years, and I think, that way, people know what’s coming and what is expected, and then we put that in place, and then hopefully, in a couple of years, we get an update, or an interim, assessment of it, and then we can come in and reset things based on that. Maybe when we do the update, or the interim, assessment, whatever comes next, it could better address some of these questions that 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

we have now with respect to landings and recreational landings and things, but I think my preference will be towards the setting a constant catch level. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: the queue?

Thank you, Roy.

Miguel, am I missing anybody on

MIGUEL ROLON:

Not that I can see here.

MARCOS HANKE:

Are there any other questions?

MIGUEL ROLON: One question is if you would like to -- Even though Sarah said that this is not the time for it, you can give the group that is working an indication of the preference of the council, and so if the council, for example, prefers to follow Roy’s advice, this is a good time to say it, and so they will look at it and discuss the rationale. Then, when we present this to the DAPs next year, they will have more information as to how to proceed. MARCOS HANKE: speak.

Yes.

We have Jocelyn requesting for a turn to

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you. Before we moved on, I just wanted to circle back to something that John had mentioned about ACL monitoring, and so, because this process -- We didn’t have recreational landings, and there were various assumptions, as John indicated, how they would be included in the model, but we didn’t have numbers to plug in. When we monitor the landings, we would be monitoring the commercial landings and comparing those to the ACLs, and, as we got recreational data, those would be next steps to reevaluate that process, but, right now, this process would just involve looking at those commercial landings and comparing them to the ACLs and then making decisions about any accountability measures based on that available information, and so I just wanted to clarify that process. MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Thank you very much, Jocelyn. We are all aware, and I would like to make a comment that I was inclined, since we started this discussion, to go with the constant numbers, but, with this information and this presentation that Sarah just gave, which is a great presentation, I think there is other considerations that I need to analyze, in terms of geometric and arithmetic effects on the formulas and so on, and I don’t feel strong on either way, either though, originally, I was inclined to do the constant approach. Anybody else who would like to say something? 37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I just want to get a little clarity here. In Table 2.3, constant catch OFL and ABC, St. Croix has the OFL of 167,897 pounds and an ABC of 148,071. That’s a reduction of about 19,826 pounds, and is that for uncertainty? I think Richard had mentioned something about that number, but I’m not sure what it meant, if that’s uncertainty or not, because they’re still asking, under proposed alternatives, for a 0.95 or a 0.90 or equal to, and so, if you’re already reducing by 19,000 pounds, and then you still want to reduce again by 0.95, that’s another uncertainty? I’m not clear on that. SARAH STEPHENSON: There were two instances where numbers were reduced, and so the OFLs were reduced to the ABCs, and that incorporated scientific uncertainty and the council’s risk of overfishing, and so that was one part. Then the second part reduces the ABCs to the ACLs, and that accounts for management uncertainty, and so those are the options that are included in the amendment, either the no reduction, the 5 percent reduction, or the 10 percent reduction. Those are for management uncertainty, and that’s what the council gets to decide. Those other uncertainties, the scientific uncertainty and, of course, the council’s risk of overfishing, they were previously decided and are now included in that Tier 3 of the control rule process from estimating the ABCs from the OFLs, and so that part is already done. At this point, you have ABCs recommended from the SSC, either the constant catch ones or the variable catch ones, and now the council will decide, from either one of those buckets, how much they want to reduce for management uncertainty to get to the ACLs. Does that answer your question? CARLOS FARCHETTE: Yes, it does, and so, in the end, each island will be deciding what alternative they prefer, right, and it’s not going to be one for everybody? SARAH STEPHENSON:

That’s correct.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Okay.

All right.

That’s cool.

Thanks.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos. If I don’t hear any other questions, I think we are ready to move on, unless Sarah wants to make any questions to the group of anything else that she needs to hear from us. SARAH STEPHENSON:

So it sounds like that, for now, we’ll stick 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

with maybe the council’s initial preferred -- Not preferred approach, but you preferred the constant catch over the variable catch, and that’s what was stated at the August meeting, and I’ve heard that from Roy and Carlos at this meeting. Obviously, the other approach, the variable catch approach, will still be in the amendment, and you can still consider it at the next council meeting, but, for now, we might go ahead and kind of put that as preliminary preferred, just to give the IPT something to really compare and maybe have a feel for how the council is going to go. Is there a similar kind of feeling for using a single year or landings or ramp-up to a three-year average, or do you want to just wait and see the analysis in April? That’s my question to the council, please. MARCOS HANKE:

Anybody?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I would prefer a three-year average, but I’m open for discussion. MARCOS HANKE:

Anybody from St. Thomas?

TONY BLANCHARD: I would have to agree with Carlos. I would probably prefer a three-year average and a constant, but I also agree with Miguel that this should go to the DAP and hear what comes out of that discussion. MIGUEL ROLON: raised hand.

Marcos, I have Roy Crabtree asking for a turn, a

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

Go ahead, Roy.

ROY CRABTREE: I think I’m agreeing with Carlos and Tony. I think we should use an average landings over some period of time, and so I would ramp-up to probably three years, but, if not three, then two years, but I think that helps smooth things out some, and it also makes sense, to me, to -- I know this is getting in the weeds, but, for staff purposes, the geometric means seems a better way to go, to me, because it tends to smooth things out a little bit, and it’s less affected by -- If you do it for three years, it’s less affected by having one year real extreme compared to the other two, and I know that’s getting in the weeds a little bit, but it does make sense to me to use an average, given all the uncertainty we have about what’s going on. MIGUEL ROLON: NICOLE ANGELI:

Marcos, you have Nicole Angeli. The preliminary preference that we have is for 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

this to go through the DAP for the districts, but, for the discussion today, a three-year, at least a three-year, geometric mean and constant would be our preference. We anticipate ramping up data collection over the next five years, and so, for now, I think that should be the best option, but that also gives us a lot of time to speak about this within our districts. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. input in here? VANESSA RAMIREZ: Carlos and Tony.

Vanessa, would you like to have your

Yes. Thank you, Marcos. I am on the side of I prefer also for the three years. Thanks.

MARCOS HANKE: Any other council member who would like to speak? I would like to say that I agree with the group, and I don’t have any objections to that, and the geometric -- Like Roy said, the combination of the geometric approach seems to work better. For me, it’s the first time I’ve seen it, that approach, and, so far, I agree with that. I need to analyze it a little more, even though it makes sense. Do you need a motion from us, Sarah? MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, at this time, you can do it just by consensus. What Sarah wanted was to have an indication of the trend that you want to see, but the -- You should allow the DAP to also look at this. Maybe they have an idea that we are not seeing here, but, from previous meetings, and this meeting, the sense is that the consensus would be to have the fixed ACL and the threeyear average for the spiny lobster, and I believe that Sarah can take that, but I will ask Sarah if you want to have a stronger indication from the council, and then a motion and a vote would do it at this time. SARAH STEPHENSON: I have captured everybody’s rationale for their preferred at this point in time, and I think that’s good enough for today. Thank you very much. MIGUEL ROLON:

Excellent.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Sarah. Thank you very much. Let’s go for a break now, a five-minute break. It’s 3:07, and we will come back. Five-minute break. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MARCOS HANKE: Good afternoon, everyone. It’s 3:09 p.m., and we are ready to start the meeting again. The next item on the agenda is the gear amendment, and the presentation will be done by Maria Lopez. 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

GEAR AMENDMENT TO THE ISLAND-BASED FMPS DEEPWATER SNAPPER GEAR OPTIONS PAPER MARIA LOPEZ: Good afternoon, everybody. This is Maria Lopez with NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Caribbean Branch, and I’m going to be talking to you about an options paper that we submitted for the briefing book that is dealing with the modifications to the buoy gear definition for the harvest of managed reef fish in federal waters. This came from a motion that was presented by the council at the August meeting. This options paper is going to be addressing the buoy gear definition for federal waters in Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John, and so it will be an amendment to each one of those fishery management plans, as the council decided last time. As an overview, in Puerto Rico and the USVI, fishermen harvesting deepwater snappers, and I’m referring to queen and cardinal snappers and other snappers that are in shallower waters, such as silk, blackfin, and vermilion, they have traditionally used a gear type locally known as cala con boya in Puerto Rico and as deepdrop buoy gear in the U.S. Virgin Islands. For example, this is a preferred gear type on the west coast of Puerto Rico to fish for deepwater snapper, and it’s a gear that is used to fish between 100 and 250 fathoms. In Puerto Rico, there could be up to approximately 200 fishers using this gear type, commercial fishers, and, in the USVI, I do not have that information of how many fishers are using this gear, but that will be part of the information that we will be collecting as part of this amendment. Also, this locally-used commercial fishing gear type is very similar to the buoy gear defined in federal regulations. As they apply to Caribbean fisheries that I just described, it differs in the number of hooks that are allowed to be used with the gear, and this is a discussion that the council had during the August 2020 meeting, where the similarities and the differences between the definition for buoy gear that is included in the federal regulations were compared to how that gear is used locally in both Puerto Rico and the USVI. During that meeting, it was discussed with the council that the use of any gear not listed as authorized for the fishery is prohibited by federal regulations. Therefore, this gear type, as currently used, cannot be used by fishermen participating in the 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

commercial reef fish fishery until it is added as an allowable gear type under the island-based FMPs or until the definition of buoy gear is revised, and so this is what we are here for right now. At the 170th Caribbean Council meeting, and this was in August, the council requested staff to begin work on amending the island-based FMPs to allow for the use of that specific hook-and-line gear. The council also tasked us to consider in the amendment whether gill and trammel nets, or any other applicable gear should be included as authorized gear types when fishing for certain species managed under each of the FMPs, and this was particularly due to species that were recently added, for example some of the pelagic species. Since then, NMFS and council staff met and agreed to request the council to look at these two items separately, to speed up the process, so that the buoy gear issue can be addressed promptly, and so staff prepared a draft options paper for your consideration that addresses only the buoy gear definition at this time. If the council agrees, we will discuss and move forward, and, when I say move forward, we will be creating an interdisciplinary planning team, which is composed of NMFS and council staff from diverse fields that are responsible for drafting the amendments, and then the IPT will draft an amendment that could be -- If the IPT agrees, it could be brought to the April meeting. This options paper, how I’m going to be presenting it here is only going to address that buoy gear definition, and then, in a separate amendment in the near future, that staff can start working with immediately, other gear types will be addressed. Just to provide an overview of what are the authorized gears for the reef fish fishery, and this is something that was discussed at the August council meeting by Jocelyn D’Ambrosio from General Counsel, and this is included in the island-based FMPs, and it’s the same for the three plans. For the reef fish fishery, the recreational fishery, the gear types that are included as allowed types are dip net, handline, rod-and-reel, slurp gun, spear, and trap and pot. The definitions for some of this are included in the federal regulations, and we would be happy to provide those definitions, if you would like to, later on. For the commercial fishery, the commercial longline and hook-andline fishery particularly, there are two types of gears that are included, the longline and the hook-and-line. This amendment would only deal with the commercial longline hook-and-line fishery, 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

those gear types that are included within, and so, under the hook and line component of the gear type, there are automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, and rod-and-reel. This amendment would modify the definition of buoy gear that is included under that fishery, and so this action would pertain only to the commercial sector, because, as you can see from this table, the buoy gear is an allowed gear for that sector only and not for the recreational sector. The definition for buoy gear is going to be in the next slide. However, managed reef fish, what we’re referring to as managed reef fish, are included in Appendix A of each one of the islandbased FMPs, and it includes all deepwater snappers that are included within each plan. At the end of this presentation, I have included slides that list which ones of those species are in each one of the plans. This is the definition of buoy gear that is included in our federal regulations, and I am not going to read the whole thing, because this is something that was already discussed during the last council meeting, and, based on testimony from council members and participants, it was determined that the only difference between the buoy gear that is listed in the regulations and the locallyused buoy gear is in the number of hooks. The buoy gear defined in the federal regulations, at 50 CFR Part 622, cannot contain more than ten hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end, while the local deepwater reef fish buoy gear typically can contain up to twenty-five hooks, and that varies by island, connected between the buoy and the terminal end. Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, this gear type cannot be used by fishermen participating in the commercial reef fish fishery until it is added as an allowable gear type under the island-based FMPs or until that definition of buoy gear is revised. This is a comparison of the buoy gear in the federal regulations versus local deepwater buoy gear, and, in the left column, you can see all of the items that are included in that definition and then what is in the regulations versus what it is used in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The particularities of each one of the islands is something that, when we do the amendment and we describe these fisheries, we will include that information in there. However, from the discussion from the August council meeting, the number of hooks that were -- The differences that I just listed, 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Puerto Rico traditionally uses between fifteen and twenty-five hooks. My understanding is that the configuration that is set up to use more hooks is usually used to fish for, for example, queen snapper or some of the deeper-water snappers. From some of the testimony that we heard last time, the fishers were saying that it was not practical to use more hooks, due to the depth, and these are fisheries that are conducted with high currents, and so there is a very specific way that the setups are done, depending on the currents in the areas. In terms of the weight on the terminal end, the federal regulations say that you cannot have more than ten pounds. In Puerto Rico and the USVI, fishers mentioned that they usually use between eight and ten pounds, and some of the fishers may use variations of less than that, but, typically, it’s ten pounds. In terms of the dropline construction, it needs to be rope or monofilament, but it must not be cable or wire, and, in Puerto Rico and the USVI, it’s a similar construction, using usually monofilament. The length of the dropline cannot be greater than two-times the depth of the water being fished, and this is something that is similar for both Puerto Rico and the USVI. Hook placement, all hooks must be attached the dropline no more than thirty feet from the weighted terminal end, and, in both of the islands, this is similar, within the range. Some of the comments were that, if there was too much space in between the hooks, it became not effective fishing. The hook connection to the dropline, hooks may be attached directly to the dropline or attached as snoods, and there is some text in there about the definition of each one of them, where each snood has a single terminal hook, or as gangions, where each gangion has a single terminal hook. Based on testimony from the council and fishers, it’s similar. Lastly, the gear connection, it cannot be connected to other gear or to the vessel, and fishers and council members indicated that this was similar. The gear is designed to be released in the water and detached from the boat. I took this from the Caribbean Council after-the-meeting documents, and this was presented during the August meeting, and this is a representation of the local buoy gear used in Puerto Rico from Edwin Font, and I added the source here to the right, if you would like to look at it and a description that was provided by Mr. Font during the August council meeting, and you can go to that website. 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

With that overview, we have done a draft purpose and need. This is a draft purpose and need, because, obviously, it still needs input from the interdisciplinary planning team that will be working on the amendment, if we are going to move forward. However, we wanted to put this in here to provide an idea of what the amendment will address. The potential purposes is to modify the definition of buoy gear as it applies to the commercial sector of the longline and hook-andline fishery for managed reef fish in each of the island-based FMPs to allow for the use of a specific buoy gear type traditionally used in the U.S. Caribbean to fish for deepwater fish, snappers. What is the need? The need is to ensure that commercial fishermen can use the gear traditionally used to harvest deepwater reef fish in the U.S. Caribbean. Basically, what this amendment will do is redefine that gear so that it can be used the way that it’s configured as of now. Here are two potential options, and these are just options, and these can change, obviously, based on input from the council, and so the first option is what we traditionally include in amendments, and it’s the no action, and the no action is what is the current situation, and what is out there without doing anything else, and so the no action would be that the current gear types that are authorized under the commercial longline hook-and-line fishery for managed reef fish in the FMP, which are automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, and rod-and-reel, would remain as specified in 50 CFR Part 622, which is the federal regulations. The current definition of buoy gear would be retained. The next two bullets is describing what this means if you take no action. It means that no changes would be made to the list of allowable gear types or how they are defined under the commercial hook-and-line fishery for managed reef fish, and that gear type that is currently used in Puerto Rico and the USVI to fish for deepwater reef fish would continue to not be allowed in federal waters to harvest managed reef fish. Then fishermen will need to make arrangements to fish under the current definition, which would require them to reduce the number of hooks used to ten, and so this is what is the current situation if nothing else is done. Then, to address this, as we discussed during the past August meeting, the council is interested in allowing the buoy gear to be 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

part of the managed reef fish fishery, and Option 2 would be to modify the definition of buoy gear as it applies to the longline and hook-and-line fishery for managed reef fish, to allow the use of up to twenty-five hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. This option, what it would do is to modify the definition for the fishery so that it can include that configuration of the traditionally-used buoy gear type from Puerto Rico and the USVI. It will not change the list of allowable gear types, but it will just change that definition, and that last item that I added in there, in the future, if a federal permit is desired, the buoy gear for managed Caribbean reef fish could be redefined to be specific to deepwater snappers, and this is not done at this time, because we don’t have a federal permit, but this is something that, if the council in the future would like to look at, and it has been discussed in the past, then we can have a specific definition for that. Then there could be an Option 3, if needed, and it could include a different number of hooks for evaluation purposes, but this is something that, once the IPT meets and starts developing the amendment, then it could be included then or not, but the bottom line is that the council requested the use of up to twenty-five hooks by motion, and this is included in these options. The next steps will be for the council to decide if they want to move forward with this action, as described in this presentation, and so the way that we are envisioning this is to be a very short one-action amendment that the team could put together so that it’s ready so that, by the time the island-based FMPs are implemented, this amendment is very well advanced in its development, so it can be put into place quickly, just kind of like the spiny lobster amendment, where, even before the island-based FMPs are effective, the teams are already working with it, so that it can be put in place as soon as possible. If the council decides to move forward, then, as I mentioned earlier, an IPT will be formed to draft the amendment, and, if the IPT agrees, and, obviously, it will depend on timing considerations and workload, but that draft amendment could be presented for council consideration at the spring 2021 meeting, and so this would be an amendment to the three island-based FMPs, and, obviously, each one of the island-based FMPs operates independently. If there is something that any of the different islands would like to consider, would like to choose differently, we will, obviously, put that in the amendment. This is the last slide, and, if anybody 46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

has any questions, I will take them now. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Maria. That was a great presentation, and thank you for hearing what the fishermen, especially Pauco and others, brought to the table. Are there questions from the group? I have, after everybody finishes, a few things to say. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, I have one, before we go into the full discussion, for Maria. Just for the record, Maria, this has to be an amendment to the three island-based FMPs, or could it be an amendment to the present regulations that we have defined for the gear that are allowed? MARIA LOPEZ: I believe that we discussed some of that last time, and the advantages of doing it right now is we just get it done through the island-based FMPs. I think, if it would have been the difference in time between what we have right now and when the island-based FMPs would be implemented, it would make more sense, but remember that this is not something that will happen in one month. We still have to go through the regular amendment process, and that takes some time, and so, by the time that this would be ready, and this is why we’re trying to start it as soon as possible, it’s very possible that the island-based FMPs are already going to be effective, and so it will be better, in my opinion, just to go ahead and do this for the island-based FMPs. MIGUEL ROLON: Maria, would you need a motion indicating that the council wishes at this meeting, or would you like for the IPT to work on it? MARIA LOPEZ: I don’t think so. I think the council already had a motion saying that they wanted to develop an amendment to address this. The only difference in here is that staff agreed to separate this into two amendments, just because this is a situation that should be addressed as soon as possible, and having an amendment with several actions could take, possibly, longer, and so that would be the other thing. Addressing the other gears is still in the works, and that’s something that we have talked about before, to bring something during the spring council meeting, and so it will still happen, but it’s just not -- We would prefer if we can just kind of do this short amendment right now, while we, in the background, continue working on the other part, because that’s going to need a little bit more digging into, the historical use of gears, for examples. 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, what Maria is saying is very important, in terms of the timeframe that we have for 2021, because remember this amendment has to be prepared and submitted to the council. Once you agree that this is what you want, then it goes to public hearings, and you come back from public hearings, and then you have another meeting, and there you will finalize the whole process, and so we are talking about, if you agree with what Maria is proposing, we will have this amendment and present it to the council at the April meeting, and they will go to public hearings after that meeting. Then, maybe at the August meeting, we will be able to have a final decision for implementation. MARCOS HANKE: I am so happy to see this presentation and to see this possibility coming up finally. Thank you, Maria. I would like to hear from the council members if they are all in agreement with the pathway that Maria just described to us. Go ahead, Carlos. CARLOS FARCHETTE: I went out, and I spoke to a few of the deepdrop fishermen here on St. Croix, and they do agree that they want to change the part -- To amend the part about the ten hooks to the maximum twenty-two or twenty-five, and most of them are twentytwo over here on St. Croix. However, a big issue with the fishermen here that I interviewed is regarding having the first hook thirty feet from the terminal weighted end, and one of them used me as an example, and he said go over there and stand thirty feet away from me, and, when I did that, he said, okay, now pretend that I am holding a plate of fried fish and rice and beans and now eat. I started to laugh, because there’s no way that I could reach that, and he said that they fish a maximum of three feet from the terminal end, where the first hook starts, and, if you fish at thirty feet from the terminal end, what you really are going to be catching are sharks and swordfish. You’ve got to remember that vermilion and silk are caught in around 400 feet of water, while queen snapper is caught anywhere from 800 down to 1,800 feet. He fishes mostly at around 1,200 or 1,400 feet of water, and he said that the fish will not go all the way up to thirty feet just to grab a bait, and so I don’t know if an amendment can be done to that terminal end description of the first hook and the terminal end, to include that in the amendment. MARCOS HANKE: Carlos, Maria wants to talk to this part. and then Nelson. 48

Maria

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

MARIA LOPEZ: Carlos, I’m sorry, and I think that must be a misinterpretation of what it says, and I apologize if, when you and I talked, that’s how it was understood. The regulations just say that all hooks must be attached to the dropline no more than thirty feet from the weighted terminal end, and it’s not the last hook, and I apologize for that, if it was misinterpreted. It’s not supposed to be like that. It’s as long as all the hooks are within thirty feet from the weighted terminal end. I believe that’s how it’s done, currently, and I don’t know if any of the other fishermen -- Maybe Nelson can corroborate that, because I talked to Nelson yesterday about that, and I believe that’s what you have told me in the past as well, and so we’ll make sure that, in the amendment, that it’s clarified, so that nobody has any confusion about how it’s done. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Maria. right. Nelson.

I’m pretty sure that you are

NELSON CRESPO: Maria, you are correct, and this is about thirty feet from the end of the line to the weight, and this is a good start, but I think we have to take into consideration -- Because the recreational use electric reels for jigging, and sometimes for fishing in deep waters, and we have to be specific when you are going to evaluate the regulations, to be clear that this is going to be a commercial fishing gear. I don’t know how you’re going to address that, but it’s only to make it clear for the consideration of the recreational use of the electric fishing gears, too. MARCOS HANKE:

Nelson, we lost you.

NELSON CRESPO: I’ve got an internet problem here, but the recreational use electric reels, and they use it for deep waters too, and so I don’t know how you are going to address that issue. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and may I, because I work with recreational fishermen, and I have been involved in this discussion for a long time, and I totally agree with Nelson that this should be a commercial fishing gear, because they have other ways to fish recreationally, but not with a buoy gear, and that’s a commercial fishing gear. Maria, you asked for a turn to speak? MARIA LOPEZ: Thank you, Nelson and Marcos, for that comment. I think I mentioned that in the beginning, but the buoy gear is an allowed gear only for commercial, under federal regulations, and my understanding is that, in territorial regulations from Puerto Rico and the USVI, this is not a gear that is allowed for 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

recreational use either, and so that is why the scope of this amendment is only dealing with the commercial sector, because, in the regulations, it’s not listed as an allowed gear, and so any changes that we do for this gear will be applicable only to whatever is allowed, and that’s only for the commercial. Now, if there is any possibility of confusion between this gear and other gears that are being used, that’s something that we can definitely talk about, and we will have an enforcement component in the IPT that should be able to provide more information about how to deal with this. Does that kind of answer the question or add a little bit to the comment? MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I think it was very clear on your statement. Thank you, Maria. Vanessa. VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Marcos. Thank you, Maria, for the presentation. I think that this option that you presented, Option 2, practically involves all the efforts that Pauco has been making for all these years. I remember that the first time that I heard about the problem that he had was in 2016, and so I have to say that we should move on this, and, also, thanks to Pauco, because not many fishermen come up to here to present the problems and make things change, and so thank you, Maria, and I hope that this can be solved soon. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE:

Tony, go ahead.

TONY BLANCHARD: I think we should -- I agree with Vanessa, and we should move forward with Alternative 2, Option 2, because this gear is already being used, and I don’t really see why, if it is already being used, why we just can’t adopt it. I think we should move forward with the amendment. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Tony. Thank you very much. know if Pauco is on the line. Pauco, are you there? GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MIGUEL ROLON:

I don’t

He is on the line.

He has to unmute his mic.

EDWIN FONT: I have only one question, and, if it’s possible, I want the answer in Spanish. (The rest of Mr. Font’s comments were in Spanish and not transcribed.) MARIA LOPEZ: transcribed.)

(Ms.

Lopez’s

response

was

Spanish

and

not

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

MIGUEL ROLON: transcribed.)

(Mr. Rolon’s comment were in Spanish and not

MARCOS HANKE: We finally are doing something officially, a remedy or something, and we have a good rationale behind it, with the input from the fishermen, to make it work, which was the historical request from them, and we are on the right track, Pauco. Maria, was there somebody else? MIGUEL ROLON:

Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Miguel, but, practically, what I wanted to say, you already said it in Spanish for Pauco, and so thanks for that. It was just clarifying to him about the situation that, right now, we are in the process, but he’s not available to fish in federal waters, not yet. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE:

Maria.

MARIA LOPEZ: If you want to use the gear in federal waters, you can always use ten hooks, because that’s pretty much the difference in the definition. However, as everybody said, we’re working on that. The other thing is that this second part of the amendment, where we’re going to be looking at the gears, it’s very important, because one of the exercises that our team is going to be doing is actually looking at that historical use of the gears, the current use of the gears, to make sure that something like this doesn’t happen, and so we want to make sure that the fisheries are defined the way that they are really conducted in the Caribbean, and so just bear with us for a little bit, and have a little patience, and we will be contacting you to get some information, because you are the persons that are using this gear, and have used this gear traditionally, and you are the best persons to tell us what to include and what to address and how this should go. I’m going to say it in Spanish for Pauco. (The rest of Ms. Lopez’s comments were in Spanish and not transcribed.) MARCOS HANKE: Gracias, Maria. Thank you to everybody. We are a little behind schedule. Maria, do you need anything else from us, or we are okay? MARIA LOPEZ: I believe that all council members agree that we move forward with this amendment as presented in here, and then I don’t need anything else, but you let me know. MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, I think you can proceed, and I think it’s very 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

clear.

Graciela.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: One thing that we need to talk about, in the very near future, is the lack of information that we have regarding the way that most of the gears are fished, because there has not been an update to the 1980s or early 1990s description of the fishing gears, and so that is something that needs to be done as soon as possible for each of the three islands. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Maria, I just want to make a comment, following-up on what you requested from us, bringing the discussion of the other gears for the spring meeting, on the follow-up meetings, that is appropriate, and I’m sure that the council has interest in keep discussing and revising and discussing the rest of the gears after this amendment, specifically for the deepwater snapper. We are all set with this presentation, and thank you, Maria. MIGUEL ROLON: Before you leave this, maybe make this very clear for the record. What Maria is saying is that we will go ahead with this proposal and finish it, and that will be in the spring. Then, following that, we will go into the other gears, and that’s where Graciela’s comment -- She mentioned that we need to update, and we will proceed to do that, but, at this time, there is only one thing that the council is going to do, and that’s to add fifteen more hooks to the line that is allowed to be used by commercial fishermen in the EEZ. MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Let’s keep going. The next item on the agenda is Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Technical Advisory Panel Report. MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, Orian Tzadik is going to give that presentation on behalf of Sennai Habtes, because Dr. Habtes is now finishing his semester at the university. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: summary report, right?

Orian, this is just going to be a brief

ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL REPORT ORIAN TZADIK: Yes. I don’t actually have a presentation. As Graciela just said, this is going to be a very quick summary, and so good afternoon, everyone. My name is Orian Tzadik, and I’m presenting today, as Miguel just said, on behalf of the EBFM TAP Chair, Sennai Habtes, who is unable to attend this meeting right now. 52

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

I just wanted to start off by talking a little bit about the Technical Advisory Panel activities recently. As you have seen through the presentations from both the DAPs and the SSC, the EBFM TAP is interested in the ecosystem models, the conceptual models, that are being put together by these different stakeholder groups. The process has started with the SSC and the DAPs, and the SSC, as Richard presented earlier, is almost finished, and they are planning to finish at their next meeting in early February, and the DAPs have done their part to complete their ecosystem conceptual models at this point. What’s left to do is the analysis of those models, and that’s going to be a lot longer. There is a meeting scheduled that is a joint SSC and EBFM TAP meeting that’s going take place from February 3 to February 5, and, at that meeting, we’re going to be listening to several other researchers in the region that are doing ecosystem work as well, and so we’ll be getting updates. The first of those updates will come from Miguel Figuerola, but we’ll also be hearing from Mandy Karnauskas and Kelly Montenero, who are completing the ecosystem status report for the U.S. Caribbean, and we’ll also hear from J.J. Cruz-Motta, who will update us on the Lenfest work and the SEAMAP work, and this will be in an effort to try and bring all the different stakeholder groups to the table, and, like I said, we’ve started with the SSC and the DAP, and then the TAP will be hearing from these different scientist groups, and we will also be interested to hear of any other groups that are working on ecosystem work in the region. Once all of that is completed, we’re also going to reach out to several other stakeholder groups, and I will mention that in just a minute, and so, at that meeting in early February, Miguel Figuerola will be presenting his work on the Puerto Rico CRIMP dataset that he has analyzed, and the EBFM TAP and the SSC together will discuss whether that information and those analyses can be brought into the ecosystem conceptual modeling, and, more importantly, potentially to the FEP. As I understand it, Miguel is also organizing mesophotic data, and he’s been working, I believe, with DPNR to collect Virgin Islands information as well. After we hear from the scientists working in the region on ecosystem work, we are also going to solicit other conceptual models, ecosystem conceptual models, from several different stakeholder groups. Those stakeholder groups are going to include coastal businesses, fishermen who are outside of the DAPs, environmental NGOs, and 53

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

academics, and, for all four of those groups, we will solicit ecosystem models on each of the three islands, and we will be getting groups together to do the same kind of conceptual modeling exercises that the DAPs and the SSC both did. We hope, by doing all of this and including all these different stakeholder groups, that we’re going to be advocating an inclusive approach, and we’ll be able to have all these different viewpoints represented in the eventual fishery ecosystem plan. The last thing that I want to present to this group today is to do with a project that is specific to the EBFM TAP and the FEP, and it’s going to be headed up by Liajay Rivera of the council staff, and that is going to include cataloging all the different marine managed areas outside of the council purview, and so, for example, finding details of all the other areas under management in different jurisdictions, jurisdictions such as the Coast Guard or the Department of the Interior or things like that. We’re going to try and find those -- Or Liajay is going to try and find those management plans, put them all together, and create some sort of reference, so that we’re dealing with the entire ecosystem efforts that are under different jurisdictions. That was the update that I had for everybody today, and I’m sorry that I don’t have a presentation, but I will be happy to answer questions the best I can. Otherwise, I would encourage everybody -- We should have more for you early in the meetings next year. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Orian. Thank you for the update. We have space for two questions, to keep on the schedule. Are there any questions? Hearing none, thank you, Orian. We will keep moving. The next presentation is the St. Croix Territory/Federal Compatible Fishing Regulations and Carlos Farchette. ST. CROIX TERRITORY/FEDERAL COMPATIBLE FISHING REGULATIONS CARLOS FARCHETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Natalia, and I will have you switch over the slides for me. I think it’s easier for me to do that. All right. I know, a couple of meetings ago, I spoke about starting the discussion on compatible regulations for the St. Croix Island-Based Fishery Management Plan. Some of the topics that I wanted to address, and I know there’s a lot, and, before I go any further, I want to again reiterate all the help that Maria and Sarah have been giving me, and it’s worth repeating every time. They’ve done an excellent job of the table 54

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

that they worked on for me, and, for that, I thank them very much. Some of the topics that I want to talk about is gear, fish, and spiny lobster. We had a meeting, not too long ago, a virtual meeting, with Maria and Sarah and Nicole Angeli, the Director of Fish and Wildlife, and Madeline, who is a new employee, and I’m sure that, maybe tomorrow, or today, Nicole will introduce her and let you all know what her role is going to be in the division, and it has to do with either policy coordinating or policy, one of those things. When it comes to the impact -- When we start to discuss compatible regulations, there is going to be some kind of impact to the fishermen, and a simple one that I can come up with is, right now, if we overrun an ACL, that particular species that has been overrun is closed for whatever duration of time is going to be required for it to recover, but it will not affect territorial waters. Take, for example, what happened years ago with spiny lobster. It ended up being overrun on St. Croix, but the overrun was only ten days, and the overrun only affected Lang Bank on St. Croix, because that’s the only area, federally, that you can dive for lobster on St. Croix. Things like that is going to impact the fishermen. Also, the species. I think lane -- I would have to look in the handbook, but lane and some other species that are closed for a certain amount of time in federal waters is still open on St. Croix, because the depth of water that they fish for them falls within the territorial limits. Then we have the significance of the difference with federal regulations, and there is a lot of language that needs to be addressed on both sides of the aisle, when it come to the fishermen’s handbook for the territory and also for the federal side, and I don’t want to take up too much time, but we’re going to be discussing this a little later on again. Also, the type of policy change that’s going to be needed, whether or not it’s something that can be easily signed-off on by Commissioner Oriol or whether or not it’s something in there that has to go through the legislature for approval. Here are some of the examples here. Fish trap construction and mesh size, when it comes to the mesh size of fish traps, in St. Croix, it says that -- The regulations booklet states that all traps must have a minimum of 1.5 hexagonal mesh as the smallest mesh on two sides of the fish trap, but it also states that all 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

fish traps and mesh size of at least two inches square or a hex two inches between opposite sides of the hexagon is the smallest mesh size, and so, in the federal side, it explains it a little differently. We have a document here signed by Governor de Jongh where it explains about all traps would meet -- In 2000, all traps would meet the two-inch minimum size, but, if you measure a hexagonal inch-and-a-half wire at its widest point, it’s like two-and-asixteenth of an inch, and so, although it meets the criteria, I think the wording is where the issue is. Also, when it comes to buoy markings and trap lines. In federal waters, if you have a string of traps, you need two buoys, one at the front and one at the end. While in territorial waters, you’re only required to have one buoy, and that’s also language stuff that we can probably take a look at and change. The escape panels, I think we need a little clarity on the design of the panels. I know, in federal waters, it’s eight-inch-byeight-inch, and I believe it’s also in territorial waters. I lost the -- I hope I didn’t lose everybody, but I lost the screen. MARCOS HANKE:

I can hear you, Carlos, but I don’t see the screen.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. Well, anyway, I’m going to continue, because this is going to take a lot more discussion than today, and it’s going to take quite a few years to bring this all to fruition. MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: We also have the issue with the spiny lobster tail weight, where, in the Virgin Islands, there’s a six-ounce minimum, but, in federal waters, it’s 5.926 ounces, and that’s also a language -- Something in the language that can be fixed pretty easily, and I don’t think anybody would have an issue with coming down to whatever point, but we also have issues with using spiny lobsters as attractants. I don’t think the federal -- The CFR does not talk about spiny lobster juveniles or being used as a attractants in the fish traps. However, in the territorial waters, they’re allowed to be retained in a fish trap as an attractant, and that’s something that we need to take a look at. Size limit, when it comes to fish, yellowtail snapper. I’ve been speaking to quite a bit of fishermen, and they do agree that a 56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

twelve-inch snapper is not an issue that they would have a problem with adjusting, because most of their yellowtails are way past the twelve-inch minimum size, since it’s tail length and not fork length. MIGUEL ROLON: Carlos, we are back on the screen. Natalia lost her connection, but Liajay is switching over. Can you see the screen? CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes, you’re on the screen.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. Just tell Liajay to go ahead for the next slides. Sorry for that. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. On the parrotfish, I know that we agreed in federal waters that the redband would have a minimum size of eight inches, and all other parrotfish would be nine inches, and the fishermen also agree that they don’t have a problem with that either, and so I think that that would be an easy fix, when it comes to compatibility. The prohibited species, the midnight, blue, and rainbow, we agreed, at a council meeting, to prohibit the harvest of those species. However, at that time, and I don’t even remember who the commissioner was at the time, but we did not approve that for territorial waters, and that’s also an easy fix. I think everybody is in agreement that those three species should be protected. I did speak about the spiny lobster and the tail weight and the egg-bearing or undersized being used as attractants, and I’m not sure how much of that would be accepted in federal waters, but we will work on that. Then, for the recreational bag limit for spiny lobster, we don’t have that yet, but we’re working on a recreational license program which would address bag limits of species. That might be it. It seems like that’s it. Anyhow, I would like to know if the council wishes to move forward with discussing compatibility on the regulations, and I know that in the handbook, there are things like, on the territorial size, the use of hookah gear is prohibited to harvest fishery resources. However, on the federal side -- They don’t call it hookah gear, and they call it continuous air supply from the surface, which is a hookah gear, and so maybe those wordings can be addressed somehow, but it’s only -- In the federal waters, it’s only for queen conch that they’re prohibited to use a hookah, and I think that all species should be prohibited from being caught with a hookah, hookah gear. 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

I have a couple of things here that I marked off. We also discussed, and I was looking everywhere in that table that Maria and Sarah developed for me, when it came to coral, and, in the handbook -- In the CFR, it protects coral. However, on the territorial side, I did not see anything referencing coral, but, in the VI Code, it’s referenced in the Coastal Zone Management Act, where Title 12, Section 906 states that, to this end, sand, rock, mineral, marine growth, and coral, including black coral, natural material, or other natural products of the sea, excepting fish and wildlife, shall not be taken from the shorelines without first obtaining a coastal zone permit. That really doesn’t clarify much, because that says “shoreline”, and so that’s something that washed up, and I think, at one time, it said dead or alive, but I don’t see that language in there anymore. Things like that are what we need to work on, and I would be happy to send this out, but I think that the very important people that need to be making these decisions is Director Angeli and the council staff. I think they need to meet and discuss all these issues, to see how we can start the discussion. I also think that, eventually, when everything is said and done, the district advisory panels need to meet and see what they think about what has been proposed, and this is -- I know I’m talking about the St. Croix land-based plan, but Puerto Rico or St. Thomas can also jump on this at the same time, or wait until we finish ours and see what happens, and I’m not sure, but that’s all I have, Mr. Chair. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Carlos. We need to move along a little quicker, and I need to hear from -- Go ahead, Miguel. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, just let Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John think about this and come back to us at some other time, if they want to, and I believe this is a lot of work, like Carlos says, and our proposal is for us, Graciela and I, to meet with Carlos and Dr. Angeli at the beginning of 2021 and see what is needed to be done, because there’s a lot. Remember that some of these things will require amendments to the law in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and others would require maybe -I don’t know, and we would have to see, but maybe amendments to the island-based FMPs, because remember that all of this is predicted on the implementation of the island-based FMPs, and they have been approved, and we’re just waiting for the implementation that should occur in 2021. 58

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Then, if Puerto Rico or St. Thomas would like to -- If St. Thomas/St. John would like to start considering this, they can let us know right now, or later, via an email, because, again, Dr. Angeli will be representing both St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix, from the point of view of the government, and then we -- If somebody from St. Thomas would like to do the same thing that Carlos is doing, for example Tony, the council member, we can go ahead and have that committee. When it comes to Puerto Rico, we need to hear from Damaris if they would like to do such a thing, and then we can have let’s say three stages. The first one will be St. Croix, followed by St. Thomas/St. John, and then Puerto Rico. They could be one after the other or parallel to each other, because remember that all of this is a lot of work underneath that we need to do, the staff, and, also, we need to consult with the Regional Office on the different aspects of this. For example, if we are going to talk about a permit, there are some requirements about a permit, et cetera, et cetera, and so, in essence, our proposal, Mr. Chairman, is to -- The top priority is to continue the work with Dr. Angeli and Carlos in St. Croix, and then, from here, let’s hear from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands if they would like to follow suit on this one at this time or later, or if they prefer to wait and see what happens with St. Croix. MARCOS HANKE: That was my question to Puerto Rico and to St. Thomas/St. John, if they want to pursue this now or they want to do it later. JULIAN MAGRAS: I think -- You know, it’s something that we’ve been discussing for a few years, and it’s good to start discussion. The only problem, in St. Thomas/St. John, is we don’t have a working fishery advisory committee, as St. Croix does. If we can get a fishery advisory committee up and running, that’s one of the items that I would like to see, is to start the discussion with that committee, because you need that full involvement from that committee, which represents the territorial sector. Of course, then we can have the discussions with Maria Lopez and Sarah Stephenson for the federal side and move forward from there, and we are very interested, but, until we can get that committee up and running, I think our hands are tied. Through members of the Fishermen’s Association, we have had a lot of discussions about it, and I’ve had discussions with Mr. Blanchard, and we have some ideas and stuff that we would like to 59

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

very quickly move forward, similar to what Carlos Farchette said, and so we are interested, and, if we can get the FAC up and running, and maybe some members from the DAP and some members from the Fishermen’s Association are open to sit down and have some discussions, and so that’s where I stand with moving forward with this project. MARCOS HANKE: ahead.

Thank you, Julian.

From Puerto Rico?

Tony, go

TONY BLANCHARD: I have to agree with Mr. Magras. I think the FAC should be up and running, seeing that they are the local fishery advisory committee, for their input and not just up to the Director of Fish and Wildlife and maybe a handful of other people. I think the job is to come up with ways of managing the territorial waters, and I don’t really believe that, in my opinion, that the territory should necessarily fall 100 percent compatible with the federal regulations. I think somewhere in between there it has to be on, a case-by-case decision that needs to be made. The reason is just like anything else. If you look at the federal laws in the states, and the state laws, they are separate for certain reasons, and I think it should be kept the same way, and I think decisions need to be made, which some should be compatible and others should not. Once again, I think the FAC needs to be up and running for their input, as well as the DAPs. MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos.

MARCOS HANKE: schedule.

Go ahead, Miguel.

We are a little late on the

MIGUEL ROLON: Yes, I know, but I wanted just to finish this part. I believe that the council can go ahead and start working with St. Croix first, and then, following Julian’s and Tony’s intervention, we should wait until they have the FAC first meetings, and then we can put together -- We can help put together a meeting, first meeting, with St. Thomas/St. John to discuss this, and then, from the point of view of the council, Tony as the Vice Chair, and Julian as Chairman of the DAP, can join in with the staff of the division and the staff of the council, but we should wait until that time. Then Puerto Rico, if Damaris would like to do the same thing, we need to hear from her when and all that. In the case of Puerto Rico, we are waiting for the new government to be in place, and that will happen in January of 2021, and so, until that time, probably we need to wait a little bit, but maybe Damaris has an 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

idea of how to proceed. MARCOS HANKE: Miguel.

I think she is having problems with communication,

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Damaris, are you with us?

Marcos, could I have a turn, please?

Go ahead, Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: I was making the comment that, if Damaris doesn’t talk, I just wanted to put on the record that already in Puerto Rico the commercial fishermen have been asking for the lobster -For example, that it’s three in federal and 3.5 in state waters, and so those are already -MIGUEL ROLON: Vanessa, before you continue, spiny lobster is the only one that is the same across the jurisdictions, and so the spiny lobster is 3.5 everywhere. VANESSA RAMIREZ: I think that Damaris will be bringing something to the next meeting. MIGUEL ROLON: Exactly, and so that’s -- Following Vanessa’s intervention, Marcos, and because of the time, probably we can go ahead and move forward with the St. Croix proposal and wait until the FAC meets in St. Thomas, and then we will talk to Damaris in the first quarter of 2021, to see how it goes, and I believe that, the same that we have done in the Virgin Islands, Vanessa could be a member of that committee that is going to be formed, if ever, to have compatible regulations. Puerto Rico fishers have been asking for compatible regulations for a long time, and we have talked and talked about it, but nothing has happened. For example, if you go to Bajo de Sico and Tourmaline, you have two areas where the local government and the federal government have regulations, and you can put a boat there, and the frontend of the boat will be in one regulation and the back of the boat will be in another set of regulations. Let’s see what happens next year, but this is something that should be a priority in the council’s schedule for 2021. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. We are ready for the next presentation. Graciela, can you put up on the screen the presentation? The presentation is a project made by the students of Humacao, in collaboration with many collaborators and scientists and those students are students from the University of Humacao, UPR Humacao. 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

I’m glad to present two of the presenters, and that will be Kiara Torres and Paola Sotomayor, and Kiara is going to start the presentation, and Paola is going to follow-up. We also want to acknowledge that this presentation was prepared by Eva Collazo and Gabriela Hernandez, two other students that collaborated very much on this project, but they couldn’t be available to present or to be on the meeting at this time. Let’s start with Kiara. Go ahead, Kiara. UNIVERSITY OF HUMACAO PRESENTATION KIARA TORRES: (Ms. Torres’ presentation was in Spanish and was not transcribed.) PAOLA SOTOMAYOR: (Ms. Sotomayor’s presentation was in Spanish and was not transcribed.) MARCOS HANKE:

We are ready for the next item on the agenda.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: You have Jocelyn D’Ambrosio with the Update on the Queen Conch Rebuilding Plan. MARCOS HANKE:

Jocelyn.

UPDATE ON THE QUEEN CONCH REBUILDING PLAN JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you. I’m just going to give a brief update, and I will actually start with the process that’s going on with queen conch and the Endangered Species Act. We’ve talked about this before, and, in 2014, the agency had made a determination not to list queen conch under the Endangered Species Act. The agency then petitioned to list queen conch and made that determination following the status review, and that decision was challenged, and, last year, a District Court vacated NMFS’ decision, and so they remanded that to the agency to reconsider, and so, in light of that ruling, NMFS has been reevaluating the status of queen conch, and again is going to make a determination about whether or not to list the species under the Endangered Species Act. Within the U.S. Caribbean, queen conch had been under a rebuilding plan, and that was a fifteen-year rebuilding plan that the council put in place, and that time period is ending this year, and so the agency also will begin the process to evaluate whether queen conch is rebuilt, and it was in a rebuilding plan because it had been determined to be overfished, and so that would be another 62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

evaluation of the stock status, but within the U.S. Caribbean, and so the agency is going to be looking into that and making sure that those processes are working together, to make sure that we’re sharing information among the different prongs here and evaluating the queen conch status. We don’t really have an update on the status, and this is just about the processes that are ongoing, and we expect to have further updates as we have more information, as the status reviews unfold, and I’m happy to answer any questions that anyone might have about next steps or about these processes. MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Thank you, Jocelyn. If the rebuilding plan is about to expire, and you make a determination that it has not been rebuilt, and so I guess we would go back and extend the rebuilding period? JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: I think that’s right, and so we might need to develop another amendment to just confirm that and make sure that that’s all written up, but, yes, we would probably just extend it, if it wasn’t rebuilt. The regulations, or the guidelines rather, talk about maintaining the fishing rate at the current level, if you determine it’s not rebuilt, and so we would have to evaluate that process, if that was the determination. ROY CRABTREE: What we’re recommending is that we let the status review process work through and let the agency make a decision about listing or not listing. Obviously, if the decision was to list queen conch as endangered or threatened, that would change the whole scenario, but, if the decision is that listing is not warranted, then I think we could come in with queen conch and relook at it to determine whether we ought to switch the status to unknown, which is what most of our stocks are, and then we would just have management in place, or whether we would come in and set up a new rebuilding plan. I don’t know what the answer to that is, and I think, at some point, we’ll want to have a discussion with the Science Center about how we might look at it and reference points and things like that, but it’s hard to really do anything or know how to proceed until we work through the status review and until there’s a decision made about listing. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Okay.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:

Thanks, Roy.

Thanks, Jocelyn.

Marcos, you have Richard asking for a 63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

turn to speak. MARCOS HANKE: Go ahead, Richard. I have a little problem with my audio, and I’m sorry, everyone. Go ahead, Richard. RICHARD APPELDOORN: As everybody knows, the primary data input for the consideration of the status of the conch are the SEAMAP surveys, and these are now -- They have already been delayed for several years, most recently due to COVID, but they are scheduled to occur as soon as health conditions, I guess, allow resumption of those field surveys, both in the Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico, and so we haven’t had a formal survey in something like seven or eight years. There has been, however, interim work done by Ron Hill and his colleagues in St. Croix, and there was a student who did a master’s thesis looking at technologies for doing surveys, but, in the process, did a whole bunch of transects, and both of those showed fairly high conch densities, and so there is some room for optimism about the status, but we will actually be able to confirm where we are once we can get those SEAMAP surveys underway, and so that’s my comment. MARCOS HANKE:

Any other comments?

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: I mean, to continue with Richard’s comments, there is also the data from the mesophotic reefs that actually also show high densities of conch in the mesophotic areas off the west coast of Puerto Rico, an area that has been closed for a number of years, because, really, the only area that is open in the EEZ is the Lang Bank, and so it definitely affects most directly the St. Croix fishers. When we would have information what data are being analyzed and the report that’s been written, Jocelyn? JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Right now, we have a status review team that NMFS has compiled that is evaluating the status of queen conch throughout its range, and I think they’re working on putting together that status review report. I think the expectation is to have that sometime next year, the middle of next year, maybe around May, and so, as we get more information on how that’s proceeding, we can share that, and then, as Roy mentioned, letting that ESA process play out a little bit more, so we understand how that’s going to unfold and then next steps with the status within the U.S. Caribbean, but the short answer is the status review team is evaluating the status, and they are expecting to have a report. 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Then, from there, the agency would move forward with making the determination about listing. We reported earlier that they were soliciting comments for the status review, and that period had ended, but that process is still going forward. ROY CRABTREE: I think the agency could probably update you at future meetings about where all of this stands. Just bear in mind that the status review and the listing decision will be for the entire Caribbean Basin, and so this will include Florida and the Bahamas and all of it, and so the U.S. Caribbean is really just a very small area, when you look at it in terms of the entire Caribbean. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Right, and, to that point, that would mean that, if other countries are decimating the conch population, and they determine that it is going to be listed, even if we’re doing the right thing, we still pay the price, right? ROY CRABTREE: If it’s listed, that will create some issues for you. If it was listed as endangered, which -- It would prohibit all take everywhere. If it was listed as threatened, it wouldn’t necessarily prohibit all take, but I think even a threatened status would be difficult to justify a directed harvest. The ESA regulations, I mean, the U.S. would put in place would affect the Florida fishery and the U.S. Caribbean, and it wouldn’t necessarily affect the other countries, because, really, they’re not under U.S. jurisdiction, but one thing that the U.S. might look at, and could look at, would be a prohibition on the importation of conch as well, and so there are lots of things that could happen, and it’s just got to play through, but, clearly, if the decision was reached to list queen conch, either as threatened or endangered, it will have a big impact on fisheries in U.S. waters. CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

Right.

Okay.

Thanks.

Anybody else?

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: One more question, Roy. There is a hatchery that is being developed in Naguabo as we speak, and, I mean, they are collecting queen conch to have it grown in situ and then to replenish the nearshore habitats, and how would an ESA listing impact a hatchery that is already creating jobs, et cetera? ROY CRABTREE:

Where did you say it was? 65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: of Puerto Rico.

In Naguabo, and it’s on the east coast

ROY CRABTREE: They would have to look at it. It wouldn’t necessarily preclude something like that, particularly a threatened listing For example, many of the coral species, the staghorn and elkhorn coral, there are quite a lot of those in captivity, and we do culture operations and then replant corals and reestablish them, and so this is kind of like that, and so they would potentially have to get permits, under the ESA, but it wouldn’t necessarily preclude it. Generally, with a threatened listing, for some things at least, and I think we did this for some of the corals, it excluded scientific work and takes for research purposes, which might cover a hatchery, and so it’s difficult to say, but it certainly wouldn’t necessarily preclude it. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Thank you. asking for a turn to speak. MARCOS HANKE:

Marcos, you have Vanessa

Vanessa, go ahead.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Marcos. I just wanted to make a comment, and I already texted Graciela about this, but I think this is the time that we should start looking at the consideration of the queen conch, and it’s been, from my experience -- (Part of Ms. Ramirez’s comment is not audible on the recording.) GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: I don’t know if it’s me or everyone else is having a hard time listening to Vanessa. MARCOS HANKE:

We are having a hard time to listen to her.

ALIDA ORTIZ:

I can’t listen to her either.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Let me -- I think I can provide you with some information. She was just saying that she had texted me the fact that there have been incredible landings of queen conch. I think that, after the 2017 hurricane, it took a while for queen conch to, quote, unquote, come back, but they are reporting 500 to 600 pounds daily, and that’s only in Cabo Rojo, in Puerto Real, one of the fishing villages on the west coast. I believe that she was talking about the fact that it’s being found in very shallow waters, in ten to thirty feet of water, and they are actually seeing conch reproducing, and so egg masses have been found in the shallower areas. Let me see. I am reading through 66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

what she sent me. It would be a good time to put divers in the waters, in some kind of cooperative research, to collect the data on what they are actually seeing. I think that I covered pretty much what Vanessa -- Okay. She agrees. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Graciela, and thank you, Vanessa. Anybody else have any comments? Otherwise, we’re going to go to the next item on the agenda, which will be the Public Comment. Let’s go to the public comment, and I think we have Pauco that requested time for public comment. Graciela, do you have the letter that Pauco sent to put on the screen? GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: I think that it’s Liajay that is driving now, and so here is the letter. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD EDWIN FONT: (Mr. Font’s comments were in Spanish and were not transcribed.) MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Pauco.

Nelson Crespo.

NELSON CRESPO: (Mr. Crespo’s comments were in Spanish and were not transcribed.) VANESSA RAMIREZ: Marcos, just for the record, I am also suggesting that, given the importance to Pauco’s letter and continuing with this in the next meeting, checking the necessary things, or checking out letters, and since 2019 he has sent those, and so I think he deserves that we check on that. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE:

Gracias, Vanessa.

Maria.

MARIA LOPEZ: I want to thank Pauco for his presentation and his comments, and we’re very happy to assist you and Nelson, and so we have the information that you provided, and we have letters, both in Spanish and in English, and the information that you have previously presented, and, at this time, if the council would like to request staff to look into this action in some way, they can definitely request that from the staff, and we will be happy to do that. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE: This is what I am hearing from the representatives of Puerto Rico, where Bajo de Sico is, and I agree with them, and I think we should visit and discuss this again. Other members of the council, last words? Hearing none, Maria, you don’t need a 67

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

motion, correct? MARIA LOPEZ: If you have a direction, if the council has a direction, that they would like to take regarding this, I believe a motion would be a good way of doing that. MARCOS HANKE: Can we use Pauco’ request and alternatives for the place, to create a comment?

explore

other

MIGUEL ROLON: I am in the other meeting too, and one ear for one and one for the other, but you need to decide really what you want to do, and this meeting is not the place to do anything. What we should do is to allow the staff, Graciela and Maria, to put this in -- To order this, and then, for the next meeting in April, come with some ideas of what can be done. The thing that he is doing, Puerto Rico has to say something, and Puerto Rico has to work on it, and I have a message from Puerto Rico that Damaris has a problem with connections, but she knows what we want to do, which is ask her for compatible regulation negotiations or meetings, and they will start that next year, but Wilson is going to talk to her, and probably, tomorrow morning, she will say something to that point. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: waiting to speak. MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

Marcos, you have Roy Crabtree also

Roy, go ahead.

ROY CRABTREE: Well, it seems to me that, every time we go into Bajo de Sico, it really is opening a can of worms, and it has been very controversial, on occasions. The most people I have ever seen turn out for public comment at a Caribbean Council meeting was in western Puerto Rico, due to some of these issues, and so I won’t be around, and so it’s up to you guys, but, for what it’s worth, this is not something that I would encourage you to open up or to go into again, but it’s your call. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Roy. Actually, I want to make a question to you. Are you going to be with us tomorrow, on the tomorrow meeting? ROY CRABTREE: I cannot. I have a South Atlantic Council meeting that’s going on at the same time, and so I’m just here with you today, and that’s it, and then I am retiring at the end of the month, and then I expect that the Deputy, Andy Strelcheck, will become the Acting Regional Administrator for a while, and then he’ll have to make new designations and things for the next 68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

meeting. MARCOS HANKE: The reason for my question is to say, again, of my gratitude, and I’m so honored to work with you, and I know that the council expressed to you our gratitude for all the effort and the patience and the knowledge and the support that you gave to the Caribbean region. Thank you very much, Roy. In my opinion, and I know that the council agrees with that, you made a big difference in our region, and thank you very much. ROY CRABTREE:

Thank you, Marcos.

MARCOS HANKE:

In terms of the --

I appreciate those kind words.

MIGUEL ROLON: Would anybody like to say something to Roy, any other council member? I, for one, would like to say, again, that Roy probably has been one of the best, if not the best, Regional Administrators that we’ve had in a long time, and I wish him the best in his new endeavor, and just to let him know that he has some friends here, and so, if you’re ever in Puerto Rico after COVID and want some coffee, let us know. We have some places that we can take you. Thank you, Roy, for all these years. ROY CRABTREE: Thank you, Miguel. Thanks to all of you. You’ve been a great group, and I’ve really enjoyed my times in the Caribbean, and hopefully, when we get through COVID and all this, I’ll be back down there sometime. MARCOS HANKE: We have Nicole Angeli also sending a message to you, Roy, on the chat. It says thank you for your support and help, Roy. I am sorry to interrupt the discussion before, but this is important, to recognize all the help and the support that Roy gave to our region. Maria, like Miguel says, we’re going to let the staff work with this letter, and with the possibility for maybe a presentation at the next meeting, to follow-up on the Bajo de Sico thing, and then we will decide what to do. MARIA LOPEZ:

Noted.

Sounds good.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you very much.

Any other --

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Mr. Chair, I would encourage everyone to go to our website and look under Library, to the technical reports on what has been found at Bajo de Sico, and so it’s not only the shallower part of Bajo de Sico, but it’s also the mesophotic reefs, and it’s also the deeper water around Bajo de Sico, and so I will encourage everyone to go look at that and look at the AUV work and the ROV work that’s been done in the area, so that you see what 69

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

other resources you are protecting, and you have been protecting, in and around Bajo de Sico. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Graciela. We all need to read, again, and make sure that we have the best information to follow-up on this issue, because Bajo de Sico is very important to everybody. It’s conflictive, but it’s important, but we need to discuss it a little more. Is there anybody else from the public? Wilson. WILSON SANTIAGO: For the record, I just want to say that Damaris, like Miguel said, had a problem, connection problem, and I addressed the matter that you asked for feedback from her, and maybe tomorrow she will have her answer for Miguel, for the council. MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Thank you very much. Hearing that we don’t have anybody else from the public, I am ready to adjourn the meeting. Thank you to everybody, and I think it was a little longer than expected, and thank you for your patience, but we had the opportunity to hear from the fishermen, and I’m sorry about the problems in the translation. If there is any missing information, any help needed, we are able to help. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned. (Whereupon, the meeting recessed on December 8, 2020.) - - DECEMBER 9, 2020 WEDNESDAY MORNING SESSION - - The Caribbean Fishery Management Council reconvened via webinar on Wednesday morning, December 9, 2020, and was called to order at 9:00 o’clock a.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke. MARCOS HANKE: Good morning, everyone. It’s 9:05 a.m. We are ready to start the meeting, and today is December 9, at 9:05 a.m. This is the 172nd Virtual Council Meeting, and we’re going to start with the roll call. Natalia, can you help me? NATALIA PERDOMO: I am going to start the roll call with Miguel Rolon, Graciela Garcia-Moliner, Liajay Rivera, Marcos Hanke, Virginia Shervette, Adyan Rios, Alida Ortiz, Angie de los Irizarry, Christina Olan, Damaris Delgado, David Ortiz, Guillermo Cordero, Julian Magras, Jack McGovern, Jannette Ramos, Jocelyn D’Ambrosio, 70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

John Walter, Katie Siegfried, Loren Remsberg, Manny Antonaras, Maria Lopez, Michelle Scharer, Nelson Crespo, Nicole Greaux, Nikita Charles, Carlos Farchette, Richard Appeldoorn, Sarah Stephenson, Shannon Calay, Vanessa Ramirez, and Wilson Santiago. If I missed anybody, please identify yourself. I have an iPad here. EDWARD SCHUSTER:

Edward Schuster.

NATALIA PERDOMO:

Thank you, Edward.

MIGUEL BORGES:

Miguel Borges, NOAA Law Enforcement.

TONY BLANCHARD:

Tony Blanchard, good morning.

MARCOS HANKE: Anybody else missing? Hearing none, we are going to start with the first presentation. Today, we have a list of very important presentations, very interesting, and let’s try to make the best of our time. The first presentation is Deepwater Snapper and Reef Fishes in the U.S. Caribbean: Aging Validation Using Bomb Radiocarbon and Preliminary Longevity Estimates by Virginia Shervette. Welcome, Virginia. Thank you very much, and go ahead. DEEPWATER SNAPPERS AND REEF FISHES IN THE U.S. CARIBBEAN: AGING VALIDATION USING BOMB RADIOCARBON AND PRELIMINARY LONGEVITY ESTIMATES VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: Thank you for letting me talk about some of the work that we’ve been doing since about 2013 on reef fish and the deepwater snapper species. Estimating ages and documenting longevity for fisheries species is a fundamental step in our ability to sustainably manage fisheries. Information that we focus on doing, research-wise, is we do life history work, age, growth, and reproductive biology for Caribbean species. These data are then used by fisheries scientists for some of the modeling work that they do as part of the assessment process, and, in order to do those models, you’ve got to have at least a -- Well, you’ve got to have age data, and age data should be accurate. Otherwise, the models won’t perform, and they won’t give you factual information, and that will make management difficult. The tropical fisheries species that we work are a little bit different from what a lot of other fishery biologists work with in the Southeast and the Gulf of Mexico. I have often actually heard multiple people from those areas that doing this kind of work isn’t 71

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

rocket science, and I think one of the reasons why they say that, and they think it’s so easy, is because the species that they work with in those more temperate areas have really clear, opaque zones on the otoliths that are easy to see and easy to count. That is not so for tropical fishes though, the ones that we work with at least. Those residing along the shallower shelf habitats and the deepwater slope species actually do not have otoliths with opaque zones that present super clear, and so it might not be rocket science, working with fish ageing, but it does take skill and experience, and it’s naïve of a responsible scientist that oversees research projects that include fish ageing as one of their study goals to assume that it’s going to be easy to age their fish samples without the collaboration of experienced scientists. Many of the species that I’m going to talk about today have actually been inaccurately, or incorrectly, aged in past research. It takes a lot of meticulous effort and a large amount of work to ensure that age data for these species are accurate and provide useful information for the populations. For those studies that have been published previously, obtaining and publishing inaccurate, or incorrect, age and growth data for fisheries species can have detrimental consequences, and so here is just some examples of the deepwater species that we’re currently working with and just some of their otoliths, and these are all at the same scale. Just to give you an idea, wenchman have pretty big otoliths compared to queen snapper and vermilion snapper, for example, and all of them are really cool, but it just takes a lot of work trying to figure out what we should be counting and the methodology for ageing fishes. That is why we have focused on validating age estimation for as many of the fish species as we can, to ensure that we have an ageing method that is actually providing the true age of our samples, of our fish samples, and so we’re doing this through application of the bomb radiocarbon chronometer, and so that’s r14C, and it was introduced into the atmosphere through nuclear bomb testing, starting in the 1950s, up through until the 1970s, and so, basically, it’s this atmospheric r14C that wasn’t there before, and we’ve got some really high concentrations, relative to not being there before. It dissolves into ocean carbon dioxide, and then it gets incorporated into the aragonite skeletons, which is that calcium 72

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

carbonate, biogenic calcium carbonate, material that we see as part of the skeletons of hermatypic corals, which are shallowwater corals, stony corals, and carbonate-based shells of things like mollusks, and then also aragonite, or calcium-carbonate-based structures, of fishes. The time-specific bomb radiocarbon aragonite record provides basically regional reference chronologies that we can then use to evaluate fish age estimates through comparing measurements from the core, the otolith core, of the fish or the eye lens core of a fish, which basically recorded the level of r14C that first year of life for that fish. We can take that and plot it against a regional record for our reference, and that will give us an idea if we line up with the actual trend of the r14C, and so what I have here is I have plotted the coral record of r14C from southwest Puerto Rico and from south Florida, and this is just to show you there is regional differences in this record, and it’s a little bit different from when your objectives are looking at r14C in coral versus using it to age fish. What we actually had to do was to establish our own regional record to use for the validation purposes, and we were able to do that with using known age otoliths from red hind that were collected in the early 1980s all the way through 2020, and so we analyzed those red hind otoliths, and we knew their ages. That made it so that we could plot what the r14C level was on our graph here, versus the year that that otolith material was formed, or the birth year, and so all these Xs are the ones that -- They’re the data that we’ve added to this record, and this is the tool that we now can use to validate age estimation methods for Caribbean species. I’m going to give you some examples of some species that we’ve done this with, and so this is blackfin snapper. This is an otolith section from a fish that was actually caught by the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries with VI DPNR, as part of their deepwater snapper collections, fishery-independent collections. This actually ended up being the oldest blackfin snapper, that has ever been analyzed at least. The previous maximum age estimate for blackfish snapper came from a Florida fish, and that was twenty-seven, and so we have increased the longevity, the known longevity, of this species to forty-five. This is basically the tool that we’re using in order to validate our ages, and, like I said, what we do is we take material from the otolith core that formed during that first year of life from 73

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

the fish, and we analyze that for the r14C level, and then we count all the increments on the otolith section. That gives us an estimated age, and we take the date of collection and subtract that estimated age, and so something like that this guy was caught in 2020, and it was thirty-five years old, and it ended up having an estimated birth year of 1985, and so we plotted its r14C level right here. Then its estimated birth year of 1985, and it was right in the middle, and so we actually used statistical methods to analyze if our age estimate birth years are lining up with the reference series from the red hind, and so, for all the species that I am showing you today, with the analyses that we’ve done, we are statistically demonstrating that our age estimates are accurate. Real quickly, for blackfin snapper, work was done for fish from Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, and South Carolina, and they had a few Caribbean species, and this was published a few years ago, and the growth curve that they got was very different from our growth curve that we’ve gotten from our preliminary samples right here, and I have plotted the validated ages for our blackfin snapper versus the size, and then I’ve plotted the growth curve, and so that’s it with our observed data. This is just to show you that, if we hadn’t done this research and validated our ages, and knew that our ages were accurate, then, when a stock assessment is done, they tend to use data -- If we don’t have it from local populations, then data from other populations, like from Florida, will be used for the growth parameters. If that was done, using the data from the study that was done a couple of years ago by Burton et al., then that data would not be actually representing what we see in the U.S. Caribbean. Again, it’s important to do this work. This is just some other results for some other species that we’re working with, and I will just real quickly go through it, and Kate is going to talk to you more about queen snapper and tell you a little bit about some of the age work, but the maximum age for queen snapper that we have validated so far is over forty-five years old. We have actually only analyzed about ten -- Well, we have estimated the age for about twenty cardinal snapper, and then, of those, we selected five to validate ages for, and the maximum age that we’ve gotten so far is seventeen years, which they actually probably get 74

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

a lot older, but we just don’t have a lot of samples to pull from yet. Another example of that is the black snapper, and we’ve got ten blackfin snapper samples so far, and, of those ten, one of them had an age of twenty years, and, again, that’s a validated age. With some of the species that we’re looking at, their otoliths are teeny, teeny, tiny. This is a coney otolith on a quarter, just to show you how small they are, and these are the otolith sections for coney and graysby, and so we use the eye lens core instead, because, with really small otoliths, you can’t get enough material from the core to do the analysis for the radiocarbon level, and so we actually use the eye lens, and this is showing you the eye lens, and you can see these circles, and the eye lens core is what forms in that first year of life, and so we extract that eye lens core and we analyze that. For these species, and then for all the other species that I am going to talk about after this, we used the eye lens core. The maximum age for coney so far, for the Caribbean, is about thirty, and the maximum age for graysby is also up in the thirties, and those are validated ages. Another species that we’ve been working extensively with, and Jesus is going to tell you more about, is queen triggerfish. Previous work on queen triggerfish used the dorsal spine to estimate ages, because the otoliths are teeny, teeny, tiny. There’s an example right there. They’re a weird shape, and they’re really hard to get out without breaking, and so people are using the dorsal spine as an alternative ageing structure. The maximum age that was documented for queen triggerfish in the U.S. Caribbean was done by Manooch in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and he calculated the maximum age as seven, using the dorsal spine. We did the same thing and used dorsal spines and otoliths to estimate age, and we plotted both results here on our radiocarbon chronometer, and, as you can see, the dorsal spines do not appear to provide accurate age estimates. The otoliths do, and the maximum age that we’ve found so far is twenty-one years for this species, and so that basically has tripled the longevity, our understanding of longevity, in queen triggerfish. We’re also investigating parrotfish species, seven or eight of the parrotfish species that occur in the U.S. Caribbean, and these guys also have teeny, tiny otoliths. These are the sparisoma species, and it was previously thought, by Choat and Robertson, that parrotfish in the U.S. Caribbean do not live nearly as long 75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

as parrotfish do in the Pacific, and so the previously-estimated maximum ages we have actually doubled or tripled, depending on which one, but stoplight, you can see, has a maximum age that we found of sixteen years, for example. Redband, redtail, and yellowtail all have maximum ages that are much higher than was previously documented, or thought. For the Scarus parrotfish species, so far, we’ve found a maximum age of twenty years, and that’s for queen parrotfish. Striped parrotfish, we only have a few samples, and so they probably get much older than seven years, but we just need to continue to sample them and read otoliths and analyze a few more, to get a better handle on their maximum age. Then we recently wrapped up a project with hogfish, in collaboration with commercial fishers in the U.S. Caribbean, and I just submitted the report for this, and this is just some of the results from it, just to kind of show you how we’ve applied this for a species. The maximum age that we’ve found for hogfish is twenty years in the U.S. Caribbean, and that was similar to what’s been reported for Florida, and our biggest recommendation with the hogfish is that we really need some fishery-independent samples to further understand what’s going on across the populations, just because we’ve got very different fishing methods among the islands for hogfish, for triggerfish, for most species, and so fisherydependent samples are great for getting some basic understanding of what’s going on, but further research needs to be done for all the species with fishery-independent samples as well. That’s all the species I’m going to tell you about right now. We’re doing this for a ton more species though. We’ve got data for a ton more species, and these are just some of them, including all the boxfish species, which are pretty awesome, and unexpectedly get pretty old, and that is really all that I have for you today. Thank you to all the fishers that have helped us. We couldn’t do this without you, and thanks to the natural resource managers across the U.S. Caribbean. You’ve helped us tremendously as well, and thank you for listening to the talk. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Virginia. That was a great presentation. I hope we will have much time to talk it over and for questions, but let’s open for two questions to follow-up with the other presentations. Are there questions? Richard. RICHARD APPELDOORN: Good morning. That was really stunning, Virginia, and thank you very much for sharing all of that. Can 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

you put on one of your early slides that had the growth curve for the deepwater snapper? My question is not your ageing, and I think that’s really solid and incredibly significant. However, I am looking at the growth curve and seeing how quickly it flattens, basically being driven by that one last point, where you have that other one that’s way above it, the second-to-last point, and so I’m just questioning the variability on the growth curve that comes out of that, given that those two points are so variable, and I guess emphasizing the need to try to get a lot more of those bigger fish, so you can really pin down what that L infinity value is. VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: Right, and so this actually was research that we were just doing opportunistically. We’re trying to get funding to actually do a full-blown study for age and growth of blackfin and some of the other species of deepwater snapper, but this is just stuff that we pulled together ourselves, and we cobbled together money to purchase fish to look at this initially, so we would have data, but you’re right that we don’t have a lot of large samples. We need those larger samples in order to get a better understanding of what’s going on in that region. RICHARD APPELDOORN: But, to some extent, documenting the age is perhaps even more important than documenting what the L infinity value is at that age, and so, again, I congratulate you on these results, and they’re really going to make a difference in how we think about our fisheries, and I certainly hope that you can use this to get the funding that you need to do more. VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

Thank you, Richard.

We have John Walter next.

JOHN WALTER: Thank you, Chair. Dr. Shervette, this is really groundbreaking work, and the Center is really excited to see this work for a lot of these species, because they’ve been super challenging for a long time, and, specifically, we’ve got a queen triggerfish assessment coming up, and I think everyone involved with the fishery would really like to see the best data used. Do you think it will be available early in 2021, for the upcoming assessment? VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: I think, and I don’t know how politically savvy it is to say this, but all of our triggerfish samples are fishery-dependent, and there are major differences among the islands in the years that are used, and so, from our data, it looks like there is way different things going on with the populations, 77

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

but it’s probably just an artifact of gear selectivity, and so we’ve actually submitted a proposal to I think it was S-K. Last year, we submitted a proposal to CRP, so we could get more data for fishery-independent work on queen triggerfish, because that’s what we need now. We need samples from across all three islands that are fishery-independently collected in a welldesigned way, in order to be able to really understand what’s going on with the background population. In saying all of that, yes, we can have data ready from our fisherydependent samples, but the assessment will not be complete, maybe, without having fishery-independent samples, for age estimates at least. JOHN WALTER: Well, in actuality, we use fishery-dependent data all the time in our assessment models, and the models can handle that difference in selectivity between fishery-dependent, and even fishery-independent data still comes from gear that has selectivity, if not availability, and so the data scoping webinar is January 11, and I really would invite your students and lab members and you to get involved in it, because I think it’s going to really open the door for this assessment, to getting the most recent and relevant information in. VIRGINIA SHERVETTE:

Yes, absolutely.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Virginia. Thank you, John Walter. I have Julian and Vanessa. Please be very brief for us, and I want to hear what -- Because Julian was involved in this project, and briefly your comments to move on, because we are a little late on the schedule. Go ahead, Julian. JULIAN MAGRAS: Good morning. Excellent, excellent presentation, Virginia. I know we did a lot of work in trying to get this kicked off, and I know there’s a lot more work to be done, and, with that said, I have the powers-that-be at the table, or on the conference here today, and, because we had some delays in getting funding, and this goes out to Miguel and Marcos, but, if we put together a proposal, we are wondering if the council would support us with some funding to continue doing some assessments and collecting samples to keep this project moving forward, both for the deepwater snappers and for the queen triggerfish. I’m throwing that out there, and I know that there seems to be some extra monies floating around, because of not having the meetings the way we normally have them, and I would like to have some discussion, or you guys can have some discussion, and being 78

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

willing to help us fund this project, so we can continue. you. VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

Thank

Thank you, Julian.

Vanessa, very quick, please.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Virginia, for this presentation, and I just wanted to comment that I hear that you need more samples for the triggerfish and hogfish. On the west side, we get a lot of hogfish weekly, and so I just wanted to tell you that, if you need more samples, just contact me, and I’m going to make that work for you. Thanks. VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: Absolutely. Wilson is the one that helps us tremendously in coordinating getting samples, and so I’m sure that all of us will be in contact soon. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Virginia. The next presentation is Kate Overly and research on queen snapper. Go ahead. RESEARCH ON QUEEN SNAPPER IN PUERTO RICO KATE OVERLY: Good morning, everyone. Thank you to the Caribbean Fishery Management Council for inviting me to talk about my research this morning. My name is Kate Overly, and I’m from the NOAA Panama City Lab in Florida. Today, I’m going to talk about three projects, fairly quickly, that I am leading in the Caribbean, specifically Puerto Rico, with a focus towards queen snapper, with the overarching idea of the development and implementation of a deepwater fishery-independent survey that targets the deepwater snapper grouper complex. The first project listed here is a habitat classification in Puerto Rico’s deep-drop fishery. Just below the title there are a few images taken from our deepwater videos. Those ones, in particular, range from depths from 250 to about 370 meters on the west coast. This project actually originated as a pilot study which utilized a fishery-independent hook-and-line survey designed by Steve Smith and Jerry Ault out of the University of Miami Rasmus, and so we constructed a video camera system that was deployed on the commercial fishermen’s deep-drop fishing gear while they were fishing, in order to evaluate the use of low-cost cameras to better inform the CFMC on fish-habitat relationships going forward in the future. 79

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

The system worked great, with the exception of the depth component, and so we observed essentially that, at depths greater than 250 meters, they really require some sort of auxiliary lighting, and so ambient light was just not enough beyond 250. Given the focus of our project, and they range down to 500 meters and greater, we have discovered, and we ended up developing a twoyear project, beginning in the fall of 2018, that utilized Jerry and Steve’s fishery-independent hook-and-line sampling frame and added the component of a deepwater camera and LED light system, in order to observe the benthic habitats and the fish communities. To the right there, you’ll see a diagram of the system we developed. Just in a nutshell, you have the example of the fisherman’s vertical longline, with hooks and a weight attached, and then what differs, obviously, is the camera system, and so the camera system is attached to the fishermen’s main line by two gangions, and then the system itself -The base of it is just constructed out of PVC board, and that kind of cream-colored rectangle on top there is just subsea foam, and so that will keep the system pretty neutrally buoyant in the water, and so it won’t float too far up off the seafloor, and it won’t hopefully crash into the seafloor, and it keeps it at about a forty-five-degree angle, give or take, and so, that way, we’re getting a view of the habitat and the seafloor, but we’re also seeing the fish, and not just from a top-down angle, because that can be tricky to ID. This system is deployable from center-console vessels, tethered, obviously, to the commercial deep-drop fishing gear, and we used it in the west, northwest, northeast, and southeast regions of Puerto Rico, from a range of depths from 100 to 500 meters, just to cover that, at the time, known depth range of queen snapper and other species in the deepwater snapper grouper complex. The overall objectives for our specific research questions was to describe habitat utilization of queen snapper, using both the video and hook-and-line fishing data, in addition to generating length and weight and collecting biological samples for age, growth, and reproductive studies on queen snapper and other target species, as a collaboration with Dr. Virginia Shervette out of the University of South Carolina Aiken. Our survey resulted in 471 videos documenting habitat and deepwater invertebrates over the course of two years. In the bottom-right there, you will see some spatial coverage of our video and hook80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

and-line stations on that map, and the red dots are our year-one samples and our stations, and the yellow are our year-two, and so that gives you kind of an idea of where we were sampling. These are the first stationary videos that we know of utilizing local commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico to document habitat, fish diversity, and benthic invertebrates of these poorly-studies deepwater reefs. We are currently finalizing our video analysis, and so all videos are read for habitat classification, fish and invertebrate identification, to their lowest taxon possible, and we generate minimum counts, which is just the maximum number of fish observed in a single frame for each species, which, obviously, also results in the presence or absence for each species, and then, finally, we generate the percentage of bottom covered by specific biotic and abiotic features, such as corals or rock, using a computer software program. This video data will be used to estimate factors affecting queen snapper distributions and abundance, in addition to generating data on species richness and a diversity index for these sampled sites, and so the video data will also allow us to document patterns in observed fish communities, both on the hook-and-line and video, and just some examples of some of the video clips, and those are just still images up at the top there, but you see some wenchman snapper, and you see some silk snapper, there is sargassum and triggerfish in that top-left, and so we see quite a range of fish from the deepwater communities. I mentioned that, in addition to our video data, that we also generate catch data from our survey, and so we generate fish ID in measurements, and that is recorded for everything that comes onboard, and then we take the addition of sex and fin clips for deepwater shark species, and then weight and sex are also recorded for our target snapper species. For our target snapper species, we have queen snapper, blackfin snapper, and black snapper. We collect biological samples, specifically otoliths and gonads, for all three of those whenever we catch them, and the biological samples collected, like I said, are being utilized in age and growth studies, as a part of our collaborative work with Dr. Shervette and her team, which is essentially to help us fill the large data gaps for the species in the deepwater snapper grouper complex. One of the most important aspects to our catch data is that all of it is co-registered with the multibeam bathymetry data, and so our 81

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

mapping data, our video data, and therefore habitat, and, of course, we have depth and coordinates for all of our stations as well. Some preliminary results, and this project was also funded by the Southeast Deep Coral Initiative, in addition to the cooperative research program, and so we did have a focus on looking at habitat and deepwater corals around Puerto Rico, and so, as this specific project is wrapping up and we’re closing in on our analyses, our preliminary results identified seventy-seven fish species on video and twenty-two different species caught on hook-and-line. In addition to that, we have identified over 100 invertebrate taxa, both sessile and mobile, throughout all three regions, and so several locations on the west coast exhibited a high diversity of invertebrates and we feel represent areas that may potentially be included in management decisions in the future. Our preliminary analysis for year-one of field work shows that the western region of Puerto Rico contained the most diverse sponge communities in the largest numbers, with fifteen different orders identified, which was followed closely by the southeast, with an N of ten, and, lastly, the northeast, with an N of five. Off to the right there, you will see those are images from four west coast sites, and those are just kind of a range of the corals we see at a variety of depths. Then, if you look at the bottom-left-hand side, you will see a pie chart, and those are taxa documented in year-one, and it yielded a total of 1,200 individual coral and sponges, which made up a total of six classes, and so we have a lot of diversity that we’re seeing. We are currently wrapping up the processing of our year-two videos, and we’re expecting preliminary results by the end of this month, and so these data will be further explored, to assist with describing habitat utilization and linkages between queen snapper and deepwater coral communities around Puerto Rico, in addition to exploring habitat associations with other species as well. As I said, our focus is, obviously, on queen snapper for this project, but we do generate data on species such as silk snapper, blackfin snapper, any of the pristipomoides genus, and so on and so forth. Into our second project that involves queen snapper, and so, as we wrap-up our analyses for the original two-year video project, we basically took what we learned to develop a more comprehensive U.S. Caribbean fishery-independent survey utilizing stereo video and hook-and-line methods, to assess the deepwater snapper grouper 82

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

complex in Puerto Rico, specifically the west coast. Like I said, this project focuses on that development and implementation of a deepwater fishery-independent stereo video survey on the west coast, and we are utilizing multibeam mapping data for our survey design, and, obviously, we have this emphasis on targeting the deepwater snapper grouper fisheries, and, in this survey, we did extend the maximum depth range, and we have developed new gear that does go beyond 500 meters, and so we have extended it to 650, to try and get what we think might be the top end of some of these fishes’ range, such as queen snapper, to try and incorporate that full depth. The field component, which is currently slated to begin in January of 2021, will consist of the deployment and the retrieval of a stationary, baited, stereo remote underwater video system, and so, for short, that’s an S-BRUV, and that is attached to deep-drop fishing gear, and it can also be utilized off of commercial fishing vessels, and we’ll record imagery of benthic habitats and fish assemblages where it is deployed. The S-BRUV will have the capability of generating optical imagery using paired deepwater stereo video cameras, which essentially allows for non-invasive methods to gather size composition and abundance data from both exploited and non-target species that are either not typically caught using the traditional hook-and-line methods, are wary of the fishing line, or are restricted, due to various fishing regulations. In addition to the stereo video, the system will also have wavelength-modified LED lights, and so, instead of just having your white LEDs, we are actually utilizing red, orange, and amber, and that is to reduce the bias in video sampling for fish that are wary of light at deeper depths, and so, for instance, queen snapper, cardinal snapper, and wenchman snapper do tend to kind of hang out on the outskirts of the lights on all of our videos and our gear, one so we can still see them, but they don’t come into the field of view, and so we’re trying to reduce that bias for this survey. In addition to visual imagery, we are also deploying two fishing lines at each station, in order to collect biological samples following the retrieval of the S-BRUV system, and so these samples, again, will be going towards collaborative age and growth and reproductive studies with Dr. Shervette and her team at the university. Then, by deploying two separate fishing lines, we’re hoping to be 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

able to test bait preference of species as well, and so, for instance, baiting with tuna on one line and baiting with squid on the other line, to see if there’s any sort of difference in preference of snapper species, grouper species, and so on. Then, to the right there, you’ll just see an example of what our S-BRUV looks like, and it’s kind of just a diagram. The little red rectangles are the stereo cameras, and this is a side view, just so you get the full idea of the system, but, from the back, those are actually paired and set a distance apart, so we can actually achieve stereo, and so you can’t see it in this photo, but there are two there for the paired system. As for our expected outcomes, this project works to develop the necessary steps required to collect appropriate data to assess species in the deepwater snapper grouper complex, hopefully throughout the U.S. Caribbean, and so this will be achieved through the development and the build of this deepwater S-BRUV system, combined with the wavelength-modified LED lights, which, as I said, will provide a non-destructive for measuring that fish length for species which avoid and are difficult to catch by hook-and-line methods. Then the survey itself will provide an unbiased georeferenced estimate of relative abundance for fish species and sizes of exploited and unexploited fishes for the west coast of Puerto Rico. Then, overall, this project provides technology that will be directly transferable to other SEFSC regions, where it can be reproduced at a low cost to gather data on distribution, abundance, length composition, and so on for species of interest, and this can also be given to other organizations, and other organizations can definitely use this technology as well. Then, lastly, on to our third and last project that I will be discussing with you all, and it’s age and growth of queen snapper. Virginia went over a little bit of this, thankfully, and so you have kind of the background of the bomb radiocarbon chronometer, and just the age and growth for this species in general, but pictured here is a queen snapper otolith for a fish with a fork length of 708 millimeters, and you can kind of see, just by looking at it, that the opaque zones are very difficult to discern. You can kind of get an idea of how difficult this species can be to age. Essentially, the objectives for this project were to age archived and contemporary otoliths from the U.S. Caribbean and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, and so we’re able to do a comparison between the 84

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

two regions, to see if there’s any growth differences, and so we have a lot of otoliths at our lab in Panama City. We have a lot of archived queen snapper otoliths, and so we basically took a sub-sample of across three decades, ranging from 1991 to 2019. We took a sub-sample of 300, and then, in the U.S. Caribbean, we have over 800 otoliths that come from varying sources from the Puerto Rico DNER and commercial fishermen and Dr. Shervette and her team, and then, obviously, our project, Steve Smith and Jerry Ault’s projects, and we have a lot of sources giving otoliths and contributing to this project. Those range in date from about 2005 to 2020, with a few gaps in between there in the early years. Given the difficulties in sectioning and ageing queen snapper, we are validating the accuracy of our age estimation via application of bomb radiocarbon chronometer, using both otolith and eye lens cores, which Virginia went over a little bit in her presentation, and so the bomb radiocarbon chronometer -- We’re essentially using it because the ageing error in tropical, as well as deepwater, species can be exasperated, due to the environmental consistency that provides very little seasonal variability to drive that distinct opaque zone formation that makes it easy to count opaque zones. Queen snapper are absolutely no exception to this, and they’re very difficult to age, as a result. It took us a while to nail down a sectioning protocol, for the thickness of the otoliths and so on, and so, because of this, we determined that age validation would need to be employed to accurately age this species, and therefore prevent ageing error and validate accuracy of our age estimation. The pictures on the right-hand side here, real quick, we have our IsoMet saw, and that is what we use to section the embedded otoliths, and we take three sections of each queen snapper otolith. The top image there just shows how small and fragile these otoliths are in comparison to a penny, and so those are queen snapper otoliths. Then the bottom two images there are eyes from queen snapper, and so the one on the left, that larger eye, came from a fish with a fork length of 708 millimeters, and so much larger, and the one on the right came from a fish with a fork length of 178 millimeters, and so our smallest sample, actually, and that’s a very small fish, and you can see the difference in eye size there. Then the image at the bottom there is just an eye lens extracted out of the eyeball, and it’s just in a gloved hand, and so we 85

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

actually peel the layers back and get to the eye lens core, and that is what we use in our validation. Our expected outcomes, and so we are wrapping this up as well right now, and we’re hoping to get out a few publications to disseminate our results, but, essentially, this project, age, growth, and mortality parameters are the essential first steps to being able to compute that quantitative assessment on queen snapper in the U.S. Caribbean. This project is providing critical information on queen snapper life history, including validated age composition estimates for those U.S. Caribbean queen snapper, and we actually have a total of about twenty-one eye lens cores and five otolith cores from queen snapper that we used in our validation. Size distributions for the U.S. Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, so we can do comparisons between the two, and then something that was very exciting was extending the longevity estimates for queen snapper, and so our previous maximum age, in the last SEDAR that was conducted on queen snapper, was eight years old. Since then, with our results, our preliminary results that we have received, our youngest fish, and our smallest sample, at a fork length of 179 millimeters, has been validated at an age of five, and one of our largest, at a fork length of 708 millimeters, and so those two eyes on the last page belong to these two fish, that has been validated to an age of forty-six years old, which absolutely dramatically increases our estimates of longevity for this species. You can see those results plotted on the graph to the right as part of that linear declined with the coral and known age otoliths, and you can also see that the red circles are all of the eye lens samples that we sent in for validation, so you can get an idea of the spread of our data. In addition to all of that, we are also computing growth functions and estimates of natural mortality for queen snapper. Really quick, I just wanted to acknowledge a few of the collaborators that I have been fortunate enough to work with, and, also, I’m going to see if this video plays, so we can do that while I’m talking. There is quite a bit of distance, obviously, between Florida and Puerto Rico, and so there are a lot of folks that have helped to ensure the success of this project, and my direct collaborators are Andy David, Steve Smith, and Ryan Caillouet with NOAA Fisheries 86

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

have assisted with the video work and the sampling frame of this survey, in addition to Dr. Shervette of the University of South Carolina Aiken, who has contributed funding and a bunch of assistance to actually process all of our age validation samples, and she’s been invaluable to the age and growth project. Of course, last, but absolutely not least, the commercial fishermen, all of our observers, and the team at HJR Reefscaping, who was our contracting company on the ground. In Puerto Rico specifically, Michelle Scharer and Hector Ruiz. Without that field team on the ground in Puerto Rico, we would not have been able to complete this field sampling and data collection, and so a huge thank you to everyone there, and that’s just my email address at the top there, and so, if anyone has questions that they don’t want to ask now, or that they think of later, feel free to reach out to me at that email, and I think that’s all I have. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Kate. Great presentation. We are really behind schedule, and I have one question for Kate, or two, and then we’ll move along, please. Please send the questions to her email, like she posted, and we can follow-up on that. I wish we had a little more time. I have Stacy. STACY --: Kate, that was a great presentation, and I just have a couple of questions. How many habitats did you identify during your study, and did you see any patterns in habitat preference of queen snapper between like sex or size composition in your study? KATE OVERLY: We have video for 471 stations, and so all of those have varying degrees of habitat, and so I can absolutely chat with you more about that. We basically classified our habitat according to the CMECS standard, or the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard, and so I have all of that data in general classification, but, since we sampled so many videos, it probably wouldn’t be great for me to sit and list them all out right now. In addition to that, we’re also doing our analyses right now, and so I don’t want to say too much, and there’s a lot on kind of that first slide that I showed, with that kind of rocky sponge habitat, and we see a lot on that lower reef rocky sponge, but we also see, especially in the northeast, a lot around sand, and I don’t know if that’s due to foraging and that sort of thing, which it probably is, and so we’re going to try and be digging into that, once we finish basically our habitat classification and our percent bottom coverage for year-two. We’re just about done with that, and so we should have results for all of that very, very soon. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Kate.

We’re going to pass to the next 87

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

presentation, because we are very much behind schedule, and we need to gain some time, and we have the Queen Triggerfish Reproductive Biology in the U.S. Caribbean by Jesus Rivera. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, we have a person that has a presentation at 10:15, and so what we propose to do, and I just talked to Graciela, is that, right after Jesus Rivera’s presentation at 10:15, and we will play with the time, because, right now, it’s about 10:00. At 10:15, we will have the presentation on coral reef, and then Alida Ortiz will follow with her presentation at 10:30, and so right afer the presentation of the coral. MARCOS HANKE: ahead.

Okay.

Let’s start with Jesus.

Jesus, welcome.

QUEEN TRIGGERFISH REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY IN THE U.S. CARIBBEAN JESUS RIVERA: My name is Jesus Rivera, and I’m going to talk about my presentation of reproductive biology of queen triggerfish in the U.S. Caribbean waters, specifically in St. Thomas, in collaboration with Dr. Shervette and Julian Magras. Effective fisheries management requires a detailed understanding of the life history strategies of managed species. Queen triggerfish is one of the most productive fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean waters, but the lack of current species-specific life history information in the 2013 SEDAR -- They cannot make a prediction for the future of the stock, and so we are trying to address the reproductive biology of the fish, and also age. Dr. Shervette talked a little bit about our age work. Some previous studies related to reproductive biology of queen triggerfish are data from Jamaica, from Aiken in 1983; Puerto Rico and St. Thomas from Manooch and Drennon in 1987; Puerto Rico and St. Croix, and that was part of my thesis in 2018; and in St. Croix with Bryan et al. in 2019, that publication. Also, we have Brazil, with Ferreira de Menezes in 1979. For Aiken, they just found, in Jamaica, that the queen triggerfish season goes from January through March and then May and then July to December. Manooch and Drennon also showed some -- They had some problem in the collection of those spawning capable fish, and we are going to look at that in a bit, and they also reported -We have more publications on triggerfish, but they are not related to reproductive biology, and so I didn’t include it, and that’s mostly for diet stuff. Queen triggerfish, we have a picture here from St. Croix, and we 88

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

have a triggerfish in the habitat, but, also, in this fishery, we have something that looks at the nest of the queen triggerfish, and that is kind of similar to other triggerfish species, like a gray triggerfish, and they have a nest, and they take care of the nest, both of the sexes, and that is just something that we don’t address, because we didn’t propose to do that in our plan, but we also -- We tried to get samples on kind of areas where the fishermen said they saw a nest, but we -- Fishermen say that they see something similar, but we don’t have any kind of specific data of where is the nest or a spawning ground, in this particular case. The other 2019 work on St. Croix, they have presented areas of nesting, but it’s in the closed area. This is just to show how they try to clean the nest, and then the females select it. Our study objectives are to determine and compare the size structure and the sex ratios, to determine a size at sexual maturity, if we can, determine a spawning seasonality. We have the three islands of the U.S. Caribbean, and there is Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, and St. Croix, and something really important that you have to understand is that the three islands use different gears, and Puerto Rico is the one that has the most gears to catch triggerfish, and they are multispecies, and so one gear can catch more than one species, and St. Thomas/St. Croix are different, and we’re going to show a table later, and, again, preference in the islands for the fish are different. They are close, but they are really different in what the people like to get from the fisheries, at least in terms of reef fish. What we did is we just propose to target sixteen samples per month, and we’re trying to cover all the size classes per month, and so we just get the fishermen and the information and the gear that they use, and we measure the fish, and we weigh the fish, and then we remove the gonad, and, also, the age structure and other stuff that are not related to this presentation. We assess the sex by histology, and not all the people do histology, and they just open the fish and see if it’s male or female and that’s it, and so, quickly, because we want to stay on schedule, that is the process. We get the fish, and we extract the gonad, and we use three different processes, depending on the situation. Then the reproductive criteria that we use is in that way for both sexes, and immature, developing fish, spawning capable, and that is where we just see whether the fish is spawning or not, and they have a classification that is actively spawning that we can talk about later if you want, and then regressing, which is after they 89

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

spawn, and then regenerating and just preparing again to go to developing, and it’s like a cycle, and so you don’t go back to immature, but you just go back to developing and continue the loop. Our results, I will be presenting the summary of sample collections. In the top, in red, that is St. Thomas. That is the purpose of this presentation, and the other two, in orange, are the Puerto Rico and St. Croix data that are already published, and so we have 690 samples in total, and seven are fishery-independent, and then 683 are fishery-dependent. As Dr. Shervette explained, that’s a problem for some of the analysis, but, also, hearing the explanation of the guy that made the question, we probably need more data, because that is a datalimited species, and so we still need more data, and we will explain why in a bit. Also, here are more specific results of the fish collection, and we have the depth range, and we have the total number of fish, the percentage of male and female, per island, and then the mean size overall over male and female and the unknown fish, which are fish that are just gutted, or they are just smaller, or we just missed the slide and we just tried to figure it out and do it again, and so it’s pretty low. Now I will show you -- On the left side, I just show you the distribution of combined sexes for the three islands, just for an overview, and red is Puerto Rico, green is St. Thomas, and that is purpose of this presentation, and blue is St. Croix. Then, on the right, we see the weight versus length plots for males and females of queen triggerfish in St. Thomas. I think that you can’t see it so well, the equation, but the equation looks kind of similar to the one that we just published through the other islands. For size structure and sex ratios, all three islands, the size frequency distribution of male and female were significantly different, meaning that males are larger than females in the distribution. For sex ratio, the chi-square analysis showed that Puerto Rico was the only difference from the one-to-one expected ratio, and, in St. Thomas and St. Croix, the sex ratio was expected, and so there’s no differing in the distribution of male and females in St. Croix and St. Thomas, but it was different in Puerto Rico, having more males than females, I think, if I remember it well. That is the length frequency analysis from St. Thomas, and the 90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

other two are published already, and we can see the size class of 350, and then the males start -- The males are in blue, and they start getting in a bigger proportion, and then just females start to decay with length, the frequency. Most of the questions that we have from fishermen is what we do with the fish, and we have a queen triggerfish gonad, male gonad, and that is a gonad, and it’s really weird to find that big gonad in triggerfish. On this side, we have the histology of the gonad, and that is from an immature fish, and now we have the -- On the left, we have the -- The purple, or blue, is the sperm, and, on the right-side, the right-picture, is the gonad. The results for seasonality for the males of queen triggerfish for Puerto Rico and St. Thomas, we are focusing on the red part, and that is the spawning capable criteria, and they just show that we have spawning capable males around the year, and so it’s not too different, and we are not surprised at that, and we see that the males in most of the species are in that kind of way. For this presentation, in St. Thomas, we are looking also at the red one, and this is, again, all year. We have spawning capable males around the year, and so that will not help us to see if there is any seasonality on the species, and so we will look at females. Also, on the right side of the screen, I will show you the sizeat-maturity for males. The percentage of L 50, and that is the point where the length -Where the fish -- At least 50 percent of the fish that will be that length will be mature, and so it’s a 50 percent chance that it’s sexually mature. For this particular case, it’s 156, and I just put a circle at their value of where I was looking with Dr. Shervette, but, because I don’t have access to the campus, we cannot -- We have only one immature male, and that is that value. The analysis for the L 50 doesn’t work really here, because we have a lot of mature males before that value of immature, and so we are comparing one immature against three-hundred-and-fortysomething fish species, and then the size overlaps. Now we go with the females, and the females are more interesting. We have a big gonad for a queen triggerfish in the upper picture, and the picture below is a developing female, just by experience, but I don’t have any idea -- It’s really hard to address, microscopically, a gonad for a fish. Then this is a representation of how we look at an immature female for queen triggerfish, and all these purple dots are just primary oocytes, and so really immature, for sure, for the picture. Now 91

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

I am showing you a developing female, and we have a different sized oocyte, and we still have primary growth, but we have a bigger oocyte, and then we have a spawning-capable female, and that is what it looks like. The histology will help us to confirm the seasonality plots. Again, this is Puerto Rico and St. Croix, and it’s already published, and now we have a different -- We’re looking for the red, and so we see the red starts in December, and then it continues in January. In February, we have -- Then March through August, and so, also, in St. Croix, it’s the same. The season starts in December and then goes through August. For St. Thomas, they are not yet reported. We find the same, and it’s just only one change. We used spawning capable and actively spawning, and this is a sub-division of spawning capable, but it’s still the same. We have actively spawning females starting in December and continuing through August. Then we measure the gonad and then divide it by the weight and multiply it by 100, and that gives us an index. The peak in St. Croix was February, and the peak in Puerto Rico was December and January, and the peaks for females was also January. The L 50 of female, the size at maturity, the L 50, result from St. Thomas females was 240 millimeters, the fork length. Again, it’s a 50 percent chance, at 240, that the triggerfish that you catch, if it’s a female, can be 50 percent mature or immature. For the results of all this stuff, the maturity -- At the end of this presentation, we just have, again, in yellow the data, and that is the one that hasn’t been published yet, and then, for Puerto Rico and St. Croix, we have the L 50, the L 50 with their confidence intervals, and, again, we have also -- In the immature column, we just include the N is number of immature fish that we have. In St. Thomas, the males, we only have one, but we have to doublecheck if that is an immature male or not. If it’s not, I will just remove that value, and I will run the equation and the analysis, and it doesn’t give me a value, because I don’t have any immature, and so they cannot compare. There cannot be a proportion. With this graph, I just want to show that we need just more data. I mean, it’s a really data-limited species, but, still, we need more small class-size fish, and, also, St. Croix also has like a 92

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

plate-size preference fish, and so we also need the bigger ones and the smaller ones to try to complete the pictures for all the three islands, and I don’t have anything more to say, but just thanks to the people like Rick Nemeth, Dr. Hoenig, Sara Thomas in the USVI, Dr. Shervette and her lab, all the people in the Fisheries Research Lab in DNR, the Nature Conservancy in St. Croix, Dr. Brendan Turley at the University of Miami and Nitin Ravikanthachari from USC, who helped me with the R codes. Then the Puerto Rico and St. Croix fishermen, and, also, in the presentation is Julian, and that is what was really helpful. Without him, we could not finish this sampling. Then the people of MARMAP and NOAA funding. Any questions? MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Jesus. Jesus, we’re going to save the questions and to do it through the chat. Please pay attention in the chat, to answer the questions, because we are really tight on schedule. JESUS RIVERA:

Okay.

Cool.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. The presentation was great. Graciela, you have somebody to present? Can you help me? GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: I think we have Jenny Moore online to talk about the critical habitat designation for corals and the coral-reef-forming basis of the fisheries here. Jen, are you online? JENNIFER MOORE:

I am.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:

Perfect.

PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR FIVE CARIBBEAN CORALS JENNIFER MOORE: Thank you for squeezing me in. This is kind of a surprise for us, that the rule published when it did, and so sorry that we didn’t give you much more of a heads-up that this was coming. My name is Jennifer Moore, and I work with NOAA Fisheries in the Southeast Regional Office, in the Protected Resources Division, and I’ve been working on this proposed critical habitat for five Caribbean corals for about six years. If you remember, it was 2014 that we listed five Caribbean corals as threatened, and we proposed this critical habitat on November 27 of this year, and we have a sixty-day public comment period 93

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

that is open, and it will close on January 26. Then, based on our statute, we should have a final critical habitat one year from the date we proposed it, and so that would be November 27, 2021. Just to take you through kind of how we designate critical habitat, critical habitat is required by the Endangered Species Act for all listed species, unless it wouldn’t actually aid in their recovery, and so we go through this step-wise approach, and the first step we do is we identify the geographical areas that are occupied by the species at the time that they were listed. Then, within that area, we identify physical and biological features that are essential to their conservation, what are the things that the species need to support all of their life history, so that we can recover the species, and we protect those features within the habitat. We also have to determine whether those features actually require special management, and there might be things that are part of the habitat, but that there are no activities that would adversely affect them, and so they don’t actually require any special management, and then, based on those things, we identify the specific areas that contain those physical and biological features, and we map them. To start off, we look at the geographic area occupied by the species, and these species are present throughout the wider Caribbean, and so basically anywhere there is a coral reef in the Caribbean is where the species occur, and that is the geographic area occupied. It’s not every single location under which the coral actually resides, but, basically, geographic area occupied means the range of the species. However, critical habitat is a U.S. regulation, and it only can be designated in the United States, and so, while the species are present throughout the wider Caribbean and in the thirty or so nations of the Caribbean, we can only designate critical habitat within the jurisdiction of the United States. The real meat of critical habitat is the physical and biological features, and, in this case, we have identified that the main recovery goal for these species is facilitating reproduction and then supporting their survival and growth after reproduction, and so we have identified the physical and biological feature as reproductive, recruitment, growth, and maturation habitat, and there’s a lot of words here on this screen, but, basically, what it boils down to is the hard substrate that the corals need to attach to to grow and live out their lives and then the associated water column over the top of those areas of hard substrate. 94

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Then we further describe those features by identifying these kind of attributes that increase the conservation value, and it’s basically what are the qualities of that habitat, that hard substrate in the water column, that make a good habitat for corals to grow and survive, and so, in terms of the substrate, we’re looking for things that would promote successful recruitment of the coral larvae, and so crevices and presence of crustose coralline algae. Also, those reefscapes have to be where the coral is actually going to be attaching and growing. They need to be relatively free of sediment and macroalgae, and, also, the waters have to have certain characteristics of ranges of temperature, aragonite saturation, which is related to how much calcium carbonate is in the water, levels of nutrients, and, you know, corals thrive in relatively low-nutrient waters, and, also, they have to have relatively clear water, and so those are the things in the water column that basically support corals, and then, in the absence of contaminants, and we know that there are lots of contaminants that affect the corals’ ability to grow and reproduce, and so waters that lack those things are what are going to actually support recovery. This is really the meat of critical habitat, is defining this biological and -- The physical and biological features of the habitat, and this is what we look at when we look at what the impact of critical habitat is, is what might adversely affect these things. We define where this is, the feature that we want to protect through critical habitat designation, and then we go on to identify the specific areas that might contain those essential features. What you may be familiar with is the Acropora critical habitat designation, and that critical habitat designation is still valid, and nothing changes with that designation with the new proposed critical habitat. In that designation, we have one critical habitat unit that is for both of the species, for both elkhorn and staghorn coral, whereas, in this new proposed critical habitat rule, we are actually identifying twenty-eight individual units, and that’s basically one for each of the five species in the locations that they occur. For example, pillar coral only occurs from about one to twentyfive meters depth, and so the boundaries are really -- One of the set of boundaries of critical habitat are those depth contours, and then we look at the U.S. geographic distribution. They don’t occur north of Lake Worth Inlet in Palm Beach County, Florida, and 95

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

so that’s the northernmost boundary, and they do go all the way out to the Dry Tortugas, and they are common within all of the waters of Puerto Rico, the USVI, and Navassa, and so, in those depths, from one to twenty-five meters, it’s where critical habitat is designated for pillar coral. You can see that each of the individual other corals have their own depth distributions and particular geographic distributions, mostly that vary in Florida, and they don’t really -- The geographic distribution doesn’t really vary in the Caribbean, and, really, in Florida, it’s just about how far north they occur along the southeast Florida coast. I’m just going to run through the maps real quick, and this shows you the maximum extent of the new critical habitat designation, and, basically, this is for our corals that occur from half a meter out to ninety meters depth, and that’s a couple of the Orbicella species and Mycetophyllia ferox. This is the maximum extent for Florida, and this is the maximum extent for Puerto Rico. In St. Thomas and St. John, you can see here that this is a single unit for these two islands, because of those depth contours. However, if you were to look at the map for pillar coral, for example, you would see that there would be a break in the units between St. Thomas and St. John, because of the deeper depths between those islands. Here’s the maximum extent for St. Croix, and then I apologize for the poor GIS data, but this is the maximum extent for Navassa Island, and this is the Flower Garden Banks, which are off of the coast of Texas. This is something you probably are more interested in, is what is the difference between the existing Acropora critical habitat, which is from zero to thirty meters, and the maximum extent of this proposed critical habitat, which is out to ninety meters depth, and so you can see that there are some areas that are new, as compared to Acropora critical habitat, but what is not new is the fact that, basically, we are designating the ranges of these species, and so, basically, anywhere that the species occur, we have been having to consider them in our federal Section 7 consultations since the time of listing, and so, really, there isn’t that much new that we have to really think about in a new consultation, because we would have to consider the species that were listed in these areas outside of Acropora critical habitat all along. That takes us to kind of what I have been alluding to, is what is 96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

the effect of critical habitat? When you have a listing, there are individual prohibitions against doing things to the actual species, and so, since the corals have been listed in 2014, there are things that can and cannot be done with regard to the corals that might affect private citizens. However, critical habitat’s only affect is via that ESA Section 7 interagency consultation with other federal agencies for their activities that may affect the proposed critical habitat, and so, in looking at those physical and biological features that we identified, we then consider, well, what are the federal activities that are either funded, authorized, or carried out by a federal agency that might affect the critical habitat, and so here’s a list of the activities that we have identified that may be authorized, funded, or carried out by a federal agency that may affect the critical habitat. However, when we look at the impact of critical habitat, we have to consider what might be an incremental impact above and beyond the baseline, and so, again, as I alluded to before, the ESA requires Section 7 consultation on federal activities that may affect the species. Well, because the species occur throughout their range, we have been having to consult on the impacts to the species since they were listed, and, basically, because corals themselves are their own habitat, in many regards, the same activities that affect the corals would also potentially affect their proposed critical habitat, and so many of these things would not -- We would not require a federal agency to change their activities based on the new proposed critical habitat designation, because of the fact that the species occur in those same geographic areas. Also, we do have a substantial overlap of the new proposed critical habitat with the Acropora critical habitat, and there is a general agreement between the essential features, and so, again, those things that we might ask federal agencies to do differently because of the proposed critical habitat, we would have already asked them to do differently, because of the listing of the corals and because of the Acropora critical habitat. In kind of going through that thought process, we identified that protected area management, fisheries management, and aquaculture would be -- There would be no new consultations that would be triggered solely on the basis of this proposed critical habitat, and that’s not to say that you wouldn’t have to consult on this proposed critical habitat, but these particular categories of activities all would have to have considered the species, Acropora 97

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

critical habitat, and those project modifications that we would ask federal agencies to do -- That would stem from, likely, the listing and the existing critical habitat and not solely from the proposed critical habitat. That’s really how critical habitat rules impact the public, is via those Section 7 consultations, and how we might ask a federal agency to change their activities that they either fund, authorize, or carry out because of the critical habitat designation. I slipped over a slide here, but I wanted to also explain to you that there are some parts within those big maps that are not critical habitat, and so I know those boundaries can scare people, because they’re really, really large geographic areas, but we don’t have the data to map exactly those essential features that I described very, very precisely to inform the public exactly where they are, and so, unfortunately, we have to draw the maps with these large areas, but, within those areas, the only thing that is critical habitat is where those essential features exist. For example, if you have a large seagrass bed, that is not critical habitat, because you don’t have hard substrate, and so basically, what is not critical habitat is where the essential feature is not present, and so that’s the one thing that you do when you kind of look at the map and you kind of subtract out what is not critical habitat. Also, because we have a provision in the ESA that says we cannot designate critical habitat when there is an integrated natural resource management plan at military installations, that would provide for the conservation of species. If the things that they are doing to take care of their facility have benefits to the listed species, we are not able to designate critical habitat there, and so we have one military installation, at the Naval Air Station Key West, that is not designated as critical habitat. Additionally, we basically want to only designate critical habitat for those things that are going to support the conservation of the corals, and so managed areas, things that are like dredge navigation channels, shipping basins, vessel berths, anchorages, things that are constantly disturbed and would not provide good habitat, are not part of the designation. Similarly, artificial substrates, like aids to navigation, seawalls, boat ramps, and you get the idea, these things do not provide the features that we need for the coral, and so those things are not part of the designation, and, lastly, we have one exclusion on the basis of national security impacts, and that’s 98

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

the South Florida Measuring Facility, which is near Fort Lauderdale, and it’s a small area that is carved out of critical habitat that is not designated as critical habitat. If you have an activity that either falls solely within one of these areas or is only affecting one of these types of substrates, and like if you were say putting in a new mooring ball, or you were maintaining a mooring ball, then that activity would not have any impacts to critical habitat, because it’s actually not critical habitat, and so we wouldn’t have to have you change your activity at all, because there wouldn’t be effects to the essential feature, and so that basically takes me through things that are and are not critical habitat and how it may impact the public. Obviously, we are accepting public comment through January 26, and the docket number is there, and so, if you go to regulations.gov, you can submit your comment using that docket number, and, if anybody has any questions, my email address is there on the screen. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much for the presentation. Graciela. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, because of the time, the questions can be addressed to her at the email that she has there or in the chat. MARCOS HANKE: Yes. We are going to move along, and thank you very much. Pay attention on the chat, Jennifer, for any questions that people might have. JENNIFER MOORE:

Okay.

Thank you very much.

MIGUEL ROLON: How about a five-minute break, and then we can go to Alida’s report? MARCOS HANKE: A five-minute break, and we will come back at 10:41. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MARCOS HANKE: We are going to start with the presentation of Alida Ortiz and the Outreach & Education Advisory Panel. Alida, go ahead. OUTREACH & EDUCATION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT ALIDA ORTIZ: Good morning, everyone. Before anything, I want to wish you happy holidays and a happy new year, and the next year may be a little bit different from what we have right now, and I will try to go through my presentation on the Outreach & Education Advisory Panel as fast as I can, but we have a lot of information 99

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

to give you. There were a lot of meetings that we attended as part of the Outreach & Education Advisory Panel, and it was from September through November, and we had meetings for webinars, and we had another Outreach & Education meeting, and then we had a meeting with the DAPs, with the liaisons, and then we had meetings with UPR Sea Grant, to develop materials, and we also discussed stakeholder engagement with the Lenfest group and the Pew Charitable Trusts. Then we had also a meeting with Wilson and Christina, and, also, we worked with a webinar for tourism with the Puerto Rico Tourism Company. I would like to just make an update on where we are with the Sustainable Seafood Consumption Campaign, which I think it’s probably the widest, and even the more aggressive, campaign that we have ever had. First of all, the calendar of 2021 is in the -- It’s also in the direction of how to promote the underutilized species, and we did that with the 2020 and then the 2021, and we also are working on the recipe book that I gave some information in the previous meeting, and we are already working with the recipes and the introduction and the catalog of the fishes that are used in the recipes, and I think this is going to be probably one of the most important products that we will have for sustainable seafood. The webinar that we gave for the Tourism Company, to me, it was very important, because it is bringing the sustainable seafood campaign to the wider people, because the tourists guide, or the tourism guides, for the people to take to the tourists at the restaurants, and to the places where they sell fish, and so they have to know about this campaign, and they were very interested. Marcos Hanke and myself made the presentation, and, from that presentation, a group has been formed, a working group, with the tourism company, where we are going to develop other activities and see different ways of reaching all the audiences that we can. We are also working on short videos that Jannette Ramos and Christina Olan are producing, and probably Christina will speak a little bit on them in her presentation of the social media, but this has videos directed to the consumer, to the person that cooks in the house, and they are very simple and very easy to follow and very attractive. Then we would like also to develop a guide to analyze those underutilized species and how can we use them in educational products and how we can have people learn about those species that 100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

are available and that are edible and that are easy to cook and would take a little bit of pressure from those species that we use historically all the time. We are also working with materials for the marine fisheries ecosystem of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, so we can make a wider distribution of that, and one of them is a new short video, a one-shot video, of the habitat of particular concern, utilizing the information that we have already on the essential fish habitats, and this is just to bring to the public the importance of knowing what they are doing on the coast or in the mountains that will affect those essential fish habitats. These videos are being produced, and they will be available in the social media as Christina receives them, and then we -- I am trying to work on a request that I had from Nelson Crespo, which I am very, very grateful, about how can we produce the materials from the book for the 4-H groups, and so I’m working on a slide presentation on the basic concepts that we discuss in that book, so that the 4-H groups that are still meeting virtually can use them. The other project that we are working on now in Outreach & Education is a series of posters, and the first one is a review of the poster on the life cycle of the queen conch, and you have it right here, what it consists of, and the text has been reviewed and updated, and also the art, and this is just about to be finished, and we are very grateful for the support that we have received from Dr. Richard Appeldoorn and Graciela Garcia-Moliner and from Miguel Rolon and from the people that have seen it, that have seen the text, and they have sent us their recommendations. This one, we will send it to Miguel for printing early in December. The other posters that we are working on are posters probably in the similar approach that we have for Nassau grouper and for mutton snapper, with a Spanish, English, and French versions, because they are going to go to the international campaigns, where the U.S. Caribbean Council has -- The Caribbean Council is working, and it will have the biological aspects, like life cycle and prey and predators and spawning aggregation seasons, and all this will be in a very good illustration with very easy-to-understand language that the fishers and the consumers can get the information. We are working also on outreach materials and protecting marine areas in the USVI, and this is in response to a meeting, a very, very important meeting, that we had with the DAPs and with the local government and with the liaisons in the Virgin Islands, so 101

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

that the marine protected areas, like the Grammanik Bank and the MCD, and probably the parks and monuments, all those areas that are protected for the fishes and for the species that live there, we can have information in the form of fact sheets and posters and stickers and wallet cards and short videos for social media, so that they -- The tourists and all the people that go to this area recognize the importance of following the regulations or respecting the habitat that is there, and that is very sensitive, but it’s also very, very important for the entire fisheries in the Virgin Islands. At some time, we may do the same thing for the Puerto Rico areas in the Bajo de Sico and those areas where there are regulations for fishing. We would like to open it now for Christina to give us the information on the social media, please. MIGUEL ROLON: Christina, before you go on, the last slide that was presented by Alida responds to a request by fishers from St. Thomas, Julian and Tony Blanchard and Ruth Gomez, and so, once we have these materials, we want them to check what we produced, just to make sure that we covered the items that were of interest to them, and then we will go ahead and make it a final product, and this is proposed between Sea Grant and the CFMC, with the collaboration of Dr. Alida Ortiz and others, and it will go through CARICOOS, which is the entity that will be allowed to manage these proposals and the proposals for St. Croix. Thank you. ALIDA ORTIZ: Actually, we have a meeting with them next week, and we will discuss the proposal. MIGUEL ROLON:

Okay.

Sorry, Christina.

Thank you.

CHRISTINA OLAN: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Christina, and I work for the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, as the Social Media Content Developer. Thank you for the opportunity of presenting what we are doing for social media. We continue publishing information on seasonal closures, announcements of webinars offered by other agencies and organizations, NOAA bulletins, and announcements of our meetings. For species, we have been producing slide shows about species that have seasonal closures. We also publish information related to essential fish habitats. We also share the administrative orders from the DNR and also communications from the DPNR, especially during the pandemic. We have been sharing AmandOceano Facebook lives, especially the ones related to fish identification and lionfish, and, also, we 102

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

want to -- Especially, I want to thank all the persons that are always sharing the information and providing their input for our posts, especially to the CFMC staff, fishers, scientists, agencies, and stakeholders. A couple of months ago, in September and October, we broadcasted two Facebook lives, where we explained the use of the boating app developed by CARICOOS, and it was an effort among CARICOOS, Puerto Rico Sea Grant, and the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. In YouTube, we have now the recordings of the DAP meetings and the regular meetings, and we also have a video on ocean acidification that was funded by the NOAA Ocean Acidification Program, and, also, we have the recording of the Responsible Seafood Consumption webinar sponsored by the Puerto Rico Tourism Company, where Alida and Marcos were the presenters. We have also been producing a monthly bulletin, and we published it in November and December, and the bulletin includes information regarding CFMC meetings, underutilized species, fishers, sustainability, and information in our social media platforms. The bulletin is available through Facebook, the CFMC webpage, and email. If you have questions, please let me know, and I am thankful for all the recommendations and suggestions that our stakeholders and fishers and agencies and other persons are always sharing with me to improve the content that we share to our social media platforms. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you very much, Christina.

Next.

CHRISTINA OLAN: I also want to mention that, in October, that was the seafood month, and we also published a couple of recipes that were provided by Jannette Ramos, and it was a collaborative effort between Jannette, and also Michelle Scharer, that sent us scientific information about the triggerfish, and so we published two recipes, and, also, we shared information related to seafood consumption. Thank you. ALIDA ORTIZ: Thank you, Christina. Great work. As recommendations to the council that we have now, these outreach initiatives to educate the public on the values and importance of the MPAs for a sustainable fishery is very important. We recommend that the council consider support for all the initiatives that we are taking now in the USVI and to promote an extension of those same type of materials for the Puerto Rico protected areas. They are needed. People have to know where are the areas protected and why are they protected. 103

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

With the responsible consumer and sustainable fishery outreach initiative, to us, it is very important, because it involves the consumer in the fisheries protection. The protection of that resource is not just the responsibility of the fisher or the managers, but it’s the responsibility of us as consumers, and so we would like to extend this initiative that we are doing in Puerto Rico to the USVI, and we request the support of the council for these projects. As we decided in the meetings that we had with the liaisons last month, I think it is important each one of the liaisons -- These are the people that connect outreach and education with the fishers and with the community where they live, and so we have Wilson Santiago from Puerto Rico, and, next, we will have Nikita Charles from St. Croix, and, after that, we will have Nicole Greaux from St. Thomas/St. John. Wilson. WILSON SANTIAGO: Good morning to everyone. This is Wilson Santiago here, the Liaison Office for Puerto Rico. The 2020 liaison participation, I have been coordinating the PEPCO program resources and presentations, and I think I’m going to finish everything on the PEPCO program in December, and I am planning to start in the end of January of 2021. The other thing is I support Christina Olan with the new posts of the CFMC social media regarding closures and DNER administrative orders for Puerto Rico fishers, and I have participated in different workshops regarding fisheries education. I have started making a database of the participants of the PEPCO program, where there are telephone numbers and emails, and so I haven’t finished that. Right now, I have around 430 contacts, and so I will work towards that. This database that I was talking about, it will work with the outreach of the council and the outreach of the DNER and any other agency that needs that database, and so, when it’s finished, I will send it to the CFMC and to the DNER, so we can use it. In this database, I started making it because of the -- In the last meeting, one of my proposals was making like a identification message, and so we can weekly or monthly send notifications regarding education to all the fishers and fishing community about closures and everything regarding the fisheries, and so I am planning to, in 2021, so we can start these push notifications. Also, I have been supporting the CFMC and finding pictures and area of catch per species for the 2021 CFMC calendar. I have been 104

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

supporting fishers with issues and information of the DNER state and federal closures, and I have been giving educational materials to the fishers, educational materials from the CFMC. As the liaison officer of Puerto Rico, one of my responsibilities are taking the issues regarding the fishers in Puerto Rico and like, right now, in the pandemic, the majority issue within the fishers in Puerto Rico has been the licensing and permitting procedures of the DNER. I have been working with the DNER Office of Permits, so I can be updated weekly. When the fishers call me, I can tell them in what stage is the permit or the license, and that is like the most issues right now in the pandemic for the fishers. I also help the new fishers, and so, right now, the DNER has around 2,000 fishing permits, and they are new, and there is a lot of misinformation about the fishing closures and statistics and reports and licenses and permits for state and federal waters in Puerto Rico, and so I think we can outreach those fishers and educate them with the PEPCO program, and so that is one of the tasks that we have with the PEPCO program. The other issue that fishers in Puerto Rico have shown, and we have this issue like every year, is the law enforcement to watch the closures and illegal commercial fishing in state and federal waters, and so that is all for me, and, if you have any questions, you can send them via the chat. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Wilson.

Nikita.

NIKITA CHARLES: Good morning. First, I would like to thank everyone for having me. My name is Nikita Charles, and I’m the CFMC Liaison for St. Croix. As you know, right now, we’re working on the Reef Responsible Sustainable Seafood Initiative, and we’ve been dedicated to having the program up and running again at full capacity by the beginning of the year, and our goal for the initiative is to promote the Virgin Islanders to catch, purchase, serve, and consume locally-harvested seafood. Reef Responsible wants to work with the community, through engagement and education of commercial fishers and restaurants, to make better choices in seafood consumption. In terms of education and material, we’ve recently gotten our posters and brochures, and we’ve worked with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to get the educational materials printed out for like the Fish Fact Book and whatnot, and, with that, we’re going to be dispersing and promoting and educating the community about the program. 105

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

In terms of social media, as a team, we’ve established incorporating weekly polls on social media outlets, such as Facebook and Instagram, to help promote and bring awareness to our mission, and a shoutout to Danielle from St. Thomas for helping us add items such as Trivia Tuesday and Fish Spotlight Friday to our pages, promoting the educational materials, such as the Fish Fact Books. For commercial fishers, it’s actually this coming Friday, and we’ll be welcoming fishers at the reopening of the La Reine Fish Market and giving them the opportunity to learn more about how we can help them and how they can sign up for the initiative. Here, we’ll also establish a voluntary list for them to be able to have a list of licensed commercial fishers that we can share with the restaurants in the future. In terms of restaurant training now, we’ve added more restaurants to the list of Reef Responsible Restaurants for outreach, and we’re currently scheduling restaurant trainings for the month of December. We’ve also been working on establishing monthly Zoom trainings for them during COVID, and we’re trying to add a presentation that works actively virtually with individuals, so we can ask them questions and they can participate better. We have our Reef Responsible Advisory Council that we’ve been utilizing, and we’ve got input on the presentation. Just to give you an idea of what are the rest of the training materials for the restaurant trainings and Zoom fishing trainings, we decided to add things like the stony coral tissue loss disease and exhibiting ways to properly measure legal sizing for purchasing specific types of catch, that being how to measure and better visually explain the carapace length and fork length, how to get a better idea of telling if a fish is fresh, if you’re getting fresh fish, making sure you’re purchasing from licensed commercial fishers, because I know that’s a big deal for a lot of people, and how to check for that. Then there’s discussing the high risk of ciguatera, and I think that’s all I have for you guys today. Thank you. ALIDA ORTIZ:

Nicole.

NICOLE GREAUX: Good morning to everyone. Thank you so much for allowing me to do my presentation at the fishery management council. My name is Nicole Greaux, and I am the liaison for St. Thomas/St. John. First off, I would like to start with saying that we’ve had some challenges over here on St. Thomas. I lost the expertise of Alexis 106

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Sabine, upon her resignation, and so we’ve really had to start off fresh over here, as far as obtaining information and getting things like fishery contacts and those kind of items. We’re starting off with the fishing vending areas. One of the issues that I have come across, speaking to fishermen at our seven vending sites, believe it or not, is that they really would like to know a timeline for repairs and improvements on a lot of the fish vending areas. Only two of the fish vending areas that we have here belong to Fish and Wildlife, or DPNR. The others are more traditional than designated, and that is going to be a discussion I know that’s going to be soon-coming. I do believe that Julian Magras, at the DAP meeting, had spoken about getting in contact with some of the owners of the properties that are now traditional vending sites. Representation in events for the fisheries, I have noticed that we have not had a very strong representation for our local fishers here, the commercial fishers in the Virgin Islands. We are hoping, through the Reef Responsible Program, to have more of our local commercial fishers out and about, so that people can know the key parts that they play in our fisheries, and also in helping to get information to the public, as far as the different species of fish are concerned and also what species of fish are considered the most desirable. They are also the ones that have the most information on things like fish growth, fish availability, and also as far as the ciguatera areas are concerned. As far as the liaison and fisher discussions go, we have yet to have a full meeting, and, obviously, COVID has put a damper on a lot of our meeting capabilities, and, as far as virtual meetings go, some of the fishers are not very much into having virtual meetings, and so that’s going to be put on hold until we feel more comfortable meeting in public. I mentioned earlier that I went to seven of the fish vending areas, and I have been visiting the fishermen and their helpers, and they are quite an amazing group of people, and they have so much resilience, and I’m very proud of our local commercial fishers, both here on St. Thomas and in St. John. Another thing that has come to my attention, while I was going out to meet the fishers, is that there’s not very much information that is out for them right now as far as their hurricane relief funding is concerned, and I am going to ask, since I know that Dr. Angeli is here on this call, if there can be something that you 107

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

and I can discuss, as far as putting together information that I can go ahead and hand out to the fishers, or that we can get together and speak to them about, so they can have those questions answered. The Reef Responsible Initiative that Nikita was talking about is going to be our main platform for the responsible consumer campaign, and I’m very proud to be a part of that particular initiative, because not only is it going to help people learn more about what sustainable seafood is, but it’s also going to give a better scope of the fishers available to not only our restaurants, but also to our local consumers of different fish, and that’s all I have for now. Thank you. ALIDA ORTIZ: Thank you so much, especially to the liaisons. I think the work is magnificent, and I ask you to keep in contact with us, not just for the meeting that the council has, but, every time that you have an activity, send it to Christina, or send it to me, so that we can share how these connections with the fishers is working, and so thank you. Thank you so much, and so this is all our presentation. If there are any questions related to the Outreach and Education Panel -MIGUEL ROLON: recording.)

(Mr.

Rolon’s

comment

not

audible

the

CHRISTINA OLAN: The title of this proposal is “From Fishers’ Knowledge to Scientific Language: Understanding Essential Fish Habitat of the Deep Water Snapper Fishery”. The objectives of this effort is the following. It will be to document what fishers do in this fishery and how they contribute to science, to create awareness about the deepwater snapper fishery and essential fish habitat associated with it, increase the understanding of this fishery, and inspire stakeholders to support management measures to protect the fishery and promote sustainability. This proposal has three phases. The first one is that we will be recording virtual interviews with scientists that are working with the deepwater snapper fishery, and we will be producing short videos. The second one will be interviews to fishers that are collaborating with research, to highlight the importance of their contribution and their knowledge of science. Those videos will be published on YouTube, and, also, we will be working on soundbites for Facebook and Instagram. In this part, we are hopefully going to be interviewing fishers in-person, instead of doing virtual interviews, and then we are going to produce a video of deepwater snapper fishing, or, in 108

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Spanish, cala.

That is my presentation.

MIGUEL ROLON: The other thing that we have here is that the money for the presentation, I mean for this proposal, comes from the funds that were approved by the habitat group and the reef fish group from NOAA that Graciela monitors, and this money has been approved already, and it will cover, of course, the three islands, and remember that we have the island-based FMPs, and they will be implemented accordingly in 2021. However, this effort will include all fishers from St. Thomas/St. John, from St. Croix, and from Puerto Rico, of course. The scientists that we are going to interview include the three presenters today, and all the presenters, really, that have anything ongoing, in terms of research, or have done research in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, that will be of interest to the fishers of this area. The interviews in the field will depend on the COVID guidelines, and, as they told us yesterday, National Marine Fisheries Service is still on Phase Zero, until the end of the year, and they have several phases, but they -- We envision that, probably by the end of the third quarter of 2021, we will be able to have the vaccine and allow people to go in the field. The proposal will cover probably 2021 and 2022, depending on this COVID thing, and, also, the timing of interviews with fishers and so forth. The last part of the proposal includes a video on how to fish deepwater snappers and groupers, and this idea came from a conversation with fishermen in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and it will be a fisher-to-fisher talking, and we have, for example, ex-fishermen from Puerto Rico explaining how he or she fishes for deepwater snappers and groupers, experience and all that, and then we will move to the Virgin Islands and see who in the Virgin Islands fishes for deepwater snappers and groupers, and that will be posted and available on Facebook for any fisher that would like to venture into deepwater fishing. It’s not an easy fish to do, easy fishing to do. Otherwise, everybody would be doing it, but we believe that this is an answer to many fishers who have requested more information on how they can go into deepwater fishing, and this is a commitment that we made at the beginning of the year with fishers, and, this way, we will be able to fulfill that. Alida, do you have anything else that you want to add? GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:

If I may, Miguel, before you -109

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

MIGUEL ROLON:

Go ahead, Graciela.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: So the government conservation program provided the funds to the council to actually follow the fishers as they do their fishing and to answer specific questions regarding temperature at-depth, the water masses where they are fishing, and so it’s not only the component of how they fish and the knowledge that they have in selecting the areas and the depths for the size of fish that they are targeting, but it’s also the oceanography of that data, to bring their knowledge into the science realm. I just saw, in a text that Jesus gave, and Virginia, that they would be very happy to be interviewed, and we have sent some emails around, to make sure that we encompass both the scientific efforts that are being conducted and the actual description and characterization of that fishery as they prosecute that fishery, and so the key feature is their knowledge being translated into scientific language and to answer specific questions that they have regarding the changes that they have noticed in their fishery, for example temperature. We are using a CTD at the same time that they are fishing, to get environmental data and to look at the parameters that might be impacting the size of the fish and the changes that they notice when they go to the same area over time, and so this is really exciting that everyone is working at the same time to include life history information and actual data from the fishers, to really characterize this deepwater fishery, and so thank you to everyone who is participating. MIGUEL ROLON:

Thank you, Graciela.

ALIDA ORTIZ: Miguel, I don’t really have anything else to add, but just to say thank you to all the collaboration of the Outreach & Education Advisory Panel, that they keep us in touch, and we will work closer with the liaisons, and it is important, this production that is being done for the social media, because we have to reach the people from every possible way that is available. Thank you so much. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Alida. Miguel, do you need anything from the council, or just the presentation? MIGUEL ROLON: No. In the case of the presentation by Christina, we wanted to -- If everybody agrees, we will continue with the presentation, and we have the funding and the proposal that was approved and monitored by Graciela, and it calls for the social media person to be involved, and that’s Christina. 110

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Given that the monies are what we have in the purchase order, we just wanted to make sure that the council understands that this I what is going to be done, and, if there is no opposition, we can continue with the project, or you can have a motion to continue with this effort, and also to keep collaborating, as suggested by Dr. Alida Ortiz, to move forward with the project that we have in Puerto Rico into the U.S. Virgin Islands. That is more or less what we wanted, and so, either way you do it, it will be fine. If you want to have a proposal, or a motion, to make it stronger, that would be up to the Chair. MARCOS HANKE:

Can you help me with the language of the motion?

MIGUEL ROLON: The motion will be to accept the report from Dr. Alida Ortiz and Christina Olan and to support the proposals suggested for outreach and education with the participation of the U.S. Virgin Islands fishers and scientists, as well as those in Puerto Rico. MARCOS HANKE: that motion?

Would any of the council members like to present

MIGUEL ROLON:

Just say so I move and second.

NICOLE ANGELI:

I so move.

MARCOS HANKE:

Motion by Nicole.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

A second then?

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Is there any opposition? Hearing no opposition, the motion carries. Thank you very much, Miguel. We will move on. MIGUEL ROLON:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MARCOS HANKE:

The next presentation will be the Enforcement.

MIGUEL ROLON: The first one is from Puerto Rico. you going to do the presentation?

Damaris, are

ENFORCEMENT PUERTO RICO DNER DAMARIS DELGADO: Yes. Good morning. For Puerto Rico, as you know, we have been -- The Rangers have been aiding with the affairs related to COVID, but, besides that, they still have been 111

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

intervening with the regulations, environmental regulations, associated to fisheries, and we have thirty-five cases of nets, cast nets and trammel nets and crab traps, in the Humacao region, and this information that I am sharing with you is from January to November. I couldn’t get information from the last time that we reported, but this is aggregated data on the interventions from the Rangers from January to November. We have twenty-three cases of cast nets in the region, in the Humacao region, five cases of trammel nets, and seven cases for crab traps in that region. Besides that, there were several cases of beach seine, the chinchorro, and so, in regard to the chinchorro, we had four cases of that. In the south region, there were a lot of interventions in the south region, including one with the beach seine in the river mouth of Nigua River in Salinas, and there were nineteen cases of interventions of hook-and-line in that same region, the south region and the southeast. We had one case of handline in Salinas, five cases of lobster pots in the south region, several cases of lobsters, because of not fulfilling the size, the required size, and we had three cases of interventions for not having licenses or permits, including expired licenses, but mainly because they didn’t have licenses or permits. There was also two interventions for people violating the ban on crabs, one intervention for the closure of the wahoo species in Cabo Rojo, two cases that included two divers, and that’s pretty much the summary of the interventions. If you require the details, I have the report that was provided by the Rangers with the exact cases and the number of the cases and the places where they were made, and so that’s pretty much the information that I have. Some of the interventions that the Rangers are doing are being posted in our mass media, including one recent case of illegal fishing in Humacao, and so that’s pretty much the information. MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you, Damaris. Can you send us an email with an attachment, so we can put it in our records? DAMARIS DELGADO:

Sure.

I will do that.

I will send it to you.

MIGUEL ROLON: One clarification. Most of these interventions are because they are in violation of Puerto Rico fishery laws and regulations. 112

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

DAMARIS DELGADO: Right, and so that’s Law 278 and Regulation 7949. Thank you very much. MARCOS HANKE: Guard.

Thank you, Damaris.

We will go now with the Coast

U.S. COAST GUARD JAMES BRUCE: Good morning, everybody. This is Lieutenant James Bruce with the U.S. Coast Guard. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak, and I will be brief. It’s been a great two days. Some of the presentations from everyone have been really interesting, and I don’t have a presentation, especially after how professional the other ones are. I wouldn’t dream of bringing one to compete. The only thing that I would submit is the U.S. Coast Guard is continuing to work with our partners and agencies from Puerto Rico and the area of USVI and state and federal partners, and we’re continuing to conduct enforcement patrols to enforce federal fisheries and federal regulations. COVID has definitely been an interesting year, and it has presented some operational challenges for us, to make sure that we are able to protect the people that we interact with, as best as reasonable and possible, and also protect our crews while still conducting this mission. Other than that, I don’t have a lot else to report. The U.S. Coast Guard, I mean, we stand ready to support the communities that we’re involved in, and we’ll also try and help level the playing field in the commercial fisheries, and so I will stand by, if there’s any questions, but that concludes my remarks. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: USVI report.

Thank you very much.

I skipped, accidentally, the

USVI DPNR NICOLE ANGELI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This Nicole Angeli, reporting for Enforcement for the Department of Planning and Natural Resources. Our officers are currently pulled to the Virgin Islands Police Department, in order to enforce and ensure the health and safety of our citizens during the COVID-19 pandemic, including enforcement for boating restrictions. The fisheries enforcement has no update. However, we do have good news, in that we have managed to hire two new candidates for the 113

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

police academy this year, and that concludes our report. If you have more specific questions, please let me know in the chat or email later. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much for your report. The next report for enforcement is the NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. NOAA FISHERIES OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT MIGUEL BORGES: I think Manny Antonaras was going to speak, but he might be dealing with another thing, and so I could give a couple of updates, at least since the last council meeting in September. We have had several interdictions and trainings since then, and specifically, training-wise, we provided training for the DNER officers of the west coast of Puerto Rico. The training was regarding case package requirements and federal regulations and implementation of the closed areas on the west coast of Puerto Rico. We also had a meeting with the Secretary of DNER and the commissioner of DNER to implement the strategies for future collaborations coming up, and, for enforcement actions, we’ve had several interdictions that have been in collaboration with DNER officers that have resulted in enforcement action, and those have been regarding highly migratory species, specifically billfish. We also had an enforcement action concerning dolphin harassment on the east coast of Puerto Rico, and that also resulted in enforcement action for us, and we are also working, continue working, with the Coast Guard and DNER for future operations. We are also working four long-term investigations that are still ongoing, and, lastly, we are focusing our enforcement efforts toward port state measures and IUU fishing, and so that’s unreported illegal fishing. That’s done through seaport importation, through the ports, mainly the San Juan port, and the same thing for the USVI, in St. Thomas, for all the regulations to import seafood from other countries and the programs they have to abide by, and so that’s in Puerto Rico being done, and that concludes our report for this time. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. Thank you for your report. We are going to Other Business now, and I believe we have a presentation from Carlos Farchette on designating fishing safe zones. 114

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

OTHER BUSINESS DESIGNATION OF FISHING SAFE ZONES CARLOS FARCHETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Natalia has a slide for me. Thanks. For years, fishermen have been complaining about cargo vessels taking shortcuts over the shallow waters of Lang Bank on their way to the port authority container port on the south shore of St. Croix. These container and cargo vessels, while underway, have traversed through Lang Bank at water depths of forty to sixty feet, and, while doing so, they have entangled fish trap lines, dragging them and destroying many fish traps, causing economic hardship to the fishers who have had to replace quite a bit of lost traps throughout the years. Who knows what damage to the habitat these traps have caused when being dragged by these ships down the road? In the 1980s and 1990s, fishermen have taken shipping companies to court, and a couple have been compensated by the company, when fishers have identified their buoy colors. However, most of the fishers do not have the financial backing to hire attorneys to fight their case, compared to the legal defense that a multimillion-dollar company can afford, and so, really, all the fishers can do is complain to the DPNR. This problem occurs predominantly on the south shore of St. Croix, when ships are traveling from the southwest cape of Sandy Point to the container port. In the past, there has been a notice to mariners on the coast pilot for cargo and container vessels to stay outside of the hundred-fathom curve while approaching the container port. This notice was removed in 1995. However, I am not sure why, and I couldn’t find the reason why it was removed. I am aware that the area of the south shore is in territorial waters, because the hundred-fathom curve falls within state waters, but I believe it’s an important issue that not only occurs in Lang Bank. However, being the council, and we only regulate federal waters, that’s why I am specifically speaking to the area that you see on the screen. When it comes to the south shore of St. Croix, the fishermen met in October with the Governor of the Virgin Islands, and he said that he would be consulting with the port authority to discuss what can be done about designating a safe fishing zone on the south shore of St. Croix. These incidents also create a safety-at-sea issue, particularly at 115

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

night when fishers are line fishing and while at anchor, and they have had to cut their anchor line to escape being run over by these large vessels. This safety-at-sea issue also occurs at Lang Bank, and I believe that some type of protection should be afforded to the fishermen who use this area to make their livelihood. Speaking to one of our DAP members, Dave Gubser, which is also a member of our FAC, he brought up what happened in San Francisco Bay while he was a tugboat operator, and they had designated shipping lanes to avoid this problem. All that being said, I would like to get some advice from the council, maybe from Jocelyn or maybe the U.S. Coast Guard, on how we can designate the area of Lang Bank seen on the slide as a safe fishing zone by maintaining vessels outside of the hundred-fathom curve while navigating around Lang Bank, St. Croix. Some of these vessels are either out of Puerto Rico or somewhere in the U.S., or even down island. I believe a rule of law could be what the fishers are asking for, because placing a notice to mariners in the coast pilot as a courtesy, as it once was, is not good enough, and it’s usually ignored. If there is a way to have language, such as a vessel measuring X, or weighing X metric tons, must, or shall, keep within X, Y, Z lines, as necessary language. If this request for assistance by the council is beyond its jurisdiction, I would like someone to maybe point me in the direction that I can follow through with it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos. Your request for input, if it’s possible, from the Coast Guard and from Jocelyn, and let’s start with the Coast Guard, if there is any input or any way that you can help here. JAMES BRUCE: This, in particular, is not my area of expertise. What I did is put my email address in the comments. If you would be so kind to just give a quick recap, and, if you want to send me the issue at-hand, I can absolutely get you to the right office that would be able to speak to this with more authority and precision, and so I hesitate to comment too much on it, because, again, it’s not my particular area of expertise. However, the process of these types of designations is something that the Coast Guard does participate in, along with several other federal agencies, and so I will pause right there and just make sure that that got through, because I know we’re on a virtual meeting. 116

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Thank you. Tonight, we have a fisheries advisory committee meeting, and I will bring up this point that you just brought up, and we’ll send you an email. We have a member named Toby Tobias, or William Tobias, that has a long history with what’s been going on out there, and so he can assist me in writing this request to you. JAMES BRUCE: It doesn’t have to be anything very official. What I’m more speaking to is just to get you on the right path and get you connected with the right people, and so I just want to make sure that I’m communicating that clearly. MIGUEL ROLON: Carlos, probably you should do two things. You should follow the Coast Guard’s suggestion, and that’s just to get the names of the person that you should address this request, and then put together a request, because I worked with this before in San Juan, for another reason, and, in the request, usually what they want is the why, where, the rationale, et cetera, and then they point to the other agencies, because this has to be done by the action agency, and you have to include a lot of considerations for this. I guess that this is the best way to start. Then the National Marine Fisheries Service intervenes with comments, regarding whether any of these actions have any effects on the fishery management plan and so forth, and so we should send a copy to Jocelyn, just to make sure that they are abreast of these developments. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Okay.

Will do.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos. I think that satisfies what your intention is so far, and you’re done? CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes, it does, to start.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. The next is I think we have -- Under Other Business, that’s it, correct, Miguel? MIGUEL ROLON: We have the public comment period, and I believe that Dr. Michelle Scharer wanted to address the group. MARCOS HANKE: Michelle.

Yes.

We are going now to the public comment period.

TONY BLANCHARD: Marcos, I would like to make a comment on the public comment, when she is finished. MARCOS HANKE:

That’s correct.

Thank you. 117

No problem.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

PUBLIC COMMENT MICHELLE SCHARER: Hi, everyone. Thanks again for the opportunity. I believe there is a short presentation that I sent to Liajay and Graciela. LIAJAY RIVERA: Yes, you did. Hold on just a second, because your PowerPoint just froze, and so give me a second to reopen it. MICHELLE SCHARER: Basically, I just wanted to reiterate what various scientists shared this morning, that we need data from our local area to be able to adjust our management of our fisheries, since a lot of the information wasn’t available previously, for example these age validations and differences in the behavior of species due to our environmental patterns in the Caribbean being different from the U.S. Basically, I wanted to bring to light something that I have shared previously with different agencies and persons regarding the variability in the formation of the spawning aggregations we have locally, and so this is preliminary data from our passive acoustic monitoring of red hind off the west coast of Puerto Rico. Red hind off of western Puerto Rico are known to aggregate to spawn during one to three lunar cycles after the full moon of the winter solstice, and so, right now, today, December 9, the fish are starting to migrate to their aggregation, but, this year, the full moon is the 29th of December, and so it’s not until after that that we will actually see the aggregations. We also know, from work done here and in the U.S. Virgin Islands, that the males and the larger females, which will be next year’s males, because remember that they change sex as they get bigger, they remain until the end of each aggregation every year, and this is important to understand how the behavior is affecting the aggregations. We also know that one of the cues for spawning is the water temperature. It needs to drop below 26.5 degrees Centigrade for them to actually have that cue to spawn. During the reproductive behaviors, red hinds produce sounds that we can detect remotely by passive acoustic monitoring, and we’ve been doing that since 2007 at Abrir la Sierra. If the aggregation extends past February 28 in the EEZ of western Puerto Rico, the reproduction is disrupted, and, because of their behavior, the larger males and females will be more vulnerable to 118

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

fishing after the closed season ends. This happened three times in the past ten years that we’ve been monitoring. If you go to the next slide, I can show you an example of what this data actually look like, and so the orange bars are the acoustic signals that are produced by the red hind when they are aggregated. On the top, you will see the full moons of that season, and you will also see dotted blue is the minimum water temperature at depth at this aggregation site, and so, basically, that first peak in sound production coincides with that first dip in water temperature below 26.5 degrees, and then we see another peak in sound production that also comes after another dip in temperature, and that red-dotted line is February 28. We have been able to document, three times in the past ten years, that the aggregation continues past February 28. We can see that the aggregation is well protected during the first two cycles, but it’s not always protected when the full moon is late and the temperatures don’t peak down into the colder areas that they need to spawn. Why is this important? Preliminarily, we’ve been collecting red hind from commercial fishers in different parts of the island, and this is a project in conjunction with Rick Nemeth and Virginia Shervette funded by MARFIN. When we look at the sex ratios, or the proportion of males to females, off of western Puerto Rico, throughout the fishing areas, we see about an eighty-to-twenty ratio. On the east of Puerto Rico, it’s a little more males to females, but, during the aggregation site that we have been monitoring off of western Puerto Rico, we had a scarcity of males, and I don’t need to explain much how you need sperm to fertilize all of these eggs, but this is something that is concerning for the productivity of the red hind fishery off of western Puerto Rico. The variability in the lunar cycle, and so this is when the fish actually aggregate, compared to the regulations that end on February 28, based on preliminary data, we could see this happen up to eight times in the next ten years, but it’s not sure how climate change and seawater temperatures will affect these patterns. The suggestion is to go to the CFR Sub-Part S, Section 622.435, and revise the end date of the red hind closed season, if the rationale is to protect the aggregations. The future aggregations 119

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

would be better protected by a more in-depth analysis of our passive acoustic monitoring data, a continued active passive acoustic monitoring, and year-round seawater temperature recordings at different aggregation sites, so that we can address how widespread this problem may be. Variability in the formation of the spawning aggregations has also been noted for other species that aggregate to spawn in the U.S. Caribbean, and we have the data available for the groupers that produce sound. Finally, next year, on February 28, we expect the fish to still be aggregated after the closure of the red hind season, and we suggest that the council consider an emergency rule so that this aggregation is not disrupted in the near future, and that’s it. Thank you very much. MARCOS HANKE: Any questions from the council? I think it’s very important information, and it’s relevant to all the regions of the U.S. Caribbean, and are there any comments or any questions? MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, I believe that what Dr. Scharer presented today is new information, or let’s say presented in a different context, and I believe that Graciela and I can take a look at this, and, in 2021, start consulting with the Regional Office and the people to see how to incorporate any of this into the decisionmaking process that we have. Regarding emergency action, in the federal government, emergency action is when a plane crashes, and that’s what I was told in Washington at a meeting when we requested an emergency action, meaning that probably we won’t have time to have an emergency action by February 28, 2021, because emergency action has to go by the action agency, in this case National Marine Fisheries Service. The important part here, Mr. Chairman, is to take this information and keep consulting with Dr. Scharer, and Dr. Scharer is a member of the SSC, and we should take this information to continue the process that we have. By the way, Dr. Scharer is also helping us on the international level with the protection of spawning aggregations of species that use this strategy in their life history for those species, and so it is important that we consider this information and add any actions in 2021 and 2022 for the protection of these species. Just remember that any action that we have has to be in consideration with the socioeconomics of the area, and so all of 120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

that will be in play by the time that we put something together to address this issue. MARCOS HANKE: I understand that, and I just would like to give the opportunity to the council members to express themselves, and I have a question on the slide. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, go ahead and ask you question, and maybe that will entice some discussion, because it’s 12:00 already. MARCOS HANKE: Okay. For me, it’s very interesting, because, on the east coast of Puerto Rico, it’s different than the west coast, the fishing grounds and the way that people behave, in terms of fishing, and the commercial fishermen on the east coast don’t target specifically red hind, like other areas of Puerto Rico, and, more than that, there is not a specific area that is protected or is identified to go for the red hind like the west coast. Maybe that is the reason why we have that ratio that’s different than the west, and that’s a possibility, Michelle? Am I reading this right? Can you make a comment on that? MICHELLE SCHARER: Absolutely. I think that is part of the reason, I think, that there is this different sex ratio, but, also, the fishing methods used in the east versus the west, from which these samples were collected, is also different, and so most of the east coast red hind came from traps, and most of the west coast came from spearfishing, and so that may also be a reason why there is this difference, but the most concerning one is what’s happening at the aggregation site. MARCOS HANKE:

Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Just to make a small comment, it’s also, as you say, that in the west that we have a lot of the -- We have 300 divers, and this species is really well known in the area, and many people look for them, and so all the fish markets pay practically $3.00 or $3.50 per pound, and divers are looking for it, also. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE: Okay. As the Chairman, I would really like to have a discussion on this in the future and to explore which way we can address and learn about this new information, like Miguel said, and we’re going to get this information and see what can be done or which way we can accommodate a deeper discussion of this issue. Thank you very much for your presentation, Michelle. EDWARD SCHUSTER: chat.

I had a question, Marcos. 121

My hand was up in the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead.

I’m sorry, Ed.

Go ahead.

EDWARD SCHUSTER: Okay. Excellent information. This is why it’s so important to go into these closed areas for reevaluation. Now that this study has been done, are you saying that the larger fish remain even after the closures there, and so, with the emergency closure that you’re proposing, you’re saying that you want to extend the closed area longer? MARCOS HANKE:

Michelle.

MICHELLE SCHARER: Part of the recommendation we have made previously, for the west coast of Puerto Rico, in the EEZ, was to shift, and not extend, the closed season, to be able to protect that last peak in the aggregation, and so, instead of 1 December to 28 February, we have proposed, in the past, 15 December to 15 March. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Michelle.

EDWARD SCHUSTER: Okay. It makes sense now. You’re not extending it, but you’re just moving the peak time of the closed areas, because now you know exactly when the bigger fish are there and they’re doing their stuff. MARCOS HANKE:

Michelle.

MICHELLE SCHARER:

Correct.

EDWARD SCHUSTER: presentation.

Okay.

Thank you.

Excellent information and

MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, we have Richard and Vanessa.

MARCOS HANKE:

Richard.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: I just wanted to reemphasize why this is really an issue now, and it’s because, of course, that the lunar cycles do not follow the solar calendar, and, while our initial decade of monitoring showed this problem to occur periodically, that’s just how the moon happened to fall during that decade of work, and the decade coming up is going to be one where this is going to be a problem. As she said, it will occur 80 percent of the time, and so it’s really trying to point out that this is something that we need to address, and address soon, because it’s going to be with us for a while. 122

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

The only other solution would be to change to the Mayan lunar calendar, and that would solve all of our problems, because everything would be aligned, but, then again, the world would have ended in 2012, and so there’s a downside. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE:

Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Marcos, thank you. I just wanted to tell Michelle that I totally agree with -- The calendar is by the lunar cycle, and so this not only the red hind species, but there is also another species that are doing the same for the last three years, and so we need to work on this, and for the health of the fisheries, and to instruct the fishermen also of the importance to maintain that calendar update. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE:

Graciela.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: I just have one question regarding enforcement, and so the seasonal closure for red hind extends from the shoreline to the 200 nautical miles. Do we have any information on the success of enforcement during that time of the year that we have now and how that might have contributed to the changes that we see in the population? The question probably will bounce back to the enforcement officers and to the commercial fishers. MARCOS HANKE:

Your question is directed to whom?

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Well, if Michelle has the answer, it would be great, but, if not, to the enforcement agents and to the local government, and to the commercial fishers. MARCOS HANKE:

Michelle.

MICHELLE SCHARER: I don’t have any information on actual interventions, but, when we’ve been sampling during the closed season, we have seen boats actively fishing for red hind at the aggregation site. MARCOS HANKE: this issue?

Anybody else have information about enforcement on

DAMARIS DELGADO: I know Yamitza Rodriguez is on the line, if she can share some information, because I know she monitors the interventions. Right now, I don’t have that type of information here, and I would ask my fellow colleagues within DNER after the meeting, and I can provide information later on. 123

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, the important part is not the enforcement at this time, and it’s just the presentation that Dr. Scharer is bringing to the attention of the group, which is that new information regarding the size and also a request for changing the range of the closure that we have here, to make sure that we cover the peak spawning time for the species. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, Miguel, and I would like to ask -- I see interest from Vanessa and from Eddie and from a few of the council members, recognizing this important information, and which is the -- The question is to Jocelyn, but which is the best way we can address this as quick as possible, the discussion? Thank you, Jocelyn. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you, Marcos. One of the things that I just wanted to circle back to that Graciela had said was just about the scope of the closure, and so the federal regulations -- We’re talking about closed areas in federal waters in particular time periods, and I can’t speak to any of the closures in the territorial waters, but we have, on the books, some closed areas and closed seasons to account for red hind spawning. Then I think the question is do we need to adjust those time periods to account for different information, and so we can look into the process for doing that and putting forward an amendment to revise some of the closed seasons, or the closed areas, to account for that information, and so that’s something that the council could request staff to look into. In terms of an emergency rule, I would have to do some additional looking at the scope of that, but I think Miguel mentioned that there are very narrow circumstances where we could have an emergency, and so it doesn’t initially seem like that would be appropriate, but we might -- It would be appropriate to reevaluate the management measures on the books, to make sure that they’re matching the best scientific information that we have. MARCOS HANKE: I guess that’s the best route, and we need guidance from you guys to make sure we follow the science. Yamitza Rodriguez is YAMITZA RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Hi. Regarding what Damaris mentioned, we can provide information regarding the interventions that the Rangers have done. With red hind, what we do is, most of the time that they intervene on the water, the Rangers come to the Fisheries Lab, and we do the certification and measurements that are required of the fish, for the law purposes or anything, and we have all that information, I think since 2005 to 2019, and it is mostly up124

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

to-date. We can give you information regarding how many interventions of red hind have been done during the seasonal closure. One thing to keep in mind is that most of the interventions that we receive are from the west coast, and, since 2010, when the fishing regulations were amended, the seasonal closure applies island-wide, and so we can try to collect if there are other interventions of red hind in the seasonal closure for other parts of the island, and we can provide how many interventions that the Rangers have done in this period. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Once you have that document, can you please send it to the council, for us to have it and to distribute? YAMITZA RODRIGUEZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Sure.

Thank you very much, Yamitza.

We have Graciela.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Yes, please. Michelle, if it’s Abrir la Sierra only, that’s completely within federal waters, and so that’s one thing, and so would you suggest to begin with something like that, or would it be better to look at the complete seasonal closure, so that the government of Puerto Rico and the federal government moved from December 1 to December 15 to March 15 the seasonal closure for everywhere? MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, if I may, we are not going to solve this here, and so now you have received a proposal from Dr. Scharer, and so I suggest that we allow the staff to meet with SERO and Jocelyn and the local government and Dr. Michelle Scharer and then come to you with something that could be worked with. MARCOS HANKE: I think that would be more productive. Thank you, Miguel. We can do that, and just the last question that Graciela asked to Michelle, and then we will close the discussion. MICHELLE SCHARER: It’s very simple. We have monitoring stations in other sites that are in federal waters, and we’re seeing the same pattern. We do not have localized red hind sites in Puerto Rico jurisdictional waters yet that we can monitor and see if the same thing is happening there. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Michelle. public comment? MIGUEL ROLON:

You have Tony waiting. 125

Is there anybody else for

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

MARCOS HANKE:

I am sorry, Tony.

Go ahead.

TONY BLANCHARD: I would just like to touch base on something that really kind of bothered me today about this meeting, and it was almost like we were trying to rush through an agenda, and I think not a lot of time for questions, and trying to keep up with a time period, to keep the meeting within, and I could understand that, to a certain degree, but it’s almost like we were running a race, and I’m pretty sure there are other members out there that shared the same thoughts that I share. Something that has nothing to do with this is Mr. Magras was trying to log onto the meeting, and I don’t know how he got kicked off, and he told me that he could not get back on the meeting, for whatever the reason was, but he was trying to log on, and he just couldn’t get back on, and so I just had to bring that to your attention. I don’t know if we were running short on time or we had too much of a loaded agenda to deal with for the timeframe, but I think we need to do a better job the next time. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for your input, Tony. I agree with you that it was a tight agenda, and I share your opinion, and we’re going to keep working to make the meetings the best we can, with the best information we can. Thank you very much for your input. If we don’t have anybody else, we are ready to adjourn the meeting. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: One moment, Mr. Chair. We do have the SEDAR 80, queen triggerfish, appointments, and so we have requested, from the local governments, their input, in terms of the appointees, people who are experts on queen trigger and commercial or recreational fishers, and so we are expecting their prompt response, and we have already confirmed the participation of Virginia and Jesus for the SEDAR 80 and collaboration with the Science Center and the SEDAR group to provide us with a successful assessment, and so thank you. You will be appointing the CFMC appointees very soon. MARCOS HANKE: else?

Thank you, Graciela.

I am not missing anything

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: No, and I think that Miguel has just dropped the signal, and so I don’t know he’s on. MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, John.

JOHN WALTER: One thing is I just want to commend the science that we’ve seen today, and it’s been fascinating, and I really think that a lot of great work is going on. One thing that might be 126

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

useful is, if this science has not gone through the SSC, to bring it to the SSC, because that’s where there is time for some more evaluation of it, from the scientific perspective, and I think that could help the council then get that science distilled into some concrete management actions, and it seems like that process might be an effective way to make sure that the science gets to become actionable on a management level. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE: Great input. Thank you very much, and we are going to -- I am going to work directly with the chairman of the SSC to make sure this information can be presented or arranged to inform the SSC. Thank you very much. I don’t think we have anything else, anybody else on the list. Thank you for your patience, and thank you for participating. Miguel. MIGUEL ROLON: I just want to thank everybody, and, actually, I am taking note of Tony’s concern, and certainly some people have problems in and out of the meeting, and so they have to -- Because of problems in their section, of where they are, and so we are constantly admitting people to the meeting, and they send me the reason why they are in and out of the meeting. The last thing that I was going to say is this is our last meeting of the year, and hopefully we will not have another year like this one, unless we have COVID 2020 next year, but I want to thank everybody for their participation and patience during all this interesting time, all the council members and all the chairs of our committees and all the panels that we have. I want to mention the ladies who work with us through the year, and, thanks to them, the council has been able to continue working during all this time, and I just wanted to mention, for the record, in the order that they sit at the council office: Angie, Graciela, Luz, Natalia, Iris, Diana, Liajay, and Christina. These ladies have done more than they were supposed to do in their position descriptions, and they are always willing and able to help us, and so, like this meeting, for example, we have the teamwork with Liajay and Natalia and Graciela and everybody involved. For that, we are very grateful, and I wish you all happy holidays and a better 2021. I will see you guys in 2021. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: to make an announcement. MARCOS HANKE:

Mr. Chairman, you have Manny who wants

Go ahead, Manny. 127

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

MANNY ANTONARAS: Thank you, Marcos. I wanted to share with the council that our office selected the new enforcement officer. During the last meeting, I had briefed that we were working through the hiring process, and so we have selected an officer for the USVI, Mr. Alex Terrero, and he’s currently at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and completing his basic training. Alex comes to us with a great deal of experience, and he’s got thirteen years working with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and we’re very happy to have him onboard. I hope that, maybe during the next meeting, we could do an introduction and have him speak with the council. Then the other thing I wanted to share was Matt Walia was selected as OLE’s new Compliance and Council Liaison, and so Matt will be working directly with industry and the councils to address any concerns that may come up. Matt is on -- He’s participating on this call as well, and, Matt, I’m not sure if you want to -- Is there anything you want to share to the group? MATT WALIA: I would just introduce myself, and so I’m here and available to help as needed, and so, if there are any law enforcement concerns, and we talked about some of the red hind and the EEZ closure areas, and please direct them my way, or Manny’s way, and we’ll do what we can to help address that. Those were great presentations by the outreach liaisons, and I plan on reaching contact with you guys as well, and I look forward to, in the future, where we can work with you on a more island-to-island level, and so that’s all, and I look forward to working with you guys. Thank you. MANNY ANTONARAS:

Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, and thank you to all. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I hope that everybody stays safe and healthy, and thank you for your support, and now we are ready to adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, the meeting adjourned on December 9, 2020.) - - -

128

CFMC SOCIAL MEDIA CRISTINA D. OLÁN MARTÍNEZ

Facebook • Page created on Sept. 2016 • Over 4,300 followers • Over 4,000 likes • Ages: 35-44

CFMC SOCIAL MEDIA PAGES

Instagram • Page created on Sept. 2019 • 977 followers • Ages: 25-34

Twitter • Page created on Jan. 2021 • 49 followers

YouTube • 188 subscribers

CONTENT Seasonal Closures

Meetings and Activities

Pictures

Educational Materials

New Publications

Content produced by agencies: NOAA, NWS, GCFI, NWS, SG, DPNR, DNER, USCG

MEET ME MONDAY

WORD WEDNESDAY

CFMC Monthly Bulletin

FB Lives

Videos

• FB Live about seasonal closures – Organized by AmandOcéano and CFMC; also sponsored by: PR Sea Grant and CESAM; speakers: Andrés Maldonado (Commercial Fisher and OEAP Member) and Dr. Graciela García-Moliner

COLLABORATIONS

• MEET ME MONDAY and WORD WEDNESDAYS – Posts prepared in collaboration with GCFI (Fadilah Ali) and PR Sea Grant • MARTES DE MANATÍ – Dr. Grisel Rodríguez Ferrer • AmandOcéano, Mi Playa Limpia, Little Women, Big Sharks • JJ Fishing Adventures • Fishing organizations (commercial and recreational)

NEW VIDEOS! • Nassau Groupers Against the Clock • Fisher to Fisher Advice on Spawning Aggregations • Cocinando con Ita y Ta

THANK YOU! •

Fishers

•

Agencies

•

Followers

•

Scientists

•

CFMC Staff

•

Council members

•

Liaisons

•

OEAP Members

•

Fish and Seafood Consumers

•

Teachers and Students

•

NGOs

•

Sea Lovers

QUESTIONS? IDEAS?

PRCRMP Acceso y visualización de los datos e información

PRCRMP – DATASETS Dataset

Metric

Sample unit

Rugosity

Rugosity = (overlayed chain length) – 10 m long chain (linear transect length) transects (5 per site)

Benthic-sessile

Abundance - Cover %, # of colonies; 10 m long chain disease prevalence transects (5 per site)

Fish and Macroinverts

Abundance - individuals/30 m2

Fish and Macroinverts (commercially important)

Abundance - individuals/30 min survey 2004-2013 - ASEC (2004-2013), individuals/60 m2 Survey (1 per site); (2015-present) 2015-present - 20 x 3 m belt transect (5 per Biomass - grams/30 min survey (2004site) 2013), grams/60 m2 (2015-present)

Notes # of colonies available for octocorals and stony corals for a subset of years. Disease prevalence available for 2018-present

10 x 3 m belt transect (5 per site) Biomass data only available for a subset of fish species with length-weight relationship data in Fishbase.org

PRCRMP – SET DE DATOS Habitat Classification Database Location Region Geographic Zone Central Latitude Central Longitude Status Baseline Year Most Recent Survey # Surveyed Years Surveyed Years Insular Shelf Zone Reef Zonation Mean Depth_(m) Depth Zone Habitat Type Mean Rugosity (m)

Topographic Complexity Coral Biotope Coral cover % change since baseline Distance from PR Shoreline (km) Distance Nearest River Mouth (km) Nearest River Mouth Direction Nearest Main Watershed # of Waterways Inputs (<10km) Watershed Region PRASA Wastewater Treatment Plant in Near Waterway Inputs Station Within MPA? Distance to nearest MPA (km) Nearest MPA Name MPA Designation Year

MPA Years Since Designation MPA Seafloor Surface Area (Km^2) MPA Fishing Restrictions MPA Level of Protection

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION • Methods • Data Definitions

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/archive/arc0147/0204647/3.3 /data/0-data/PRCRMP_FieldMethodology_(Updated_October_2019).pdf

ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/nodc/archive/arc0147/0204647/3 .3/data/0-data/PRCRMP_Data-Dictionary_(04-102020).pdf

PUBLICATIONS

Esteves-Amador, René F.

Meléndez-Vázquez, Fernando

ANNUAL REPORTS http://www.drna.pr.gov/programas-yproyectos/arrecifes-monitoreo/

PUBLIC DATABASE

YouTube video (Spanish) ¿How to download raw data from NOAA NCEI?

PRCRMP – DATA VISUALIZATION

YouTube video MBON Demo

ONGOING WORK Integration of biological datasets to MBON Data Portal vUSVI Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program (TCRMP) vUSVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources vUniversity of Virgin Islands

vMesophotic Reef Characterizations vCaribbean Fisheries Management Council

vFish assemblages of natural and artificial reefs in Puerto Rico vUniversity of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez, Manuel Nieves MSc thesis

COLABORATORS

REEF RESEARCH, INC.

PUERTO RICO LIAISON OFFICER Wilson G. Santiago Soler CFMC 173th Regular Virtual Meeting April 27-28 2021

2021 Puerto Rico Liaison Participation ■ Present virtual educational program for fishers (PEPCO) ■ Support Cristina Olan with new publications at CFMC social media regarding closures, DNER administrative orders and fisheries education for Puerto Rico fishers ■ Create a What’s App broadcast with 161 fishers contacts to send them announcements, meetings dates and educational materials regarding fisheries. ■ Support fishers with issues and information of DNER and CFMC state and federal management ■ Give fisheries educational materials for the fishers at fishing docks ■ Accomplish more participation at CFMC, DAP, OEAP meeting of commercial and recreational fishers

Educational Program for Commercial Fishers of Puerto Rico (PEPCO) ■ 5 sessions every Wednesday from February 17 – March 17 ■ Give the program virtual with 5 sessions with different topics and presenters ■ A total of 82 people register to the program ■ A total of 45 participants completed the 5 sessions and therefore will received a participations certificate and lot of educational material from the CFMC, Sea Grant and The Nature Conservancy ■ Bring new presenters to give specific topics such as; HMS permit, commercial statistics report, invasive species, coral diseases and whitening, the importance of sharks to the coral ecosystem and ecosystem based fisheries management ■ CFMC social medias and What’s App broadcast messaging was crucial to the outreach of the PEPCO participants ■ Send a certificate and educational material via post office to participants that completed the 5 sessions of the program

Educational Material send to PEPCO participants

Puerto Rico Fishers Issues ■ Issues with DNER license and permit procedures ■ New fishers misinformation about fishing closures, statistics report, licenses and permits for state and federal waters in Puerto Rico ■ Low enforcement to watch the closures and illegal commercial fishing in state and federal waters

Puerto Rico Liaison Next Steps ■ Keep on supporting fisheries management social medias ■ Educate more commercial and recreational fishers regarding fisheries management matters ■ Cooperate with the recreational fishers educational program ■ Participate in OEAP, DAP and other meetings regarding fisheries management ■ Deliver educational materials to commercial and recreational fishers

¿Questions? Contact Information: 787-344-0956 wilson.santiago.cfmc@gmail.com

Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP) REPORT TO THE COUNCIL 173rd CFMC Regular Meeting GoTo Meeting April 27 -28, 2021

4/26/21

Alida Ortiz OEAP

Meetings attended • January 15, 2021: NOAA Caribbean Steering Committee • February 3, 2021: SSC and FEP-TAP meeting • February 10, 2021: MREP Meeting • March 17, 2021: PEPCO Workshop • March 17-18, 2021: OEAP Meeting • March 31, 2021: MREP Meeting

4/26/21 Alida Ortiz OEAP

Marine Fisheries Ecosystem of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands School presentations El Ecosistema marino pesquero de Puerto Rico.

Conferencia virtual Escuela de ballet Julián Acosta, San Juan, P.R

4/26/21

OPAS- EcoEscuelas 4/26/21

0 4/26/21

Alida Ortiz OEAP

Para integrarlo en todas las disciplinas y niveles escolares

Alida Ortiz OEAP

6 3

Marine Fisheries Ecosystem of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands • Virtual presentations to teachers and students on the content of the text:

• Request support from the Council to:

• Emphasize interdisciplinary approach to all school levels. • Promote learning about the marine ecosystem. • Learn about fisher's communities in their areas • Promote interest in studying fisheries disciplines.

• Develop PBL learning guides to stimulate among teachers and students of the fisheries in their areas. • Produce audiovisual materials: PowerPoint presentations and short videos

4/26/21 0

Alida Ortiz OEAP

6 4

SUSTAINABLE SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION CAMPAIGN: Recipe Book Chefs • Present limitations on the species included due to weather conditions to get the fish.

Juan C. Vicens

Cedric Taquin

Cory Magrass 4/26/21

Mike Funk

Nikole Greaux Alida Ortiz OEAP

Wanda Pantojas

Carlos Farchette 5

Sustainable Sea food Consumption… Other products • Short videos on home cooking of underutilized species – Jannette Ramosand Cristina Olán. • Develop a Guide to analyze underutilized speciesfor educational purposes. It will help fishermen, fisheries managers, educators and the general public to understand what is an underutilized species and the appropriate considerations when recommending its consumption.

4/26/21

Alida Ortiz OEAP

Pan Roasted Queen Snapper with Coconut yellow Curry, and soy roasted vegetables 4 servings 4 each 8 ounce portions of queen snapper fillet (cleaned and scaled but no skinless) 1 TBLS Olive Oil 1 tsp salt 1 tsp fennel pollen 1 TBLS Butter ¼ cup white wine (Pinot Grigio Preferred) Bring a Cast Iron Skillet to a high heat. Coat with the olive oil. Place the snapper fillets SKIN SIDE DOWN. Once seared to a golden brown, flip the fish over and season with salt and fennel pollen. Add the butter and white wine to the pan and place in a 450 degree oven for 3 minutes or until fully cooked. Serve the fish and spoon the butter and wine from the skillet over the fish.

Cory Magrass

Coconut – yellow curry 1 ½ cup of coconut milk 1 TBLS yellow curry Powder Pinch of salt. Bring to a simmer and let reduce by half. Soy roasted vegetables 1 pint of wild mushrooms 3 each Anaheim peppers 3 each scallions 1 TBLS olive Oil 1 TBLS soy sauce Salt and pepper Mix mushrooms and peppers with oil salt and pepper and lightly roast. Let cool. Peel and seed the peppers, then chop them and mix with mushrooms, scallions and soy.

Outreach materials on MPAs in St. Thomas/St. John, USVI

4/26/21

Alida Ortiz OEAP

O & E Initiatives proposed for 2021-2023 • Seafood Chemistry Conference – Scientists will discuss issues related to seafood chemistry with fishers and general public. • Status of Fisheries Education in PR and USVI – Need for fisheries scientists and specialists in our region. • Fact Sheets and short videos on MPAs in the region and their impact on fisheries sustainability • CFMC Newsletter on issues discussed in each meeting for the website. • PEPCO Workshop on Marine Fishery Ecosystem Knowledge. 4/26/21

Alida Ortiz OEAP

Social Media • Cristina Olán, presentation

4/26/21

Alida Ortiz OEAP

10 9

Liaisonsreports… • Wilson Santiago – Puerto Rico • Nikita Charles – St. Croix • Nikole Greaux – St. Thomas/ St. John

4/26/21

Alida Ortiz OEAP

12 10

QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU 4/26/21

Alida Ortiz OEAP

Puerto Rico Electronic Trip Ticket, April 2021: Achievements and challenges.

History Facts • Shellcatch eReporting project started the design in early 2017, but Hurricane María, delayed the project…….several months. • In April 2020, Hon. Rafael Machargo, DNER Secretary, approved the official use of eReporting by commercial fishers. • eReporting has been updated 23 times, improving the application.

Achievements in the First Year April 2020-21 • 749 Fishers have been registered in the eReporting app (approximately 62% of total fishers). • 6,259 fishing trips have been Reported. • 512 Fishing Vessels have been registered. • 332,333 pounds of fish and shellfish have been reported.

Achievements in the First Year April 2020-21

Gears Reported by Fishing Trips: • SCUBA Divers - 4,363 • Fish and Lobster Traps – 2,052 • Bottom Line – 1,135 • Hand Line - 1,089

Achievements in the First Year April 2020-21 Top Five Species Reported in Pounds: Spiny Lobster - 85,003 Silk Snapper – 40,172 Queen Conch - 31,525 Dolphinfish – 29,547 Queen Snapper – 19025 ** 65% of the total weight reported

Challenge 1

• We need $59K/year to run eReporting and keep enhancing the best assistance and service to fishers.

Challenge 2 • We need to attract more users to eReporting. The Paper Trip Ticket in 2020, reported 795,000 pounds and 15,355 fishing trips. • The eReporting in 2020 had 332,000 and 6,000 trips.

Challenge 3

• Continue to educate and motivate the fishers to provide better data from their reports.

We are in the beginning of a long trip…....let’s enjoy the landscape!

Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program: Status and Trends 2018-2019 Surveys NOAA-CRCP/DNER State and Territories Coral Reef Conservation Cooperative Agreement NA17NOS4820037

Jorge R. Garcia-Sais, Stacey M. Williams, Jorge Sabater-Clavell, Milton Carlo

Reef Research, Inc. P. O. Box 178 Boquerón, PR 00622 February, 2021

Contents • Sampling design and field methodology overview • Oceanographic background to the 2018 and 2019 reef monitoring surveys • Status of reef stations in terms of coral cover, species composition and patterns of benthic community structure • Quantitative analyses of temporal variations in reef substrate cover by the main sessilebenthic categories • Status of fish density, taxonomic composition/species richness and fish community structure • Interactive discussion

Sampling Design/Methods • 42 reef stations surveyed in 2-year monitoring cycles • Location of reef stations provide for a depth, distance from shore, and geographically stratified sampling design • Sessile-benthic characterizations based on 5 (replicate) 10m long permanent transects per reef station. Placement of transects in sections of optimal stony coral cover (non-random approach) • Transects surveyed by continuous intercept technique using chains of 1.4cm link length. Mean: 964 data points per transect, 4,821 data points per reef station • Quantitative fish/invertebrate characterizations based on 5 (replicate)10 x 3m belt-transects, include determinations of density (Ind/30m2) and species richness (Spp/30m2) centered on benthic transects reference lines • Belt-transects expanded to 20 x 3m for quantitative characterizations and size distributions of large commercially important fishes, large reef herbivores (Acanthuridae, Scaridae) and large invertebrates (lobsters, queen conch, Diadema); 300m2/reef station • High-resolution digital photographic photo-albums per reef station • Comparative (ANOVA/Permanova) and multi-variate (PRIMER) statistical approaches for data analyses

PRCRMP Reef Survey Stations: 2018 and 2019

Oceanographic background

3 events of extreme wave action associated with the pass of Cat 4 Hurricanes Irma and Maria (September 2017) and winter storm Riley (March 2018) • Mechanical impact to reef biota associated with sand abrasion, scouring, breakage, and displacement of reef biota, including corals • Advective and turbulent conditions displace pelagic (fish, plankton) communities unable to swim away of impacted zones • Nutrient enrichment associated with massive river loadings, sediment resuspension, and upwelling • Increased water turbidity associated with total suspended sediments, localized salinity dilution and temperature reductions in amplified river plumes

Survey ended before the onset of the 2019 winter coral bleaching event (November 2019)

Hurricane Irma and Maria: September 2017

Winter Storm Riley: March 2018

PRCRMP 2018 and 2019: Sessile-benthic Community Structure

Mean Percent Substrate Cover : 2018-2019 Monitoring

Others Dendrogyra sp. Stephanocoenia spp Meandrina spp. Millepora spp. Madracis spp Colpophyllia spp. Diploria spp. Siderastraea spp. Montastraea spp Porites spp. Agaricia spp Orbicella spp Acropora spp.

Overall Mean : 22.56% 50 Orbicella spp.: 38.0% of total coral cover Acropora spp.: 16.7% of total coral cover 40

O M TO I05 U G R10 A LL C 05 IB A U0 UR 5 O TR 05 E G S0 U 5 A SE N20 C M O3 LU 0 C N1 AN 0 TO O30 UR PA 20 L N T10 EG PA R05 L M N20 EX B T1 O 0 Y TR A20 E N S2 EG 0 TO R10 U M R3 LA 0 R N1 O 0 D D R05 ER R TR 20 E R S10 ES R U10 AT O B 05 ER M I20 EX T C 20 AR C I1 RO 0 W S10 ES M T10 LA N D 20 IA B D 05 AK C I2 O 0 R C A10 AN C J20 AB M E0 LU 5 B N05 O T B E20 O T ES E15 P LP E10 E M N0 LA 5 N0 5

Mean % Substrate Cover

Stony Coral Species

Reef Stations

Disease prevalence (%) on stony coral species from reef stations PRCRMP 2018 and 2019 surveys

18.0

16.0

Siderastrea siderea

Orbicella faveolata/franksi

Orbicella annularis

Porites astreoides

Stephanocoenia intercepta

Montas traea cavernosa

Pseudodiploria strigosa

Agaricia lamarki

Agaricia agaricites

Me andrina meandrites

Acropora palmata

Acropora cervicornis

Diploria labyrinthyformis

12.0

Total number of coral colonies: 2,322

10.0

Mean Disease Prevalence: 5.3%

8.0

Siderastrea siderea: 39.8% Orbicella faveolata/franksi: 22.3%

6.0

4.0

2.0

O TE 2 RO 0 S M 10 LA N ES 20 PE 1 R O 0 DR C 05 IB U M 05 LA N 1 C AB 0 E T O 05 UR M 20 E XT T R 20 ES B 05 O TE 1 C O 5 RA 1 R AT 0 O 0 A UR 5 O T R 05 ES 10 B ER W I 20 E ST 1 N EG 0 R T R 10 ES M 20 LU N R 05 ES U M 10 E XT 1 N EG 0 R C 05 AN J L P 20 EN PA 05 LT D 10 AK I2 0 C AR C I10 AN O M 30 LU N T O 10 UR 3 B O 0 YA 2 G U 0 AN PA 20 LN 2 D ER 0 R D 20 O M I0 5 D IA B0 SE 5 C O T O 30 U G R1 A LL 0 A M 05 LA N 05

0.0

Prevalence (%)

14.0

Reef Stations

O TE C 20 AB E0 B O 5 TE ES 15 PE 1 R O 0 DR 0 M LA 5 N 05 D AK I2 0 D IA B0 LP 5 EN T R 05 ES C 10 AN J T R 20 ES 2 B O 0 YA SE 20 C O 30 B ER D I 20 ER R PA 20 LT 1 R AT 0 O M 05 E XT M 10 LA N M 10 LA N 2 C AN 0 O 3 C O 0 RA 1 N EG 0 R PA 05 LN T O 20 UR 3 C RO 0 S W 10 E ST M 10 LU N 05 C AR T O I10 UR M 20 E XT T R 20 ES T O 05 UR 1 N EG 0 G R1 A 0 LL A0 R ES 5 U1 0 C IB U0 G U 5 AN 2 A UR 0 O 0 M LU 5 N D 10 O M I0 5

Mean % Substrate Cover

Mean substrate cover by benthic algae : PRCRMP 2018 and 2019 surveys 90

Turf algae

Peyssonnelid spp Fleshy Algae Lobophora sp.

Reef Stations

CCA Halimeda spp Other 2.4

Overall mean cover by benthic algae: 55.23% 1.3 0.1

11.5

13.6 54.8

15.6

Benthic Categories Turf Algae Peyssonnelid Algae Orbicella spp Fleshy Algae Lobophora spp. Acropora spp. Sponges Sand/rubble Porites spp. Cyanobacteria Agaricia spp Crustose coralline Algae (CCA) Siderastraea spp. Montastraea spp Diploria/Pseudodiploria spp. Erect Soft Corals

Mean Cover (%) All Reef Stations 2018-2019 Surveys 31.40 9.54 8.32 5.91 4.84 4.12 3.87 3.47 2.90 2.58 1.86 1.71 1.30 1.14 1.05 Mean Density 10.97

Ramicrusta sp

PRCRMP 2018 and 2019 - Sessile-benthic Communities: Monitoring Trends

TR ES BE 05 R BO I20 Y AU A2 R 0 RA O0 5 T CA O0 N 5 NE O3 G 0 R CA 10 R TO I1 0 U M R1 LU 0 NE N10 G M R05 LA CO N1 0 RA W 1 ES 0 M T10 EX RO T1 0 DR G UA 0 5 DE N2 0 R RE R2 0 S M U10 LA TO N20 UR DA 3 0 K TO I2 0 UR CA 2 0 N PA J2 0 LN CI 2 0 B M U0 5 EX TR T20 E M S10 LU CR N05 O SE S10 C O PA 3 0 L M T1 LA 0 N ES 05 P G E AL 10 L BO A0 5 T BO E15 TE DI 20 AB LP 0 5 EN 05

% Change From Previous Survey

Stony Coral Percent Substrate Cover PRCRMP 2018 & 2019 : % change of from previous surveys (2016– 2017)

30%

Overall mean change: - 9.40%

20%

10%

-10%

-20%

-30%

-40%

Statistically significant ANOVA p < 0.05

-50%

-60% Reef Stations

% Change

M LA N M 05 LA N TR 20 ES RO 10 DR M 05 LA N NE 10 G R CA 10 N O BO 3 0 TE BO 20 TE SE 15 C G O3 AL 0 LA AU 0 5 R O TO 0 5 UR M 30 LU N TO 10 UR TO 1 0 UR 2 G UA 0 N CR 2 0 O S CA 10 N J PA 2 0 LT CO 1 0 RA RA 1 0 TO LP 0 5 EN CA 05 R BO I1 0 YA RE 20 SU DE 10 RR TR 2 0 ES ES 20 PE BE 10 RI DI 20 AB M 05 LU N PA 05 LN W 20 ES T M 10 EX T M 10 EX T TR 20 ES NE 05 G R DA 05 K I2 0

Erect Soft Coral Density PRCRMP 2018/2019 : % change from previous survey (2016 – 2017)

20%

10%

-10%

-20% Statistically significant ANOVA p < 0.05

-30% Mean overall change : 14.94%

-40%

-50%

-60% Reef Stations

PRCRMP 2018 and 2019: mean percent change of benthic algae categories from previous surveys (2016-2017) 40%

2.4

1.3

0.1

11.5

30% 13.6

54.8

20%

Mean % Cover

15.6

10%

-10%

-20%

-30%

Fleshy

Lobophora

Turf Algae

Peyssonnelid Benthic Algae Categories

CCA

Halimeda

Total

PRCRMP 2018 and 2019: Fish Community Structure

RO D S10 AK PA I2 LN 0 W 2 ES 0 B T1 O 0 T B E1 O 5 T N E2 EG 0 TR R1 ES 0 D 20 IA D B0 ER 5 C R2 AN 0 TO O3 U 0 B R3 O 0 Y A A2 UR 0 TO O0 U 5 TO R1 U 0 M R2 EX 0 N T2 EG 0 TR R0 ES 5 C 10 G AR A I1 LL 0 M A0 LA 5 M N0 LU 5 C N0 AN 5 TR J2 ES 0 B 05 ER LP I 2 E 0 C N0 O 5 R G A1 U 0 A ES N2 PE 0 SE 1 C 0 M O3 EX 0 PA T1 LT 0 C 10 IB M U0 LU 5 R N1 AT 0 R O0 O 5 D C R0 AB 5 D E0 O 5 M MI0 LA 5 M N2 LA 0 R N1 ES 0 U1 0

Mean Density (Ind/30m2)

Mean Density of Fishes Surveyed in 10m x 3m belt-transects. PRCRMP 2018 and 2019 Surveys

1200

Fish Taxa

1000

Others

C. parrae

800

Chaetodon spp.

Acanthurus spp.

G. loreto

600

Stegastes spp

T. bifasciatum

400

Sparisoma spp.

Scarus spp.

Chromis spp

200

Coryphopterus spp.

Reef Stations

CR O S DA 10 K PA I2 0 L W N2 0 ES BO T10 TE BO 15 T NE E20 G R TR 10 ES DI 20 AB DE 0 5 R CA R2 0 N O TO 3 0 UR BO 3 0 Y AU A20 R O TO 0 5 UR TO 1 0 UR M 20 EX NE T20 G R TR 05 ES CA 10 G R I1 AL 0 LA M 05 LA M N05 LU N CA 05 N J TR 2 0 ES BE 05 R LP I20 E CO N 05 R G A1 0 UA N ES 2 0 P SE E10 C O M 30 EX T PA 10 LT CI 1 0 BU M 05 LU N RA 10 TO RO 0 5 DR CA 0 5 B E DO 0 5 M M I0 5 LA M N20 LA N RE 10 SU 10

Mean Density (Ind/30m2)

Mean Density of Fishes Surveyed in 10m x 3m belt-transects. PRCRMP 2018 and 2019 Surveys

140

Others

C. parrae

120

Chaetodon spp.

Acanthurus spp.

G. loreto

100

Stegastes spp

T. bifasciatum

Sparisoma spp.

Scarus spp.

Chromis spp

Reef Stations

Distribution of main fish/invertebrate taxa into trophic groups

Herbivores

Zooplanktivores

Small Carnivores

M/L Carnivores

Parrotfishes Doctorfishes Farmer Damselfishes Diadema antillarum

C. personatus Chromis spp. Clepticus parrae Decapterus spp. Gramma loreto

Wrasses Sea Basses Gobies Grunts Puffers Squirrelfishes Drums and Croakers Trumpetfish small moray eels Hawkfish Small jacks

Lutjanus spp. Ocyurus chrysurus Epinephelus spp. Mycteroperca spp. Gymnothorax funebris Large Jacks

Spongivores & Corallivores Angelfishes Butterflyfishes

Scavengers Spiny lobster

W ES T D 10 AK D I2 ER 0 M R2 LU 0 N D 10 IA B B0 O 5 YA B 20 E A RI 2 UR 0 TO O0 U 5 TO R3 0 G UR A 2 LL 0 TR A05 ES C 05 A C RI1 O 0 R PA A1 LN 0 TR 20 E M S1 LA 0 C N0 RO 5 TO S1 UR 0 TR 10 ES C 20 IB R U0 AT 5 R O0 ES 5 M U1 LA 0 SE N2 C 0 B O3 O 0 T M E1 LA 5 M N1 LU 0 R N0 O 5 D C R0 AN 5 N J2 EG 0 B R1 O 0 T PA E20 L ES T10 P G E1 U 0 A N N2 EG 0 M R0 EX 5 LP T10 E C N0 AN 5 M O3 EX 0 T2 0

% Change Mean Density)

Percent change of mean fish density between 2018-2019 and previous surveys (2016-2017)

200%

150%

-100%

Overall Net % Change Mean Density: -0.70 ANOVA, p < 0.05 ANOVA, p < 0.05

100%

50%

-50%

Reef Stations

Relationship between the mean density variations of C. personatus and total mean fish density at reef stations, PRCRMP 2018-2019 300

Mean ∆ Total Fish Density

200

100

0 -300

-200

-100

-200

-300

-400

Mean Density ∆ C. personatus

100

200

300

-20% IB

-40% D

U0 IA 5 M B0 LA 5 N B 10 ER M I2 LU 0 TO N1 UR 0 PA 30 L W T1 ES 0 M T1 EX 0 TO T2 UR 0 TR 10 E TO S1 UR 0 B O 20 YA C 20 AR D I1 ER 0 M R2 LA 0 A N0 UR 5 M O0 EX 5 N T1 EG 0 TR R10 E C S2 RO 0 G S1 U 0 A N D 20 AK C I20 AN C J2 O 0 R TR A10 G ES A 05 LL PA A05 L LP N20 E SE N0 C 5 R O3 AT 0 C O0 AN 5 R O3 ES 0 M U1 LA 0 N N2 EG 0 R R0 O 5 D B R0 O 5 T ES E15 P B E1 O 0 T M E2 LU 0 N 05

Percent Change of Fish Species Richness

Percent change of fish species richness between the 2018-19 and previous surveys (2016-17)

100%

Net % change of fish spp. richness: 1.1%

80%

ANOVA, p < 0.05

60%

40%

20%

Reef Stations

ur us ep ch ha ry lo su ph ru ol s is cr C ue ep nt ha at lo a ph ol is Lu fu tja lv a n us Ep in ap ep od he us lu s gu tta tu s Pt er Lu oi s tja sp nu . s Lu sy tja na nu gr is s m ah og on Lu y tja nu s jo Lu cu La tja ch nu no s an la im al is us m ax Lu im tja us nu Ep s gr in is ep eu he s l us Sp hy st ria ra en tu s a ba rr ac ud B a M a l is yc t te es ro ve pe M tu rc yc la a te v ro en pe en rc os a a in te rs tit ia l is

O cy

Total Fish Observed

Variation of Mid/Large Demersal Carnivorous Fish Abundance Between the 2018-20 and Previous Surveys (2016-17) 120

2016-17

100

2018-19

Overall % Change: 0.49%

Fish Species

Variation of Mid/Large Herbivorous Fishe Abundance Between the 2018-20 and Previous Surveys (2016-17) 1200

Total Fish Observed

1000

2016-17

Overall % Change: -6.48%

2018-19

800

600

400

200

0 s ni nne ans tula g us r ide tum r um leu s ctu i i i r e t ae a e a d u / p v t u v i i r r n a r t r r p a e s e ar ch i co e r ub om yso ru s rofr aru m s r s is s s a u i c o u u h u r u h s r a S r r m c t i r u u a Spa Sca ma can riso nth nth om Spa o a A a a s s i p c c i r r S A a A Spa Sap

Fish Species

Questions???

Lane Snapper Filling in Critical Gaps for Life History Parameters Virginia Shervette and Jesús Rivera Hernández, University of South Carolina Noemí Peña Alvarado and Wilson Santiago Soler, Puerto Rico DNER

Summary of life history sample collections for SEDAR species ***we are the only group that does age/growth/reproductive histology for U.S. Caribbean fisheries species

Consistently listed as a priority species in NOAA calls for proposals Currently in review for 2021 NOAA MARFIN: Data-Poor Caribbean Deepwater Snappers Addressing Critical Gaps in Life History Research for Queen, Silk, Vermilion, Wenchman, Cardinal, and Black Snappers

Lane and Mutton Snapper Regulations USVI Regulations https://www.caribbeanfmc.com/regulations/usvi-area-ofjurisdiction • FEDERAL: 50 CFR 622.33(a)(7) – April 1 through June 30, no harvest and/or possession of lane or mutton snapper • TERRITORIAL: V.I.R.R., Title 12, Chapter 9A, §316. Lane and Mutton: No possession from April 1 through June 30 for the territory.

PR Regulations https://www.caribbeanfmc.com/regulations/usviarea-of-jurisdiction • FEDERAL: 50 CFR 622.33(a)(7) – April 1 through June 30, no harvest and/or possession of lane or mutton snapper • TERRITORIAL: Mutton: No possession from April 1 through May 31 By M Henke

Propose for CFMC to support investigation of Lane Snapper life history • • • •

REASONS/JUSTIFICATION SEDAR 2024 – cannot complete a stock assessment without life history data for U.S. Caribbean waters Federal and Territorial Seasonal Closures for Lane Snapper – regulated species need periodic evaluations of population life history parameters No age and growth information for the U.S. Caribbean populations of Lane Snapper Lack of reproductive biology information on Lane Snapper in USVI waters

With CFMC support – these critical data gaps can be filled in for Lane Snapper

Filling critical life history information gaps of data-poor fisheries in U.S. Caribbean waters: Age, growth, and reproduction of lane snapper Objective 1: Determine and compare growth rates, population age structure, and sex ratios in and among multiple areas in U.S. Caribbean waters Objective 2: Determine and compare reproductive seasonality, size, and age at maturity/ transition in and among multiple areas in U.S. Caribbean waters

Summary of Preliminary Collections • To obtain preliminary data for lane snapper, we started collecting samples in 2014 from PR opportunistically for age, growth, and reproductive biology • To obtain preliminary data for lane snapper, we started collecting samples in 2016 from St. Thomas opportunistically for age, growth, and reproductive biology

Budget Explanation Travel: two trips to STT and two trips to STX each lasting a minimum of 8 days for two personnel STT airfare and baggage fees (includes cost to transport samples) for two people for two trips: $4,800 STX airfare and baggage fees (includes cost to transport samples) for two people for two trips: $4,800 STT rental vehicle for two trips: $1400; Fuel for vehicle for two trips: $400 STX rental vehicle for two trips: $1400; Fuel for vehicle for two trips: $400 STT Housing for two people for two trips: $2,800 STX Housing for two people for two trips: $2,800 STT Per diem $55/day x 8 days x 2 trips x 2 people: $1,760 STX Per diem $55/day x 8 days x 2 trips x 2 people: $1,760 PR Mileage reimbursement for internal travel across island to pick up samples 2x per month x 12 months: $1,200 Total Travel: $23,520 Fishery-Dependent Samples to fill in monthly sample gaps STT/J: $2,500 STX: $2,500 PR: $3,600 Total: $8,600 Fishery-Independent Sampling to fill in sample gaps STT: $2,400 STX: $2,400 PR: Fishery-independent sampling included in another project Total: $4,800

Research field and lab supplies: $3,500 total Includes funds for : saw blades for otolith sectioning, resin/hardener for embedding otoliths, slides and slides boxes for otoliths and gonads, sealant and lubricant for saw processing of otoliths, coolers for STT and STX sampling, ice during USVI sampling trips, fishing supplies for fishery-independent sample collections, preservative and containers for gonad collections, chemicals for processing gonads for histological examination Personnel and Required Fringe: $14,000 + $5,052 This includes salary support for approximately 500 hours of time working for investigators while sampling, processing samples in the field, processing sample parts in the lab, analyzing samples, reading slides, analyzing data, writing up findings Total Direct Costs: $59,472 Indirect Costs (10%): $5,947

CAPACITY BUILDING IN U.S. CARIBBEAN

Puerto Rico • JMRH is a Puerto Rican fisheries biologist completing doctoral degree; continues to work towards fisheries management goals in U.S. Caribbean • Workshops in PR to train biologist and students on fisheries-related life history research • Working with local fishers, student researchers • Wilson Santiago Soler DNER is a co-Investigator on multiple proposals and grants • Noemi Peña DNER is a co-Investigator on multiple proposals and grants

USVI • VRS served as research advisor to an MS student at UVI (2015-2018); currently working with another UVI student on ageing mutton snapper aggregation samples • We have conducted multiple workshops in St. Thomas and St. Croix on fisheries-related life history research for VIDPNR DWF and UVI students – will continue when requested • Working closely with STT/J and STX fishers, student researchers • Fishers collaborate with us directly on research investigations

Proposed target species for future life history research

Mutton Snapper Life History Sample Collections

Questions?

Our Research Team has a Strong Record of Obtaining Funding for U.S. Caribbean research; however, lane snapper has not been listed as a funding priority for NOAA MARFIN/CRP/S-K • 2015 MARFIN: Filling critical life history information gaps of data-poor fisheries in U.S. Caribbean waters (queen triggerfish and FOUR parrotfishes); EXPANDED investigation to include queen triggerfish and seven parrotfish species • 2015 MARFIN/VIMS: Assessment of maturity in commercially and recreationally important reef fishes from the U.S. Virgin Islands • 2017 CRP: Caribbean hogfish: documenting critical life history information for a data-poor species in collaboration with Puerto Rican fishers; EXPANDED investigation to include samples from STT • 2018 Saltonstall-Kennedy: Novel Approaches to Age Validation in four Data-Poor U.S. Caribbean Reef Fishes; EXPANDED investigation to include 23 species • 2018 MARFIN: Conservation Genomics and Caribbean Fisheries Management: Stock Structure and Connectivity of Four Parrotfish Species and the Role of MPAs as Recruitment Sources • In Review 2021 MARFIN: Data-Poor Caribbean Deepwater Snappers - Addressing Critical Gaps in Life History Research for Queen, Silk, Vermilion, Wenchman, Cardinal, and Black Snappers • In Review 2021 CRP: Data-Poor Caribbean Deepwater Snappers: Addressing Critical Gaps in Blackfin Snapper Age, Growth, Reproduction, Population Genomics, and Contributions of MPAs • In Review 2021 Saltonstall-Kennedy: Fishery-independent estimates of queen triggerfish population dynamics to support fisheries assessment and management in the US Virgin Islands

RECENT LIFE HISTORY PUBLICATIONS/REPORTS (TRIGGERFISH AND PARROTFISHES) Shervette VR, Rivera Hernández JM, Overly KE. In Press. Radiocarbon in otoliths of tropical marine fishes: reference D14C chronology for north Caribbean waters. PloS ONE. Jones DD, Rivera Hernandez JM, Shervette VR. In Press. Age and growth of princess parrotfish Scarus taeniopterus. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Rivera Hernandez JM, Pena Alvarado N, Correa Velez K, Nemeth R, Appeldoorn R, Shervette V. 2019. Queen Triggerfish Balistes vetula reproductive biology in U.S. Caribbean waters. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 148: 134-147. Rivera Hernandez JM. 2018. Queen Triggerfish Balistes vetula Reproductive Biology in US Caribbean Waters. MS Thesis in Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico. Thomas S. 2018. Age, Growth, and Reproduction of the Queen Triggerfish, Balistes vetula, from the U.S. Virgin Islands. MS Thesis in Marine and Environmental Sciences, University of the Virgin Islands. Shervette VR, Rivera Hernández JM, Nunoo FKE. 2021. Age and growth of Gray Triggerfish Balistes capriscus from trans‐Atlantic populations. Journal of Fish Biology 2021: 1-17. Kelly-Stormer A, Shervette V, Kolmos K, Wyanski D, Smart T, McDonough C, Reichert M. 2017. Gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus reproductive biology, age, and growth off the Atlantic coast of the southeastern U.S. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 143(3): 523-538. Shervette VR, Dean JM. 2014. Gray Triggerfish Age, Growth, and Reproduction in the South Atlantic Bight. Final Report NOAA MARFIN. Jones DD, Rivera Hernandez JM, Shervette VR. In Review. Perplexing parrotfish in the Caribbean: discovery of a novel reproductive pattern for princess parrotfish Scarus taeniopterus. Environmental Biology of Fishes Rivera Hernandez JM, Shervette VR. In Prep. Puzzling parrotfishes: novel application of bomb radiocarbon for ageing validation of six Caribbean Parrotfish species. Rivera Hernandez JM, Shervette VR. In Prep. Caribbean parrotfish population demographics: Age, growth, and longevity of redband parrotfish Wagner GA, Rivera Hernandez JM, Shervette VR. In prep. Stoplight parrotfish Sparisoma viride age, growth, and reproductive biology. Jones DD. 2020. Age, Growth, and Reproductive Biology of Princess Parrotfish in the US Caribbean, MS Thesis. College of Charleston. Wagner GA. 2019. Age, Growth, and Reproductive Biology of a Data-Deficient Parrotfish Species (Sparisoma viride) in the US Caribbean, MS Thesis. College of Charleston.

YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER AND HOGFISH LIFE HISTORY PUBLICATIONS/REPORTS Drake D. 2021. Caribbean hogfish age, growth, reproduction, and ageing validation via novel application of bomb radiocarbon chronometer. MS Thesis. College of Charleston. Zajovits S. 2021. Yellowtail snapper population demographics in the U.S. Caribbean. MS Thesis. University of South Carolina Shervette VR, Rivera Hernandez JM, Drake D, Pena Alvarado N, Santiago Soler W, Magras J. 2021. Caribbean Hogfish: documenting critical life history information for a data-poor species in collaboration with U.S. Caribbean fishers. NOAA COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM FINAL REPORT NA17NMF4540137. Drake D, Rivera Hernandez JM, Pena Alvarado N, Santiago Soler W. Shervette VR. In Prep. Caribbean hogfish age, growth, reproduction, and ageing validation via novel application of bomb radiocarbon chronometer. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Zajovits S, Rivera Hernandez JM, Pena Alvarado N, Shervette VR. In Prep. Caribbean yellowtail snapper: ageing validation via Δ14C and population demographics across the waters of Puerto Rico and USVI. PLOSONE.

Landings Information for Lane Snapper

Previous Research on U.S. Caribbean Lane Snapper REPRODUCTION • Two studies conducted, both in Puerto Rico, included fisherydependent and -independent samples • No information exists for USVI waters • No age-at-maturity information exists for U.S. Caribbean AGE/GROWTH • No age-related data exists for U.S. Caribbean • No growth data exists for U.S. Caribbean

Caribbean Fishery Management Council April 27, 2021 DAP PR, DAP STT/STJ, DAP STX Graciela García-Moliner Liajay Rivera García

Ecosystem Conceptual Model Update Report DAPs

Puerto Rico, St. Thomas - St. John, St. Croix

Mission Accomplished!

DAPs pending connections April 19-20, 2021

DAP STT/STJ

DAP STX

• All DAPs completed pending connections (Highlighted arrows). • Preliminary Results

DAP PR

DAPSTT/STJ u

Green arrows indicate DAPs homework for April 19, 2021

DAP STT/STJ April 19, 2021 • • • •

51 Components (big model) 33 Components (Fisheries model) Total: 86 components Total paired connections: 160

Top drivers • Sargassum (7) • (impacts to 7 components for example inshore reefs and recruitment) • Education and Outreach (7) • Lithium Ion Batteries (6) • Cruise ship Transport (5) • Ballast Water (5)

DAP STT/STJ Top Key Items – Regulatory issues as presented to the CFMC u

Enforcement

Water quality

Education and Outreach

Heritage and Culture

Natural Disaster Response

Socioeconomic Impacts

Essential Fish Habitats

Land-Based Sources of Pollution

Coastal Management

Coral Diseases

Large Vessel Impacts

DAP PR April 20, 2021 • Total: 62 components • Total paired connections: 127 Top drivers • Integrity of Marine Habitats (impacts to 8, for example, aggregations, fish stocks) • Effective Management (5) • Current Intensity (4) • Pollution (4) • Hurricanes (3)

DAP STX April 19, 2021 • Total: 46 components • Total paired connections: 233 Top drivers • Need for Education and Outreach (impacts to 9 components such as illegal and unregulated fishing, non-point pollution) • Hurricanes (5) • Development (4) • Fish (4) • Increased Water Temperature (3)

Confidential and Proprietary Information

● Develop a strong marine aquaculture industry in the Caribbean through the development of cutting-edge technologies that guarantee food security and economic development. ● Position the Caribbean to tackle the world’s biggest problems. ● Enable a tech revolution in agriculture.

Do not duplicate or distribute without the written permission from MarePesca LLC

Mission:

CEO

COO

● Entrepreneur and Innovator ● Materials Science and Engineering, MIT ● Biomedical Engineering, MIT-Harvard ● Published in top scientific journals, 5+ patents in medtech and biotech.

● Investor, trader, and analyst with over 10 years of experience developing technology and electronic products. ● Electrical Engineering, UPR-Mayagüez ● Expert in AI and Data Science.

Confidential and Proprietary Information

Carlos Nieves

Do not duplicate or distribute without the written permission from MarePesca LLC

David Miranda, PhD

Impacting the Biggest Problems

Innovation

Sustainability

Protect Seafood Stocks

By fostering local production hubs, we will enhance access to food for up to 1 million people in the first 5 years.

Our model will impact 2,000 people in Puerto Rico that work in the seafood industry, particularly in vulnerable coastal communities.

Our R&D efforts could increase by up to 400% the implementation of aquaculture practices in the Caribbean.

The development and implementation of cutting-edge technologies that do not cause ocean pollution and require 90% less water.

By offering an alternative to overfishing, we will protect threatened seafood populations and marine habitats.

Confidential and Proprietary Information

Employment and Economic Growth

Do not duplicate or distribute without the written permission from MarePesca LLC

Food security

Unmet need for enabling tech that promote local production of popular seafood products

Confidential and Proprietary Information

Do not duplicate or distribute without the written permission from MarePesca LLC

90% of seafood products consumed in US and Caribbean are imported

Local seafood hubs

Increase productivity and yield

Food Security

Confidential and Proprietary Information

Cutting edge technology

Do not duplicate or distribute without the written permission from MarePesca LLC

MarePesca aims to create local seafood hubs and and cutting edge technology

Our team has developed a methodology for the commercial production of red snapper

Confidential and Proprietary Information Do not duplicate or distribute without the written permission from MarePesca LLC

We have secured a location for pilot production in PR Confidential and Proprietary Information

Do not duplicate or distribute without the written permission from MarePesca LLC

Location is proximal to the ocean and a 30-min drive from downtown San Juan.

Milestones and Metrics for 2021

Secure Funding

Equipment Installation

Sept

April

Begin production

First harvest

Second Harvest

Phase 1 Goals ● Produce 10 metric tons of product a year. ● Bi-weekly harvest of 400 pounds. Supplies the demand of interested restaurants. ● Install and operate a local hatchery

Confidential and Proprietary Information

June - Aug

March 2022

Do not duplicate or distribute without the written permission from MarePesca LLC

Jan-May 2021

Touristic and Educational Offering

Confidential and Proprietary Information Do not duplicate or distribute without the written permission from MarePesca LLC

Today’s Ask

● Grants and funds to carry out our mission. Contact David Miranda, PhD CEO, MarePesca LLC dmiranda@marepesca.co

Carlos Nieves COO, MarePesca LLC cnieves@marepesca.co

Confidential and Proprietary Information

● Marine biologists with experience in RAS systems to join our team and serve as production managers.

Do not duplicate or distribute without the written permission from MarePesca LLC

● Investigators interested in collaborating in tech aquaculture projects.

Confidential and Proprietary Information Do not duplicate or distribute without the written permission from MarePesca LLC

Sourcing the Seafood of the Future

SSC Report to the Caribbean Fishery Management Council April 27, 2021

Issues Discussed • Ecosystem Conceptual Model • Updates to Spiny Lobster ABC

Single Generic Model • Evolved Process • Complexity • Reflects diverse expertise and experience of SSC

• Time vs Model Development à 1 model vs 3 models • Independence of product • Suitability of generic model for comparison purposes

SSC Ecosystem Conceptual Model (Inter-Connections; September 2020)

Conceptual Model has 8 Submodels Submodels have variable number of components • Marine Ecosystem Components (12) • Competing Use of Resources (15) • Socio-economic and Cultural Drivers (16) • Land-Based Uses (8) • Fishing (10) • Water Quality (6) • Habitat (5) • Abiotic Factors (9)

Over 64,000 potential connections!

Full Conceptual Model Mar Ecosystem Drivers

Abiotic Factors

Habitat

Water Quality

Fishing

Land-based Uses

Infectious Exotic/ Manatees Turtles Inshore Reef Coastal Offshore Offshore Cetaceans Offsho Coastal Circulation Major Periodic Salinity Ocean Water Sea Oxygen Pelagic OTHER Corals Mangroves Seagrass Suspended Phytoplankton Light Turbidity Nutrients Water CDOM Fishing Derelict Fishing Dead Fishing Fishing IUU Fishery Recreational Commercial Industrial connections made at SSC Diseases Invasive Forage Fishes Birds Forage Birds re Pelagics Disturbances Oceanographic Acidification Temperature Level Habitat HABITATS* Reefs Forests Beds Sediments Penetration Toxicity Gear Fishing Mortality Discards & Grounds Seasonality Fishing Infrastructure Fishing Catch Fishing Catch Waste 0 May 19-22 20 Species Fishes Fishes Pelagic (e.g., Phenomena Rise Gear Bycatch s hurricanes) Infectious Diseases -1 -1 -1 -1 0 Exotic/Invasive Species -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 Manatees 0 Turtles 1 0 0 0 Inshore Forage Species 3 3 1 3 1 2 Marine Reef Fishes -1 1 3 2 2 Ecosystem Coastal Birds -1 -1 -1 Components Offshore Forage Fishes 3 3 3 3 Offshore Birds -1 Cetaceans -1 -1 -1 1 Offshore Pelagics -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Coastal Pelagics Circulation 1 Major Disturbances (e.g., hurricanes) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Periodic Oceanographic Phenomena 1 2 -1 3 0 0 Salinity -1 Abiotic Factors Ocean Acidification 0 0 Water Temperature 0 1 3 1 -3 0 0 0 Sea Level Rise Oxygen Pelagic Habitat 0 0 1 3 1 1 OTHER HABITATS* 0 1 2 1 Habitat Corals Reefs 2 1 1 1 Mangroves Forests 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 Seagrass Beds Sediments 0 0 0 3 1 1 Phytoplankton 0 0 0 0 3 -3 Light Penetration 0 0 0 1 Water Quality Turbidity -3 Nutrients 3 Water Toxicity 0 0 1 CDOM Fishing Gear 3 3 3 3 Derelict Fishing Gear 1 Fishing Mortality 0 Dead Discards & Bycatch 1 Fishing Grounds 3 3 Fishing Fishing Seasonality 2 2 3 IUU Fishing 3 -1 -2 Fishery Infrastructure 2 2 Recreational Fishing Catch 3 3 3 3 Commercial Fishing Catch Industrial Waste Power Plant Effluents Sewage Outfalls 0 Land-Based Other NPS Discharges 0 Uses Landfills Leakage Septic Seepage 0 Urban Runoff 0 0 0 Agricultural Runoff Marine Development 0 0 0 0 Coastal Development 0 0 0 Military Uses Noise Generation 0 0 Large Vessel/Shipping Activity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Artificial Reefs Competing Uses Energy Sector of Resources Light Contamination Mariculture Research Boating Marina Activity Recreational Diving Conservation/Restoration Gross Income Population Composition Population Size Seafood Imports/Exports Market Demand 0 Fisher Income/Revenue Local Economy Tourism 0 Socio-Economic Education & Outreach Cultural Drivers Compliance Cultural Preferences/Norms Coastal Community Resilience Fishing Community Well-Being Ciguatera Public Health Regulatory Structure Fishery Regulatory Structure

Competing Uses Marine Resources

Power Sewage Other NPS Landfills Septic Urban Agricultural Marine Plant Outfalls Discharges Leakage Seepage Runoff Runoff Development Effluents

Socio-economic Cultural Drivers

Coastal Military Noise Large Waste Artificial Energy Light Mariculture Research Boating Marina Recreational Conservation/ Gross Population Population Seafood Market Fisher Local Tourism Education & Compliance Cultural Coastal Fishing Ciguatera Public Regulatory Fishery Development Uses Generation Vessel/Shipping Reefs Sector Contamination Activity Diving Restoration Income Size Size Imports/Exports Demand Income/Revenue Economy Outreach Preferences/Norms Community Community Health Structure Regulatory Activity Resilience Well-Being Structure

0 0

0 0 1

1 1 1 1

1 2

1 1 2

2 -2

1 -2 -1 2

1 -2

2 1

1 1 -2

1 2 2

1 3 1

2 1

2 1 1 -2

2 1

-2

-1

2 2

2 1

-2

-1

1 2 1

1 2

-1 -1 2

-1 -1 3

1 3

1 -3 1 -1 -1 -1

1 1

1 1 -2

1 1

-1

-2

1 3 2 3 3 3

3 2 1 1 3

2 1

1 2

2 1

3 3

2 1

2 3

-1 3

2 3

2 2

1 3 2 2

1 3 3 1 1 1

2 2 2

1 2 1

3 2

3 2 2

3 2

2 1 1

2 2

2 2 2 1

2 2

3 2

1 2 2 2 3

3 2 3

2 1 -2 3 1

1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1

2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1

Connections between Submodels Priority Connections between Components within Each Pair of Submodels Identify the 3 most important connections, their direction, and their strength • Interim Results for the Council and its EBFM TAP • Results should also be made available to other interested user groups • •

Caribbean Lenfest project/team SEFSC’s Ecosystem Status Report

Priority Assessment Form 56 Sets of Comparisons Fishing

S-E-C Drivers

Mar Eco Comp

Habitat

Land Base Sources

Abiotic

Water Quality

Competing Uses

Respon Respon Respon Respon Respon Respon Respon Respon Streng se Directi Strengt Driver se Directi Strengt Driver se Directi Strengt Driver se Directi Strengt Driver se Directi Strengt Driver se se Directi Strengt Driver se Directi th Driver Directi Strengt Driver Compon Compo on (+/h Compo Compo on (+/h Compo Compo on (+/h Compo Compo on (+/h Compo Compo on (+/h Compo Compo on (+/h Compo Compo on (+/h Compo Compo on (+/- (L/M/H nent nent nent nent nent nent nent nent ) ent ) (L/M/H) nent ) (L/M/H) nent ) (L/M/H) nent ) (L/M/H) nent ) (L/M/H) nent ) (L/M/H) nent ) (L/M/H) nent ) Fishi ng

S-E Mar Eco Com p Habi tat Land Base Sour ce Abio tic Wat er Qual ity Com peti ng Uses

Example: The three most important component connections from the Socio-Economic and Cultural Drivers (S-E-C) submodel affecting the Fishing submodel could be: • Seafood Imports/Exports affecting Commercial Fishing Catch • Market Demand affecting Commercial Fishing Catch • Tourism affecting Recreational Fishing Catch In this case, two of the driver components affect the same target component.

S-E-C Submodel Components Gross Income Population Composition Population Size Seafood Imports/Exports Market Demand Fisher Income/Revenue Local Economy Tourism Education & Outreach Compliance Cultural Preferences/Norms Coastal Community Resilience Fishing Community Well-Being Ciguatera Public Health Regulatory Structure Fishery Regulatory Structure

Fishing Submodel Components Fishing Gear Derelict Fishing Gear Fishing Mortality Dead Discards & Bycatch Fishing Grounds Fishing Seasonality IUU Fishing Fishery Infrastructure Recreational Fishing Catch Commercial Fishing Catch

Fishing (response submodel)

S-E-C (driver submodel)

Driver Component

Response Component

Direction (+/-)

Strength (L/M/H)

Seafood Imports/Exports

Commercial Fishing Catch

Market Demand

Commercial Fishing Catch

Tourism

Recreational Fishing Catch

Example: Just 1 Out of 56 Sets of Comparisons (Driver)

(Target) Land Based Uses SSC 1 SSC 2 SSC3 SSC 4 SSC 5 SSC 6 SSC 7 SSC 8

Marine Development Coastal Development Urban Runoff Coastal Development Sewage Outfalls Coastal Development Septic Seepage Coastal Development Industrial Waste Military Uses Industrial Waste Noise Generation Large Vessel/Shipping Activity Competing Waste Landfills Leakage Sewage Outfalls Uses of Waste Artificial Reefs Resources Energy Sector Power Plant Effluents Light Contamination Mariculture Agricultural Runoff Research Boating Marina Activity Other NPS Discharges Recreational Diving Conservation/Restoration

3 3

3 1

Quantitative Outputs

3 3

2 3

Mean Tally Sum 3.0 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.0

3.0 3.0

3 2

2.0

↑ 10 Connections given priority across SSC members

2.0

0 7 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 0 0

0 21 7 5 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 4 0 2 0 0 10 0 0

Overall Resultant Connections • 484 = Connections identified between components across submodels • 168 = Minimum number of connections if all agree on top 3 • 288% increase over the minimum

Marine Ecosystem Components

Infectious Exotic/ Manatees Turtles Inshore Reef Coastal Offshore Offshore Cetaceans Offsho Coastal Diseases Invasive Forage Fishes Birds Forage Birds re Pelagics HMS Species Fishes Fishes Pelagic s Infectious Diseases Exotic/Invasive Species Manatees Turtles Inshore Forage Species Marine Reef Fishes Ecosystem Coastal Birds Componen Offshore Forage Fishes ts Offshore Birds Cetaceans Offshore Pelagics Coastal Pelagics HMS Circulation Major Disturbances (e.g., hurricanes) Periodic Oceanographic Phenomena Abiotic Salinity Factors Ocean Acidification Water Temperature 3 Sea Level Rise Oxygen Pelagic Habitat OTHER HABITATS* Habitat Corals Reefs Mangroves Forests Seagrass Beds Sediments Phytoplankton Light Penetration Water Turbidity Quality Nutrients Water Toxicity CDOM Fishing Gear Derelict Fishing Gear Fishing Mortality Dead Discards & Bycatch Fishing Grounds Fishing Fishing Seasonality IUU Fishing Fishery Infrastructure Recreational Fishing Catch Commercial Fishing Catch Industrial Waste Power Plant Effluents Sewage Outfalls 3 Land-Based Other NPS Discharges Uses Landfills Leakage Septic Seepage 3 Urban Runoff Agricultural Runoff Marine Development Coastal Development Military Uses Noise Generation Large Vessel/Shipping Activity Waste Competing Artificial Reefs Uses of Energy Sector Resources Light Contamination Mariculture Research Boating Marina Activity Recreational Diving Conservation/Restoration Gross Income Population Composition Population Size 3 Seafood Imports/Exports Market Demand Fisher Income/Revenue Local Economy SocioTourism Economic Education & Outreach Cultural Compliance Drivers Cultural Preferences/Norms Coastal Community Resilience Fishing Community Well-Being Ciguatera Public Health Regulatory Structure Fishery Regulatory Structure

-1 -1

3 -1

-1

-1 -1

-1 -1 -1

2 3

3 3

1 2

2 2

-1

-1 -1 -1 -1 -1

-1 -1 -1

2 2 3 2

-1

1 3 1

Water Quality

Fishing

Circulation Major Periodic Salinity Ocean Water Sea Oxygen Pelagic OTHER Corals Mangroves Seagrass Suspended Phytoplankton Light Turbidity Nutrients Water CDOM Fishing Disturbances Oceanographic Acidification Temperature Level Habitat HABITATS* Reefs Forests Beds Sediments Penetration Toxicity Gear (e.g., Phenomena Rise hurricanes) 3 2 2 2 1 1.8 1.3 1 2 3 1 1 2

Derelict Fishing Gear

Fishing Mortality

Dead Fishing Fishing IUU Fishery Recreational Commercial Discards & Grounds Seasonality Fishing Infrastructure Fishing Catch Fishing Catch Bycatch

Industrial Waste

Land-Based Competing Uses of Resources Socio-Economic Cultural Drivers Uses Power Plant Effluents

Sewage Other NPS Landfills Septic Urban Outfalls Discharges Leakage Seepage Runoff

Agricultural Runoff

Marine Development

Coastal Military Noise Development Uses Generation

1 3

2.5

3 2

Conservation/ Restoration

Gross Population Population Seafood Market Fisher Local Tourism Income Size Size Imports/Exports Demand Income/Revenue Economy

Education & Compliance Cultural Coastal Fishing Ciguatera Public Regulatory Fishery Outreach Preferences/Norms Community Community Health Structure Regulatory Resilience Well-Being Structure 3 1

1 1

2.5

3 2.5

3 2.9

2.5 1

Recreational Diving

2.5

1 -1

Artificial Energy Light Mariculture Research Boating Marina Reefs Sector Contamination Activity

1 1

Large Waste Vessel/Shipping Activity

1 1

2.5

2 3

0 2.8

2.5

1 2

2 2

1 1.5

1.5

2 1

2.7

2.8

2.5 2.5

2 2 2 2

-1

3 2.5

3 2

3 3

-3

3 3

2.5 2

3 3 3

2.7 1.5 2 3

Habitat

1 1

1.5 3 3 3 3

Abiotic Factors

1.7 3 1.9

2.8 2 2 1

1 1 2 1 2

1 1 1

3 3

2.6 3 3

2.8 1.7 2.2 2

2.7 3 2

2.5

3 0.5

3 2

0.5

2.8

1 3 3

2 2.3 2

3 2.5

2 2

2.3 3

1 1 1 2

2 2.5

3 3

1 -3

1 3

2.9 2.6 2.5 2

2 2 1

2 1.8 2 1.5

1 -3

1 2 1 2

2 2

3 2.8 2 2

3 3 2.6

2.8 2

2.5 3

2 1.8 1

1 2

2.5 1 1.8

1.5 2

2.5

2.6

2.7

1.7 1.5 2.5

3 1

3 2 -1 2

3 3 -2 2

3 3

2.3 3

1 2

3 1 2

2.3 2.7 1.3

2 3 3

1.5 1.3

1.5

1.5 1

2 2

1 1.5

1.5

3 3

2.8

1 2 1 1.5 3

2.5

2 1 3

1.5

2 2 2 3

2.5 1 2 2

3 2.2

2.5 2

2 1.5 2

2 3

1 1 2

2 -2

1 2 2

1 3 1

2 1

-1

1 1.7 1 2

1.5

2.3

2 1

2 2

3 3 3

2 2 2

1.5

3 2 1.7 2

1 2.5 3

2.5

3 3 3

2.5

1 2

2.3

1 1 2 2

3 3

1 1 1 1

1.7 2 1.7 1.7

2.5

3 1 1

3 1

3 3

3 2 1.3

2 2.5 2

1.5

1 -2 -1 2

1 -2

-2

2 1

2 1 1 -2

2 1 2

-2

-1

1 2 1

-1 -1 2

1 2

1 -3 1 -1 -1 -1

-1 -1 3

3 3

2.5

2.3

2 2

2.3 2 2.3

1.4

2 3

2.8

1.5

2.7

2.5

1 1 -2

2 1

1 1

1 3

1 1 -2

3 3

1 1

-1

-2

1 3 2 3 3

3 2 1 1 3

2 1

3 3

2.7 2

2 2.5

2 1.5

2 3

3 3

2.5

2 1

3 3

3 3 1

3 1

2 2.5

3 3

3 1 1

3 2

2.5

-1 3

2.7

2 3

1 3 2 2

2 3

2.8

2 1

2 2

2 1

3 2 2

3 2

2 2 2

1 3 2

2 1 1

2 2

2 2 2 1 2 2

1 2 2 2 3

3 2

3 2 3

2 1 -2 3 1

1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1

2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1

Marine Ecosystem Components

-1 -1

3 -1 -1

-1

-1 -1 -1

-1

2 3

3 3

1 2

2 2

-1

-1 -1 -1 -1 -1

-1 -1 -1

2 2 3 2

-1

1 3 1

3 3

Water Quality

Fishing

Derelict Fishing Gear

Fishing Mortality

Dead Fishing Fishing IUU Fishery Recreational Commercial Discards & Grounds Seasonality Fishing Infrastructure Fishing Catch Fishing Catch Bycatch

Industrial Waste

Land-Based Competing Uses of Resources Socio-Economic Cultural Drivers Uses Power Plant Effluents

Sewage Other NPS Landfills Septic Urban Outfalls Discharges Leakage Seepage Runoff

Agricultural Runoff

Marine Development

Coastal Military Noise Development Uses Generation

1 3

2.5

3 2

Conservation/ Restoration

Gross Population Population Seafood Market Fisher Local Tourism Income Size Size Imports/Exports Demand Income/Revenue Economy

Education & Compliance Cultural Coastal Fishing Ciguatera Public Regulatory Fishery Outreach Preferences/Norms Community Community Health Structure Regulatory Resilience Well-Being Structure 3 1

1 1

2.5

3 2.5

3 2.9

2.5 1

Recreational Diving

2.5

1 -1

Artificial Energy Light Mariculture Research Boating Marina Reefs Sector Contamination Activity

1 1

Large Waste Vessel/Shipping Activity

1 1

2.5

2 3

0 2.8

2.5

1 2

2 2

1 1.5

1.5

2 1

2.7

2.8

2.5 2.5

2 2 2 2

-1

3 2.5

3 2

3 3

-3

3 3

2.5 2

3 3 3

2.7 1.5 2 3

Habitat

1 1

1.5 3 3

Abiotic Factors

1.7 3 1.9

2.8 2 2 1

1 1 2 1 2

1 1 1

3 3

2.6 3 3

2.8 1.7 2.2 2

2.7 3 2

2.5

3 0.5

3 2

0.5

2.8

1 3 3

2 2.3 2

3 2.5

2 2

2.3 3

1 1 1 2

2 2.5

3 3

1 -3

1 3

2.9 2.6 2.5 2

2 2 1

2 1.8 2 1.5

1 -3

1 2 1 2

2 2

3 2.8 2 2

3 3 2.6

2.8 2

2.5 3

2 1.8 1

1 2

2.5 1 1.8

1.5 2

2.5

2.6

2.7

1.7 1.5 2.5

3 1

3 2 -1 2

3 3 -2 2

3 3

2.3 3

1 2

3 1 2

2.3 2.7 1.3

2 3 3

1.5 1.3

1.5

1.5 1

2 2

1 1.5

1.5

3 3

2.8

1 2 1 1.5 3

2.5

2 1 3

1.5

2 2 2 3

2.5 1 2 2

3 2.2

2.5 2

2 1.5 2

2 3

1 1 2

2 -2

1 2 2

1 3 1

2 1

-1

1 1.7 1 2

1.5

2.3

2 1

2 2

3 3 3

2 2 2

1.5

3 2 1.7 2

1 2.5 3

2.5

3 3 3

2.5

1 2

2.3

1 1 2 2

3 3

1 1 1 1

1.7 2 1.7 1.7

2.5

3 1 1

3 1

3 3

3 2 1.3

2 2.5 2

1.5

1 -2 -1 2

1 -2

-2

2 1

2 1 1 -2

2 1 2

-2

-1

1 2 1

-1 -1 2

1 2

1 -3 1 -1 -1 -1

-1 -1 3

3 3

2.5

2.3

2 2

2.3 2 2.3

1.4

2 3

2.8

1.5

2.7

2.5

1 1 -2

2 1

1 1

1 3

1 1 -2

3 3

1 1

-1

-2

1 3 2 3 3

3 2 1 1 3

2 1

3 3

2.7 2

2 2.5

2 1.5

2 3

3 3

2.5

2 1

3 3

3 3 1

3 1

36 Natural Disturbances

2 2.5

3 3

3 1 1

3 2

2.5

-1 3

2.7

2 3

1 3 2 2

2 3

2.8

2 1

2 2

2 1

3 2 2

3 2

2 2 2

1 3 2

2 1 1

2 2

2 2 2 1 2 2

1 2 2 2 3

3 2

3 2 3

2 1 -2 3 1

1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1

2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1

Marine Ecosystem Components

-1 -1

3 -1

-1

-1 -1

-1 -1 -1

2 3

3 3

1 2

2 2

-1

-1 -1 -1 -1 -1

-1 -1 -1

2 2 3 2

-1

1 3 1

Water Quality

Fishing

Derelict Fishing Gear

Fishing Mortality

Dead Fishing Fishing IUU Fishery Recreational Commercial Discards & Grounds Seasonality Fishing Infrastructure Fishing Catch Fishing Catch Bycatch

Industrial Waste

Land-Based Competing Uses of Resources Socio-Economic Cultural Drivers Uses Power Plant Effluents

Sewage Other NPS Landfills Septic Urban Outfalls Discharges Leakage Seepage Runoff

Agricultural Runoff

Marine Development

Coastal Military Noise Development Uses Generation

1 3

2.5

3 2

Conservation/ Restoration

Gross Population Population Seafood Market Fisher Local Tourism Income Size Size Imports/Exports Demand Income/Revenue Economy

Education & Compliance Cultural Coastal Fishing Ciguatera Public Regulatory Fishery Outreach Preferences/Norms Community Community Health Structure Regulatory Resilience Well-Being Structure 3 1

1 1

2.5

3 2.5

3 2.9

2.5 1

Recreational Diving

2.5

1 -1

Artificial Energy Light Mariculture Research Boating Marina Reefs Sector Contamination Activity

1 1

Large Waste Vessel/Shipping Activity

1 1

2.5

2 3

0 2.8

2.5

1 2

2 2

1 1.5

1.5

2 1

2.7

2.8

2.5 2.5

2 2 2 2

-1

3 2.5

3 2

3 3

-3

3 3

2.5 2

3 3 3

2.7 1.5 2 3

Habitat

1 1

1.5 3 3 3 3

Abiotic Factors

1.7 3 1.9

2.8 2 2 1

1 1 2 1 2

1 1 1

3 3

2.6 3 3

2.8 1.7 2.2 2

2.7 3 2

2.5

3 0.5

3 2

0.5

2.8

1 3 3

2 2.3 2

3 2.5

2 2

2.3 3

1 1 1 2

2 2.5

3 3

1 -3

1 3

2.9 2.6 2.5 2

2 2 1

2 1.8 2 1.5

1 -3

1 2 1 2

2 2

3 2.8 2 2

3 3 2.6

2.8 2

2.5 3

2 1.8 1

1 2

2.5 1 1.8

1.5 2

2.5

2.6

2.7

1.7 1.5 2.5

3 1

3 2 -1 2

3 3 -2 2

3 3

2.3 3

1 2

3 1 2

2.3 2.7 1.3

2 3 3

1.5 1.3

1.5

1.5 1

2 2

1 1.5

1.5

3 3

2.8

1 2 1 1.5 3

2.5

2 1 3

1.5

2 2 2 3

2.5 1 2 2

3 2.2

2.5 2

2 1.5 2

2 3

1 1 2

2 -2

1 2 2

1 3 1

2 1

-1

1 1.7 1 2

1.5

2.3

2 1

2 2

3 3 3

2 2 2

1.5

3 2 1.7 2

1 2.5 3

2.5

3 3 3

2.5

1 2

2.3

1 1 2 2

3 3

1 1 1 1

1.7 2 1.7 1.7

2.5

3 1 1

3 1

3 3

3 2 1.3

2 2.5 2

1.5

1 -2 -1 2

1 -2

-2

2 1

2 1 1 -2

2 1 2

-2

-1

1 2 1

-1 -1 2

1 2

1 -3 1 -1 -1 -1

-1 -1 3

3 3

2.5

2.3

2 2

2.3 2 2.3

1.4

2 3

2.8

1.5

2.7

2.5

1 1 -2

2 1

1 1

1 3

1 1 -2

3 3

1 1

-1

-2

1 3 2 3 3

3 2 1 1 3

2 1

3 3

2.7 2

2 2.5

2 1.5

2 3

3 3

2.5

2 1

3 3

3 3 1

3 1

19 Coastal Development 19 Regulatory Structure

2 2.5

3 3

3 1 1

3 2

2.5

-1 3

2.7

2 3

1 3 2 2

2 3

2.8

2 1

2 2

2 1

3 2 2

3 2

2 2 2

1 3 2

2 1 1

2 2

2 2 2 1 2 2

1 2 2 2 3

3 2

3 2 3

2 1 -2 3 1

1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1

2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1

Marine Ecosystem Components

-1 -1

3 -1

-1

-1 -1

-1 -1 -1

2 3

1 3 1

3 3

1 2

2 2

-1

-1 -1 -1 -1 -1

-1 -1 -1

2 2 3 2

-1

Water Quality

Fishing

Derelict Fishing Gear

Fishing Mortality

Dead Fishing Fishing IUU Fishery Recreational Commercial Discards & Grounds Seasonality Fishing Infrastructure Fishing Catch Fishing Catch Bycatch

Industrial Waste

Land-Based Competing Uses of Resources Socio-Economic Cultural Drivers Uses Power Plant Effluents

Sewage Other NPS Landfills Septic Urban Outfalls Discharges Leakage Seepage Runoff

Agricultural Runoff

Marine Development

Coastal Military Noise Development Uses Generation

1 3

2.5

3 2

Conservation/ Restoration

Gross Population Population Seafood Market Fisher Local Tourism Income Size Size Imports/Exports Demand Income/Revenue Economy

Education & Compliance Cultural Coastal Fishing Ciguatera Public Regulatory Fishery Outreach Preferences/Norms Community Community Health Structure Regulatory Resilience Well-Being Structure 3 1

1 1

2.5

3 2.5

3 2.9

2.5 1

Recreational Diving

2.5

1 -1

Artificial Energy Light Mariculture Research Boating Marina Reefs Sector Contamination Activity

1 1

Large Waste Vessel/Shipping Activity

1 1

2.5

2 3

0 2.8

2.5

1 2

2 2

1 1.5

1.5

2 1

2.7

2.8

2.5 2.5

2 2 2 2

-1

3 2.5

3 2

3 3

-3

3 3

2.5 2

3 3 3

2.7 1.5 2 3

Habitat

1 1

1.5 3 3 3 3

Abiotic Factors

1.7 3 1.9

2.8 2 2 1

1 1 2 1 2

1 1 1

3 3

2.6 3 3

2.8 1.7 2.2 2

2.7 3 2

2.5

3 0.5

3 2

0.5

2.8

1 3 3

2 2.3 2

3 2.5

2 2

2.3 3

1 1 1 2

2 2.5

3 3

1 -3

1 3

2.9 2.6 2.5 2

2 2 1

2 1.8 2 1.5

1 -3

1 2 1 2

2 2

3 2.8 2 2

3 3 2.6

2.8 2

2.5 3

2 1.8 1

1 2

2.5 1 1.8

1.5 2

2.5

2.6

2.7

1.7 1.5 2.5

3 1

3 2 -1 2

3 3 -2 2

3 3

2.3 3

1 2

3 1 2

2.3 2.7 1.3

2 3 3

1.5 1.3

1.5

1.5 1

2 2

1 1.5

1.5

3 3

2.8

1 2 1 1.5 3

2.5

2 1 3

1.5

2 2 2 3

2.5 1 2 2

3 2.2

2.5 2

2 1.5 2

2 3

1.7 2

1 1 2

2 -2

1.5

2.3

2 1

3 3 3

2 2 2

1.5

3 2 1.7 2

1 2.5 3

2.5

2 2 3

2.5

1 2

2.3

3 3 3

3 3

1 1 2

1 2 2

1 3 1

2 1

-1

1 1

1 1 1 1

1.7 2 1.7 1.7

2.5

3 1 1

3 1

3 3

3 2 1.3

2 2.5 2

1.5

1 -2 -1 2

1 -2

-2

2 1

2 1 1 -2

2 1 2

-2

-1

1 2 1

-1 -1 2

1 2

1 -3 1 -1 -1 -1

-1 -1 3

3 3

2.5

2.3

2 2

2.3 2 2.3

1.4

2 3

2.8

1.5

2.7

2.5

1 1 -2

2 1

1 1

1 3

1 1 -2

3 3

1 1

-1

-2

1 3 2 3 3

3 2 1 1 3

2 1

3 3

2.7 2

2 2.5

2 1.5

2 3

3 3

2.5

2 1

3 3

2.8

19 Inshore Forage Fishes

2 2.5

23 28 Coral Sea Reefs Grass Beds

3 3

3 1 1

3 2

2.5

27 Fishing Grounds

-1 3

3 1

2 3

2.7

2 3

1 3 2 2

2 1

2 2

2 1

3 2 2

3 2

2 2 2

1 3 2

2 1 1

2 2

2 2 2 1 2 2

1 2 2 2 3

3 2

3 2 3

2 1 -2 3 1

1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1

2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1

Status of SSC Conceptual Model • 484 = Connections identified between components across submodels • 304 = Connections between components within each submodel • 788 = Total connections including within submodels • Quantitative Outputs – reflect Diversity and Strength within SSC • Compilation still in process • Written description/definition of each component • Information/discussion regarding strength and direction of connections

Status of SSC Conceptual Model • The SSC has finalized its Generic Ecosystem Conceptual Model for the U.S. Caribbean. The SSC believes its ECM in the current state meets the objectives that the SSC was tasked by the Council following the Caribbean Region EBFM Roadmap Implementation Plan. • The SSC also feels that the generic model it developed should be sufficient and that developing three separate SSC Island-based models is not necessary to meet the objectives of the overall process of developing a fishery ecosystem plan, and specifically the next step of comparison of conceptual models.

Status of SSC Conceptual Model • The SSC recognizes its ECM will be useful in developing the next steps in the process of developing a fishery ecosystem plan and in addressing concerns specific to the SSC. Examples are given below: • Generate questions to help prioritize management strategies (e.g., management strategy evaluation). • Generate questions to help prioritize future research (identify data and knowledge gaps). • Develop hypotheses to be tested using available data in quantitative modeling approaches. • ~ 28% of identified linkages have data • Not account for data extent or quality

Status of SSC Conceptual Model Examples (continued) • Identify key ecosystem linkages and indicators for risk assessment. • Explore different visualization and communication tools for effective outreach of conceptual model (or sub-model) outcomes. Specific issues like magnitude, variability, and direction of the relationships would need to be confronted in order to realize these next steps.

SSC Ecosystem Conceptual Model

Autumn

Lucifer

Sea Change

SSC Recommendations regarding OFLs and ABCs for Spiny Lobster

Allow the Chair to approve the updated OFL Projections and ABCs estimates for spiny lobster using updated landings data and expansion factors (i.e., Puerto Rico, 2019) for presentation to the Council (as requested).

The SSC requests the SEFSC run updated projections with revised PR landings data for spiny lobster for 2019 and the 2019 correction factors–for updating ABCs/OFLs for 2021-2026.

The SSC recommends for purposes of the Draft Framework Amendment to the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) to modify spiny lobster management reference points based on SEDAR 57 stock assessments. The SSC recommends constant-catch and variable-catch ABCs for 2021-2023.

The SSC requests from the SEFSC to perform an Interim Assessment for spiny lobster by April 2022 and update all the landings and TIP data into the model for all 3 Islands; final data 2020 or 2021 (depending on incoming data to the SEFSC).

The SSC reminds the Council to request spiny lobster be scheduled for a SEDAR Operational Assessment given that the previous assessment used data up to 2016. Note that SEDAR operates with a 2-year lead time.

In the event that subsequent rulemaking with updated spiny lobster OFLs/ABCs/ACLs is not in place by the end of the SSC-recommended year period (2023), the SSC recommends the following: For each Island group, for both the constant and variable scenarios, the OFL/ABC for 2024 and beyond would be equal to the variable OFL/ABC for 2023, until modified by subsequent rulemaking.

The SSC recommends that for spiny lobster stocks, the Council continue using an arithmetic mean for ACL monitoring purposes (i.e., triggering an AM and calculating length of AM-based closure).

Other Matters The SSC recommends that the CFMC request that the SEFSC give high priority to reviewing the MER Report Puerto Rico Port Sampling and Catch Validation Project (August 2017, December 2019)

Modification of Spiny Lobster Management Reference Points Based on SEDAR 57 Stock Assessments SERO

Draft Framework Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix 173rd Caribbean Fishery Management Council Meeting April 27-28, 2021

Review from December 2020 Council Meeting Draft framework amendment to the island-based FMPs would update spiny lobster management reference points following the accepted SEDAR 57 stock assessments and the change from Tier 4 to Tier 3 under the ABC Control Rule. Reviewed two actions included in the draft amendment: 1 - Update spiny lobster OFL/ABC/ACLs using constant-catch or variable-catch approach. 2 - Update accountability measure (AM) trigger for spiny lobster.

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 2

Requests from December 2020 Council Meeting •

Council requested SEFSC update OFL projections and ABC estimates for Puerto Rico using complete 2019 landings data adjusted using 2019 expansion factors.

•

Council requested SSC review updated OFLs/ABCs, discuss the OFL/ABC “shelf-life”, and provide input on using an arithmetic versus geometric average to trigger an AM.

•

IPT to update framework amendment following SSC meeting and add in a high-level comparison of alternatives.

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 3

Outcomes from February 2021 SSC Meeting Specific to Action 1 (setting OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs): • The SSC agreed to allow the Chair to approve the updated OFL projections and ABC estimates for Puerto Rico. •

The SSC continues to recommend ABCs for 2021-2023.

•

If subsequent rulemaking with updated OFLs/ABCs/ACLs not in place by the end of 2023, the SSC recommends the OFL/ABC for 2024 and later be equal to the OFL/ABC set for 2023 under the variable-catch approach.

Specific to Action 2 (AM trigger): • The SSC recommend the Council continue using an arithmetic mean for ACL monitoring purposes. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 4

Changes to Draft Amendment •

Updated OFLs/ABCs/ACLs for Puerto Rico using complete 2019 landings data and 2019 expansion factors.

•

Set OFLs/ABCs/ACLs for 2024 and later based on SSC recommendation from February meeting.

•

Ramp-up alternative in Action 2 replaced with an alternative that uses a 3year arithmetic average of landings as the AM trigger.

•

Added high-level comparison of alternatives (physical, biological/ecological, economic, social, administrative effects).

•

Chapter 3 - description of environments added, incorporating by reference information from the island-based FMPs.

•

References and Appendices were added. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 5

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 6

Action 1 – Spiny Lobster OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs Alternative 1 – No Action. The OFL proxy, ABC, and ACL (which equals OY) for spiny lobster would remain as specified under the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP. Fishery Management Plan Spiny Lobster SYL* Spiny Lobster ABC Spiny Lobster ACL Puerto Rico 924,968 554,981 527,232 St. Thomas and St. John 367,035 220,221 209,210 St. Croix 346,541 207,925 197,528 * Under Tier 4 of the ABC Control Rule included in each FMP, the SYL was quantified and used as the OFL proxy

Alternative 1 would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 2 Guidelines. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 7

Action 1 – Variable versus Constant Approach Alternative 2: Variable-catch OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster Year

Puerto Rico OFL

Puerto Rico ABC

St. Thomas/ St. John OFL

2021 2022 2023 2024+

444,020 440,387 438,001 438,001

391,587 388,383 386,279 386,279

195,223 165,021 150,497 150,497

St. Thomas/ St. John ABC 172,170 145,534 132,725 132,725

St. Croix OFL

St. Croix ABC

200,020 159,452 144,219 144,219

176,400 140,623 127,189 127,189

Alternative 3: Constant-catch OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster Year 2021 2023 2024+

Puerto Rico OFL

Puerto Rico ABC

St. Thomas/ St. Thomas/ St. John OFL St. John ABC

440,803

388,750

170,247

438,001

386,279

150,497

St. Croix OFL

St. Croix ABC

150,143

167,897

148,071

132,725

144,219

127,189

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 8

Action 1 – Setting ACL Sub-alternatives Sub-alternatives 2a-2c: Variable-catch ACLs Island/Island Group Puerto Rico St. Thomas/ St. John St. Croix

Year 2021 2022 2023+ 2021 2022 2023+ 2021 2022 2023+

Sub-alternative 2a (ACL = ABC) 391,587 388,383 386,279 172,170 145,534 132,725 176,400 140,623 127,189

Sub-alternative 2b (ACL = ABC * 0.95) 372,008 368,964 366,965 163,562 138,257 126,089 167,580 133,592 120,830

Sub-alternative 2c (ACL = ABC * 0.90) 352,428 349,545 347,651 154,953 130,981 119,453 158,760 126,561 114,470

The ACLs for 2024 and later would be equal to the values specified for 2023. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 9

Action 1 – Setting ACL Sub-alternatives Sub-alternatives 3a-3c: Constant-catch ACLs Island/Island Group Puerto Rico St. Thomas/ St. John St. Croix

Year 2021-2023 2024+ 2021 - 2023 2024+ 2021 - 2023 2024+

Sub-alternative 3a (ACL = ABC) 388,750 386,279 150,143 132,725 148,071 127,189

Sub-alternative 3b Sub-alternative 3c (ACL = ABC * 0.95) (ACL = ABC * 0.90) 369,313 349,875 366,965 347,651 142,636 135,129 126,089 119,453 140,667 133,264 120,830 114,470

The ACLs for 2024 and later would be set equal to the values specified for 2023 under the variable-catch approach.

The Council could select a different alternative and sub-alternative for each island/island group. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 10

Action 1 – Comparison of Alternatives ACLs under Alternative 1 could result in reduced biological benefits to the stock through a greater risk of overfishing based on SEDAR 57 outcomes. The total catch (sum of annual ACLs) under Alternative 2 is the same as the total catch under Alternative 3 (see table), so equal biological benefits. Alternative 3 (constant ACLs) could have greater socio-economic benefits. Year 2021 2022 2023 2024+ Total

Puerto Rico ACLs

St. Thomas/St. John ACLs

St. Croix ACLs

Sub-alt. 2b Sub-alt. 3b Sub-alt. 2b Sub-alt. 3b Sub-alt. 2b Sub-alt. 3b 372,008 369,313 163,562 142,636 167,580 140,667 138,257 142,636 133,592 140,667 368,964 369,313 126,089 142,636 120,830 140,667 366,965 369,313 126,089 126,089 120,830 120,830 366,965 366,965 553,997 553,997 542,832 542,831 1,474,902 1,474,904 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 11

Action 2 – Revise the Spiny Lobster AM Trigger Alternative 1 - No Action. An AM would be triggered if spiny lobster landings from the following years exceeded the spiny lobster ACL: (1) Landings from 2018 (2) Landings from 2019 (3) Two-year average of landings (2019 and 2020) (4) Three-year average of landings (2019, 2020, and 2021) (5) Thereafter, a progressive running three-year average.

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 12

Action 2 – Alternatives Alternative 2. Use the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM. An AM is triggered if average landings exceeded average ACLs in place during those years. The years of landings used to trigger an AM can be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available. Alternative 3. Use the most recent single year of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM. An AM is triggered if landings exceeded the ACL in place during that year. The years of landings used to trigger an AM can be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available.

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 13

Action 2 – Comparison of Alternatives Fishing Year

Most Recent Landings Available*

2022

2020

2023

2021

2024

2022

2025

2023

2026

2024

AM Trigger Alternative 1**

AM Trigger Alternative 2 Three-year average Single year (2020) (2018-2020) Three-year average Single year (2021) (2019-2021) Two-year average Three-year average (2021-2022) (2020-2022) Three-year average Three-year average (2021-2023) (2021-2023) Three-year average Three-year average (2022-2024) (2022-2024)

AM Trigger Alternative 3 Single year (2020) Single year (2021) Single year (2022) Single year (2023) Single year (2024)

* Complete landings are generally available two years after when the fishing occurred (i.e., the fishing year). ** This analysis uses different years for Alternative 1 than specified in the IBFMPs for simplicity in comparing the alternatives. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 14

Action 2 – Comparison of Alternatives A multi-year average of landings would be expected to account for biological (e.g., year-class variability) and economic (e.g., market demand) variability in the landings, thereby reducing the probability that an AM would be triggered. However, if landings in a particular year are very high and a 3-year average is used as the AM trigger, that one year of high landings could be used in the average multiple times, potentially triggering AMs in three consecutive years.

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 15

Action 2 – Comparison of Alternatives Landings for 2020 are not available at this time, but it is expected that they would be less than the previous years’ landings for all islands due to the reduced fishing effort in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. • If future landings in Puerto Rico are at levels observed in 2018 or 2019, then AMs would likely be triggered under all alternatives.

Year

2012 2013 • Annual landings in the USVI have 2014 been less than the ACLs proposed 2015 2016 under Action 1. If landings 2017 continue at those levels, an AM would not be triggered under any 2018 2019 of the Action 2 alternatives.

Puerto Rico 385,811 275,424 376,779 418,273 449,233 283,221 520,829 488,968

St. Thomas/ St. John 83,157 84,513 92,261 109,455 121,695 91,911 86,708 88,100

St. Croix 87,073 59,398 39,724 44,963 31,582 26,193 10,970 15,721

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 16

Next Steps • Council could select preferred alternatives at this meeting. • Action 1: select variable or constant-catch approach. • Action 1: select management uncertainty reduction buffer to set the ACL from the ABC. • Action 2: select the AM trigger for spiny lobster.

• IPT develops framework amendment for final action at the August 2021 Council meeting. • If requested by Council, staff presents a summary of the draft amendment to District Advisory Panels before the August 2021 Council meeting. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 17

Questions

NOAA photo library U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 18

PUERTO RICO PORT SAMPLING AND CATCH VALIDATION PROJECT (August 2017 – December 2019)

Final Report Part 1 – Executive Summary (Submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Program)

MER Consultants, LLC (Prepared by: Todd Gedamke, John M. Hoenig, Alejandro Carrera, Kristen Omori, Julie Gross, Lourdes Lastra, Joy Young, Neishmarie Soto, Jonathan Hernández, Marcos Hanke)

April 2020 This work was commissioned by the United States National Marine Fisheries Service. The landings estimates provided herein have not yet been determined to represent best scientific information available.

For more information please contact:

MER Consultants, LLC 5521 SE Nassau Terrace Stuart, FL 34997, USA 1-804-684-9522 Todd@merconsultants.org

“Trabajando Unidos Para un Mejor Futuro” In Cooperation with:

DEDICATION To the Fishers and Fishing Communities of Puerto Rico The team of Censo de Pesca would like to dedicate this report and express our deepest gratitude to the fishers of Puerto Rico. We worked alongside them in the extremely difficult times and slow recovery after Hurricanes Irma and Maria devastated the island. They let us into their lives, their homes, their circles, and shared stories of the arts and labor that fishing involves. We listened and learned. These men and women lead lives that we admire and respect, “it’s not easy but always rewarding”.

Fishers in Playuela (a.k.a Crash Boat)

Traditional boat haul in Pastillo

Although suspicious of science, and during challenging times, the fishers and industry were overwhelmingly cooperative. To thank them, to express our comradery, and to bring attention to their voice and story, one of our samplers filmed a documentary showing the impact of Hurricane Maria on their lives.

The former Pescaderia in Playuela (a.k.a Crash Boat)

Una Plena para los Pescadores y María: https://youtu.be/2YgnMxK7KRU Directed by: Lourdes Lastra

DEDICATORIA A todos los Pescadores y Comunidades Pesqueras de Puerto Rico. El equipo del Censo de Pesca le gustaría dedicar este informe y proyecto, y a su ves expresar nuestro más sincero agradecimiento a los pescadores de Puerto Rico. Trabajamos juntos en momentos extremadamente difíciles, luego del impacto y lenta recuperación de los huracanes Irma y María. Nos dejaron entrar en sus círculos, sus hogares y sus vidas, compartiendo sus historas de ardua labor en la industria de la pesca. Los escuchamos y aprendimos mucho. Estos hombres y mujeres lideran vidas que merecen el más profundo respeto y admiración. Pescador de La Coal

A pesar de sus sospechas hacia la ciencia, y los momentos dificiles que encontramos, los pescadores y todos los miembros de la industria de pesca se mantuvieron atentos y colaboraodres. Para agradecerles, expresar nuestro mutuo apoyo y recalcar sus voces e historias, una de nuestras muestreadoras realizó un documental mostrando el impacto que el huracán María desplegó en las

pesquerías y en sus vidas. "Toño" pescador de La Princesa, pescando en la bahia

Daños en Barrio Sardinera, Fajardo

“Una Plena para los Pescadores y María”: https://youtu.be/2YgnMxK7KRU Dirigido por: Lourdes Lastra

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................1 Findings & Recommendations ....................................................................................................4 Effectiveness of the Survey..............................................................................................4 Characterization of the Fishery ........................................................................................7 Conclusions/Recommendations .....................................................................................16

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Estimated, reported, and approximate expanded landings for the entire time period sampled during this project. . ..............................................................................................2 Figure 2. Total landings estimated from primary daytime survey over entire sampling period plotted against PSE for the species comprising the top 95% of the landings. ........................5 Figure 3. Strong weekly up and down patterns observed in both estimated landings (daytime and auxiliary) and reported data suggesting lunar patterns to fishing activity..............................7 Figure 4. Observed Landings for hurricane impact comparisons. . .............................................8 Figure 5. The average observed landings at each sampled site per day +/- 1 standard deviation...9 Figure 6. Investigating temporal trends in variability of weekly estimates from day sampling. 12 Figure 7. Time Series of weekly estimates for the top 6 species (after lobster and conch). ........ 14 Figure 8. Comparison of estimated landings to reported landings for any species found in both data sets with annual landings of greater than 20,000 lbs. ..................................................15

TABLE OF TABLES Table 1. Completed sampling assignments by sampling type, and the number of exploratory trips sampled outside of our statistical design. .............................................................................3 Table 2. Changes in the daytime PSE of estimated landings for the East given different “n” sampling days per week for the overall top 10 species.. .......................................................6 Table 3. Summary of observed and estimated landings, number of sampled trips and species observed in both primary daytime and auxiliary sampling (commercial only).. ....................8 Table 4. Species composition of the top 90% of the landings as estimated from the primary daytime survey. .................................................................................................................10 Table 5. Annual correction factors by region (below, left) and top 10 species landed from daytime and auxiliary sampling combined (below, right). ..................................................15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In this document, MER Consultants (MER) has the pleasure to report on a large-scale comprehensive port sampling program implemented in Puerto Rico between August 2017 and December 2019. The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC) in collaboration with NOAA’s Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) contracted MER to facilitate the improvement of scientific information gathered for the management of fisheries in the US Territories in the Caribbean (U.S. Virgin Islands/USVI and Puerto Rico) to ensure the cultural, economic, and ecological sustainability of the fisheries. Data shortcomings and the sole reliance on self-reported data for these small-scale, multi-gear, and multi-species fisheries has hindered the ability to set meaningful annual catch limits (ACL). The Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DRNA) began a data improvement process in 2009 that stressed the need to validate self-reported commercial landings. The overall objective of the current study was to build upon the results of the 2015-2016 MER pilot study and implement a year-long survey to 1) validate the annual reported species-specific landings and, 2) better understand geographic distribution, seasonal changes and other temporal patterns in variability in fishing effort. The statistical design - well informed from the pilot study and months of careful logistic planning - met the reality of conducting research in the tropics less than a month after port sampling began. On September 6th and then on September 20th, Hurricanes Irma and Maria, respectively, devastated the USVI and Puerto Rico. In terms of the fisheries, very few locations were entirely spared from damages made by the storm. Boats and fishing gear were lost. Some landing sites were simply gone, and others had lost hundreds of yards of beach. The ability to launch vessels, use storage facilities, and navigate through certain channels was severely impacted. Even locations not directly damaged were rendered almost useless by the loss of power and inability to run freezers or make ice. The return to normalcy was not going to be swift, and the only silver lining for the sampling team was that damages and economic impact to the fishery needed to be assessed and they were already trained and on the ground. This worked out very well as DRNA, in consultation with SEFSC, was able to re-task a trained crew already in place, keeping the sampling team employed during this difficult time. This allowed time to regroup while not losing trained personnel. However, the sampling design was based on the results from the pilot study and relative usage of study sites had been affected by the storms. We communicated with Daniel Matos (DRNA) and monitored the situation by conducting spot checks on sites to determine when the fisheries began to return to some level of normalcy. In late January and early February 2018, it appeared that the fishery in Puerto Rico was operating at around 75% of its previous capacity and we consulted with SEFSC and GSMFC to determine the path forward. Given the situations on the ground in the USVI and Puerto Rico, the additional complexities due to the storms, and remaining budget,

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY it was determined that we should focus the remainder of our work on obtaining at least one year of high-quality data in Puerto Rico.

Official 2019 Expanded data unavailable Approximations for illustration only

Hurricane Irma Hurricane Maria

Start of Daytime Sampling

Start of Daytime Damage Assessment Sampling No Sampling - Site Evaluation Fishery Recovery

Start of Auxiliary Sampling

Reported data unavailable

Figure 1. Estimated, reported, and approximate expanded total landings for the entire time period sampled during this project. The shaded area represents the proportional standard error (PSE; standard error divided by the estimated landings) of the weekly estimate. Note that here and throughout this document ‘Expanded’ is denoted with an “*” to indicate that DRNA expansion factors were only available for 2018 which were used to approximate the expanded 2019 reported landings.

At the beginning of February 2018, four samplers visited 106 sites (101 provided by DRNA in 2014 and an additional 5 based on observations) to determine changes in effort and which sites should be included in what strata for a modified post hurricane design (see Section 3.4 ). On March 15th, we began sampling with two full time people per coast with the same basic design as prior to the storms. Given the uncertainty about stratification due to shifting effort, we conducted spot checks at heavily damages sites that may have been recovering or locations which had historically seen some fishing activity. Our electronic reporting system gave us the ability to analyze the data and share pictures of sites daily so there was little disconnect between the teams on the ground and analysts. We conducted two data evaluations on relative usage between March and June in which we were able to remove, add or re-stratify sites given the results. In August 2018, we were confident that the fisheries had recovered close to normal and that we had enough data to be confident in our daytime stratification and overall spot checking to implement auxiliary sampling and the full-scale program. We began sampling early mornings (denoted AM sampling throughout the report, 5am – 9 am), early evenings (denoted PM, 5pm – 9 pm), Sundays (9am – 5 pm), and Vieques and Culebra (denoted Islands, 9am – 5pm). A

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY variety of survey designs were used with a heavy reliance on a roving survey design referred to as “busroute(s)” throughout this document. Visiting multiple sites on a roving busroute during a sampling assignment allowed us to explore a number of sites with questionable activity levels. This was used in conjunction with 4-hour AM and PM assignments at specific sites where we were confident of relatively high activity to collect additional data at or near the upper bounds of activity (see Section 3.3.2 ). We conducted a quarterly analysis of the data and modified stratifications, as necessary (see Section 3.5). Overall, the project was successful in obtaining detailed daytime catch records for almost 2 years and daytime plus auxiliary information for almost a year and a half from over 50 sites (Figure 1). As in the pilot study, no personal information on individual fishers was collected and cooperation was excellent at all but one site (<2% noncooperation for all other sites). Over the entire time frame of the project (including the 6 weeks pre-Hurricane Maria), samplers completed almost 5,000 sampling assignments, sampled nearly 10,000 trips and observed over 400,000 pounds (lb) of landings (see Table 1 and Table 3; Section 4.1). This translates to ~2 trips sampled per assignment, ~40 pounds seen per trip or ~80 pounds per assignment. Total landings for the entire sampled time period were estimated to be nearly 2.8 million pounds which averages to around 28,000 lb/week. Table 1. Completed sampling assignments by sampling type, and the number of exploratory trips sampled outside of our statistical design. Exploratory trips are only included in our descriptive statistics and list of species observed. (Reminder: “Islands” refers to sampling on Vieques and Culebra and “Busroutes” refer to roving survey design where multiple sites are visited.) Region

Daytime

AM Busroutes

PM Busroutes

Sunday Busroutes

AM Site

PM Site

Exploratory Trips

East North South West Islands Totals

969 972 980 1,078 88 4,087

53 55 52 160

1 53 54

27 27 27 55 136

54 54

23 83 81 48 235

13 54 28 19 0 114

The summary below provides bulleted lists of key findings so that the casual reader can quickly extract an overview of the project while also providing fisheries professionals a starting point for understanding this work. The executive summary (Part 1) provides much of the overview narrative for the key topics and some specifics of the findings while the main body (Part 2) contains supporting figures, tables, and information on the points below, as well as detailed results for the top 20 - 25 landed species depending on the analysis. The Appendix (Part 3) contains full species lists with components of variability for simulation modeling or additional work. Note that we are distributing this report in four separate files (Summary – Part 1, Main Body – Part 2, and Appendix – Part 3, and Site Descriptions – Part 4). The section references below refer to the main body of the report and the appendix references are as indicated.

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Findings & Recommendations Effectiveness of the Survey MER was able to accomplish the following: • Site evaluations – A dynamic and comprehensive list of the principal landing sites for

commercially caught fish and invertebrates was compiled and refined throughout the project. Relative usage of sampled sites (e.g., “high” versus “low”) was evaluated and refined at least quarterly. Periodic interviews at all known locations (106 sites) provided prioritized lists of additional sites to consider when determining sampling frames for future work (see Section 3 and Site Descriptions - Part Four). • Daytime design – An effort was made to use a single standardized statistical design as much

as possible for daytime sampling to facilitate training, ease of implementation, and streamlining of data processing. The design used for 6 of the 8 strata (i.e., for Puerto Rico East, South and West high and low use strata) was two stage cluster sampling where days were picked at the first stage and one site (m=1) was picked at the second stage. This afforded unbiased estimates of the landings and conservative (biased high) estimates of variance. Implementation proceeded smoothly and analysis of the data was straightforward. • Puerto Real design modifications – Cooperation from fishers and processors was excellent

with the exception of one landing site (a privately owned Pescaderia) in Puerto Real on the West coast, which did not allow us access for most of the study period. With assistance from Luis A. Rivera (DRNA), MER modified the design for the harbor as a whole, conducted additional effort sampling to count trips and used a ratio estimator (catch per unit effort times total trips) to not only successfully obtain estimates of landings, but also develop an efficient generalizable method for other locations. • Puerto Rico North and the auxiliary sampling program designs – On the North coast and for

early morning, early evening, and Sunday sampling, logistical considerations required the use of alternative sampling designs. These included simple random sampling of days when there was only one site in the stratum (Puerto Rico North daytime high use stratum, Puerto Rico North evening survey, and Puerto Rico East morning survey), a roving design resembling a “bus route” design (Sunday sampling), and two stage cluster sampling with a variable number of sites (0 – 2) visited per day (Puerto Rico North low use stratum). • Daytime survey precision – A large-scale survey was implemented with targets for precision

derived from the pilot study analyses. Precision goals were largely met (Figure 2). For all strata combined in the full survey period, eight of the top nine species landed had PSE’s (proportional standard errors; standard error divided by the estimated landings) of less than 7% of the estimate (the exception being dolphin). Only five of the top 28 species which

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY comprise ~90% of the catch had proportional standard errors (PSE; standard error divided by estimated landings) of >15%. In the top 95% of landings (47 species), only 5% of the landings (16 species) have PSEs > target of 15%. For all strata combined in the annual estimates, seven of the top 10 species still had PSEs less than 7% with silk and lane snapper at 9% and 15%, respectively. Only dolphin at 18% was above the target precision of 15% (See Section 4.3 for annual estimates with daytime and auxiliary sampling combined).

Figure 2. Total landings estimated from primary daytime survey over entire sampling period plotted against PSE (both on ln scale) for the species comprising the top 95% of the landings. Box denotes the subset of species comprising 90% of the landings. Bubble size was determined by percent of the total catch which is also indicated following the species name. • Auxiliary survey precision – Precision of the auxiliary sampling programs (i.e. Sundays, early

morning, early evening, and Vieques/Culebra) was generally good, especially when viewed in terms of the low magnitude of the landings in these situations. Six of the top 20 species (65% of total estimated landings) in the auxiliary surveys had PSEs estimated below the 15% target with only 4 and 7 species above 30% for the entire 16 months sampled and for an annual estimate, respectively. • Precision of all sampling – For the entire time period sampled, PSEs were 1.6% for all of

Puerto Rico and 2.5%, 4.3%, 3.3%, 3.4% and 5.3% for the East, North, South, West, and

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Islands, respectively. By species, only six of the top 30 species had PSEs larger than the target of 15% (see Table 4 for species specific estimates). • Evaluating survey design to inform future work – An analysis of precision (power analysis) as

a function of sampling effort was conducted. There was some scope to adjust sampling effort upward or downward if a better balance of costs and precision was needed. Essentially, modest changes in sampling effort resulted in modest changes in precision (see Table 2 for analysis example and Section 4.6). However, logistical constraints limit the ability to adjust sampling effort without a comprehensive plan, i.e., it was difficult to hire, train and retain qualified personnel for part-time work (e.g., sampling two days per week). Comprehensive simulations including alternative sampling strategies and designs can be conducted once SEFSC and DRNA determine sampling goals and priorities now that all the necessary preliminary estimates of parameters have been obtained. Table 2. Changes in the daytime PSE of estimated landings for the East given different “n” sampling days per week for the overall top 10 species. Values in the column labelled Daytime SE/Estimated are calculated from the data with the actual n of 5 (i.e., sampling Mon. – Sat.). Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Species Queen conch Caribbean spiny lobster Hogfish Mutton snapper Stoplight parrotfish Queen triggerfish Red hind Cero mackerel Yellowtail snapper Ballyhoo

Daytime Estimated 89,268 22,954 1,498 10,023 7,501 6,831 6,523 5,390 4,917 4,320

Daytime Variance 9,639,147 9,193,784 3,668,282 774,067 1,006,684 702,766 454,810 1,290,465 1,892,568 18,662,400

Daytime PSE 0.055 0.063 0.089 0.088 0.134 0.123 0.103 0.211 0.280 1.000

PSE n=2 0.087 0.099 0.141 0.139 0.211 0.194 0.163 0.333 0.442 1.000

PSE n=3 0.071 0.081 0.115 0.113 0.173 0.158 0.133 0.272 0.361 1.000

PSE n=4 0.062 0.070 0.100 0.098 0.150 0.137 0.116 0.236 0.313 1.000

•

Electronic reporting and rapid sampling development – MER’s reporting software was modified to accommodate three prototype sampling stations which were developed and deployed. The same tablets used by all samplers were integrated with a scale so that images and weights were captured automatically (see Section 5.1). Stand-alone setups, or modular units with tables, were successfully used to capture individual weights and images in a very timely fashion (2-3 seconds/fish). Annotation software was developed and, to date, over 15,000 images of species have been collected and catalogued to facilitate the final stages of the machine learning software development process. Close to 20,000 pictures were recorded as part of the sampler’s duties and were used to verify species identifications.

•

Temporal resolution of survey - Lunar cycles – The project was designed to estimate weekly daytime landings and monthly for auxiliary summaries due mainly to logistics. Initial data explorations found clear signals on a weekly time scale. Between December 2018 and June

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2019 there were at least 7 cyclical patterns that appear in both the estimated and reported landings. Note that these were independent data sets; having 7 repeated patterns over a 7month period strongly suggested a lunar cycle to fishing. This could be very important for the design of efficient sampling programs and therefore we present data weekly throughout (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Strong weekly patterns observed in both estimated landings (daytime and auxiliary) and reported data suggesting lunar patterns to fishing activity.

Characterization of the Fishery •

Trip type– Recreational and Charter trips were sampled but commercial activity dominated as would be expected given the designed commercial sampling frame. A total of 563 recreational trips were sampled, representing 6% of the total sampled trips. In all regions except for the North coast, commercial trips accounted for 94 – 96% of sampled trips. On the North coast, recreational trips comprised 15%. A total of 563 recreational trips were sampled and rankings (e.g., from number of sampled trips: 1-Rincon/W, 2-Mameyal/N, 3Puerto Mosquito/N, and 4-El Seco Rampa/W) can be used to support the development of recreational surveys. For the remainder of the report, other than when specified, only commercial trips are presented.

•

Trip type - Gear – The most common gear recorded was diving with 60% of observed trips overall and between 63 – 87% for all coasts except the North. The North coast was dominated by hook and line trips at 70% and only 13% diving. Traps were mostly used in the South and East coasts with 9% and 1%, respectively.

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •

Average pounds per trip – The overall average landings per trip was approximately 40 pounds (lb). Lobster trips in the East and deep-water snapper trips in the West had the largest landings with averages over 200 lb. Average landings on the North, East, South, and West coasts were 19 lb/trip, 54 lb/trip, 41 lb/trip and 54 lb/trip, respectively.

•

Regional differences in overall landings – Landings on the East, South and West coasts were comparable but landings on the North coast were approximately 25% of the other coasts (Table 3). Estimated landings in the Islands is from the shorter time series of auxiliary sampling only and is comparable to that in the north coast during the entire project. If the Islands are included in the East coast, then landings were highest in this region (see Section 4.1 for more details on descriptive statistics).

Table 3. Summary of observed and estimated landings, number of sampled trips and species observed in both primary daytime and auxiliary sampling (commercial only). Note that estimated landings for the Islands is from the shorter auxiliary sampling time period only. The number of species reported to DRNA in 2017 – 2019 is also included for comparison.

•

Region

Total Estimated lb

Total Observed lb

Number of Sampled Trips

East North South West Islands Totals

724,627 234,949 770,559 873,732 202,035 2,805,902

165,941 33,890 99,963 117,512 15,848 433,154

2,165 1,200 2,300 2,871 222 8,758

Number of unique species observed 163 183 149 190 65 267

Number of unique species reported 56 61 60 62 37 76

Hurricane impact – An evaluation of Hurricane Maria impacts to the fishery was conducted by comparing the 6 weeks sampled (Aug. – Sept. 2017) prior to the hurricane to the first 6 weeks when sampling resumed (Mar. – Apr. 2018; normally one of the highest landings periods) and the same 6 weeks in 2018 and 2019 (Figure 4). While not evident in the overall catch, the trap fishery was impacted and did not recover to pre-hurricane levels until 2019.

Time period

Figure 4. Observed Landings for hurricane impact comparisons. Traps only/All Species (excluding Conch). FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •

Principle landing sites – A total of 50 sites were formally sampled during the project. The statistical design provided estimates per strata, so to compare activity of specific locations we utilized the observed variable of interest (e.g., trips, lb, etc.). Sites were ranked based on the observed average landings per day (Figure 5). The highest average landings per day were on the East coast and Morropo/Vieques at around 300 lb/day. The two West coast Puerto Real sites and Rincon had average landings of around 200 lb/day while the highest usage sites in the South had 150 – 200 lb/day. The North site of Jarealito was the highest at 100 lb/day.

Figure 5. The average observed landings at each sampled site per day +/- 1 standard deviation. Presented in descending order. Each coast is indicated and the three Vieques and Culebra sites are included.

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •

Species composition: Many species but dominated by a few – - The fisheries are dominated (~50% of landings) by Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) and queen conch (Strombus gigas). Referred to simply as lobster and conch for the remainder of this document. - Samplers identified 267 unique species, 5 genus groupings (e.g., shark Mustulus spp.) and 39 family unknowns (e.g., triggerfish unknown). - Top 28 species that comprise 90% of estimated daytime landings are listed in Table 4. Auxiliary estimates are presented to show species commonly documented outside of normal daytime hours and how rankings would change. - Only 10 – 15 species make up more than 1% of the total estimated landings and over 260 for which estimates are less than 3,000 – 4,000 lb per year (Figure 2).

Table 4. Species composition of the top 90% of the landings as estimated from the primary daytime survey. Rank: Total PSE Cumulative % Day Auxiliary Species Day Combined (SE/Total of Total Day Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate) Estimate lobster_caribbean_spiny 1 671,899 68,612 740,512 0.02 31% conch_queen 2 467,755 108,209 575,964 0.03 53% hogfish 3 96,337 8,480 104,818 0.03 58% snapper_silk 4 75,604 25,528 101,132 0.06 61% dolphin 5 68,829 69,287 138,116 0.16 65% hind_red 6 59,853 13,184 73,037 0.06 67% octopus_common 7 53,666 1,376 55,042 0.05 70% triggerfish_queen 8 49,963 4,486 54,449 0.04 72% snapper_mutton 9 43,897 2,416 46,313 0.05 74% snapper_lane 10 33,153 3,226 36,379 0.12 76% parrotfish_stoplight 11 32,463 582 33,044 0.06 77% snapper_queen 12 28,874 77,774 106,649 0.09 79% ballyhoo 13 24,106 4 24,110 0.24 80% snapper_yellowtail 14 21,860 19,650 41,509 0.11 81% mackerel_king 15 21,674 151,773 173,447 0.12 82% mackerel_cero 16 19,878 1,177 21,054 0.11 83% tuna_blackfin 17 17,576 4,521 22,097 0.13 84% trunkfish 18 17,179 551 17,730 0.09 84% snapper_schoolmaster 19 16,400 468 16,868 0.06 85% pilchard_false 20 15,880 228 16,109 0.20 86% snapper_dog 21 13,549 2,344 15,893 0.07 86% grunt_white 22 10,692 3,079 13,771 0.08 87% lobster_spanish_slipper 23 10,687 533 11,221 0.07 87% shark_tiger 24 9,956 23,602 33,558 0.23 88% tuna_skipjack 25 9,750 1,823 11,574 0.18 88% porgy_pluma 26 9,369 712 10,081 0.12 89% sardine_scaled 27 8,325 703 9,028 0.25 89% snapper_blackfin 28 8,089 1,498 9,587 0.09 90%

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •

HMS species and elasmobranchs – A total of 383 individual sharks, weighing 7,891 lb and comprised of at least 20 species and four shark unknown groups, were recorded. Two species of skate/rays (southern and spotted eagle rays) and two ray unknown groups comprised a total of 217 individual rays with a total weight of 2,206 lbs. Eighty-two shark samples were sent to David Portnoy (Texas A&M) for genetic analysis and ID verification.

•

Comparison of estimated landings to reported landings – Self-reported data were provided through early fall of 2019. Annual estimates were calculated for the last full year of available self-reported data and comparative time series were generated for the period of September 1, 2018 – August 31, 2019. - The estimated and reported annual landings for all species combined were similar, both with approximately 1.7 million lb (estimated was 1,769,436 lb and reported was 1,692,856 lb) with a difference of just over 76,000 lb. Overall, conch and lobster reported landings were lower than estimated by the survey (see Figure 6 and Table 5). - Conch estimates were approximately twice that which is reported but close to the expanded values. - Lobster estimates were approximately one and a half times greater than reported and somewhere in between reported and expanded.

• Time Series of weekly estimates – A closer look at the time series of weekly estimates for the top 8 species (as ranked by day sampling as in Table 4; lobster, conch, hogfish, silk snapper, dolphin, red hind, octopus and queen triggerfish) illustrated a number of both successes and challenges of developing an entirely comprehensive sampling program capturing all species. Five takeaways are explored below (see Figures 6 - 8 and Table 5): 1. Estimates higher than reported – For conch and lobster, estimated landings tracked the reported landings very well, but at higher magnitudes. The approximate expanded landings appeared accurate for conch, but higher than the estimates. The shaded area which represents the weekly SE overlapped lobster SEs but not for conch. Note that once a total annual estimate was calculated there were significant differences between reported and estimated. 2. Estimates close to reported – The estimates for hogfish, red hind and queen triggerfish closely matched the temporal patterns of what was being reported. In all three time series, there were periods where the estimated and reported diverged for a few months but tracked each other fairly well. The annual estimate for hogfish and red hind was higher than reported at 1.4x and 1.2x, respectively while the estimate for dolphin were very close. The estimated landings for queen triggerfish were lower than reported (0.6 x reported landings) but included five species of triggerfish while the reported data only had one. A triggerfish family grouping would result in similar estimates (see comments on family grouping below and Section 4.4.2).

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Official 2019 Expanded data unavailable

Official 2019 Expanded data unavailable Approximations for illustration only

Figure 6. Investigating temporal trends in variability of weekly estimates from Daytime sampling. The y-axis in the lower plots is the logarithm of the standard error divided by the estimated landings, i.e., a measure of the precision of the estimates relative to the magnitude of the landings. For reference, horizontal dashed lines show where the standard error is 25, 50 and 100% of the landings. It should be noted that each point is the result of a weekly estimate; the precision for the year-long survey is much better than for the weekly estimates. The shaded areas on the top time series plots represents the SE of the weekly estimate. The shaded area in the lower left panel is the conch closed season. It is seen that, although there are some conch landings at a low level during the closed season, they are not characterized as precisely as the landings during the open season.

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Time series of weekly estimates (cont’d) – 3. Estimates much lower than reported – This is unusual for a survey and raises some red flags as to sectors the survey did not cover. For silk snapper, the reported data are ~3x higher than estimated by the project. This was recognized early in the process and additional work was conducted to determine the reason. While designing the project, it was expected that yellowtail snapper, bar jack, and lane snapper (all species fished around the moon, and late at night) would be missed and alternative plans for sampling would have to be developed. For silk snapper, queen snapper, and other deep-water species, samplers were assigned to known landing sites and trailer counts were performed to get a better estimate on effort. Queen snapper and cardinal snapper required a special permit that could only be obtained by fishers that have reported for 5 years and report at least 1,000 lb annually, which can have a great impact on reporting behavior as there is now an incentive to report landings simply to meet requirements. 4. Rare event species – In the time series for dolphin there appeared to be an “unrealistic spike” in landings early in the time series. This was a result of randomly sampling of a few trips with large landings, but when averaged out with those days where no trips were intercepted the estimated annual landings are similar to reported landings (See section 4.6.2). 5. Species grouping matching– While the port sampling project reported over 267 unique species during the 20 months of the project, the self-reported data from all of 2017 through 2019 includes 76 unique species and 20 family groupings. The self-reported data and the port sampling project used species categories that do not match directly. As in the octopus example below, where 0 lb of common octopus were reported and large amounts were estimated, it will take some careful analysis and consultation with fishers from different regions to determine the best species groupings to use. • Correction factors – Correction factors differed by both the species and the region where they were caught (see Table 5 for illustrative examples calculated from a one-year comparison period of September 2018 – August 2019). DRNA has been making progress from a total Puerto Rico correction factor, which in this case would result in a value of 1, and severely underestimate the landings of conch and lobster which are dominating the fishery. The revised DRNA regional correction factors address this in a non-direct way by applying different factors to different regions, which due to differences in gear and species landed will result in comparable estimates on some coasts (e.g., conch and ~30% of landings appear consistent with our data). The resounding suggestion from this research is to evaluate the species in the reported data and from the port sampling program to determine species specific, or family/species grouping specific factors.

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Official 2019 Expanded data unavailable Approximations for illustration only

Official 2019 Expanded data unavailable Approximations for illustration only Official 2019 Expanded data unavailable Approximations for illustration only

Official 2019 Expanded data unavailable Approximations for illustration only

Figure 7. Time series post-hurricane with weekly estimates for the top 6 species (after lobster and conch) landed in all Puerto Rico.

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Figure 8. Comparison of estimated landings to reported landings for any species found in both data sets with annual landings of greater than 20,000 lbs.

Table 5. Annual correction factors by region (below, left) and top 10 species landed from daytime and auxiliary sampling combined (below, right). Notes: *Combining East and Islands results in value of 1.6; **King mackerel estimate is daytime only - see rare event species section; ***Species ID issues need to be resolved - i.e., no common octopus reported; only queen triggerfish reported whereas MER includes 5 species).

Region East* Islands* North South West PR Total

Total Estimated Landings 444,477 154,731 143,842 498,382 528,005 1,769,436

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Reported Landings 308,292 75,046 228,757 299,457 781,304 1,692,856

Correction Factor 1.4 2.1 0.6 1.6 0.7 1.0

Species

Correction Factor

Caribbean spiny lobster Queen conch King Mackerel** Dolphin Silk snapper Queen snapper Hogfish Red hind Common octopus*** Queen triggerfish***

1.3 2.3 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.6 1.4 1.2 -0.8

Page 15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Conclusions/Recommendations Overall, our primary recommendation is simple: Territorial fisheries departments and NOAA should formalize a plan and an agreement to continue a comprehensive monitoring program. The data set collected during this project is rich with information that assessment scientists, fisheries and coral reef biologists, and managers can utilize almost immediately. Multiple analyses are obvious given the results (e.g., lunar and weather factors on fishing efforts; direct comparisons of species compositions reported to observed) that will not only allow for more efficient, higher quality information to be collected in the future, but also allow for greater use of what was collected in the past. Understanding why self-reported landings have dropped by 75% in some US Caribbean fisheries or if fishers may be over-reporting to meet license requirements should be a top priority. Simply stated, it is impossible to manage a fishery based on a single self-reported data stream and coordination of the end users of the data will allow for analyses of these results to maximize efficiency. Our specific recommendations are as follows: •

Governance – The primary logistic recommendation for better data collection is almost identical to that of the pilot project: improved governance and coordination. Decisions need to be made about future data needs and how these relate to future port sampling. A formal agreement between NOAA and DRNA should be completed to determine roles and responsibilities for monitoring. NOAA, HMS, recreational, commercial, and coral reef programs should coordinate prior to engagement with DRNA. For example, an overall agreement as to whether and how to include early morning, evening and Sunday sampling, and the islands of Vieques and Culebra should be forged. Sampling in these situations requires separate surveys at an additional expense so the benefits and costs need to be evaluated.

•

Survey design – The two-stage design appears to be an attractive choice for future daytime sampling work. However, simulations should be conducted and parameterized based on the expected budget and current survey results, to determine how well the conservative variance estimator works and to explore the benefits of sampling m=2 sites on some days. Now that information about relative usage of sites is available, other possibilities should be considered such as ppz sampling (sampling with probability proportional to z where z is, in this case, anticipated usage at a site). Simulation studies are needed to determine if this alternative is attractive.

•

Extending impact of survey program – In addition to combining recreational, commercial, HMS, and coral reef program needs, an obvious consideration is to enhance future port sampling work with the collection of biological samples for age, growth, maturity and stock identification work. This will require careful planning to obtain representative results without jeopardizing the core program of estimating total landings by species.

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •

Rapid sampling and utilization of technology – The development of software to automate length information from the images collected by our port sampling prototype in collaboration with SEFSC should be a top priority. Length frequencies can be captured randomly as part of the port sampling process, providing assessment scientists critical information, while also bolstering a library of images for the development of automated species identification. Coordination within SEFSC and digital image analysis experts at SEFSC/Galveston should be prioritized.

•

Quantifying effort – Methods to quantify effort should continue to be developed. While field testing of cameras was successful, this approach to quantifying fishing effort (i.e., trips) was rejected due to the possibility of vandalism or resentment of fishers to government “spying” and risks to the overall project. Expanded boat counts were successful in Puerto Real, and a 4-month exploratory project collecting trailer count data in Rincon will be useful when evaluating auxiliary sampling options (see Section 5.3 ).

•

Challenging species/special considerations – Certain species are difficult to sample because they are “rare event” species which are caught in large numbers or are large animals (e.g., tiger shark) but only sporadically, or are landed largely at night. Additional analyses of these results given SEFSC priorities, and experimentation will be necessary to design practical, cost-effective surveys for these species. A cost-effective method, if it can be implemented with statistical rigor, would be to involve fishers in a self-reporting-and-verification program. For example, yellowtail snapper fishers might phone in when they are returning to port and port samplers could arrange to meet a number of trips. These recommendations were covered in the pilot project report as individual based sampling and will require further coordination with territorial fisheries agencies, as some requirement to comply will likely be necessary.

•

Analyses of weather and lunar cycles – Fishing effort appeared to be cyclical and given the size of the vessels, obviously dependent on weather. Many days, samplers knew before they left for the site that no activity would occur (e.g., tropical storms). Given the time series that is now available, these should be explored as potential factors in a sampling design. For example, if the 6 am forecast is determined to be predictive of effort, sampling effort can be adjusted accordingly.

•

Expansion/Correction factors, family grouping and species compositions – Given that samplers identified over 270 species and matching to DRNA self-reported data is challenging at best, an intensive effort should be conducted to determine how best to compare results and develop refined correction factors. Comprehensive analyses of historical reported data in terms of species and gear types in addition to coast and/or sites should be conducted before final decisions on calculating the most reliable and consistent expansion factors. In terms of species resolution capabilities, the most obvious approach would be to lump everything back into family groups but this would take the data set backwards rather than

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY forward. A concerted and in-depth effort to evaluate the self-reported data will have to be conducted to determine if there are regional or fisheries differences in how certain species are reported (e.g., the East coast trap fishers may report all snapper as silk snapper, and in the bandit reel hook and line deep water snapper fishery, they report to species accurately). Coordination with NOAA educators and outreach programs should also be initiated based on the results. •

Deep water snapper (DWS) reporting validation – If examination of family groupings does not give insights as to the significant differences between estimated and reported landings for the DWS fishery, a very careful, detailed evaluation of the reported data should be conducted prior to expanding or developing a DWS specific survey. The reporting requirements (i.e., 5 years of statistics and an average/of 1000 lb/year of silk and/or other snapper species) is clearly an incentive to “claim turf” and overreport these species. The initial evaluation of site rankings from DRNA self-reported data, estimated landings and sampler observations on sites we did not sample (e.g., large reported landings from sites with little evidence of any fishing) suggests this may be occurring. “Stories” of the 10,000-pound trip and of misreporting are rampant garnering some anger from those on the East coast, for example, who did not obtain the special permit. This is a perfect example for the importance of outreach (see below).

•

Fishing community outreach and inclusion in the process – One of the biggest accomplishments of this project was gaining the trust of the fishers that allowed samplers to enumerate their catch. The Puerto Rico lobster fishers have initiated a data collection program on their own and would like to be included in the scientific process. Overall, the fishing community is suspicious of science and particularly of the “statistics” being used to guide their future. The results of this study can provide a common language for scientific representatives or educators to illustrate how this process can work to provide more realistic information to the decisions that impact their future.

FINAL REPORT – APRIL, 2020

Page 18

Puerto Rico Port Sampling and Catch Validation Project (August 2017 – December 2019)

April 27, 2021

MER Consultants: Presented by Todd Gedamke

Puerto Rico Port Sampling and Catch Validation Project CFMC Requests for this presentation:

(August 2017 – December 2019)

1) Summary of 2 yr project 2) Details on Queen Triggerfish 3) Details on Lobster 4) Recommendation on species of interest for future assessments, and 5) Planned next steps 15 Minutes!!!! References to Report Figures/Tables included

April 27, 2021

MER Consultants: Presented by Todd Gedamke

Long Group Effort: Initiative started at 2010 Data Improvement Meetings in response to ACL’s Would not have been possible without: Steve Turner/SEFSC Daniel Matos/DRNA Peter Freeman/MER Michelle Sharer/HJR Marcos Hanke/CMFRG Alejandro Carerra/MER Lourdes Lastra/MER Knowledge/Coooperation of Fishers of the USVI and PR

Caribbean Commercial Landings Validation Port Sampling Program Censo de Pesca (Puerto Rico)

Design an efficient port sampling survey (work began in 2014) 100 + Landing Sites Investigated

Developing Training/Materials-Pilot Study

Electronic Reporting – Quality Control and Species ID Verification

Electronic Reporting – Quality Control and Species ID Verification • Samsung tablets w/ basic software • Allowed for rapid evaluation of data • Data stored locally – uploaded when online

Figure 11. All GPS locations recorded for a week’s period in all regions of Puerto Rico (Jan. 6 -12, 2019).

Figure 12. GPS positions recorded for one sampling day (January 4, 2019; La Coal on the North Coast).

PR - Pilot Study Sites (April-May 2016)

• 57 sites • 16 samplers/day (4 per coast) • 30 days – Monday-Saturday • 9 am – 5 pm (Not for Night fishing/landings) • USVI done in Fall of 2015

Pilot Study Results Relative Usage of Sites

Power Analysis How much will it cost (sampling days  $) to achieve objective

Caribbean Commercial Landings Validation 2017 Port Sampling Program Censo de Pesca (12 months planned)

Training- Fish ID Obvious need

Training More challenging need

How to and need to Subsample? (Random and Representative)

Training How to approach Captains/Vessels Aka: how to get yelled at gracefully Most challenging need

Caribbean Commercial Landings Validation Port Sampling Program • Starting August 7, 2017 all Puerto Rico including Vieques and Culebra. • 8 samplers/day for 6 days a week, 9-5pm at 40+ sites. • Additional Samplers for morning (5 – 9 am), evening (5-9pm) and Sunday fishing. 39 sites

Flew to FL. Irma round 2, Back to PR for a refresher Training Session Maria

Caribbean Commercial Landings Validation Port Sampling Program • Starting August 7, 2017 all Puerto Rico including Vieques Culebra. Six weeksand before Maria…. In April 2018, we began to revisit ALL sites to determine changes (106 sites)

• 8 samplers/day for 6 days a week, 9-5pm at 40+ sites. • Additional Samplers for morning (5 – 9 am), evening (5-9pm) and Sunday fishing.

Estimated and Reported Landings by Week Daytime Sampling Only

Censo Team was Mobilized as soon as it was safe: • Spot Checking • Site Evaluation • Damage Assessment for DRNA • Fisher Communication

41 Sites being sampled regularly since August 2018

Periodic spot checking of all remaining sites

Quarterly Evaluations of Data Modifications to sampling design as necessary Jan – March, 2019

July – Dec, 2021

Quarterly Evaluations of Data Modifications to sampling design as necessary Jan – March, 2019

July – Dec, 2021

Estimated and Reported Landings by Week Daytime Sampling Only

• Daytime Sampling Resumed in March of 2018 • Somewhat exploratory as things stabilized • Variability between new ‘sites’ had to be evaluated

Auxiliary Sampling Morning, Evening, Islands and Sundays Vieques and Culebra Sampled between 2-4 times/monthDaytime Only- Regular Procedures

Figure 24. Sites Sampled in PR Islands, two sites located in Vieques, one site on Culebra. (Sampled from Oct 2018 – Dec 2019)

‘Bus-Route’ or ‘Roving’ Sampling Design Multiple sites visited during a day

Figure 25. Sunday Bus routes by region. Note that in the West two separate bus routes were utilized.

Overview of Sampling Effort (~ 5,000 assignments completed)

Table 1. Completed sampling assignments by sampling type, and the number of exploratory trips sampled outside of our statistical design. Exploratory trips are only included in our descriptive statistics and list of species observed. (Reminder: “Islands” refers to sampling on Vieques and Culebra and “Busroutes” refer to roving survey design where multiple sites are visited.) Region

Daytime

AM Busroutes

PM Busroutes

Sunday Busroutes

AM Site

PM Site

Exploratory Trips

East North South West Islands Totals

969 972 980 1,078 88 4,087

53 55 52 160

1 53 54

27 27 27 55 136

54 54

23 83 81 48 235

13 54 28 19 0 114

Tables 15. Region-level summary of trips and landings for Daytime sampling in Puerto Rico, for all time period. Table 15. Region-level summary of trips and landings for Daytime sampling in Puerto Rico, for all time period. Region

Sampled Trips

Commercial Trips

Non-comercial Trips

Tot. Obs. Lbs (all trips)

East

2,288

2,128

160

166,164

North

1,515

1,143

388

34,798

South

2,339

2,256

103

99,237

West

2,964

2,730

237

119,441

Islands

238

222

16,255

All PR

9,344

8,479

904

435,895

~2 trips/assignment and ~ 40 lbs/trip

Reported lb ~ 2.7 million lb Almost 1:1

Figure 42. Contribution of each sampling type to the total estimate by week

Estimated and Reported Landings by Week Daytime and Auxiliary Sampling

• Auxiliary Sampling began in September 2018 • Roving Design allowed for more sites to be explored given available samplers

Lunar Cycles? Both our estimtates and Reported Data Similar Peaks and Valleys

Disclaimers This work was commissioned by the United States National Marine Fisheries Service. The landings estimates provided herein have not yet been determined to represent best scientific information available. Official DRNA 2019 Expanded data were unavailable at time of analysis. Approximations using 2018 Expansions used for illustration only

Official DRNA 2019 Expanded data were unavailable at time of analysis. Approximations using 2018 Expansions used for illustration only

Expansion Factors used by DRNA for 2018 (we applied to 2019) would result in very close agreement with the MER estimates for Conch and leaves MER estimates higher for Lobster NEITHER ARE TRUTH – Both are Estimates

Weekly Estimates by Region All Sampling combined

Figure 40. Weekly estimated, reported, and approximate expanded landings by region for the entire time period. The shaded area represents the proportional standard error of the weekly estimate.

Species Composition of Estimates Table 4. Species composition of the top 90% of the landings as estimated from the primary daytime survey. Cumulative % Total PSE Rank: Day Auxiliary of Total Day Combined (SE/Total Day Species Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate) Estimate Estimate 31% 0.02 68,612 740,512 1 671,899 lobster_caribbean_spiny 53% 575,964 0.03 467,755 108,209 2 conch_queen 58% 104,818 0.03 8,480 3 96,337 hogfish 0.06 61% 25,528 101,132 snapper_silk 4 75,604 65% 138,116 0.16 69,287 5 68,829 dolphin 67% 0.06 13,184 73,037 59,853 hind_red 6 0.05 70% 55,042 1,376 octopus_common 7 53,666 72% 54,449 0.04 4,486 8 49,963 triggerfish_queen 0.05 74% 46,313 43,897 2,416 9 snapper_mutton 0.12 76% 36,379 33,153 3,226 snapper_lane 10 0.06 77% 582 33,044 32,463 parrotfish_stoplight 11 79% 106,649 0.09 77,774 12 28,874 snapper_queen 0.24 80% 4 24,110 13 24,106 ballyhoo 0.11 81% 41,509 21,860 19,650 snapper_yellowtail 14 0.12 82% 173,447 21,674 151,773 mackerel_king 15 83% 0.11 1,177 21,054 19,878 mackerel_cero 16 0.13 84% 22,097 17,576 4,521 17 tuna_blackfin 84% 17,730 0.09 551 18 17,179 trunkfish 85% 16,868 0.06 468 19 16,400 snapper_schoolmaster 0.20 86% 228 16,109 15,880 pilchard_false 20 86% 15,893 0.07 2,344 21 13,549 snapper_dog 0.08 87% 3,079 13,771 10,692 grunt_white 22 87% 11,221 0.07 10,687 533 23 lobster_spanish_slipper

Species Composition of Estimates and Reported Landings Table 33. Estimates and ranks for species which comprise the top 90% of all estimated landings (** represents confidential data). Species

Rank: Total Estimate

Rank: Day Estimate

Rank: Auxiliary Estimate

Rank: Reported

Day Estimate

Auxiliary Estimate

lobster_caribbean_spiny conch_queen mackerel_king dolphin snapper_queen hogfish snapper_silk hind_red octopus_common triggerfish_queen snapper_mutton snapper_yellowtail snapper_lane shark_tiger parrotfish_stoplight unknown ballyhoo tuna_blackfin mackerel_cero trunkfish snapper_schoolmaster pilchard_false snapper_dog mullet_white grunt_white tuna_skipjack lobster_spanish_slipper herring_atlantic_thread

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 15 5 12 3 4 6 7 8 9 14 10 24 11 69 13 17 16 18 19 20 21 59 22 25 23 50

5 2 1 4 3 12 6 10 30 15 18 9 16 7 42 8 144 14 32 44 47 66 20 11 17 24 45 13

1 2 17 7 4 10 3 12 9 14 5 6 34 48 8 13 16 ** 29 51 22 ** -

671,899 467,755 21,674 68,829 28,874 96,337 75,604 59,853 53,666 49,963 43,897 21,860 33,153 9,956 32,463 1,801 24,106 17,576 19,878 17,179 16,400 15,880 13,549 2,846 10,692 9,750 10,687 3,896

68,612 108,209 151,773 69,287 77,774 8,480 25,528 13,184 1,376 4,486 2,416 19,650 3,226 23,602 582 23,032 4 4,521 1,177 551 468 228 2,344 12,054 3,079 1,823 533 6,362

Total Combined Estimate

740,512 575,964 173,447 138,116 106,649 104,818 101,132 73,037 55,042 54,449 46,313 41,509 36,379 33,558 33,044 24,834 24,110 22,097 21,054 17,730 16,868 16,109 15,893 14,900 13,771 11,574 11,221 10,258

PSE (SE/Total Estimate)

Reported Landings

0.02 0.03 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.12 0.23 0.06 0.18 0.24 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.20 0.07 0.66 0.08 0.18 0.07 0.14

703,472 484,542 50,505 180,114 225,204 82,457 478,972 68,735 88,838 55,880 221,732 180,590 11,019 4,670 114,692 59,380 53,824 ** 20,301 4,068 36,814 ** -

Species Composition of Estimates and Reported Landings Table 33. Estimates and ranks for species which comprise the top 90% of all estimated landings (** represents confidential data). Species

Rank: Total Estimate

Rank: Day Estimate

Rank: Auxiliary Estimate

Rank: Reported

Day Estimate

Auxiliary Estimate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 15 5 12 3 4 6 7 8 9 14 10 24 11 69 13 17 16 18 19 20 21 59 22 25 23 50

5 2 1 4 3 12 6 10 30 15 18 9 16 7 42 8 144 14 32 44 47 66 20 11 17 24 45 13

1 2 17 7 4 10 3 12 9 14 5 6 34 48 8 13 16 ** 29 51 22 ** -

671,899 467,755 21,674 68,829 28,874 96,337 75,604 59,853 53,666 49,963 43,897 21,860 33,153 9,956 32,463 1,801 24,106 17,576 19,878 17,179 16,400 15,880 13,549 2,846 10,692 9,750 10,687 3,896

68,612 108,209 151,773 69,287 77,774 8,480 25,528 13,184 1,376 4,486 2,416 19,650 3,226 23,602 582 23,032 4 4,521 1,177 551 468 228 2,344 12,054 3,079 1,823 533 6,362

Total Combined Estimate

PSE (SE/Total Estimate)

Reported Landings

0.02 0.03 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.12 0.23 0.06 0.18 0.24 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.20 0.07 0.66 0.08 0.18 0.07 0.14

703,472 484,542 50,505 180,114 225,204 82,457 478,972 68,735 88,838 55,880 221,732 180,590 11,019 4,670 114,692 59,380 53,824 ** 20,301 4,068 36,814 ** -

Figure 41. Weekly estimated, reported and approximate expanded landings for the top 12 species (March 2018 – Dec. 2019).

Figure 41 (cont’d). Weekly estimated, reported an approximate expanded landings for the top 12 species (March 2018 – Dec. 2019).

Precision of Estimates

Scientifically Less of a Clue 

Precision of Estimates

More Daytime Landings 

Species Reporting Questions Figure 55. An Octopus example. Panel: One-year time series for the species: Common Octopus (note that only octopus unknown was reported). Bottom Panel: Reported octopus unknown plotted against the species Common Octopus from the survey.

Figure 60. Groupers Family Groupings Only red hind is presented to illustrate that the All Groupers category is dominated by red hind.

Triggerfishes Only Queen Triggerfish are Reported We found multiple species

Figure 57. Time Series plots for Triggerfish family grouping and component species.

Parrotfishes Reported by Family Multiple species are present

Figure 56 Time Series plots for Parrotfish family grouping and component species.

CFMC Requests for this presentation: 1) Summary of project (MORE if you want) 2) Details on Queen Triggerfish (SOME) 3) Details on Lobster (SOME) 4) Recommendation on species of interest for future assessments, and 5) Planned next steps

"Assessment of maturity in commercially and recreationally important reef fishes from the U.S. Caribbean” Co-PIs are John Hoenig (VIMS) and Dr. Virginia Shervette (U of South Carolina). Dr. Richard Nemeth, U.V.I. is a collaborator.

US Caribbean Reef Fishes and Deepwater Snappers Life History Research

Why should I care about Maturity?

Low Hanging Fruit – Use Existing Research From Hoenig and Shervette Final Report, 2020 "Queen triggerfish had the lowest percentage of mature fish in the catch (86.4% mature). All other species had over 94.4% mature. This means the percentage mature will be close to 100% for any breakdown of the data by island, gear, season or fish size (caught in the commercial fishery) for those species for which the overall percentage mature is close to 100%." In terms of the low-hanging fruit you're asking for, the following species had at least 94.4% mature in the commercial catch. Group Snapper Snapper Snapper Other Other Other

species Lutjanus analis Lutjanus buccanella Ocyurus chrysurus Cephalopholis fulva Epinephelus guttatus Haemulon plumierii

common name Mutton snapper Blackfin snapper Yellowtail snapper Coney Red hind White grunt

specimens examined 72 387 251 381 393 280

Consequently, it would be almost impossible to crash these stocks by fishing with the current selectivity for mature fish. (see paper by Myers, R.A. and G. Mertz. 1998. The limits of exploitation: a precautionary approach. Ecological Applications 8(Supplement 1): S165-S169.)

Rapid Sampling ‘ARGIE’

Development of a Rapid Sampling Port Sampling Station Automated Weight, Length and Species ID (Assisted by port samplers currently)

One fish per 2 seconds  100 lbs easily in 10 minutes Fondly known to us as ARGIE

Figure 75. Site survey home screen in data entry application and Rapid sampling/Photo capture module on right.

LOGIC /EVOLUTION OF THE PROJECT/WHY? Experience - How many fish have you measured? How many times did you do it alone? Did taping counters to a measuring board to do it alone feel like progress? We have the technology….

The US Caribbean Challenge: Problem we’re addressing began as a multispecies issue. Every fish in these relatively small but species rich landings took too long to sort by species. Every fish here

has to be handled/touched to get to a sorted before weighing them here:

Why move every fish 2 times?!?

Weighing them individually is an option, but SLOW for one person and expensive for additional fisheries agents to record as one weighs and another measures.

In Taiwan:

This doesn’t’ usually translate to efficiency in manpower in the US Caribbean or any other fishery:

In Indonesia:

Co- Developer - Peter Freeman UVI Project Leader (2015-2017) For the last three years: Marine Research Associate Coastal Resources Center Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island High Volume Target Sites: Saga Haven, Frenchtown, Altona Lagoon

Figure 76. Annotation software was developed using Python and a basic spectral analysis of each photo to suggest species. Annotation points are in

Figure 76. Annotation software was developed using Python and a basic spectral analysis of each photo to suggest species. Annotation points are indicated by red circles and suggested species are in the right thumbnails.

PRELIMINARY LENGTH DETECTION ALGORITHMS Annotating and exploring possibilities for Pilot. Samplers annotate lobster and we train computer to identify and measure

Currently funded to support a leader applied Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence Cornell Ornithology, Bioacoustics Lab Aaron Rice MERLIN App – ID’s by picture Also by sound/bird call

Selectivity Study

Cooperative Selectivity Study in Puerto Rico (Ongoing – TRAP FISHERS PLEASE PAY ATTENTION)

Last Assessment raised questions about the Selectivity Curve used

Last Assessment raised questions about the Selectivity Curve used Less or More Old Large Lobsters??

Last Assessment raised questions about the Selectivity Curve used Our Job: Build traps that catch 1) Big/large lobsters but less overall 2) Catch the typical size composition 3) Catch more of the small ones

This is our typical trap: Recommendations for catching larger and smaller lobster??

4” Bigger? Smaller?

6”

Bigger? Smaller?

Gracias a todos ustedes !!

Pass on the word: MER is looking for Puerto Rican Subcontractors: • Team Leaders Samplers • Analysts

Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition for the Harvest of Managed Reef Fish in Federal Waters of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix Draft Amendment 1 Version 1 173rd Caribbean Fishery Management Council Regular Meeting April 27-28, 2021

Overview  Issue: Type of buoy gear traditionally used to fish commercially for deep-water fish (snappers, groupers) in Puerto Rico (cala con boya) and the USVI (deep-drop buoy gear) does not conform to federal regulations.  Buoy gear as defined in 50 CFR 622.2 cannot contain more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end.  State regulations for Puerto Rico and the USVI do not specify the number of hooks that can be used for buoy gear.  Caribbean fishers have indicated that they would like to increase the number of hooks that are allowed under the legal definition of buoy gear for federal waters.

Overview  The use of any gear not listed as authorized for the fishery is prohibited (50 CFR 600.725(v)).  Authorized gear types for commercial harvest of reef fish in IBFMPs: automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, hand line, longline, rod and reel, trap, pot, spear..  A gear type configuration with more than 10 hooks between the buoy and the terminal end does not meet the legal definition of “buoy gear” in 50 CFR 622.2 and is not considered authorized “buoy gear.”  Such gear does not meet the definition of any other hook and line gear authorized. Therefore, this gear cannot be used by those fishing commercially for reef fish managed under the island-based FMPs unless that gear type is added as an allowable gear type under the island-based FMPs or the definition of buoy gear is amended to include this gear type*.

Overview In this amendment, the Council would modify the definition of “buoy gear” included in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to persons fishing commercially for managed reef fish to address the use of additional hooks preferred by some participants of each of the Puerto Rico and USVI commercial reef fish fisheries harvesting deep-water fish.

Description of the Puerto Rico Fishery Deep-Water Reef Fish Component Local name: Cala con boya Species targeted with local buoy gear : Shallower waters (40~100 fathoms): silk, blackfin, black, vermillion, wenchman (S1) Deeper waters (170-230 fathoms): queen and cardinal (S2), also misty (guasa) and yellowedge grouper (guajil del hondo), big silk snappers. Bycatch species: glasseye snapper (comico), Atlantic scombrops (cartucho prieto), dogfish • Number of hooks (circle) used are related to fishing effort, depth fished, previous experiences with lost gear • SU1 species (shallower) - typically fished with less hooks (5-10 hooks) • SU2 species (deeper) – fished with more hooks, max of 30. Most harvest (if not all) of these species occurs with local buoy gear (cala con boya). Very specialized fishery • Average number of set lines used: 3 • Bait used: little tunny, sardines, bonito, bacora • West coast (1) and East coast (2) important landing areas for these species • Puerto Rico has a special permit for cardinal and queen snappers ~ 60 participants • It is estimated that approximately 200 fishermen use cala con boya in Puerto Rico • Market: restaurants, villas pesqueras • Price/pound: $7.50-8.50

Description of the Puerto Rico Fishery Deep-Water Reef Fish Component Reef Fish

Description of the USVI Fisheries Deep-Water Reef Fish Component Local name: Deep-drop buy gear Species targeted with local buoy gear : queen snapper, blackfin snapper, black snapper, vermillion, goldeye (glasseye?) snapper, misty grouper Fishing with deep-drop buoy gear from 300 to 1,200 ft (50 – 200 fathoms) Fishing with this gear type more common in St. Croix (~9 fishers) than in St. Thomas and St. John • Number of hooks used varies, average of 22. Can be up to 50*, spaced 6 inches apart. • Some fishermen may use up to six buoy/lines, some just one line • Number of hooks related to fishing effort, depth fished, species targeted, areas fished, previous experiences with lost gear, cost of gear, etc. • Bait used: little tunny, squid, small skipjack • Sold in the local marketplace usually on Saturdays • Price/pound: $8.00

Description of the USVI Fisheries Deep-Water Reef Fish Component Gear types listed to harvest deep-water reef fish (misty grouper, black, blackfin, cardinal, queen, silk, vermillion snappers): Hand line Hook and line with power winch Hook and line – unknown type Rod and reel Fish trap Buoy (yo-yo)

Draft Purpose and Need Purpose: to modify the definition of buoy gear included in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 to allow the commercial sector of the longline/hook and line component of the fishery for managed reef fish described in each of the island-based FMPs to use a larger number of hooks when using buoy gear. Need: To ensure that commercial fishermen fishing in federal waters off Puerto Rico and the USVI for managed reef fish can use the gear type preferred by some fishers, with additional hooks.

Action: Buoy Gear Definition for the Commercial Harvest of Managed Reef Fish Alternative 1. No Action. The current definition of buoy gear specified in 50 CFR 622.2 would be retained. Alternative 2. Modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector of the longline/hook and line component of the fishery for managed reef fish to allow the use of up to 25 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end.

Alternative 1. No Action. The current definition of buoy gear specified in 50 CFR 622.2 would be retained. • The definition of buoy gear in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 would remain unchanged. • One of the specific requirements under this definition is that buoy gear cannot contain more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. • In components of each of the IBFMP fisheries where buoy gear is an authorized gear (i.e., commercial sector harvesting managed reef fish) — fishers must limit the gear to 10 hooks.

Alternative 2. Modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector of the longline/hook and line component of the fishery for managed reef fish to allow the use of up to 25 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. • Would increase the number of hooks allowed to be used up to 25 instead of 10. • This new maximum number of hooks would allow those fishing commercially in federal waters for managed reef fish to legally use the gear configuration employed by some in state waters and federal waters off Puerto Rico and the USVI. • The modification would only apply to those using this gear to fish commercially for managed reef fish species.

Preliminary Effects Analysis in Draft Amendment - Qualitative - Assumes changes in total landings of target species due to changes in total number of hooks used per trip. - Would increasing the number of allowable hooks per set affect total fishing pressure and potential for additional catch and landings, or additional bycatch?

Next Steps • Input from District Advisory Panels (DAP) needed to complete description of the fishery • Council tasks DAPs to gather information from fishers and to report their findings to staff? • Interdisciplinary Plan Team (IPT) to analyze data, available information, and finalize effects • IPT drafts second version of amendment and presents to the Council at the August meeting for potential final action.

Questions?

Queen Snapper (Cartucho) resting on the seafloor at 439 m on Dog Seamount in the Caribbean. Image: Ocean Exploration Trust and U.S. Geological Survey. https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/explorations/ex1502/background/snapper-grouper/welcome.html

Additional Slides

Buoy gear means fishing gear that fishes vertically in the water column that consists of a single drop line suspended from a float, from which no more than 10 hooks can be connected between the buoy and the terminal end, and the terminal end contains a weight that is no more than 10 lb (4.5 kg). The drop line can be rope (hemp, manila, cotton or other natural fibers; nylon, polypropylene, spectra or other synthetic material) or monofilament, but must not be cable or wire. The gear is free-floating and not connected to other gear or the vessel. The drop line must be no greater than 2 times the depth of the water being fished. All hooks must be attached to the drop line no more than 30 ft (9.1 m) from the weighted terminal end. These hooks may be attached directly to the drop line; attached as snoods (defined as an offshoot line that is directly spliced, tied or otherwise connected to the drop line), where each snood has a single terminal hook; or as gangions (defined as an offshoot line connected to the drop line with some type of detachable clip), where each gangion has a single terminal hook.

50 CFR 600.725(v) gear table and 50 CFR 622.2 definitions

Puerto Rico Reef Fish •

Snappers: black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, wenchman, cardinal, queen, lane, mutton, dog, schoolmaster, yellowtail, cubera*

•

Groupers: Nassau, goliath, coney, graysby, black, red, tiger, yellowfin, yellowmouth*, yellowedge, misty, red hind, rock hind

•

Parrotfishes: blue, midnight, rainbow, queen, princess, redtail, stoplight, redband, striped

•

Surgeonfishes: blue tang, ocean surgeonfish, doctorfish

•

Triggerfishes: ocean, queen, gray*

•

Wrasses: hogfish, puddingwife, Spanish hogfish

•

Angelfishes: queen, grey, French

•

Grunts: white grunt

•

Jacks: crevalle jack*, African pompano*, rainbow runner*

* New to management

St. Thomas/St John Reef Fish •

Snappers: black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, queen, lane, mutton, yellowtail

•

Groupers: Nassau, goliath, coney, red hind, black, red, tiger, yellowfin, yellowmouth*, yellowedge, misty

•

Parrotfishes: blue, midnight, rainbow, queen, princess, redtail, stoplight, redband, striped, redfin

•

Surgeonfishes: blue tang, ocean surgeonfish, doctorfish

•

Triggerfishes: queen

•

Wrasses: hogfish

•

Angelfishes: queen, grey, French

•

Grunts: white grunt, bluestriped, margate

•

Jacks: Blue runner

•

Porgies: jolthead, saucereye, sheepshead, sea bream

* New to management

St. Croix Reef Fish •

Snappers: black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, queen, lane, gray, mutton, schoolmaster, yellowtail

•

Groupers: Nassau, goliath, graysby, coney, red hind, rock hind, black, red, tiger, yellowfin, misty

•

Parrotfishes: blue, midnight, rainbow, queen, princess, redtail, stoplight, redband, striped, redfin

•

Surgeonfishes: blue tang, ocean surgeonfish, doctorfish

•

Triggerfishes: queen

•

Angelfishes: queen, grey, French

•

Grunts: white grunt, bluestriped

•

Squirrelfish: longspine squirrelfish

Southeast Regional Electronic Technologies Implementation Plan Dr. Jessica Stephen, Dr. David Gloeckner, Dr. Alan Lowther, Farron Wallace, and Lawerence Beerkircher

Electronic Technology Plan History § 2013 – Initiation of ET Plan framework § 2015 – Initial ET Plans finalized in January 2015 § Bi-annual updates required through 2017 § 2019 § Consultations initiated; new plan goal of 2020 § Electronic Technologies and Fishery-Dependent Data Collection” Policy (NMFS-04-115) § Intention to make plans comparable between regions § Status reviews annually by NMFS leadership § 2020 pandemic pushed back new plans to March 2021 § Current status – draft document

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

New Electronic Technologies Plan Policy § Establishes regional vision for electronic reporting (ER)

and electronic monitoring (EM)

§ Forecast for the next 5 years (through 2024) § Vision for developing, integrating, and implementing ET

programs

§ Plan includes § Regional Priorities § Council actions § Research and development § Purpose § Prioritize internal and external funding § Highlight integration efforts through coordination and standardization § Identify challenges, costs, and funding transition plans § Status review U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Vision for 2020-2024 - General § Align electronic technologies with regional strategic

priorities

§ Identify and quantify costs – infrastructure, cloud,

staffing, software – for continued ER expansion

§ Develop process to review ER progress – lessons learned,

areas of cost savings

§ One stop reporting with the Greater Atlantic Region and

states

§ Data Governance (DG) plan and committee § Training: Data governance, data workflows § Formation of DG committee § Creation of DG plan U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Vision for 2020-2024 – Electronic Reporting § Continuation of for-hire reporting initiatives § Streamline and improve process § Data connectivity to partners § Commercial electronic reporting § Includes moving Wreckfish logbooks to the Coastal logbooks § Gulf Shrimp cELB replacement system § Modernizations § Permits System § Catch Shares system § Completion of Loan Program module § Modernization of Wreckfish ITQ § Continued efforts on the Gulf IFQ modernization project

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Vision for 2020-2024 – Electronic Monitoring § Coordination with Mote Marine Lab’s Center for Fisheries

Electronic Monitoring (CFEMM) center.

§ Electronic Monitoring through National Fish and Wildlife

Foundation (NFWF) § Underwater cameras for bycatch – Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program (BREP) § Cooperative research project (CRP) using EM for bycatch

§ Rapid Sampling in Caribbean § Fish passed under cameras mounted on small platform § Artificial Intelligence (AI) help identify species and size

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Current Ongoing Initiatives § For-hire electronic reporting § Both Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic § Modernization of the Catch Share Programs § Includes potential Wreckfish Modernization § Modernization of Permits system § Commercial electronic logbook reporting § Both Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic § Gulf Shrimp cELBs § Rapid sampling EM project in the Caribbean

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) Report to the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council Sennai Habtes EBFM TAP Chair

173rd Caribbean Fisheries Management Council Meeting April 27, 2021

CFMC -EBFM TAP Virtual Meeting •

Meeting held February 4-5, 2021

•

Reviewed current updates from EBFM TAP partners - Data Collection and Conceptual Model stakeholder meetings

•

Identified need for subgroup on data validation and hosting

• •

•

Need for Council’s help inviting regional agencies to submit data Review and recommendation for approval by Council of FEP Goals & Objectives, Outline. Review and approval of Activity Timeline

Activity

Expected Date of Completion

Revise and draft EBFM TAP goals and objectives

December 2020

Draft FEP goals and objectives

April 2021

Continue to collect and analyze existing data sets from Lenfest, SeaMap, ESR, etc… Expected products = a centralized repository of data (e.g., MBON, Caricoos, etc..); summary analyses of pertinent datasets; potentially peer-reviewed publications Request a data repository sub group from the CFMC (April 2021)

April - December 2021

Complete all conceptual models

August 2021

Meld conceptual models to create island-specific conceptual models

December 2021

Use the conceptual models & additional products to create island-specific risk assessments

April 2022

Use the conceptual models and other products produced by the ESR, EBFM TAP, and by the Lenfest FEP project to identify ecosystem indicators that should be monitored

August 2022

Develop strategic objectives, prioritize the objectives, and outline a vision for the use of the FEP in CFMC processes

December 2022

Develop operational objectives with concrete action items

December 2022

Develop performance measures and draft a management strategy that can be used situationally during CFMC decision making

April 2023

Develop a feedback mechanism for adaptive management

April 2023

Develop a draft FEP document

August 2023

Submit FEP for council approval

December 2023

Conceptual Modeling for FEP’s •

Efforts underway to conduct conceptual modelling stakeholder meetings • Melivora Consulting, Lenfest • 4/22 – St. Croix Environmental NGO’s • 4/26 – St. Croix Business Community • 5/6 – St. Thomas/St. John Business Community • 5/10 - St. Thomas/St. John Environmental NGO’s • 5/27 – Puerto Rico Environmental NGO’s • 5/25 - Puerto Rico Business Community • Planned stakeholder meetings summer of 2021 - Lenfest Project team • Regional scientific agencies & institution, fishermen

Request for Council Approval – Data Request The EBFM TAP is requesting the approval of the council to send letters to other agencies and institutions within the USVI and PR and nearby jurisdictions that have collected data that may be useful in understanding overall trends in the ecosystem, and inviting them to share their data with the EBFM TAP. Motion by For: Against: Abstain: Outcome:

, Seconded by

FEP goals and sub goals:

Recommended Council Motion – FEP Goals Approval

• The overarching goal of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) is to promote ecosystem based approaches to ensure healthy, resilient and productive marine ecosystems and the fisheries resources dependent upon those ecosystems, within the context of the unique biological, ecological, economic, social and cultural characteristics of those fishery resources and the communities dependent on them. • A corollary goal is to provide the framework that promotes the following sub-goals:

The EBFM TAP is recommending the approval of the FEP Goals and sub goals as presented to the council.

1. Increase human community resilience within the context of changing ecosystems; 2. Promote ecosystem resilience within the context of changing ecosystems; 3. Define present ecosystem status/functionality; 4. Understand dynamics of fisheries and ecosystem services; 5. Describe key ecosystem linkages; 6. Identify research priorities; 7. Identify additional ecosystem-essential species in need of conservation and management; 8. Understand the risks to the fishery ecosystem and tradeoffs from different management strategies; 9. Improve the data and information needed to support marine ecosystem management; 10. Prevent overfishing and/or ecosystem overfishing; 11. Achieve optimum yield; 12. Incorporate ecosystem considerations into stock assessments; 13. Bring ecosystem considerations into the decision making process; 14. Promote adaptive management policies (Revising MSA, National SSC, CCC).

Motion by For: Against: Abstain: Outcome:

, Seconded by

Recommended Council Motion – Data Repository Subcommittee Council directs the EBFM TAP to create a subgroup of the TAP to provide guidance on data management policies and data repository options for the purpose of archiving data used for the development of the FEP. Potential EBFM TAP subgroup members: Sennai Habtes – UVI/VI DPNR DFW Orian Tzadik - PEW Charitable Trusts Stacey Williams – ISER, CSS Edwin Cruz Rivera – UVI

Potential members or invited Experts from outside the EBFM TAP: Miguel G. Figuerola – CARICOOS William Hernandez – UPR Illiana Chollett Socioeconomic data representative SEFSC database developer personnel CariCOOS DMAC personnel – (Jorge Capella/Jose Colon/ Julio Morell) Tom Lombardi – UVI Motion by For: Against: Abstain: Outcome:

, Seconded by

US CARIBBEAN MARINE MANAGED AREAS DATA REPORT

Prepared by

Diana Beltran University of Rhode Island, Kingston 02881

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used ALS Abrir La Sierra BS Bajo de Sico CCRI Caribbean Coral Reef Institute CFMC Caribbean Fisheries Marine Council EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFH Essential Fish Habitat FMU Fishing Management Unit FSA Fish Aggregation Area GB Grammanik Bank LB Lang Bank (Red Hind Spawning Aggregation Area) MCD Hind Bank Marine Conservation District MMAs Marine Managed Areas MCE Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems MSFC & M ActMagnuson-Stevens Fishery & Conservation Act MSSA Mutton Snapper Spawning Aggregation NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency NTZ No-take-zone PMA Protected Marine Area PR Puerto Rico PRCRMP Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program PR-DNER Puerto Rico-Department of Natural and Environmental Resources TB Tourmaline Bank TCRMP Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program USVI United States Virgin Islands VI-DPNR US Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources

Introduction

The oceans have degraded in the last decades as a result of human activities (Mora 2008). This decline is most notorious in coastal areas such coral reefs, where coral cover has decreased more than 50 % worldwide (Gardner 2003; De’ath et al. 2012; Jackson et al. 2014), and species commonly seen in the seventies are rarely observed today, especially commercial reef fishes (Steneck et al. 2009). Conservation efforts are urgently needed to reduce such loss, recover depleted populations and restore natural habitats. A popular measure to restore natural habitats and populations are Marine Managed Areas or Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The most restrictive form of an MPA is a no-take zone, defined by a fishing-free geographical space that can restore populations when properly implemented and managed. MMA or MPA act by protecting and increasing the population spawning potential of overexploited species (Roberts 1997). MMAs or MPAs as conservation initiatives are based on the idea that most marine populations are genetically and ecologically connected over hundreds of kilometers by dispersing planktonic larvae. Larval dispersal determines the degree of connectivity among marine populations, providing information on the ideal reserve size to achieve self-recruitment and the minimum spacing among reserves to maintain connectivity and diversity (Sale, 2005). While most marine reserves should work theoretically, it is still uncertain their effectiveness and whether they work as well-connected networks. It is also unknown if MMAs or MPAs count with the necessary information to work as planned and successfully over time.

Figure 1. Puerto Rico Marine Managed Areas. Many factors impact the MMA or MPA's effectiveness to protect marine life, including the degree to which extractive marine activities are restricted or prohibited, size, location, habitat representation, ecological and 4

genetic connectivity. Usually, the MMA or MPA's positive conservation outcomes are primarily dependent on their stage of establishment and vary from fully protected no-take areas to less protected areas that allow many types of resource extractions or other human disturbances. Also, the level of commitment to managing them varies from highly intervened areas, where habitat restoration happens to areas where only a single study has been done, and no data on their current state exists.

Figure 2. US Virgin Islands Marine Managed Areas. In the US Caribbean, there are 58 areas with some level of protection, from little protection to permanent no-take zones (Figures 1 and 2). These protected areas range across the five IUCN categories (Ia, II, III, IV, and V) and even include seasonal closures, which under the IUCN definitions are not considered protected areas (Fig. 3). The great majority of these protected areas are in IUCN category IV. Category VI aims to protect, maintain, conserve and restore habitats within the protected areas and needs active management interventions to address the requirements of a particular species or habitats (IUCN 2020). Ideally, the US Caribbean protected areas should reach IUCN category Ia, which are protected areas with full enforcement of the activities within those areas and where human visitation and use is fully controlled and limited. This level of protection ensures the maintenance of habitats and the value of the resources within the areas. These Ia areas, in principle, approximate or equate to no-take areas.

Figure 3. Protected areas in the US Caribbean under the different IUCN designations and including no-take zones. A key aspect that we have addressed during this report is whether the US Caribbean is on par with the 2030 United Nations goal of 30% of the ocean waters fully protected (CBD/WG2020). If we consider all US Caribbean EEZ waters, only 2.1% presents some form of protection (Table 1). However, if we include only the territorial waters, the protection increases to 29.2% for Puerto Rico and 27.7% for US Virgin Islands (Table 1). This figure includes all Marine Managed Areas, Marine Reserves, National monuments, National Parks, and Fishery Closure Areas in the US Caribbean. If we only consider no-take zones (including seasonal closures) –which are fully protected and in syntony with the UN mandate– the US Caribbean has 0.85% across the entire EEZ. The percentage of no-take zones within the territorial waters of Puerto Rico is 0.94% and 0.03% in the PR EEZ. The percentage of no-take zones within the territorial waters of the USVI is 11.2% and 0.15% in the USVI EEZ (Table 1). These estimates suggest that the amount of area currently under complete protection (i.e., no-take) is far from reaching the 30% UN 2030 goal. Table 1. Percentage of protected areas in the US Caribbean, including no-take zones and the IUCN categories. US CARIBBEAN

Area (km2)

All protected areas (58 MMAs) Ia Unassigned IV II III V No Take areas (includes seasonal no-take)

4446.25 125.03 806.58 3264.65 63 51 149 1805.12

Puerto Rico

Area (km2)

Total Area MMAs : 44 Total Ia Unassigned

3995.23 48 693.58

Number of Areas 58 8 24 22 2 1 1 12

US Caribbean Basin (%) 2.1 0.06 0.38 1.55 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.85

Number of Areas 44 6 17

Territorial Waters (%) 29.72 0.36 5.16

PR EEZ (%)

IV No Take in territorial waters (in 9NM) No Take EEZ (out 9 NM)*

3253.65 126.85 60.99

US Virgin Islands

Area (km2)

Total Area MMAs : 15 Total Ia Unassigned IV II III V No Take in territorial waters (in 3 NM) No Take EEZ (out 3 NM)*

393.03 77.03 42 11 63 51 149 159.03 58

21 5 3

24.2 0.94

Number of Areas 12 2 4 2 2 1 1 5 3

Territorial Waters (%) 27.68 5.42 2.96 0.77 4.44 3.59 10.49 11.2

0.03 USVI EEZ (%)

0.15

Area PR Territorial Waters (9 NM) (km2) 13443 Area USVI Territorial Waters (3 NM) (km2) 1420 USVI EEZ (km2) 38275 PR EEZ (km2) 182882 Total Area EEZ (km2) 211242 *Note that these MMAs are seasonal, and do not fully meet the IUCN categorization.

While the analysis above was carried out for all protected areas, this report highlights the information available for seven MMAs in the US Caribbean under the vigilance of the CFMC (Aguilar-Perera et al., 2006) with emphasis on the available data, state of the benthic habitats and recommendations to enhance the conservation strategies of these marine resources. The Marine Managed Areas are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Abril la Sierra Tourmaline Bank Bajo de Sico Grammanik Bank Hind Bank Marine Conservation District Red Hind Closure at Lang Bank The Mutton Snapper Closure

For each of the Marine Managed Areas, we provide details about: History and description of each Marine Managed Area What are the ecosystems present in each Marine Managed Area? ● What are the reported species within each Marine Managed Area? With particular emphasis on commercially important species. ● What is the condition and ecological change through time within each Marine Managed Area? ● The primary scientific studies that have or are taking place within each Marine Managed Area and the significant findings in those studies. ● Which gaps in knowledge exist, and what studies/actions are needed to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Marine Managed Areas? What are the best approaches to address these scientific gaps? ● ●

Abrir La Sierra (ALS)

2.1 History and description of ALS Abrir la Sierra (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area) is a shelf-edge reef within the EEZ with a total area of 29.5 km2, located 23.5 km west off Punta Guaniquilla, Cabo Rojo, on the western border of the Puerto Rican insular shelf (García-Sais et al. 2010) (Fig 4). The no-take area within ALS is also 29.5 km2 and was established by NMFS via the MSFC & M Act in 1996 to improve fisheries management, emphasizing protecting spawning aggregations of red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) by prohibiting fishing in these areas during the spawning season (Federal Register 1996). ALS is governed by the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CFMC), The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), and the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PR-DNER). ALS is a seasonal no-take zone with a closure between December 1 to February 28 (Pittman et al., 2014, Schärer-Umpierre et al. 2014).

Figure 4. a. Location of Abrir la Sierra (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area) with extension and location of each of the different habitats. b. ALS benthic habitat categories.

2.2 Marine ecosystems present in ALS The insular shelf that leads to ALS is an extensive platform of pavement, sand, and coral reef habitats that stands as the most extensive continuous neritic terrace of the Puerto Rican insular shelf. The main geomorphological features and habitats present at ALS between 30 and 50 m depth are two internal slope walls, a deep outer shelf terrace, and an insular slope wall. Mesophotic benthic habitats within these reef zones include colonized pavement (hard bottom), rhodolith reefs, a small coral reef, and a primarily unconsolidated habitat of scattered rhodoliths and sand (Figure 4). Inner walls of the deep terrace show 8

moderate live coral cover, consistent with a coral reef habitat down to a maximum depth of approximately 27 - 28 m. The reef substrate below 30 m consisted mainly of pavement colonized by algae, sponges, and scattered corals that declined in abundance and diversity with increasing depth. Boulder star coral, Orbicella annularis (formerly Montastraea annularis), was the main structural component of the coral reef habitat and was observed to be in good condition (García-Sais et al. 2010).

2.3 Condition and changes through time of marine ecosystems in ALS García-Sais et al. (2010) characterized the closure, and the description is presented below. The benthic ecosystems present at ALS have not been studied again, and thus there is no information available on its current condition.

2.4 Reported species within ALS The mesophotic habitats present at ALS have 84 species/taxonomic groups of benthic algae, sponge, scleractinian corals, hydrocorals, and octocorals (Table 2). The most abundant benthic species/taxonomic groups are algal turfs and the macroalgae Lobophora variegata; among the scleractinian corals, the most representative species is Orbicella annularis (formerly Montastraea annularis) and Agaricia agaricites. Table 2. Representative benthic species recorded at Abrir la Sierra. Species/Groups Type Species/Groups Type Agaricia agaricites Scleractinian Siderastrea siderea Scleractinian Agaricia lamarcki Scleractinian Stephanocoenia intercepta Scleractinian Eusmilia fastigiata Scleractinian Millepora alcicornis Hydrocoral Helioseris cucullata @ Scleractinian Stylster roseus Hydrocoral Isophyllia sinuosa Scleractinian Iciligorgia schrammi Octocoral Isophyllastrea rigida Scleractinian Pseudopterigorgia sp. Octocoral Madracis decactis Scleractinian Agelas clathrodes Sponge Meandrina meandrites Scleractinian Agelas conifera Sponge Montastraea cavernosa Scleractinian Xestospongia muta Sponge Orbicella annularis @ Scleractinian Lobophora variegata Macroalgae Porites astreoides Scleractinian Dictyota spp. Macroalgae Porites porites Scleractinian Turf algae Turf Scolymia cubensis Scleractinian Filamentous cyanobacteria Cyanobacteria Siderastrea radians Scleractinian @ Shows the valid and updated name of the species, data modified from García-Sais et al. (2010)

The fish community at ALS is composed of 110 species (Tables 3 and 4). Table 3 shows the commercially important fish species found at this site with their fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005), conservation status according to the IUCN red list, and trophic group according to Ennis et al. (2019). In the case of CFMC’s FMU, only those categories that include the largest or most important fish from the commercial point of view have been included in this table. The commercially important species registered at ALS are groupers (red hind, Nassau, yellowfin grouper, coney, graysby) and snappers (schoolmaster, mutton snapper, dog snapper, cubera snapper). Table 4 shows representative fish species found at this site and their fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005). It

should be noted that in 2010, the presence of the lionfish was already registered in this Marine Managed Area. Table 3 Commercially important fish species found at ALS. Scientific Name Epinephelus guttatus Mycteroperca venenosa Cephalopholis fulva Cephalopholis cruentata Lutjanus cyanopterus Lutjanus analis Lutjanus apodus Lutjanus jocu Ocyurus chrysurus Caranx crysos Calamus pennatula Balistes vetula Pomacanthus arcuatus Holacanthus ciliaris Sparisoma aurofrenatum Sparisoma viride

Common Name Red hind Yellowfin grouper Coney Graysby Cubera snapper Mutton snapper Schoolmaster Dog snapper Yellowtail snapper Blue runner Pluma porgy Queen trigger Gray angel Queen angel Redband parrotfish Stoplight parrotfish

Fisheries2 Groupers Groupers Groupers Groupers Snappers Snappers Snappers Snappers Snappers Jacks Porgies Triggerfish Angelfish Angelfish Parrotfishes Parrotfishes

UICN Red List Status3 Least Concern Near Threatened Least Concern Least Concern Vulnerable Least Concern Least Concern Data Deficient Data Deficient Least Concern Least Concern Near Threatened Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern

Trophic Group1 Invertivore Piscivore Piscivore Piscivore Piscivore Piscivore Piscivore Piscivore Planktivore Piscivore Invertivore Invertivore Spongivore Spongivore Herbivore Herbivore

1 Modified From Ennis et al. 2019; 2 According to CFMC 2005; 3 According to UICN Red List Status; fish names from GarciaSais et al. 2010, 2012.

2.6 Primary scientific studies that have or are taking place within ALS The scientific studies that have been conducted in ALS are related to developing new methodologies to understand the spawning aggregation of the red hind. The most recent studies carried out at ALS, and their main findings are summarized below. Rowell et al. (2011) used passive acoustics to map a spawning aggregation of the red hind (Epinephelus guttatus). The study was conducted during January and February 2010 on days and hours known to have high call rates. A hydrophone attached to a mobile digital audio recorder was deployed from a boat. The vessel drifted over a suspected spawning aggregation area while the global positioning system (GPS) coordinates were simultaneously recorded. After evaluating audio recordings, occurrences and intensities of red hind calls were charted with their GPS locations in GIS. The eastern and western boundaries of the aggregation were successfully mapped. Divers confirmed the presence of reproductively active individuals. These time-saving methods and technologies can be expanded to other soniferous groupers and potentially can be automated so that results can be determined in near-real-time. Rowell et al. (2012) used passive acoustic and diver-based underwater visual census (UVC) to develop an efficient method for estimating red hind density from sound production at spawning aggregations. Red hind sound production was recorded from November 2010 to April 2011. UVC surveys were conducted during the spawning season to assess changes in red hind density over a fixed time and area. Sound recorded from 10

18:00 to 19:00 h was representative of total daily changes in red hind sound production and was selected to develop an efficient density estimation model. Pronounced daily changes in sound production and density were observed after the December 2010 and January 2011 full moons. Two hourly sound level measurements were compared to densities estimated by UVC surveys, yielding significant linear regressions, which were used to predict changes in fish density as measured at the aggregation site. Passive acoustic methods allowed them to predict changes in red hind density and habitat use at a higher temporal resolution than previously possible with traditional methods. Red hind sound production and inferred densities can be monitored and analyzed efficiently for multiple aggregation sites simultaneously, documenting short-term and long-term changes in red hind densities at spawning aggregation sites and providing information to develop management strategies. Table 4. Other fish species recorded at ALS. Scientific Name Common Name Fisheries1 Calamus calamus Saucereye porgy Porgies Scomberomorus regalis Cero Pseudupeneus maculatus Spotted goatfish Goatfish Mulloidichthys martinicus Yellow goatfish Goatfish Haemulon flavolineatum French grunt Grunts Haemulon plumierii White grunt Grunts Haemulon sciurus Bluestriped grunt Grunts Lachnolaimus maximus hogfish Wrasse Holocentrus rufus Longspine squirrelfish Squirrellfish Holocentrus adscensionis Squirrelfish Squirrellfish Myripristis jacobus Blackbar soldierfish Squirrellfish Melichthys niger Black durgon Triggerfish Bodianus rufus Spanish hogfish Wrasses Sphyraena barracuda Great barracuda Pterois volitans Lionfish Ginglymostoma cirratum Nurse shark Carcharhinus perezi Caribbean reef shark 1 According to CFMC 2005. Modified from Garcia-Sais et al. 2010, 2012

García-Sais et al. (2012) characterized the mesophotic habitats at ALS and also conducted an independent fishery survey of commercially important fish and shellfish species. The survey included: queen conch, spiny lobsters, and commercially important fishes such as roupers (red hind, yellowfin, black grouper, and Nassau grouper), snappers (mutton snapper, Cubera snappers, dog snapper, and yellowtail snapper), the queen triggerfish, hogfishes, the lionfish, great barracuda, and nurse sharks. The mean density of queen conch, red hind, hogfish, mutton, dog, and cubera snappers were much higher at ALS than at any other mesophotic system previously studied. The authors suggested that such higher abundance is related to the connectivity of mesophotic habitats at ALS with shallow nearby neritic recruitment habitats than other more oceanic sites such as Desecheo and BS that are separated from the insular shelf by deep oceanic waters. Ibrahim et al. (2018a) developed an approach for the automatic classification of grouper vocalizations from ambient sounds recorded in situ with fixed hydrophones based on weighted features and a sparse classifier. The dataset used in this research was recorded off the west coast of Puerto Rico at ALS, BS, and Mona Island. Group sounds were labeled initially by humans for training and testing various classification methods. In the feature extraction phase, four types of features were used to identify sounds produced by

groupers. Once the sound features were extracted, three representative classifiers were applied to categorize the species that made these sounds. Experimental results showed that the overall percentage of identification using the best combination of the selected feature extractor weighted Mel frequency cepstral coefficients and sparse classifier achieved 82.7% accuracy. The proposed algorithm has been implemented in an autonomous platform (wave glider) for real-time detection and classification of group vocalizations. Ibrahim et al. (2018b) investigated the effectiveness of deep learning for the automatic classification of grouper species by their vocalizations. They used wavelet denoising to reduce ambient ocean noise and later used a deep neural network to classify sounds generated by four species of groupers. The dataset used in this research was recorded off the west coast of Puerto Rico at ALS, BS, and Mona Island. Experimental results for the selected species of groupers show that the proposed approach achieves a classification accuracy of around 90% or above in all of the tested cases, a result that is significantly better than the one obtained by a previously reported method for automatic classification of grouper calls (WMFCC, cf. Ibrahim et al. 2018a). Appeldoorn et al. (2018) analyzed the calling behavior of the red hind to establish temporal patterns by signal type during the lunar spawning cycle. Recordings were obtained from an underwater passive acoustic recorder scheduled to record low-frequency ambient sounds for 20 sec every 5 min. The unit was deployed yearly at ALS. Once they established the type signal, they applied the same analysis to the extended periods of calling activity and used these patterns to infer behavior. Ibrahim et al. (2019) proposed a method for the classification of call types of the red hind. Two distinct calls of red hind were analyzed. The grouper calls were recorded at ALS and MCD. Experimental results showed that the innovative approach produces superior results in comparison with those obtained by nonensemble methods. The algorithm reliably classified red hind call types with over 90% accuracy and successfully detected some calls missed by human observers. Zayas et al. (2020) described vocalizations produced by the red hind and their respective behavioral contexts in the field (using data recorded at ALS) and the laboratory. Five sound types were identified, including four calls recorded in captivity and one sound recorded in the wild, labeled as Chorus. Additionally, the grunt call type recorded was presumed to be produced by a female. Call types consisted of variations and combinations of low frequency (50—450 Hz) pulses, grunts, and tonal sounds in different combinations. Common call types exhibited diel and lunar oscillations during the spawning season, with both field and captive recordings peaking daily at 1800 AST and eight days after the full moon.

3. Tourmaline Bank (TB) 3.1 History and description of TB Tourmaline Bank (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area) was established by the NMFS in 1993 as a part of a rule that intended to protect and conserve the highly exploited reef fish resources of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Federal Register 1993). In 1996 NMFS modified the original TB’s limits to their current limits (Federal Register 1996). TB is located both in the EEZ and in the PR’s territorial waters and has a total area of 31.4 km2. The no-take area is 31.3 km2. TB is governed by the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CFMC), The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), and the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PR-DNER). TB is a seasonal no-take zone with a closure between December 1 to February 28 (Pittman et al. 2014, Schärer-Umpierre et al., 2014). TB partially coincides with a Puerto Rican marine reserve of Tourmaline. TB (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area) is located within the 18°11.2′ N 67°22.4′ W; 18°11.2′ N 67°19.2′ W; 18°08.2′ N 67°19.2′ W; 18°06.2′ N to the 67°22.4′ W; 18°11.2′ N 67°22.4′ W (Fig 5). Since 1996, every year, ALS is a no-take area between December 1 and February 28. The Tourmaline Bank (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area) has the following features: site: EEZ (40%) and PR (60%); total area: 31.4 km2; No take area: 31.4 km2; establishment mechanism: MSFC & M Act; governing institutions: NOAA, CFMC, and PR-DNER; level of protection: seasonal no-take zone; timing of closure: December 1 to February 28 (CFMC-NOAA 2009; Pittman et al. 2014, Schärer-Umpierre et al. 2014).

Figure 5. Location of Tourmaline Bank (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area) with the locations of the studies done in the MMA.

3.2 Marine ecosystems present in TB TB is located on the border of the Puerto Rican shelf, offshore Bramadero bay (Cabo Rojo). García-Sais et al. (2013) characterized the main habitats present at TB between 30 and 50 m depth. They recognized five main habitats: sandy substrate, scattered patch reefs surrounded by sand; colonized pavement; algal rhodolith reef deposits; and a slope wall rocky (Fig. 6). Most of these habitats are unconsolidated and abiotic habitats. The sand was the primary substrate type covering 48.1 % of the total study area, yet mostly uncolonized (abiotic)—the sporadic occurrence of interspersed gorgonians and occasional sightings of milk or queen conch. Rhodolith reef deposits were the most prominent benthic habitat present along the western section of the mesophotic outer shelf. They represented the dominant biotic habitat in terms of aerial cover with 37.5 % of the total study area within the 30 – 50 m depth range. Live coral reef habitats within the mesophotic 30 – 50 m depth range were very scarce and only associated with a small yellow-pencil

(Madracis auretenra) biotope growing as a patch the rhodolith reef. Figure 6. Benthic habitat map of the mesophotic region within the 30 – 50 m depth range at Tourmaline Reef, Mayaguez (extracted from García-Sais et al. 2013). In studies for the PR-DNER, García-Sais et al. (2019) characterized other shallower areas of this reef. Authors found more diverse benthic assemblages composed of stony corals, hydrocorals, sponges, and octocorals. In the section "reported species," a list of the most important species found in TB in the two surveys mentioned is presented.

3.3 Condition and changes through time of marine ecosystems within TB The PR-DNER monitors the shallow and mesophotic reefs of Puerto Rico, and one of its monitoring sites is the shallowest section (10-30 m deep) of TB. The results from this monitoring effort are presented below, both for the benthic community and for the fish associated with the reef.

3.3.1 Benthic community This section of this information compilation is prepared according to the García-Sais et al. 2019´s report. At 10 m depth (Figure 7a), differences of substrate cover by live corals were not statistically significant (ANOVA; p = 0.994). During the 2006 monitoring survey, mean live coral cover declined 22.43%, from 44.14% in 2005 to 34.24%. This decline was measured after the regional coral bleaching event that affected most of the northern Caribbean Sea. The variation in coral cover was not significant due to the high variability (not direction) within transects. At the population level, a decline of live coral cover was found for Orbicella annularis (complex) (ANOVA; p= 0.028), the dominant coral species in terms of reef substrate cover at this depth. Substrate cover by O. annularis declined 46.0% between 2005 and 2006 and was the main driver of the overall decline of live coral at this depth. After 2009, the O. annularis species complex presented a consistent pattern of increasing substrate cover until the 2015 survey. During the 2017 survey, the O. annularis complex exhibited a mild reduction of reef substrate cover, but the variation was statistically insignificant. During the 2019 survey, the mean cover by the Orbicella species complex (10.63%) showed a value similar to that of 2015 (Figure 8a), suggesting that the small decline measured in the previous 2017 survey was probably an artifact of sampling variability. At 20 m, cover by hard corals showed a gradual decline from a baseline mean of 31.79 % in 2004 to 22.80% in 2007 (Figure 7b). Such reduction was probably associated with coral bleaching-induced mortalities after the regional event of late August 2005, with prolonged effects down to 2008. After 2010 live coral cover maintained an increasing trend until the previous 2017 survey, evidencing a recovery of 34.45 % from its lowest cover in 2010 and approaching its baseline cover at 31.79%. Differences associated with this recuperation trend were statistically significant (ANOVA, p = 0.028). During the 2019 survey, mean substrate cover by hard corals registered a 10.4% decline from the previous study of 2017, but such differences were statistically insignificant. The combined substrate cover by Orbicella spp, previously described as the O. annularis complex, was the main driver of the declining trend of live coral between 2004 and 2007 and its recent recovery because it is the dominant coral species complex at this depth (Figure 8b). During the 2019 survey, the combined cover by Orbicella spp. (22.04%) declined 7.89% from the mean cover in 2017 (23.78%). From the reef stations monitored so far, this depth exhibited the highest coral disease prevalence (9.5%), and several colonies of O. faveolata were observed to be suffering from infectious diseases. At 30 m, differences of hard coral cover between monitoring surveys were statistically significant (ANOVA; p = 0.016). Coral cover remained stable during 2004 and 2010. Since then, an increase in live coral cover was found until the previous 2017 survey. Coral cover increased from 13.54% during the baseline survey to 23.71% in 2017 (Figure 7c). The coral cover increase was due to two dominant corals, the Agaricia spp assemblage, of which A. grahamae was the main component, and Orbicella faveolata (Figure 8c). Since the baseline survey in 2004, many large colonies of Orbicella spp. were already dead and overgrown by turf algae, indicative of major stress acting over this coral species (complex) sometime 15

before our baseline survey. Hard coral has re-colonized (previously) dead coral sections by displacing turf algae, which have shown a corresponding declining trend of reef substrate cover over time. The mean cover of 21.48% measured during the present 2019 survey represents a decline of 9.40% from the previous 2017 survey. This difference was statistically insignificant.

Figure 7. Monitoring trends (1999 – 2019) of mean substrate cover by sessile-benthic categories at Tourmaline Bank. a 10 m, b 20 m, c 30 m (from García-Sais et al. 2019).

* Note that previous to 2019, all three Orbicella species were documented under ”Orbicella annularis complex”. In 2019, Orbicella complex were divided by species, which can be seen in this graph. 1 Orbicella annularis, 2 O. annularis complex, 3 O. faveolata, 4 O. franksi, 5 Montastraea cavernosa, 6 Porites porites, 7 P. astreoides, 8 Agaricia agaricetes, 9 Agaricia spp, 10 Colpophyllia natans, 11 Siderastrea siderea, 12 Pseudodiploria strigosa, 13 Stephanocoenia intersepta, 14 Madracis formosa, 15 M. aurentenra, 16 Dendrogyra cylindrus.

Figure 8. Monitoring trends (1999 – 2019) of mean substrate cover by hard coral species at Tourmaline Bank. a 10 m, b 20 m, c 30 m (from García-Sais et al. 2019).

3.3.2 Reef fish At 10 m, minimum mean values of fish density and species richness were observed during 2008, when mean density declined 31.4 % relative to the baseline survey (Figure 9a). Density differences between annual surveys were statistically significant (ANOVA; p< 0.0001). Schooling zooplanktivores influenced fish density at this depth with highly aggregated distributions, such as the blue chromis (Chromis cyanea), masked goby (Coryphopterus personatus), and creole wrasse (Clepticus parrae). Inter-annual fluctuations of these species appear to be related to density-independent factors and physical conditions at the survey time. C. personatus is a schooling species with highly aggregated distributions and dominant within belttransects. Such aggregated distributions introduce high sampling variability. Many observations are needed within a reef system to detect temporal density patterns. Differences in fish species richness between surveys were statistically significant (ANOVA; p < 0.0001), driven by a severe decline of species during 2008 and 2017 relative to all other surveys. Such declines coincided with low densities of C. personatus and/or C. parrae. Density fluctuations of these forage species may be related to ecological (interaction type predator-prey) or abiotic factors (physical conditions associated with wave action impact an assemblage of small fishes that cannot withstand the surge effect related to intense wave action and are displaced from the 17

shallow reef). During the 2019 survey, both mean fish density and species richness increased relative to the previous 2017 survey but still fell within the lower range of the historical means for both parameters.

Figure 9. Monitoring trends (1999 – 2019) of mean fish density and species richness within 3x10 m belt-transects at Tourmaline. a 10 m, b 20 m, c 30 m (from García-Sais et al. 2019).

At 20 m, differences in fish density and species richness between monitoring surveys were statistically significant (ANOVA; p < 0.0001). Density variations were associated with density peaks in 2005, 2006, 2008, 2011, and 2015 relative to other monitoring surveys (Figure 9b). Such density peaks were driven by high densities of masked goby (Coryphopterus personatus). A sharp, consistent decline of species richness

was observed after the coral bleaching event of late 2005 with lingering effects until 2008. The bleaching event severely affected the amount of live coral and perhaps corresponding implications to fish recruitment and residential habitats. The mean fish density measured during the 2019 survey (67.2 Ind/30m2) fell within the low range of densities previously measured at this depth, influenced by a low density of C. personatus relative to other surveys. Mean species richness in 2019, however, increased 8.5% from the previous 2017 survey. The mean fish density and species richness were within one standard deviation of the mean during 2019. At 30 m, differences in fish density and species richness between annual surveys were statistically significant (ANOVA; p < 0.0001). Density differences between monitoring surveys were driven mainly by the fluctuations of masked goby (Coryphopterus personatus). Consistent with the previous 2017 survey, the density of masked goby was low again in 2019, influencing the difference of total fish density relative to previous surveys. Annual fluctuations of species richness did not show any consistent pattern through time and may be related to variable physical conditions at the time of surveys (Figure 9c).

3.4 Reported species within TB At TB, two types of surveys have been carried out, one focused on the communities present between 30 and 50 m (study for the CFMC) and the second focused on the communities present at 10, 20, and 30 m depth (data from the PR-DNER). Below we summarized the results of both studies. One hundred and two benthic species have been reported from TB, composed of cyanobacteria and algae, sponge, scleractinian corals, hydrocorals, and octocorals (Table 5). The most abundant benthic species/taxonomic group are algal turfs and the macroalgae Lobophora variegata; the most speciose group is the sponges. Among the scleractinian corals, the most representative species are Agaricia sp., Montastraea cavernosa, Tubastraea coccinea and Orbicella spp. The fish community at TB is composed of 110 species (Tables 6 and 7). Table 6 shows the commercially important fish species found at this site with their fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005), conservation status according to the IUCN red list, and trophic group according to Ennis et al. (2019). In the case of CFMC’s FMU, only those categories that include the largest or most important fish from the commercial point of view have been included in this table. The commercially important species registered at ALS are groupers (red hind, coney, graysby) and snappers (blackfin snapper, mutton snapper, and dog snapper). Table 7 shows other representative fish species found at this site and their fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005). In 2012, the lionfish was well established at this marine reserve, as it is inferred by its frequency distribution across the different reef habitats, length frequency distribution, and density (García-Sais et al. 2013). Table 5. Most representative benthic species at the TB. Species/Groups Acropora cervicornis Agaricia agaricites Agaricia fragilis Agaricia grahamae Agaricia lamarckii Colpophyllia natans

Type Scleractinian Scleractinian Scleractinian Scleractinian Scleractinian Scleractinian

Species/Groups Porites duvaricata Porites porites Pseudodiploria strigosa Siderastrea siderea Stephanocoenia intercepta Millepora alcicornis

Type Scleractinian Scleractinian Scleractinian Scleractinian Scleractinian Hydrocoral

Dendrogyra cylindrus Scleractinian Diploria labyrinthiformis Scleractinian Eusmilia fastigiata Scleractinian Helioseris cucullata Scleractinian Madracis auretenra Scleractinian Madracis carmabi Scleractinian Madracis decactis Scleractinian Meandrina meandrites Scleractinian Montastraea cavernosa Scleractinian Orbicella annularis Scleractinian Orbicella faveolata Scleractinian Orbicella franksi Scleractinian Porites astreoides Scleractinian Porites dIvaricata Scleractinian Porites porites Scleractinian *Data from García-Sais et al. 2007, 2019.

Briareum asbestinum Erythropodium caribaeorum Eunicea spp. Muricea sp. Pseudoplexaura spp. Agelas conífera Neopetrosia spp. Plakortis spp. Dictyota spp. Halimeda spp. Lobophora variegata Peyssonnelia spp. Ramicrusta spp

Octocoral Octocoral Octocoral Octocoral Octocoral Sponge Sponge Sponge Macroalgae Macroalgae Macroalgae Macroalgae Macroalgae

Turf algae Cyanobacteria

Turf Cyanobacteria

Table 6. Representative commercially important fish species at TB. Scientific Name

Common Name

Fisheries2

UICN Red List Status3 Trophic Group1

Epinephelus guttatus

Red hind

Groupers

Least Concern

Invertivore

Cephalopholis fulva

Coney

Groupers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Cephalopholis cruentata

Graysby

Groupers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus buccanella

blackfin snapper

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus analis

Mutton snapper

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus jocu

Dog snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Piscivore

Ocyurus chrysurus

Yellowtail snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Planktivore

Caranx crysos

Blue runner

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx lugubris

Black jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx ruber

Bar jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Seriola dumerili

Greater amberJack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Seriola rivoliana

Almaco Jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Balistes vetula

Queen trigger

Triggerfish

Near Threatened

Invertivore

Pomacanthus arcuatus

Gray angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Spongivore

Pomacanthus paru

French angelfish

Angelfish

Least Concern

Spongivore

Holacanthus ciliaris

Queen angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Spongivore

Sparus guacamaia

Rainbow parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Near Threatened

Herbivore

Scarus iseri

Striped parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

García-Sais et al. 2007 and 2019; 2 According to CFMC 2005; 3 According to UICN Red List Status

Table 7. Other fish species at TB. Scientific Name Lutjanus cyanopterus

Common Name Cubera Snapper

Fisheries1 Snapper

Scomberomorus cavalla

King mackerel

Pseudupeneus maculatus

Spotted goatfish

Goatfish

Holocentrus adcensionis

Longjaw Squirrelfish

Squirrelfish

Holocentrus rufus

Longspine Squirrelfish

Squirrelfish

Malacanthus plumieri

Sand Tilefish

Tilefish

Halichoeres cyanocephalus

Yellowcheeck Wrasse

Wrasse

Lachnolaimus maximus

Hogfish

Wrasse

Holocentrus rufus

Longspine squirrelfish

Squirrellfish

Acanthurus bahianus

Ocean surgeon

Surgeonfish

Acanthurus chirurgus

Doctorfish

Surgeonfish

Dasyatis americana

Southern Stingray

Elagatis bipinnulata

Rainbow runner

Jack

Bodianus rufus

Spanish hogfish

Wrasses

Sphyraena barracuda

Great barracuda

Pterois volitans

Lionfish

Ginglymostoma cirratum

Nurse shark

Negaprion brevirostris

Lemon shark

According to CFMC 2005. Data from García-Sais et al. 2007, 2019.

3.5 Primary scientific studies that have or are taking place within TB TB is part of the Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program (PR-CRMP) sponsored by NOAA/CRCP and administered by the PR-PRDNER. This program started in 1999 with baseline characterizations of reef substrate cover by sessile-benthic categories and determinations of fish and motile megabenthic invertebrate taxonomic composition and densities (García-Sais et al. 2019). By 2015, surveys were conducted on a total of 15 reefs within TB. That monitoring program produced the information presented in section 3.3 of this report. García-Sais et al. (2013) characterized the mesophotic sector of TB. Also, they conducted an independent fishery survey of commercially important fish and shellfish species. This survey included: queen conch, Spiny lobsters, and some commercially important fishes. Mutton, blackfin, dog and cubera snappers, red hinds, lionfish, hogfish, and queen triggerfishes were the most abundant of the large demersal commercially important fishes present within the mesophotic habitats of Tourmaline Bank. The mean density of queen conch, hogfish, mutton, dog, and cubera snappers was much higher at Tourmaline and Abrir La Sierra than at mesophotic systems previously studied. The authors suggested that such higher abundance is related to high connectivity to nearby shallow recruitment habitats than oceanic sites (i.e., Desecheo and Bajo de Sico) separated from the insular shelf by deep ocean waters.

4. Bajo de Sico (BS) 4.1 History and description of BS The NMFS established in 1996 the seasonal closure in the vicinity of "Bajo de Sico." The intended effect of this rule was to protect red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) spawning aggregations by prohibiting fishing in these areas during the spawning season (Federal Register 1996). The seasonal closure was initially proposed between December 1 and February 28 of each year. BS (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area) is located at 18°15.7′ N 67°26.4′ W; 18°15.7′ N 67°23.2′ W; 18°12.7′ N 67°23.2′ W; 18°12.7′ N 67°26.4′ W; 18°15.7′ N 67°26.4′ W (Fig 10). In 2010 NMFS modified the Bajo de Sico seasonal closure from a 3-month closure to a 6-month closure and prohibited fishing for and possession of Caribbean reef fish in or from the exclusive economic zone (Federal Register 2010). This final rule also banned anchoring in the EEZ portion of Bajo de Sico year-round. The intended effect of this rule was to provide further protection for red hind spawning aggregations and large snappers and groupers and better protect the essential fish habitat (EFH) where these species reside (Federal Register 2010). Since 2010, every year, BS is a seasonal no-take area between October 1 and March 31. Bajo de Sico (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area) has the following features: site: EEZ (60%) and PR (40%); total area: 31.4 km2; No take area: 31.4 km2; establishment mechanism: MSFC & M Act; governing institutions: NOAA, CFMC, and PR-DNER; level of protection: seasonal no-take zone; timing of closure: October 1 to March 31 (CFMC-NOAA 2009; Pittman et al. 2014, Schärer-Umpierre et al. 2014).

Figure 10. Location of Bajo de Sico (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area).

4.2 Marine ecosystems present in BS Bajo de Sico (BS) is a seamount located in Mona Passage, about 27 kilometers off Mayagüez in the west coast of Puerto Rico (García-Sais et al. 2007) (Fig 10). BS is part of a ridge, known as the great southern Puerto Rico fault zone (Garrison and Buell 1971 in García-Sais et al. 2007), a submerged section of the Antillean ridge extending across the entire Mona Passage, connecting Puerto Rico with La Hispaniola. BS has a maximum length of approximately 6.0 km along its southwest to the northeast axis and a width of about 2.5 km across the northwest to the southeast axis. The total surface area of the seamount within the 100 m depth contour is approximately 11.1 km2 (García-Sais et al. 2007) (Figure 11). García-Sais et al. (2007) characterized the main habitats present at BS between 30 and 50 m depth. They found: a reef top and a vertical reef wall associated with rock promontories, colonized pavement and sand channels at the base of promontories, uncolonized gravel and rhodoliths at the reef slope, and a colonized rhodolith reef habitat surrounding the rock promontories at least to a depth of 50 m (Figure 11). Benthic habitats beyond 50 m were not field verified. Several video images generated by the R/V Nancy Foster showed coral growth down to a maximum depth of 90 m and the deep shelf platform at BS (García-Sais et al. 2007). The sessile-benthic community at the reef top was characterized by a highly diverse assemblage comprised of benthic algae (52%), sponges (26%), scleractinian corals (8%), octocorals (5%), and hydrozoans (3%), with an abiotic cover of less than 1.5% (García-Sais et al. 2007).

Figure 11. Benthic habitat map of Bajo de Sico up to a maximum depth of 50 m (García-Sais et al. 2007).

The reef wall habitat was characterized by irregular formations with deep crevices, undercuts, gaps, ledges, and other substrate irregularities. The sessile-benthos of the reef wall habitat was also highly and taxonomically diverse, comprised of sponges (43%), benthic algae (26%), octocorals (14%), scleractinian corals (5.5%), antipatharians (3%), and hydrozoans (2%). The abiotic cover was approximately 4%. (García-Sais et al., 2007). The deep platform rhodolith reef, at least down to the maximum surveyed depth of 50 m, appears to be a vast deposit of crustose algal nodules or rhodoliths overgrown by a dense macroalgal carpet, mostly the encrusting fan-leaf alga, Lobophora variegata. The sessile-benthic invertebrate community was characterized by relatively low taxonomic diversity (García-Sais et al., 2007).

4.3 Condition and changes through time of marine ecosystems within BS García-Sais et al. (2007) characterized the benthic ecosystems present at BS. No other study has been conducted since then. Thus the current state or any change through time is unknown in this Marine Managed Area.

4.5 Reported species within BS The characterization carried out by García-Sais et al. (2007) of the mesophotic habitats present at BS recorded 109 species/taxonomic groups of benthic algae, sponge, scleractinian corals, hydrocorals, and octocorals. The most abundant benthic species/taxonomic groups were algal turfs and the macroalgae Lobophora variegata; among the scleractinian corals, the most representative species were Agaricia agaricetes, Porites astreoides, and Tubastrea coccinea. Table 8 shows the most representative benthic species and groups. García-Sais et al. (2007, 2012) recorded 79 fish species at BS. Table 9 contains information of interest on the most representative commercially important fish species found at this site; i.e., name (scientific and common), fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005), conservation status according to the IUCN red list and trophic group according to Ennis et al. 2019. In the case of CFMC´s FMU, only those categories that include the largest or most important fish from the commercial point of view have been included in this table. The most commercially important species registered at ALS were: some groupers (red hind, Nassau, yellowfin grouper, coney, graysby) and snappers (schoolmaster, mutton snapper). Table 10 shows information of other representative fish species found at this site, i.e., name (scientific and common) and fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005). It should be noted that in 2012 the presence of the lionfish was already registered in this marine reserve.

Table 8. Most representative benthic species recorded at Bajo de Sico. Species/Groups

Type

Species/Groups

Type

Agaricia agaricites 1

Scleractinian

Porites astreoides

Scleractinian

Agaricia grahamae 1

Scleractinian

Pseudodiploria strigosa @

Scleractinian

Agaricia lamarcki 1

Scleractinian

Scolymia cubensis

Scleractinian

Colpophyllia natans

Scleractinian

Siderastrea siderea

Scleractinian

Dichocoenia stokesi

Scleractinian

Stephanocoenia michelini

Scleractinian

Diploria labyrinthiformis

Scleractinian

Tubastrea coccinea

Scleractinian

Eusmilia fastigiata

Scleractinian

Millepora alcicornis

Hydrocoral

Helioseris cucullata @

Scleractinian

Stylster roseus

Hydrocoral

Isophyllia sinuosa

Scleractinian

Iciligorgia schrammi

Octocoral

Isophyllastrea rigida

Scleractinian

Pseudopterigorgia sp.

Octocoral

Leptoseris cailleti

Scleractinian

Agelas clathrodes

Sponge

Madracis decactis

Scleractinian

Agelas conifera

Sponge

Meandrina meandrites

Scleractinian

Aplysina cauliformis

Sponge

Montastraea cavernosa

Scleractinian

Xestospongia muta

Sponge

Mycetophyllia aliciae

Scleractinian

Lobophora variegata

Macroalgae

Mycetophyllia lamarckiana

Scleractinian

Halimeda spp.

Macroalgae

Oculina varicosa

Scleractinian

Turf algae

Orbicella annularis @

Scleractinian

Filamentous cyanobacteria

Turf Cyanobacteria

@ Shows the valid and updated name of the species. Data from García-Sais et al. 2007.

Table 9. Commercially important fish species recorded at Bajo de Sico. Scientific Name

Common Name

Fisheries2

UICN Red List Status3

Trophic Group1

Epinephelus guttatus

Red hind

Groupers

Least Concern

Invertivore

Epinephelus striatus

Nassau grouper

Groupers

Critically Endangered

Invertivore

Mycteroperca venenosa

Yellowfin grouper

Groupers

Near Threatened

Piscivore

Mycteroperca tigris

Tiger grouper

Groupers

Data Deficient

Piscivore

Cephalopholis fulva

Coney

Groupers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Cephalopholis cruentata

Graysby

Groupers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus cyanopterus

Cubera snapper

Snappers

Vulnerable

Piscivore

Lutjanus analis

Mutton snapper

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus apodus

Schoolmaster

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus jocu

Dog snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Piscivore

Ocyurus chrysurus

Yellowtail snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Planktivore

Caranx crysos

Blue runner

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx lugubris

Black jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx ruber

Bar jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Calamus pennatula

Pluma porgy

Porgies

Least Concern

Invertivore

Balistes vetula

Queen trigger

Triggerfish

Near Threatened

Invertivore

Pomacanthus paru

French angelfish

Angelfish

Least Concern

Spongivore

Holacanthus ciliaris

Queen angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Spongivore

Sparisoma aurofrenatum

Redband parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Sparisoma viride

Stoplight parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

1 From Ennis et al. 2019; 2 According to CFMC 2005; 3 According to UICN Red List Status. Modified from Garcia-Sais et al. 2007, 2012.

Table 10. Other representative fish species recorded at Bajo de Sico. Scientific Name Common Name Fisheries1 Calamus calamus Saucereye porgy Porgies Scomberomorus regalis Cero Pseudupeneus maculatus Spotted goatfish Goatfish Mulloidichthys martinicus Yellow goatfish Goatfish Anisotremus surinamensis Black margate Grunts Anisotremus virginicus Porkfish Grunts Haemulon sciurus Bluestriped grunt Grunts Lachnolaimus maximus hogfish Wrasse Holocentrus rufus Longspine squirrelfish Squirrellfish Acanthurus bahianus Ocean surgeon Surgeonfish Acanthurus chirurgus Doctorfish Surgeonfish Acanthurus coeruleus Blue tang Surgeonfish Melichthys niger Black durgon Triggerfish Bodianus rufus Spanish hogfish Wrasses Sphyraena barracuda Great barracuda Pterois volitans Lionfish Ginglymostoma cirratum Nurse shark Negaprion brevirostris Lemon shark 1

According to CFMC 2005. Modified from Garcia-Sais et al. 2007, and 2012.

4.6 Primary scientific studies that have or are taking place within BS The scientific studies that have been conducted within BS are related to developing new methodologies to understand spawning aggregations of several grouper species within BS. The most recent studies carried out at BS, and their main findings are summarized below. Schärer-Umpierre et al. (2012b) described sound production by Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) from four different spawning aggregation sites in the Caribbean (BS, GB, and Red Hind Marine Conservation District were included in this study). Passive acoustic data and video were recorded in Belize (February 2011) and Puerto Rico (February 2012), revealing two distinctive sounds. The first is a pulse train sound associated with an alarm or warning behavior, while the second is a tonal sound associated with reproductive behaviors, including courtship displays. The average peak frequency of the pulse train was 77.4 ± 30.3 Hz, individual pulse duration was 0.09 ± 0.02 s, and the number of pulses varied from 6 to 13. 26

The average peak frequency was 99.0 ± 33.6 Hz for the tonal sound, and the sound duration was 1.6 ± 0.3 s, ranging from 0.9 to 2.3 s. Long-term recordings at the Grammanik Bank, US Virgin Islands (February 2011) revealed variability in the daily patterns of tonal sounds during the residence time at the aggregation. Sound production was highest 7 to 8 days after the full moon between 20:00 and 21:00 h Atlantic Standard Time. The Nassau grouper courtship-associated sounds provide a valuable tool to study the dynamics of spawning aggregations critical for the recovery of this Endangered species.

Table 10. Other representative fish species recorded at Bajo de Sico. Scientific Name Calamus calamus Scomberomorus regalis Pseudupeneus maculatus Mulloidichthys martinicus Anisotremus surinamensis Anisotremus virginicus Haemulon sciurus Lachnolaimus maximus Holocentrus rufus Acanthurus bahianus Acanthurus chirurgus Acanthurus coeruleus Melichthys niger Bodianus rufus Sphyraena barracuda Pterois volitans Ginglymostoma cirratum Negaprion brevirostris 1

Common Name Saucereye porgy Cero Spotted goatfish Yellow goatfish Black margate Porkfish Bluestriped grunt hogfish Longspine squirrelfish Ocean surgeon Doctorfish Blue tang Black durgon Spanish hogfish Great barracuda Lionfish Nurse shark Lemon shark

Fisheries1 Porgies Goatfish Goatfish Grunts Grunts Grunts Wrasse Squirrellfish Surgeonfish Surgeonfish Surgeonfish Triggerfish Wrasses -

According to CFMC 2005. Modified from Garcia-Sais et al. 2007, and 2012.

Schärer-Umpierre et al. (2014) carried out passive acoustic and synchronous video recordings at two spawning aggregation sites (BS and Mona Island) to study the sounds associated with reproductive behaviors of black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci). A characteristic sound was produced during courtship displays involving behaviors commonly observed for groupers of this genus at aggregations. The sound has a short pulsing section followed by a more extended tonal portion with a mean peak frequency below 100 Hz. Courtship-associated sounds were quantified over one spawning season at Mona Island, Puerto Rico. Most of the daily sound production occurred during a period of 2 h before sunset. The highest rates of the sound output lasted for ten days with lunar periodicity over three consecutive months coincident with the reported season of reproduction. Passive acoustics provide a tool to measure the variability of the reproductive activity of M. bonaci over time. They may provide a method to evaluate current strategies designed to protect multi-species spawning aggregations critical for the recovery of threatened groupers.

Jackson et al. 2014 studied the Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) genetic connectivity across the Caribbean, analyzing genetic variation in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), microsatellites, and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Sampling sites at GB and Bajo de Sico were part of this study. It was found evidence of genetic differentiation across the Caribbean Sea of this grouper using mtDNA (FST = 0.206, p<0.001), microsatellites (FST = 0.002, p = 0.004) and SNPs (FST = 0.002, p = 0.014), and identified three potential barriers to larval dispersal. Genetically isolated regions identified mirror those seen for other invertebrate and fish species in the Caribbean basin. The study detected the strongest barrier in the Bahamas, isolating the western sites from those in the central and eastern Caribbean. However, it was unable to detect a genetic break between populations on either side of the Mona Channel (western Puerto Rico). Oceanographic regimes in the Caribbean may largely explain patterns of genetic differentiation among Nassau grouper subpopulations. Study results nonetheless found key insights into the vulnerable status of Nassau grouper throughout its geographic range. If subpopulations represented by spawning aggregations are heavily reliant upon self-recruitment and adults are faithful to specific aggregations, as tagging data suggest, then their persistence, and that of the subpopulations that form them may rely upon fisheries management and conservation efforts focusing on the maintenance of local genetic diversity and implementing management units at the appropriate spatial scale suggested by genetic data. Regional patterns of genetic differentiation observed may also warrant standardization of fisheries management and conservation initiatives, particularly among countries within genetically isolated regions. Tuohy et al. (2015) carried out the first known application of in situ tagging performed at mesophotic depths. The authors used closed-circuit rebreather (CCR) technology to tag ten Nassau groupers at 40 – 50 m depth at BS, a recognized spawning aggregation site off the west coast of Puerto Rico. The total time (time divers arrived at the trap to time of release) for each procedure was approximately 12 min. All fish were released and observed without indication of stress or physiological impairment. Short-term tracking of tagged fish revealed a 100% post-surgery survival rate with maximum detection of 347 days postsurgery. Survival rates of this nature have not been quantified or reported from other tagging studies, allowing the researchers to conclude that this methodology, coupled with the efficiency provided by CCR at these depths, enhanced survivorship and bias for studies utilizing acoustic telemetry. Rowell et al. (2018) identified a new sound produced by Nassau Grouper (Epinephelus striatus) in association with, although potentially not exclusive to, an agonistic interaction at a spawning aggregation. Asynchronous audio—video recorder was deployed at BS at a depth of 50 m. The authors also provided a behavioral and acoustic description for the identification of this sound in future studies. The discovery of a third sound produced by Nassau Grouper further highlights the importance of acoustic communication coupled with visual displays in fishes and enhances our ability to decipher patterns of different behaviors. Furthermore, identifying a new sound increases the ability to document the presence of this endangered species at spawning sites. Future efforts may reveal that the sound is produced within additional behavioral contexts during and outside the spawning season, such as the defense of territories or food resources. Continued efforts to catalog the sounds and behaviors of species like Nassau Grouper will increase our ability to monitor and understand fish behaviors. Ibrahim et al. (2018a) presented an approach for the automatic classification of grouper vocalizations from ambient sounds recorded in situ with fixed hydrophones based on weighted features and sparse classifier.

The dataset used in this research was recorded off the west coast of Puerto Rico at ALS, BS, and Mona Island. See findings presented in section 3.6. Ibrahim et al. (2018b) investigated the effectiveness of deep learning for the automatic classification of grouper species by their vocalizations. They used wavelet denoising to reduce ambient ocean noise and later used a deep neural network to classify sounds generated by four species of groupers. The dataset used in this research was recorded off the west coast of Puerto Rico at ALS, BS, and Mona Island. Primary findings were presented in section 3.6. Schärer-Umpierre et al. (2019) recorded a low amplitude and potentially courtship-related sound produced by invasive lionfish (Pterois spp.), the first reported sound by lionfish in the wild. The behavior and associated sounds were recorded in the presence of multiple lionfish in both Puerto Rico (BS) and the Florida Keys during separate research projects. The authors provided a brief characterization of this behavior and sound. Lionfish are known to produce sounds, but the behavior associated with sound production in natural conditions has not been previously documented.

5. Grammanik Bank (GB) 5.1 History and description of GB Grammanik Bank (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area) was established by NMFS via the MSFC & M Act in 2005 to improve fisheries management, emphasizing protecting spawning aggregations of yellowfin grouper (Mycteroperca venenosa). GB is located in the EEZ with a total area of 1.5 km2. The no-take area is 1.5 km2. GB is governed by the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CFMC), The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), and the Virgin Islands Department of Natural Resources (VI-DPNR). GB is a seasonal no-take zone with a closure between February 1 to April 30 (Pittman et al. 2014, Schärer-Umpierre et al. 2014). GB is located south of St. Thomas on the border of the Puerto Rican shelf, next to Anegada Passage (Figure 11). The bank is made up of a main (primary) bank, to the south, and a second bank, to the north, separated each other by a narrow sand channel (approximately 20-30 m wide) (Herzlieb et al. 2006, Smith et al. 2008). The top of the bank runs in a roughly east-west direction in 35-40 m of water and extends 1.69 km at its longest point (between 18º11.30N, 064º57.50W, and 18º11.60N, 064º56.60W), and 100 m wide for virtually its whole length (Nemeth et al. 2006). Grammanik Bank (GB) is the most studied Marine Managed Area in the US Caribbean. GB is a deepwater reef at the southern edge of the insular Puerto Rican shelf approximately 12 km south of St. Thomas, U.S.VI (Kadison et al. 2006) (Figures 11 and 12). Associated to this bank there is a no-take Marine Managed Area designated based on the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and reauthorizations, which are managed by the CFMC. Currently, GB is recognized as a multispecies Fish Aggregation Area (FSA) for M. venenosa and several other grouper species (Epinephelus striatus, M. tigris, M. interstitialis), snappers (Lutjanus jocu and L. cyanopterus), and Bermuda chub (Kyphosus saltatrix) (Nemeth et al. 2006a, Kadison et al. 2010, Kadison et al. 2011, Nemeth and Kadison 2013, Biggs and Nemeth 2016). GB was discovered as a grouper, snapper, and parrotfish aggregation area by fishermen in the mid-1950s (Nemeth et al., 2006), and it was fished very lightly until 1990 when an area of 8 km west of the GB – known as the Marine Conservation District (MCD)– was closed seasonally and then year-round to fishing by the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CFMC). With the closure of the MCD pressure shifted to the GB (Kadison et al. 2006). The fishing pressure increased grouper landings from GB in excess of 20,000 lbs annually from 1999-200, mostly during spawning aggregations (from February through April) (cf. Kadison et al. 2006). According to the 2004 Federal Register, underwater visual censuses carried out by researchers at the University of the Virgin Islands (UVI) in March 2002 and 2003, revealed small numbers (i.e., 50 to 60) of the yellowfin grouper (Mycteroperca venenosa) during the peak spawning period. Given the sharp reduction, UVI researchers expressed concern about the high mortality of this grouper and recommended a management action during the peak spawning period. In 2004, the CFMC recommended National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to implement measures to protect a yellowfin grouper (M. venenosa) spawning aggregation and reduce overfishing at GB.

In 2004, the NMFS issued a rule prohibiting fishing or possessing any fish species, except highly migratory species, within the GB (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area) from February 1, 2005, through April 30, 2005 (Federal Register 2005). The GB (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area) is bounded by the following coordinates (Fig 11): A 18°11.898' N 64°56.328' W; B 18°11.645' N 64°56.225' W; C 18°11.058' N 64°57.810' W; D 18°11.311' N 64°57.913' W). Since then, every year the GB is a no-take area between February 1 and April 30. In this context, the term “fish” means finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds. In addition, the term ‘‘highly migratory species’’ means bluefin, bigeye, yellowfin, albacore, and skipjack tunas; swordfish; sharks (listed in appendix A to 50 CFR part 635); white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, and long bill spearfish (Federal Register, 2005).

Figure 11. Location of the Grammanik Bank (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area).

5.2 Marine ecosystems present in GB GB has historically been defined as a Mesophotic Coral Ecosystem (MCE) (Smith et al. 2011). The bank includes mesophotic coral reef banks, hard bottom sparsely colonized with isolated coral colonies and sponges, and sand channels (Herzlieb et al. 2006, Smith et al. 2008). GB is dominated by Orbicella spp (formerly Montastraea spp.); however, there is representation by a high number of other scleractinian corals that are also present in shallow water reefs (Ennis et al. 2019). In the steep slopes and walls fringed Agaricia

spp are the dominant species. The hard bottoms harboring mixed communities of sponge and macroalgae (mainly Lobophora variegata, epilithic and crustose algae) (Ennis et al. 2019).

Figure 12. Location of Grammanik Bank and Red Hind Marine Conservation District (Smith et al. 2010). The positions of the three permanent TCRMP sites located in this area are indicated as follows: Grammanik Bank Tiger (purple diamond), College Shoal East (blue circle), and Hind Bank East (red star).

5.3 Condition and changes through time of marine ecosystems in GB The U.S. Virgin Islands Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program (TCRMP) is in charge of the coral reef management and research in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The TCRMP was implemented by the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands (U.S.V.I), in coordination with the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program and the University of the Virgin Islands (UVI). The TCRMP has established baseline states and temporal trends of coral reefs and fish populations and has identified threats to the future of USVI coral reefs. The TCRMP also provides information on land-based sources of pollution, coral bleaching, and fisheries status since its inception in 2001. The program performs annual to semi-annual assessments of benthic community structure, coral health, fish community structure, and physical dynamics at an increasing number of longterm monitoring sites, down to 65 m (220 ft) depth throughout the U.S.VI. The TCRMP, monitored by UVI scientists, has a permanent sampling site named “Grammanik Tiger site”, 38 m depth, at 18,18885 N and 64,95659 W (Ennis et al. 2019), and has been monitored since 2003, with permanent transects installed in 2007. By 2019 the program has 33 long-term monitoring sites. According to the 2019 TCRMP report (Ennis et al. 2019), the condition of marine ecosystems at Gammanik Tiger site has changed over time. The cover of Orbicella spp (the most abundant coral) has decreased (~15%), which may reflect the impact of generally higher prevalence of coral diseases at this site (which traditionally had had high coral cover) and a mild bleaching event that occurred in 2012. The benthic area left by dead corals is now colonized by macroalgae.

Figure 13 shows bleaching prevalence (proportion of colonies affected) and bleaching extent (the degree to which a colony is affected) at TCRMP sites (Ennis et al., 2019). In the case of the Grammanik Tiger site, the 2005 event was the strongest with a prevalence of 10% and an extent of almost 70%. In turn, the events of 2010 and 2019, although with higher prevalence, had a much lower extent. The 2019 bleaching event had a prevalence of 40% and an extent of less than 15%. According to Ennis et al. (2019), the main threats at Grammanik Tiger site are i) Chronic coral white diseases. ii) Periodic disease outbreaks followed by coral bleaching. iii) The dense populations of the invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans) affecting native fish populations.

Figure 13. Coral bleaching prevalence and extent for TCRMP in 2005, 2010, and 2019. Bleaching prevalence is the proportion of the community showing some level of bleaching. Bleaching extent is the mean proportion of the colony area affected by bleaching. Not all sites were sampled prior to 2019. Not all sites were sampled at the peak of the heat stress and may have underestimated bleaching responses for a given year. Reanalyzed data from Ennis et al. 2019.

5.3.1 Benthic community structure Boulder star corals (Orbicella spp.) dominate the coral community of the Grammanik Tiger site; however, there is representation by a high number of other coral species that are also present in shallow-water reefs. Grammanik Tiger lost a moderate amount of its coral cover in the 2005 bleaching event but had not regained any cover by 2011 (figure 14a). Other prominent members of the sessile epibenthic animal community are sponges. The macroalgae Lobophora variegata and epilithic algae dominate the algal community. Both algal groups experienced wide cover variations during monitoring. Macroalgae exhibited their largest cover increases after the bleaching events of 2005, 2012, and 2019 (figure 14b) (Ennis et al., 2019).

5.3.2 Coral Health Ennis et al. (2019), summarize the main changes in coral health at Grammanik Tiger site during monitoring as follows Grammanik Tiger site: Coral health was very affected by bleaching in 2005, but was underestimated in the surveys conducted. The 2010 and 2019 bleaching events did not reveal bleaching detectable above background levels. The high prevalence of bleaching in normal years was due largely to granular bleaching of Orbicella spp., where pigmented spots are surrounded by bleached areas. Figure 14c shows bleaching prevalence and bleaching extent. Coral diseases were prevalent with a high incidence of white disease. Yellow band disease was also reported at high prevalence in the first years of monitoring. Stony coral tissue loss disease (SCTLD) appeared at the site by February 2020 but had not yet had a significant impact on the coral cover. Figure 14d shows disease prevalence. Partial mortality was low but increased rapidly after the 2005 coral bleaching event. Recent partial mortality is high and mainly caused by disease lesions, predations, and fish bites. Figure 14e shows old and recent mortality prevalence.

5.3.3 Reef fish The main documented changes in the GB´s reef fish community during the TCRMP are related to the presence of the lionfish and the abundance increase of the Nassau grouper (Smith et al. 2018). The first is a story of the arrival of an unwanted guest and the second is a rebuilding stock story of an once abundant commercial fish from this mesophotic ecosystem.

Invasion of the Indo-Pacific Red Lionfish The invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish was reported the first time at St. Thomas by 2010 (Smith et al. 2018). Since 2011 its abundance and distribution through the USVI has increased. At their peak in the dataset (2015) 112 lionfish were counted on transects at ten sites off the northern USVI, and 15 at seven sites off St. Croix (Figure 15). In 2018 lionfish encounters were lower on northern USVI sites than in 2015, but slightly higher than 2016 and 2017, suggesting a population equilibrium had been reached (Smith et al. 2018).

Figure 14. Grammanik Tiger benthic cover and coral health through time (mean ± SE). a, Coral cover; b, Cover of other benthic community components; c, Prevalence, and extent of bleaching; d, Prevalence of reported diseases; e, Prevalence of old and recent mortality (from Ennis et al. 2019).

Mesophotic sites off both the northern USVIs and St. Croix continue to have the highest abundances of lionfish. The Hind Bank East FSA and Grammanik Tiger FSA especially hold large numbers (Smith et al. 2018).

The preferential habitat for lionfish in the western Atlantic has not been reported empirically; however, based on dives conducted across the USVI shelves by investigators of UVI as well as reports from fishermen it appears that the species utilizes a variety of habitats. Since 2018 investigators of UVI have conducted two types of studies with the lionfish: their mobility (using hydroacoustic technology) and their use of mesophotic habitats. It is expected that these kinds of studies should help understand movement related behavior and habitat/resource use by this invasive fish. Both studies are partially conducted at GB and MCD (Smith et al. 2018).

Figure 15. The abundance (±SEM) of red lionfish on Mesophotic TCRMP transects from 2003 to 2018 (from Smith et al. 2018).

Signs of improvement for the endangered Nassau Grouper The Nasssau grouper was in the 1960's and 1970's the most common grouper of the USVI reefs. However, their fishery collapsed in the short term in the 1980s due to overfishing, which led to their near-total disappearance south of St. Thomas in the 1980s (Smith et al. 2018). In 2005 the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council closed the yellowfin grouper breeding site at Grammanik Bank, inadvertently protecting a small spawning aggregation of Nassau grouper. These fish may have relocated from the extirpated historic Nassau aggregation located a few kilometers to the west (at MCD). There is evidence that these management measures may be positively affecting both Nassau and yellowfin grouper populations in the US Virgin Islands. The small Nassau grouper aggregation found on the Grammanik Bank appears to be growing in size since its discovery in 2003 (Smith et al. 2018). Nassau grouper aggregate on the site and presumably spawn there shortly after dark in the months of January through April. The bank is closed seasonally to fishing from February 1 to April 30 and is closed to bottom tending gear year-round, thus providing some protection for the aggregating Nassau grouper. The Nassau grouper have increased in number on the Grammanik Bank during the week after the full moon of January through April since 2002 (Figure 16). In January, February, March, and April of 2018, between 200 and 360 fish were observed on single dives on the western end of the bank. Numbers in January, February and March were again close to 400. This represents an over 200% increase from the number of 36

fish observed during the early and mid-2000’s (Smith et al. 2018). In 2019 nearly 300 fish were seen in single dives. Bad weather did not allow for daily surveys however in late afternoon dives fish were seen in spawning coloration (dark and bicolor) and spawning behaviors such as chasing, leading and nuzzling were observed. Spawning rushes and actual gamete release continue to evade the researchers; however, it appears that spawning at some level is occurring, probably after dark. Nassau grouper movement is being studied by researchers at UVI using hydroacoustic telemetry. Fish tagged with VEMCO transmitters are tracked as they utilize the spawning area on the bank, as well as when and how they move and migrate in and out of the closed area. Furthermore, over 2015 to 2017 there have been reports by divers of the both groupers being seen commonly on reefs around the territory, and fishermen continue to report regular occurrences of Nassau grouper in their fish traps (Smith et al. 2018). In TCRMP survey data from 2015, 2016, and 2017, substantially more Nassau groupers were observed than in earlier years, and they were observed on more sites, including nearshore sites (Figure 17). Additionally, juvenile young-of-the-year Nassau were commonly seen in nearshore areas of St. Thomas and St. John in 2006, 2014, 2015, and 2016 (R. Nemeth, unpub data).

Figure 16. Nassau grouper observed across all northern USVI sites on belt transects, conducted annually from 2003-2017 (from Smith et al. 2018).

The early and tentative recovery of the Nassau grouper in the northern USVI is positive but is far from complete. While fisheries closures have helped, targeted conservation actions may also be important for locking in and building on these gains for this threatened fish (Smith et al. 2018). Nassau grouper caught incidentally from deeper water (>20m deep) usually need to have their swim bladders deflated to allow them to submerge and survive when released. Thus, avoiding incidental capture even with release is important. In the northern USVI, a more complete fishing closure of the Grammanik Bank that encompasses

the full seasonal cycle of Nassau grouper spawning activities (December to May) would ensure minimal incidental capture (Smith et al. 2018). Additionally, creating a migratory corridor between the nearby Hind Bank Marine Conservation District, a no-take closure that appears to support a relatively high adult population on Nassau, would also limit fisheries impacts. Throughout the USVI, more education on Nassau grouper and their protected status would be very helpful. The early life cycle of Nassau grouper typically involves settling in shallow, nearshore structures surrounded by seagrass. Even as populations increase, these juveniles are highly vulnerable to recreation line fishing and spearfishing before they migrate to offshore locations. Education and citizen science opportunities to get the community behind the recovery of Nassau would greatly enhance the protections already in place by encouraging compliance.

Figure 17. Nassau grouper observed across all 19 northern TCRMP sites on belt transects conducted annually from 2003-2018. Note that individual fish may have been counted multiple times across observers at some locations in 2018 (from Smith et al. 2018).

5.4 Reported species within GB The TCRMP at the Grammanik Tiger site has reported around 50 species/groups of stony corals and other benthic groups. The most abundant benthic species are the stony corals Orbicella franksii, O. faveolata and Agaricia lamarcki. Table 11 shows the most representative benthic species and groups. Table 11. Most representative benthic species recorded by the TCRMP at Grammanik Tiger site. Species/Groups

Type

Species/Groups

Type

Agaricia agaricites

Scleractinian

Scolymia cubensis

Scleractinian

Agaricia grahamae

Scleractinian

Stephanocoenia intercepta

Scleractinian

Agaricia humilis

Scleractinian

Siderastrea siderea

Scleractinian

Agaricia lamarcki 3

Scleractinian

Millepora alcicornis

Hydrocoral

Agaricia undata

Scleractinian

Erythropodium caribaeorum

Octocoral

Colpophyllia natans

Scleractinian

Sea Fan

Octocoral

Diploria labyrinthiformis

Scleractinian

Clionia delitrix

Sponge

Dichocoenia stokesii

Scleractinian

Encrusting sponge

Sponge

Eusmilia fastigiata

Scleractinian

Sponge

Montastraea cavernosa

Scleractinian

Macroalgae

Madracis decactis

Scleractinian

Cladophora spp.

Macroalgae

Madracis mirabilis

Scleractinian

Dictyota spp. **

Macroalgae

Mycetophyllia ferox

Scleractinian

Lobophora variegata *

Macroalgae

Orbicella faveolata 2

Scleractinian

Peyssonellia spp. **

Calcareous Macroalgae

Orbicella franksii 1

Scleractinian

Coralline algae **

Calcareous

Porites astreoides

Scleractinian

Turf algae *

Porites porites

Scleractinian

Filamentous cyanobacteria **

Turf Cyanobacteria

Numbers 1, 2 and 3 show the three most abundant stony corals in descending order; * and ** show species/groups other than stony corals with relatively high and intermediate cover values. The names of the species were obtained by analyzing data from the TCRMP.

Regarding the fish community, TCRMP at Grammanik Tiger site has reported 110 species. Table 12 shows the commercially important fish species found at this site; i.e.: name (scientific and common), fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005), conservation status according to the IUCN red list and trophic group according to Ennis et al. 2019. In the case of CFMC’s FMU, only those categories that include the largest and/or most important fish from the commercial point of view have been included in this table. The commercially important species registered at Grammanik Tiger are large groupers (Nassau, yellowfin, yellowmouth, and tiger groupers) and snappers (cubera and schoolmaster snapper), some of them with any degree of threat. Table 13 shows information of interest of other representative fish species found at this site; i.e.: name (scientific and common) and fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005). In this group of species, the presence of porgies, squirrelfish, grunts, sharks, great barracuda, and lionfish stands out. The first three groups are considered in the CFCM’s FMU. In addition, sharks are common, and lionfish have become a frequent and relatively

abundant inhabitant in the Bank since their first record in 2011. Note that fish censuses on which these conclusions are based are conducted during November and December of each year, outside of the known reproductive aggregation seasons for groupers, snappers, and other commercially important species at the USVI. Table 12. Commercially important fish species recorded by the TCRMP at Grammanik Tiger site. Scientific Name1

Common Name1

Fisheries2

UICN Red List Status3

Trophic Group1

Cephalopholis cruentata

Graysby

Groupers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Cephalopholis fulva

Coney

Groupers

Least Concern

Invertivore

Epinephelus guttatus

Red hind

Groupers

Least Concern

Invertivore

Epinephelus striatus

Nassau grouper

Groupers

Critically Endangered

Piscivore

Mycteroperca interstitialis

Yellowmouth grouper Groupers

Vulnerable

Piscivore

Mycteroperca tigris

Tiger grouper

Groupers

Data Deficient

Piscivore

Mycteroperca venenosa

Yellowfin grouper

Groupers

Near Threatened

Piscivore

Paranthias furcifer

Creolefish

Groupers

Least Concern

Planktivore

Lutjanus analis

Mutton snapper

Snappers

Near Threatened

Piscivore

Lutjanus apodus

Schoolmaster

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus cyanopterus

Cubera snapper

Snappers

Vulnerable

Piscivore

Lutjanus jocu

Dog snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Piscivore

Lutjanus mahogani

Mahogany snapper

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus synagris

Lane snapper

Snappers

Near Threatened

Piscivore

Ocyurus chrysurus

Yellowtail snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Planktivore

Caranx crysos

Blue runner

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx latus

Horse eye jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx lugubris

Black jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx ruber

Bar jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Seriola dumerili

Greater amberjack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Seriola rivoliana

Almaco jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Balistes vetula

Queen trigger

Triggerfish

Near Threatened

Invertivore

Canthidermis sufflamen

Ocean trigger

Triggerfish

Least Concern

Planktivore

Calamus calamus

Saucereye porgy

Porgies

Least Concern

Invertivore

Calamus pennatula

Pluma porgy

Porgies

Least Concern

Invertivore

Holacanthus ciliaris

Queen angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Invertivore

Pomacanthus arcuatus

Gray angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Spongivore

Pomacanthus paru

French angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Invertivore

Scarus taeniopterus

Princess parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Sparisoma aurofrenatum

Redband parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Sparisoma viride

Stoplight parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

From Ennis et al. 2019; 2 According to CFMC 2005; 3 According to UICN Red List Status

Table 13. Other fish species recorded by the TCRMP at the Grammanik Tiger site. Scientific Name1

Common Name1

Fisheries2

Cantherhines macrocerus

Whitespotted filefish

Triggerfish

Melichthys niger

Black durgon

Triggerfish

Xanthichthys ringens

Sargassum triggerfish

Triggerfish

Mulloidichthys martinicus

Yellow goatfish

Goatfish

Mulloidichthys martinicus

Yellow goatfish

Goatfish

Pseudupeneus maculatus

Spotted goatfish

Goatfish

Anisotremus surinamensis

Black margate

Grunt

Anisotremus virginicus

Porkfish

Grunt

Haemulon flavolineatum

French grunt

Grunt

Haemulon plumierii

White grunt

Grunt

Haemulon sciurus

Bluestriped grunt

Grunt

Holocentrus adscensionis

Squirrelfish

Holocentrus rufus

Longspine squirrelfish

Squirrelfish

Myripristis jacobus

Blackbar soldierfish

Squirrelfish

Holocentrus rufus

Longspine squirrelfish

Squirrelfish

Myripristis jacobus

Blackbar soldierfish

Squirrelfish

Acanthurus bahianus

Ocean surgeonfish

Surgeonfish

Acanthurus chirurgus

Doctorfish

Surgeonfish

Acanthurus coeruleus

Blue tang

Surgeonfish

Bodianus rufus

Spanish hogfish

Wrasses

Lachnolaimus maximus

Hogfish

Wrasses

Pterois volitans

Lionfish

Sphyraena barracuda

Great barracuda

Carcharhinus leucas

Bull shark

Carcharhinus perezi

Caribbean reef shark

Ginglymostoma cirratum

Nurse shark

Galeocerdo cuvier

tiger shark

Negaprion brevirostris

Lemon shark

1 From Ennis et al. 2019; 2 According to CFMC 2005.

5.5 Primary scientific studies that have or are taking place within GB The scientific studies that have been conducted within GB that may be related with the performance of marine reserves have described and monitored the behavior over time of fish species that use these reserves as sites of spawning aggregation. To this end, these studies had used different and novel technologies. The most recent studies carried out at GB on these matters and their main findings are summarized below.

Kadison et al. 2010 presented the preliminary findings on changes in the Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) population aggregating on the GB since the CFMC protective measures were implemented, based on monitoring from 2004 through 2009. Visual fish surveys by divers using technical NITROX or closed circuit rebreathers were conducted around the full moon each year from January through April, 2004 through 2009. Surveys generally were conducted over 2 to 11 days, beginning the day of the full moon until the new moon, timed to document the arrival and departure of fish. Some groupers were collected daily during the same time period each year. Captured Nassau groupers were measured, sexed using a portable field ultrasound, and tagged. The fish were released close to the collection site using a release cage that could be opened remotely when it reached the sea floor. Spawning population changes from 2004 through 2009 were compared using the number of fish observed in underwater surveys and population characteristics including sex ratio and mean size of fish collected over five years of monitoring. Surveys and trap catches revealed that Nassau aggregated mainly on the GB in February, March and April. They arrived on and around the full moon, peaked in number from 2 - 8 days after the full moon, and departed from 10 to 12 days after the full moon. Fish exhibited courting and spawning colorations typical of spawning time but not observed actually spawning. Spawning occurred under poor light conditions after the divers left the water. Spatially, Nassau groupers were patchily mixed across the reef with yellowfin grouper. The number of Nassau groupers observed in visual surveys increased slowly from 2005 (0-30) through 2007 (5-35) but was higher in 2008 and especially 2009 (40-110). The mean size of Nassau grouper collected in 2004 and 2005 was not significantly different, however it was significantly smaller than in subsequent years. Mean fish size did not significantly change from 2006 through 2009. Although small in terms of number of fish the GB aggregation appears to be slowly rebuilding from the over-exploitation of previous years. In addition, the presence of younger cohorts on the aggregation site in 2009 suggest the possibility of continuity and perhaps the rebounding of a healthy Nassau grouper spawning aggregation. The study showed that the population of the Nassau grouper was apparently recovering and spawning at GB, which makes this site the only known remaining spawning site to this species in USVI. Kadison et al. 2011 examined yellowfin grouper (Mycteroperca venenosa) patterns of spawning from 2005 - 2010 on the GB. Visual fish surveys by divers using technical NITROX or closed circuit rebreathers were conducted around the full moon each year from February through May, 2005 through 2009. Surveys generally were conducted over 2 to 9 days, beginning the day of the full moon until the new moon, timed to document the arrival and departure of fish. Some groupers were collected daily during the same time period, as well from February through April, 2010. Captured yellowfin groupers were measured, sexed using a portable field ultrasound or by squeezing the abdomen for milt, and tagged. The fish were released close to the collection site using a release cage that could be opened remotely when it reached the sea floor. A subset of female yellowfin groupers was sacrificed in 2006, 2009 and 2010, to determine gonadosomatic indices (GSIs) and to examine histologically. Water temperature 1 m from the sea bottom was recorded hourly from February 2005 through October 2010 at a spot within the core aggregation site. The visual surveys conducted between 2005 and 2009 confirmed that the fish aggregated between February and April each year, with the majority of fish spawning in March and April. Mean hourly water temperature during the spawning season varied between 25.2°C and 27.0°C. The arrival, spawning, and departure of fish coincided each month with a consistent moon phase. All male fish collected on the aggregation site were ripe. Analysis of individual female gonadosomatic indices (GSI) indicated a spawning frequency for most females of 2 - 3 days. Spawning was observed several days in March and April of 2008 and 2009, from 6 through 10 days after full moon. It occurred from four minutes before sunset to at least 20 minutes after,

and probably into the night. The yellowfin grouper spawning aggregation appears fairly intact on the GB, with relatively high numbers of fish and frequent observed spawning but little is known of the historic population size or how spawning behaviour may have changed over time due to changes in population parameters. The combined effect of the seasonal closure of the GB, the 22-year closure of the nearest MCD and the seasonal ban on harvest or sale of yellowfin grouper, has undoubtedly played a key role in maintaining the spawning population that currently exists on the bank. This demonstrates how effective management measures can provide protection and sustainability for aggregation sites. Since few other large spawning aggregations of yellowfin grouper are known to exist in the eastern Caribbean, continued management and protection of the bank is essential. Schärer-Umpierre et al. (2012b) described sound production by Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) from four different spawning aggregation sites in the Caribbean (BS, Grammnik Bank and Red Hind Marine Conservation District were included in this study). Primary findings were presented in section 4.6 Nemeth and Kadison 2013 presented the first report of the aggregation and mass spawning of the Bermuda chub (Kyphosus sectatrix) on GB. Underwater visual surveys using technical Nitrox and closed circuit rebreathers were conducted from December 2002 to March 2013 and documented spatial and temporal patterns of movement and aggregation formation along this mesophotic reef. Spawning coloration and gamete release of the Bermuda chub were observed and filmed. The largest aggregations of this species were observed from January to March from 0 to 11 days after the full moon. Reproductive aggregation of K. sectatrix coincided with the spawning season of Nassau (Epinephelus striatus) and yellowfin (Mycteroperca venenosa) groupers. These spatial and temporal patterns of reproductive aggregation and spawning suggest that K. sectatrix, an herbivore, may also be a transient aggregating species. Color patterns and behaviors associated with aggregation and spawning were described and compared to spawning characteristics observed in other species. The two individuals collected on the GB had full stomachs of Lobophora variegata, which occurs in relative abundance in deep places of this bank. In the future, the key ecological role of these fish in this ecosystem should be studied. Jackson et al. (2014) studied the Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) genetic connectivity across the Caribbean basin, including samples from Grammanik Bank and Bajo de Sico. All samples were genotyped for two mitochondrial markers and nine microsatellite loci, and a subset of the samples was genotyped for 4,234 SNPs. Authors found genetic differentiation across the Caribbean using mtDNA (FST = 0.206, p<0.001), microsatellites (FST = 0.002, p = 0.004) and SNPs (FST = 0.002, p = 0.014), and identified three potential barriers to larval dispersal. The identified genetically isolated regions mirrored those seen for other invertebrate and fish species in the Caribbean basin. Other primary findings were presented in section 4.6. Rowell et al. 2015 used passive acoustic and acoustic telemetry methods to determine temporal patterns of reproductive activity, site usage, and fish movements of Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) and yellowfin grouper (Mycteroperca venenosa) in order to assess the effectiveness of current management strategies at two adjacent marine protected areas (MPAs): Grammanik Bank (GB) and Hind Bank Marine Conservation District (MCD). This was done taking advantage of the fact that the two species produce sounds associated with reproductive behavior (courtship-associated sounds, CAS). Passive acoustic studies were conducted using DSG-Ocean long-term acoustic recorders deployed at 2 fixed locations within the GB and MCD prior to Nassau and yellowfin grouper spawning seasons in 2011 and 2012. Ultrasonic telemetry data were analyzed from a separate previous fish tracking study carried out from 2007 to 2012. 43

Patterns of sound production and ultrasonic acoustic tag detections showed that both species formed spawning aggregations from January through May at the GB, highlighting the current seasonal regulations (1 February to 30 April) as insufficient for protecting spawning stocks during the entire reproductive season. Acoustic tagging confirmed connectivity between the GB and MCD and exposed the broad extent of habitat used, including non-protected areas, during the spawning season. Spawning did not likely occur within the MCD, but the MPA did support abundances of calling individuals during spawning periods, indicating that both species produce CAS away from their spawning sites. This finding coupled with the detection of routine migrations between spawning and non-spawning sites presents a potential mechanism to lead conspecifics to the aggregation site and thereby increase reproductive fitness and spawning output. A continuation and expansion of passive acoustic and ultrasonic telemetry monitoring will be important to define the range of essential reproductive and migratory habitat for Nassau and yellowfin groupers and determine whether the current geographic limits of the GB and MCD should be expanded or modified to ensure the complete protection of spawning stocks, which may be necessary for full recovery and maintenance of these aggregations. The current 3 mo (February through April) GB area and yellowfin grouper fishery closures do not encompass the more extensive spawning period documented for either species in this study and therefore do not prevent incidental catch mortalities outside of the protected areas or season. Biggs and Nemeth (2016) utilized acoustic transmitters and a receiver array to track dog snapper (Lutjanus jocu) and Cubera snapper (Lutjanus cyanopterus) within a multi-species spawning aggregation site at the Grammanik Bank from June 2014 to September 2015. Acoustic detections showed that both species utilized spawning areas of 1.4 to 1.5 km2, centered at the shelf promontory. The aggregation area of L. cyanopterus was situated along the shelf edge; the L. jocu aggregation may have been displaced by L. cyanopterus as it occupied some of the inner shelf as well. Receivers along the shelf edge recorded the longest residence times during the hours of spawning (16:45 to 20:00 h), suggesting this is likely a spawning site for both species. L. cyanopterus aggregated monthly from May through November, with residence time peaking in August. L. jocu aggregated monthly throughout the year and residence time did not vary significantly by month. Each month, detections increased in the week before and the first week after the full moon, but then decreased to zero by the third week after the full moon. This study outlines the spatial and temporal dimensions of the spawning aggregation, which can be applied to the management and development of protected areas. Bernard et al. 2016 studied some aspects of population genetic dynamics of the Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) at two localities in the Greater Caribbean: Cayman Island and USVI (site at GB). The authors addressed two objectives: to explore which factors (i.e., local vs. external recruitment) might be key in shaping the Nassau grouper USVI FSA population recovery; and examined the consequences of severe past overfishing on this FSA’s current genetic status. They genotyped individuals (15 microsatellites) from the USVI FSA comprising three successive spawning years (2008–2010), as well as individuals from a much larger, presumably less impacted, Nassau grouper FSA in the Cayman Islands, to assess their comparative population dynamics. No population structure was detected between the USVI and Cayman FSAs (FST = −0.0004); however, a temporally waning, genetic bottleneck signal was detected in the USVI FSA. Parentage analysis failed to identify any parent–offspring matches between USVI FSA adults and nearby juveniles, and relatedness analysis showed low levels of genetic relatedness among USVI FSA individuals. Genetic diversity across USVI FSA temporal collections was relatively high, and no marked differences were found between the USVI and Cayman FSAs. These collective results suggest that 44

external recruitment is an important driver of the USVI FSA recovery. Furthermore, despite an apparent genetic bottleneck, the genetic diversity of USVI Nassau grouper has not been severely compromised. Our findings also provide a baseline for future genetic monitoring of the nascent USVI aggregation. Jossart et al. (2017) examined environmental factors that influence detection variability on a mesophotic coral reef south of St. Thomas (GB and MCD). Data from a stationary transmitter were examined against numerous environmental variables from June to September 2011. A generalized linear model was used to examine the daily detection proportion response to eight different environmental variables. Factors which had strong negative effects on detections received included when the current direction was flowing from receiver to transmitter, current speeds above 0.2 ms−1, a strong temperature gradient between transmitter and receiver, and increased water temperature. Detections varied throughout the different time periods of the day with sunset and sunrise having significantly lower detections than day, and sunset having significantly lower detections than night. The results highlight the importance of conducting a long-term range test and will aid design of future passive acoustic telemetry studies on mesophotic coral reefs. Kadison et al. (2017) used two long-term fisheries independent datasets, collected by the U.S. Virgin Islands Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment, to compare both the occurrence and size of several species of large and commercially important reef fishes between the northern USVI St. Thomas and St. John) and St. Croix. These fishes are primarily apex piscivores and generally the first species overexploited in small-scale fisheries. The disparities between the fish communities on the two island shelves cannot be explained solely by differences in habitat (coral cover, rugosity) or fisheries management, such as the relative amount of marine protected area in local waters. They are instead caused by a combination of other interrelated factors including water depth, fishing methodology, fishable area, and the presence or absence of viable fish spawning areas. The authors discuss the possible positive effect that the two southern St. Thomas reserves (GB and MCD) are so close together and surrounded by a wide island shelf, while the St Croix reserves are more isolated from each other and are surrounded by a narrower island platform. The authors suggest that St. Croix is an example of a severely overfished Caribbean island, and this study illustrates the need for management of artisanal fisheries that is tailored to the physical and spatial constraints imposed by shallow insular platforms. Rowell et al. (2018) identified a new sound produced by Nassau Grouper (Epinephelus striatus) in association with, although potentially not exclusive to, an agonistic interaction at a spawning aggregation. A synchronous audio—video recorder was deployed at BS at a depth of 50 m. This sound was compared with an unidentified ambient sound previously recorded at GB in 2011. The two sounds matched and allowed the authors to establish that they were produced by the same species of grouper. The authors also provided a behavioral and acoustic description for identification of this sound in future studies. The discovery of a third type of sound produced by Nassau Grouper further highlights the importance of acoustic communication coupled with visual displays in fishes, and enhances our ability to decipher patterns of different behaviors. Furthermore, identification of a new sound increases the ability to document the presence of this endangered species at spawning sites. Future efforts may reveal that the sound is produced within additional behavioral contexts during and outside of spawning seasons, such as the defense of territories or food resources. Continued efforts to catalogue the sounds and behaviors of species like Nassau Grouper will increase our ability to monitor and understand fish behaviors.

Cherubin et al. (2020) presented a new persistent robotic approach to conduct Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) surveys and its application to the study of grouper FSA dynamics. The experimental phase was conducted at GB and Red Hind Marine Conservation District. To facilitate fish call detections, the authors developed an algorithm based on machine learning and voice recognition methods to identify and classify the sounds known to be produced by certain species during FSA. This algorithm currently operates on a SV3 Liquid Robotics wave glider, an autonomous surface vehicle which has been fitted to accommodate a passive acoustic listening device and can cover large areas under a wide range of sea conditions. Fish sounds detections, classification results, and locations along with environmental data are transmitted in real-time enabling verification of the sites with high detections by divers or other in situ methods. Recent surveys in the US Virgin Islands with the SV3 Wave Glider are revealing for the first time the spatial and temporal distribution of fish calls surrounding known FSA sites. These findings are critical to understanding the dynamics of fish populations because calling fish were detected several kilometers away from the known FSAs. These courtship associated sounds from surrounding areas suggest that other FSAs may exist in the region. Nemeth et al. 2020 assessed the yellowfin grouper (Mycteroperca venenosa) reproductive characteristics, movement patterns and courtship behaviors associated at GB, between 2004 and 2014. The aim of this study was to (1) document the spatial and temporal patterns of M. venenosa around the GB FSA (fish spawning aggregation), (2) examine changes in annual spawning population characteristics (length frequency, sex ratios), (3) examine the reproductive biology of females through histological analysis, and (4) describe and quantify M. venenosa spawning behavior and coloration patterns. Underwater visual counts of groupers on the GB were made from December 2002 to August 2014. The UVC were conducted on technical NITROX (2002–2007) or closed circuit rebreathers (2008–2014) using a variety of techniques. Some groupers were collected between March 2004 and April 2010. Captured yellowfin groupers were measured, sexed using a portable field ultrasound or by squeezing the abdomen for milt, and tagged. The fish were released close to the collection site using a release cage that could be opened remotely when it reached the sea floor. A subset of female yellowfin groupers captured 2–12 days after full moon during March and April in 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010, were sacrificed (or had died) to examine their reproductive biology. Fish arrived at the FSA site around full moon and departed 10–12 days after full moon (dafm), during two or three consecutive months, from January to May each year. Males were significantly larger than females and preceded females at the spawning site. Courtship coloration and behaviors showed distinct patterns relative to lunar date and time of day. Spawning was observed for several days each month in 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2014, from 6 to 10 dafm. Female gonadosomatic index (GSI) values were highest from 4 to 7 dafm. Spawning, which began at sunset, consisted of 7 to 12 males following one female along the bottom before ascending 10–20 m, then “rushing” upward to release gametes. Histological analysis of ovaries indicated females spawned every 2–3 nights, although 11.6% were capable of spawning two consecutive nights. Total spawning population size of yellowfin grouper fluctuated from 600 to 1100 fish during the study period. Based on size-frequency analysis and other metrics, the M. venenosa spawning population at the GB appears to be stable at this time with existing regulations.

6. Hind Bank Marine Conservation District (MCD) 6.1 History and description of MCD Hind Bank Marine Conservation District (Seasonal Fishing Closure Area) was initially designated by NOAA in 1990 as an area of approximately 14 square nautical miles in the EEZ southwest of St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands to manage red hind spawning aggregations (Epinephelus guttatus). Initially, the closure runs from December 1 through February 28 each year (Federal Register 1990). In 1999, this area was declared a year-round no-take area and called Red Hind Marine Conservation District. This was a consequence of a cooperative effort between the CFMC and local fishers to protect deep coral reefs and improve fishery resources (Federal Register 1999). MCD has a total area of 44.6 km2 and is located in the EEZ at 18°13.2’N 65°06.0’ W; 18°13.2’ N 64°59.0’ W, and 18°11.8’ N 64°59.0’ W; 18°10.7’ N 65°06.0’ W (Federal Register 1990) (Figure 18). The no-take area is also 44.6 km2. MCD is governed by the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CFMC), The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), and the Virgin Islands Department of Natural Resources (VI-DPNR). MCD is a year round notake zone (Pittman et al. 2014, Schärer-Umpierre et al. 2014). Within the MCD is a known red hind Epinephelus guttatus FSA site (Nemeth 2005). Regulations enacted at this MPA have resulted in increases in fish size, numbers, and landings of red hind (Nemeth 2005). The MCD also supports an FSA of tiger grouper Mycteroperca tigris but not Nassau or yellowfin grouper.

Figure 18. Location of the Hind Bank Marine Conservation District (MCD).

6.2 Marine ecosystems present in MCD The MCD is located southwest of St Thomas on the border of the Puerto Rican shelf (Fig 18). The benthic composition of the MCD (44.6 km2) includes consolidated and unconsolidated habitats (Fig 19) at depths of 30 to 60 m (Smith et al. 2010). Two-thirds of the MCD is covered by dense coral reefs (coral cover = 24.1%) dominated by Orbicella spp. (formerly Montastraea spp.). Among the consolidated habitats there are extensive mesophotic coral reefs and colonized hard bottoms (pavements). The coral reefs are morphologically diverse with primary, secondary, and tertiary high banks (35.8% of the MCD). It also has patch/low banks, hardground flat bottoms (18%), and rugose hillock basins (6.5%) containing thousands of coral knolls (2-10 m high). Among the unconsolidated habitats, there are sand channels and algal plains (Smith et al. 2010). Figure 19 shows the distribution of these habitats across the MCD.

Fig 19. Habitats within the Hind Bank Marine Conservation District, St. Thomas, USVI (from Smith et al. 2010).

6.3 Condition and changes through time of marine ecosystems within MCD TCRMP run by scientists of the UVI has two permanent sampling sites at MCD. These sampling spots are named “College Shoal East” and “Hind Bank East FSA”. The first site, 30 m depth, is located at 18,18568 N and -65,07677 W, and the second, 39 m depth, is located at 18.20217 N and -65.00158 W (Ennis et al. 2019). Both sites had been monitored since 2003, with permanent transects installed in 2007. Changes in benthic community structure, coral health, and reef fish have been documented since then. The main documented changes are summarized below. According to the 2019 TCRMP report (Ennis et al. 2019), the condition of marine ecosystems at both sites in the MCD can be summarized by the decrease since 2012-2013 in coral cover of Orbicella (the most abundant coral). The likely reason for this coral cover decrease is the higher prevalence of white diseases. Additionally, during this same period of time, macroalgae cover has maintained an upward trend.

The prevalence and extent of bleaching at TCRMP sites are shown in figure 13. At the College Shoal East site, the 2005 event was the strongest, with a prevalence near 50% and an extent higher than 90%. At this site, the 2019 bleaching event had a prevalence near 45% and an extent less than 15%. At the Hind Bank East site, the 2005 event produced a prevalence near 10% and an extent close to 20%. At this site, the 2019 bleaching event had a prevalence higher than 30% and an extent close to 15% (Ennis et al., 2019). According to Ennis et al. (2019) the main threats at the College Shoal East site are i) Coral white diseases at chronically high levels (> 1% prevalence). ii) High abundance of the invasive Indo-Pacific Lionfish (Pterois volitans). The main threats to the Hind Bank East site are i) Susceptibility to chronic coral white diseases. ii) Periodic disease outbreaks follow high thermal stress. iii) High abundance of the Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans), which is affecting juvenile native fish populations.

6.3.1 Benthic community structure Hind Bank site.- The site is dominated by boulder star corals (Orbicella spp.) with a high abundance of lettuce corals (Agaricia spp.). The 2005 bleaching event initially decreased coral cover by 21.8% but since then 71.4% of the lost coral cover has been regained (fig. 20a). The appearance of SCTLD in 2019 has accelerated coral cover decline. The algal community is co-dominated by epilithic algae and the macroalgae Lobophora variegata. Since 2013 macroalgae cover has been increasing (fig. 20b) (Ennis et al., 2019). College Shoal site.- The site is among the TCRMP sites with the highest coral cover (38.2% in 2011) and is dominated by the boulder star coral (Orbicella spp.). This site lost 10.1% of its coral cover after the 2005 bleaching event (fig. 20c) and coral cover has been declining ever since 2012. SCTLD arrived at this site in 2019 and has accelerated the decline of coral cover. The algal community is dominated by the macroalgae Lobophora variegata and lesser proportion by epilithic algae. Since 2014 macroalgae cover has been increasing (fig. 20d) (Ennis et al. (2019).

6.3.2 Coral Health Hind bank site.- Unlike other US Caribbean sites, bleaching has not been detected as a major factor. Bleaching during 2005 was underestimated because sampling occurred before the peak in heat stress. Neither the 2010 or 2019 events were detected during sampling. In later years (Figure 21a), low colony extent bleaching was often associated with granular bleaching. This bleaching pattern shows pigmented spots surrounded by bleached tissue (Ennis et al. 2019). Coral diseases are common at the Hind Bank and may be increasing. Figure 21b shows disease prevalence. White disease was the dominant disease, and in 2011 showed a peak of incidence. In 2009, there was a high prevalence of intercostal mortality syndrome, which is only known from mesophotic coral reefs (Smith et al. 2010b). SCTLD had begun to impact the site since 2019. Partial mortality increased after the 2005 bleaching event and the high prevalence was not reduced until 2011. Recent partial mortality is high and reflects the impacts of disease and predation. Figure 21c shows old and recent mortality prevalence. College Shoal site.- Figure 21d shows bleaching prevalence and bleaching extent. The 2005 bleaching event had a low prevalence, although corals that bleached tended to lose color over their entire surface. The 2010 coral bleaching event had no apparent effect above background bleaching levels. Bleaching in years without thermal stress tends to be moderate. Diseases were dominated by white disease, which reached very high prevalence after the 2005 bleaching event, with an outbreak that lasted for two years in 2006 and 2007. 49

This disease was again very prevalent in 2011 after the 2010 bleaching event, even without apparent thermal bleaching. The impacts of SCTLD were very severe in 2019, with about 25% of colonies displaying disease signs that were likely related. Figure 21e shows disease prevalence. Old partial mortality was elevated on corals after the mortality from the 2005 bleaching event, and this level has remained stable through 2011. Recent partial mortality is always relatively high, much of it attributable to fish bites. Figure 21f shows old and recent mortality prevalence (Ennis et al. 2019).

Figure 20. MCD benthic cover through time (mean ± SE). a, Hind Bank East site coral cover; b, Hind Bank East site cover of other benthic community components; c, College Shoal East site coral cover; b, College Shoal East site cover of other benthic community components (from Ennis et al. 2019).

6.3.3 Reef fish The “Hind Bank” monitoring site (a TCRMP site) hosts a multispecies spawning aggregation, including a recovering population of the commercially important red hind grouper (Epinephelus guttatus). Data from early 2000s and later during the TCRMP have corroborated the rebuilding of the red hind’s population at this site (Nemeth 2005, Ennis et al. 2019).

Figure 21. MCD coral health through time (mean ± SE). a, Hind Bank East site prevalence and extent of bleaching; b, Hind Bank East site prevalence of reported diseases; c, Hind Bank East site prevalence of old and recent mortality; d, College Shoal East site prevalence and extent of bleaching; e, College Shoal East site prevalence of reported diseases; f, College Shoal East site prevalence of old and recent mortality (from Ennis et al. 2019). 51

6.4 Reported species within MCD TCRMP has two sampling points within MCD (College Shoal East and Hind Bank East). Additionally, in 2006 and 2008, two studies characterized this Marine Managed Area (Armstrong et al. 2006, Nemeth et al. 2008). The results from these studies about variation in benthic species and reef fish are summarized below. There are 74 species/taxonomic groups of benthic algae, sponge, scleractinian corals, hydrocorals, and octocorals reported within MCD (Table 14). The most abundant groups are algal turfs and the macroalgae Lobophora variegata. Among scleractinian corals, the most common are Orbicella spp. and Agaricia spp. Table 14. Most representative benthic species recorded by the TCRMP, Armstrong et al. 2006, Nemeth et al. 2008 at the MCD. Species/Groups

Type

Species/Groups

Type

Agaricia agaricites

Scleractinian

Siderastrea siderea

Scleractinian

Agaricia grahamae

Scleractinian

Millepora alcicornis

Hydrocoral

Agaricia humilis

Scleractinian

Ellisella barbadensis

Octocoral

Agaricia lamarcki 3

Scleractinian

Gorgonia sp.

Octocoral

Agaricia undata

Scleractinian

Leptogorgia hebes

Octocoral

Colpophyllia natans

Scleractinian

Plexaurella nutans

Octocoral

Diploria labyrinthiformis

Scleractinian

Pseudoplexaura sp.

Octocoral

Dichocoenia stokesii

Scleractinian

Pseudopterogorgia sp.

Octocoral

Eusmilia fastigiata

Scleractinian

Agelas clathrodes

Sponge

Helioseris cucullata

Scleractinian

Agelas conifera

Sponge

Madracis decactis

Scleractinian

Amphimedon compressa

Sponge

Madracis mirabilis

Scleractinian

Clionia delitrix

Sponge

Montastraea cavernosa

Scleractinian

Geodia neptuni

Sponge

Mycetophyllia ferox

Scleractinian

Xestospongia muta

Sponge

Orbicella faveolata 2

Scleractinian

Cladophora spp.

Macroalgae

Orbicella franksii 1

Scleractinian

Dictyota spp. **

Macroalgae

Porites astreoides

Scleractinian

Lobophora variegata *

Macroalgae

Porites porites

Scleractinian

Udotea cyathiformis

Macroalgae

Scolymia cubensis

Scleractinian

Peyssonellia spp. **

Calcareous Macroalgae

Solenastrea bournoni

Scleractinian

Turf algae *

Stephanocoenia intercepta

Scleractinian

Filamentous cyanobacteria **

Turf Cyanobacteria

Table 15. Representative commercially important fish species recorded by the TCRMP, Nemeth et al. 2008 at the MCD. Scientific Name1

Common Name1

Fisheries2

UICN Red List Status3

Trophic Group1

Cephalopholis cruentata

Graysby

Groupers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Cephalopholis fulva

Coney

Groupers

Least Concern

Invertivore

Epinephelus guttatus

Red hind

Groupers

Least Concern

Invertivore

Epinephelus striatus

Nassau grouper

Groupers

Critically Endangered

Piscivore

Mycteroperca interstitialis

Yellowmouth grouper Groupers

Vulnerable

Piscivore

Mycteroperca tigris

Tiger grouper

Groupers

Data Deficient

Piscivore

Mycteroperca venenosa

Yellowfin grouper

Groupers

Near Threatened

Piscivore

Paranthias furcifer

Creolefish

Groupers

Least Concern

Planktivore

Lutjanus analis

Mutton snapper

Snappers

Near Threatened

Piscivore

Lutjanus apodus

Schoolmaster

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus buccanella

Blackfin snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Piscivore

Lutjanus cyanopterus

Cubera snapper

Snappers

Vulnerable

Piscivore

Lutjanus griseus

Gray snapper

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus jocu

Dog snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Piscivore

Lutjanus mahogani

Mahogany snapper

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus synagris

Lane snapper

Snappers

Near Threatened

Piscivore

Ocyurus chrysurus

Yellowtail snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Planktivore

Caranx crysos

Blue runner

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx latus

Horse eye jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx lugubris

Black jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx ruber

Bar jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Seriola dumerili

Greater amberjack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Seriola rivoliana

Almaco jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Balistes vetula

Queen trigger

Triggerfish

Near Threatened

Invertivore

Canthidermis sufflamen

Ocean trigger

Triggerfish

Least Concern

Planktivore

Calamus bajonado

Jolthead porgy

Porgies

Least Concern

Invertivore

Calamus calamus

Saucereye porgy

Porgies

Least Concern

Invertivore

Holacanthus ciliaris

Queen angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Invertivore

Pomacanthus arcuatus

Gray angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Spongivore

Pomacanthus paru

French angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Invertivore

Scarus guacamaia

Rainbow parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Near Threatened

Herbivore

Scarus taeniopterus

Princess parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Sparisoma aurofrenatum

Redband parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Sparisoma viride

Stoplight parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

1 From Ennis et al. 2019; 2 According to CFMC 2005; 3 According to UICN Red List Status

The fish community at MCD is composed of 142 species (Tables 15 and 16). Table 15 shows the commercially important fish species with their fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005), conservation status according to the IUCN red list, and trophic group according to Ennis et al. (2019). The commercially important species registered at MCD are groupers (red hind, yellowmouth grouper, tiger grouper, Nassau grouper, yellowfin grouper, coney, graysby) and snappers (schoolmaster, mutton snapper, dog snapper, gray snapper, cubera snapper). Table 16 shows representative fish species found at this site and their fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005). Note that in 2011, the presence of the lionfish was already registered in this Marine Managed Area. Table 16. Other fish species recorded by the TCRMP at the MCD. Scientific Name1 Common Name1 Fisheries2 Cantherhines macrocerus Whitespotted filefish Triggerfish Melichthys niger Black durgon Triggerfish Xanthichthys ringens Sargassum triggerfish Triggerfish Mulloidichthys martinicus Yellow goatfish Goatfish Mulloidichthys martinicus Yellow goatfish Goatfish Pseudupeneus maculatus Spotted goatfish Goatfish Anisotremus surinamensis Black margate Grunt Anisotremus virginicus Porkfish Grunt Haemulon flavolineatum French grunt Grunt Haemulon plumierii White grunt Grunt Haemulon sciurus Bluestriped grunt Grunt Holocentrus adscensionis Squirrelfish Squirrelfish Holocentrus rufus Longspine squirrelfish Squirrelfish Myripristis jacobus Blackbar soldierfish Squirrelfish Holocentrus rufus Longspine squirrelfish Squirrelfish Myripristis jacobus Blackbar soldierfish Squirrelfish Acanthurus bahianus Ocean surgeonfish Surgeonfish Acanthurus chirurgus Doctorfish Surgeonfish Acanthurus coeruleus Blue tang Surgeonfish Bodianus rufus Spanish hogfish Wrasses Lachnolaimus maximus Hogfish Wrasses Pterois volitans Lionfish Scomberomorus cavalla King mackerel Scomberomorus regalis Cero Sphyraena barracuda Great barracuda Carcharhinus leucas Bull shark Carcharhinus perezi Caribbean reef shark Ginglymostoma cirratum Nurse shark Galeocerdo cuvier Tiger shark Negaprion brevirostris Lemon shark 1 From Ennis et al. 2019; 2 According to CFMC 2005. From Nemeth et al. 2008.

6.5 Primary scientific studies that have or are taking place within MCD The scientific studies that have been conducted within MCD related to the performance of marine reserves have described and monitored the behavior over time of fish species that use these reserves as sites of spawning aggregation. To this end, these studies had used different and novel technologies. The most recent studies carried out at MCD and their main findings are summarized below Nemeth et al. (2007) compared the spatial and temporal patterns of red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) movement and migration from annual spawning aggregations on St. Thomas (MCD) and St. Croix (Lang Bank). Around ST. Thomas E. guttatus migrated 6–33 km from a functional spawning migration area of 500 km2 and around St. Croix E. guttatus migrated 5–18 km from an area of 90 km2. Similarities between sites were found in regards to timing of movement, temporal and spatial changes in sex ratios, annual and lunar predictability and were synchronized with environmental cues. E. guttatus spawning aggregations in the Virgin Islands occur between the winter solstice (i.e., after December 20) and about February 20 of any year and show a distinctive peak 20–40 days after the winter solstice. Spawning typically occurred during periods of declining seawater temperature and slacking currents within a temperature range of 26–27.5°C and current speed of 2.5–3.5 cm s–1. Males arrived early to spawning sites and stayed longer than females. These gender-based behavioral patterns are important to E. guttatus reproductive dynamics and must be factored into future studies and the design of fisheries regulations to ensure sustainability of spawning aggregation sites. The predictability of E. guttatus spawning aggregations relative to the winter solstice will be extremely beneficial for defining the temporal and spatial aspects of area closures. The consistency and synchrony of movement and migration will improve both the efficiency of planning research and monitoring programs and directing enforcement activities during critical time periods. Applying this knowledge strategically will maximize the limited resources available for research and enforcement and lead to greater protection of spawning aggregations. Nemeth et al. (2008) investigated what factors influence timing of spawning or selection of aggregation sites in red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) in the eastern Caribbean. The surveys were conducted at MCD, Lang Bank and Saba from December 2005 through February 2006. These data were compared to seven years of previous research on red hind spawning within the USVI. At each site visual counts were conducted using SCUBA to estimate red hind density, the spawning population was sampled daily to determine female gonado-somatic index., and an acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) was deployed during the spawning season to measure current speed and direction and water temperature. Sea water temperature was relatively uniform across the region. Average daily temperature below 25 m declined from 27.5ºC in December to 26.2ºC in February at all sites, and ranged from 26.5ºC to 26.7ºC during the week of the January full moon when fish were spawning. During the spawning season current speeds ranged from 7 to 21 cm s-1 in Saba, 8 to 30 cm s-1 in St. Croix), and 10 to 22 cm s-1 in St. Thomas. During the week of spawning in January, the average current speed near the reef remained the same or slowed and was 10.4 cm s-1 in Saba, 13.1 cm s-1 in St. Croix, and 15.3 cm s-1 in St. Thomas. General current direction the week before spawning was southwest at all sites. A week later, during spawning (i.e., around full moon) average current direction shifted to 260 (west) in St. Thomas, 196 (south-southwest) in St. Croix, and 178 degrees (south) in Saba. In each case the current would carry fertilized eggs and larvae onto the shelf. Data suggest that the location of spawning sites may be influenced by the presence of slower across-shelf currents that maximize retention of eggs and larvae. The authors also found that the majority of red hind within both St. Thomas and St. Croix spawning populations migrated upcurrent to their respective spawning aggregation sites. If eggs and

newly hatched larvae drift slowly down current, they may be in the vicinity of adult home ranges at time of settlement. If this is occurring, then each red hind spawning aggregation may be composed of a distinct subpopulation that is partly self-recruiting. Due to the vulnerability of spawning aggregations and their potential connection to sustaining the local population through self recruitment, it is critical that all spawning aggregation sites are protected from fishing and marine protected area (MPA) boundaries are appropriate for species-specific behavioral patterns. The knowledge that red hind spawning aggregations are extremely limited in space and time can be applied strategically to maximize the limited resources

available for research, monitoring and enforcement and lead to more effective MPAs and potentially greater protection of spawning aggregations. Cherubin et al. (2011) characterized the flow field at MCD, at the shelf break of the insular shelf, for red hind grouper (Epinephelus guttatus) in relation to this species spawning events. Current measurements were profiled throughout the water column for almost a year at the spawning site. The characteristics of the flow field and its evolution after spawning were investigated by using a numerical ocean model that resolved the observed tide and simulated the island scale flow where passive, neutrally buoyant virtual particles were released for 10 days to trace the flow pathways. Observed currents during the spawning period revealed that the flow was vertically sheared, to the south and weakest at the bottom, and to the west or east at the surface. The tidal analysis revealed that the flow at the time of spawning was directed across and on-shelf, although weaker close to the bottom. The model showed that the initial on-shelf transport was counteracted by the bottom flow directed to the shelf break, where virtual particles were entrained by the downwelling flow. A significant percent of particles resided less than two hundred meters deep, in the vicinity of the chlorophyll maximum and returned to the shelf break, close to the release location within 8–10 days. This journey was largely controlled by the timing between downwelling at the spawning site and upwelling further east at the shelf break, which was driven by the coupling between wind and tide induced vertical movements at the shelf break and deeper. The release location, vertical rotation of its flow field, and its transport properties were shown to be relatively resilient to the passage of transient sub-mesoscale eddies as well as to acute mesoscale flow reversals, suggesting that physical retention is maximized in the area surrounding the spawning site. Schärer-Umpierre et al. (2012b) described sound production by Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) from four different spawning aggregation sites in the Caribbean (BS, Grammnik Bank and Red Hind Marine Conservation District were included in this study). Primary findings were presented in section 4.6. Ibrahim et al. (2019) proposed a method for the classification of call types of red hind grouper Two distinct call types of red hind were analyzed. The grouper calls were recorded at ALS and MCD. Experimental results showed that the innovative approach produces superior results in comparison with those obtained by non-ensemble methods. The algorithm reliably classified red hind call types with over 90% accuracy and successfully detected some calls missed by human observers. Rowell et al. 2015 used passive acoustic and acoustic telemetry methods to determine temporal patterns of reproductive activity, site usage, and fish movements of Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) and yellowfin grouper (Mycteroperca venenosa) in order to assess the effectiveness of current management strategies at two adjacent marine protected areas (MPAs): Grammanik Bank (GB) and Hind Bank Marine Conservation District (MCD). Primary findings were presented in section 5.6.

Jossart et al. (2017) examined environmental factors that influence detection variability on a mesophotic coral reef south of St. Thomas (GB and MCD). Data from a stationary transmitter were examined against numerous environmental variables from June to September 2011. A generalized linear model was used to examine the daily detection proportion response to eight different environmental variables. Factors which had strong negative effects on detections received included when the current direction was flowing from receiver to transmitter, current speeds above 0.2 ms−1, a strong temperature gradient between transmitter and receiver, and increased water temperature. Detections varied throughout the different time periods of the day with sunset and sunrise having significantly lower detections than day, and sunset having significantly lower detections than night. The results highlight the importance of conducting a long-term range test and will aid design of future passive acoustic telemetry studies on mesophotic coral reefs. Kadison et al. (2017) used two long-term fisheries independent datasets, collected by the U.S. Virgin Islands Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment, to compare both the occurrence and size of several species of large and commercially important reef fishes between the northern USVI St. Thomas and St. John) and St. Croix. These fishes are primarily apex piscivores and generally the first species overexploited in small-scale fisheries. The disparities between the fish communities on the two island shelves cannot be explained solely by differences in habitat (coral cover, rugosity) or fisheries management, such as the relative amount of marine protected area in local waters. They are instead probably caused by a combination of several other interrelated factors including water depth, fishing methodology, fishable area, and the presence or absence of viable fish spawning areas. The authors discuss the possible positive effect that the two southern St. Thomas reserves (GB and MCD) are so close together and surrounded by a wide island shelf, while the St Croix reserves are more isolated from each other and are surrounded by a narrower island platform. The authors believe that St. Croix may be an example of a severely overfished Caribbean island, and this study illustrates the need for management of artisanal fisheries that is tailored to the physical and spatial constraints imposed by shallow insular platforms. Cherubin et al. (2020) presented a new persistent robotic approach to conduct Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) surveys and its application to the study of grouper FSA dynamics. The experimental phase was conducted at GB and Red Hind Marine Conservation District. To facilitate fish call detections, the authors developed an algorithm based on machine learning and voice recognition methods to identify and classify the sounds known to be produced by certain species during FSA. Primary findings were presented in section 5.6.

7. Lang Bank Red Hind Spawning Aggregation Area (LB) 7.1 History and description of LB Lang Bank (red hind spawning aggregation area) was established by NMFS via the MSFC & M Act in 1993 (Federal Register 1993) to improve fisheries management, emphasizing protecting red hind spawning aggregations (Epinephelus guttatus). LB has a total area of 11.7 km2 and is located in the EEZ offshore eastern of St. Croix at A 17°50.2’ N 64°27.9’ W; B 17°50.1’ N 64°26.1’ W; C 17°49.2’ N 64°25.8’ W; D 17°48.6’ N 64°25.8’ W; E 17°48.1’ N 64°26.1’ W; F 17°47.5’ N 64°26.9’ W (Fig. 22). The no-take area is 11.7 km2. LB is governed by the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CFMC), The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), and the Virgin Islands Department of Natural Resources (VI-DPNR). MCD is a seasonal no-take zone between December 1 to February 28 (Pittman et al. 2014, Schärer-Umpierre et al. 2014).

Figure 22. Location of the Lang Bank Red Hind Spawning Aggregation Area (LB)

7.2 Marine ecosystems present in LB LB is a submerged coral reef system located along the north-eastern shelf of St. Croix, USVI. LB is an offshore MCE (Ennis et al., 2019). At 30-50 m depth, there are five benthic habitats, including a Bank Coral Reef system, Colonized Pavement, Colonized Rhodolith Reef, Spur, and Groove Reef, and Patch Reef (Fig. 23). The Bank Coral Reef habitat occupied an estimated ~32% of the total area surveyed. It is a massive continuous formation of scleractinian corals, particularly boulder star corals (Orbicella franksii) throughout the deep outer shelf basin of the bank, with an average live coral cover of 29%. The Colonized Pavement was the most extensive habitat surveyed within the 30 –50 m depth range occupying 41% of the total area surveyed. The Spur and Groove habitat resembled a neritic habitat that extends until the bank's shallower margin. It is the habitat where spawning aggregations of red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) had been reported. The Path Reefs were mainly found near the boundaries of the Bank Coral Reef at the deep basin walls, occupying 9.3% of the total area surveyed. The Colonized Rhodolith Reef habitats were observed mainly down the insular slope of the outer shelf break, occupying 14.9 % of the monitored area. The Bank Coral Reef showed a relatively high composition of live coral cover. However, sponges are the most diverse group of benthic organisms in LB, with twice as many species as coral species.

Figure 23. Benthic habitat map of Lang Bank, St. Croix USVI (from García-Sais et al. 2014).

7.3 Condition and changes through time of marine ecosystems within LB TCRMP, run by UVI scientists, has a permanent sampling site at LB (17,82372 N and -64,44943 W). This sampling area is named "Lang Hind site" (Ennis et al., 2019). Lang Hind was initially monitored in 2001 at a site on the shallower (24 m) portion of the bank to the west. Monitoring in 2004-2007 occurred along random transects in a deeper part of the reef (~33 m depth), and benthic transects were made permanent in this site in 2009. According to Ennis et al. (2019), the main threat at the Lang Hind site is that the aggregation site is near the closure boundary. Changes in benthic community structure, coral health, and reef fish are summarized below.

7.3.1 Benthic community structure According to Ennis et al. (2019) Lang Hind has a diverse sessile epibenthic community dominated by hard corals, predominantly Orbicella spp., gorgonians, and sponges. Coral cover at this site was affected in less extent by the 2005 bleaching event. Since 2009 coral cover has remained relatively stable (fig. 24a). The algal community is dominated by epilithic algal communities, although Lobophora variegata and filamentous cyanobacteria are also important. The algal community shows high inter-annual variability (fig 24b).

7.3.2 Coral Health During this time of monitoring, the 2005 event has been the strongest event with a prevalence of 80% bleaching and an extent higher than 80%. The 2019 bleaching event had a prevalence of 40% and an extent less than 20% (figure 13) (Ennis et al., 2019). Ennis et al. (2019) summarize the main changes in coral health at Lang Hind site during monitoring as follows: This site was heavily affected during the 2005 coral bleaching event, with a very high prevalence of corals that were 100% bleached over the colony surface. Non-thermal bleaching with moderate prevalence and low extent on colonies also occurred in later years (particularly in 2019). Figure 24c shows bleaching prevalence and bleaching extent. The site was also heavily affected by white disease after the 2005 coral bleaching event and has had high disease prevalence in all years of monitoring. Figure 24d shows disease prevalence. Partial mortality showed a sudden increase after the 2005 bleaching event and was variable in later years. Recent partial mortality is unusually high largely as the result of fish bites and predation by the corallivorous snail Coralliophila spp. Figure 24e shows old and recent mortality prevalence.

7.3.3 Reef fish Lang Bank supports a red hind spawning association active during December through February each year (Ennis et al., 2019). One Nassau grouper was observed on the bank in 2011, the first observation across all St. Croix monitoring sites. There is reportedly a historic Nassau grouper spawning site near the Lang Hind monitoring site, and with the bank now closed to trap fishing, there is the hope for the re-establishment of the species on St. Croix. In 2018 a yellowfin grouper was reported on Lang Bank FSA. Also, the TCRMP has observed in St. Croix, after years of absence, the Nassau grouper and the yellowfin grouper (Ennis et al., 2019). These encouraging findings should be followed within the framework of the management measures recently implemented in this marine reserve ( i.e., the bank is now closed to trap

fishing). On the other hand, lionfish have been reported since 2011, but its abundance has not increased significantly within this reserve. This is another aspect to follow up on.

Figure 24. Lang Bank benthic cover and coral health through time (mean ± SE). a, Coral cover; b, Cover of other benthic community components; c, Prevalence and extent of bleaching; d, Prevalence of reported diseases; e, Prevalence of old and recent mortality (from Ennis et al. 2019).

7.4 Reported species within LB TCRMP has a sampling site within MCD (Lang Hind). Additionally, in 2014 a study characterized this Marine Managed Area and found new benthic biota and reef fishes (García- Sais et al. 2014). The results from these studies on the benthic species and reef fish are summarized below. There are 98 species/taxonomic groups of benthic algae, sponge, scleractinian corals, hydrocorals, and octocoral species reported within MCD (Table 17). The most abundant groups are algal turfs and the macroalgae Lobophora variegata. Sponges are the most diverse taxonomic group, with 53 recorded species. Among scleractinian corals, the most common is Orbicella franksii. Table 17. Most representative benthic species recorded by TCRMP and Garcia- Saez et al, 2014 at the LB. Species/Groups

Type

Species/Groups

Type

Agaricia agaricites

Scleractinian

Briareum sp.

Octocoral

Agaricia grahamae

Scleractinian

Erythropodium caribaeorum

Octocoral

Agaricia lamarcki

Scleractinian

Eunicea spp.

Octocoral

Colpophyllia natans

Scleractinian

Muriceopsis spp.

Octocoral

Diploria labyrinthiformis

Scleractinian

Plexaurella sp.

Octocoral

Dichocoenia stokesii

Scleractinian

Pseudoplexaura sp.

Octocoral

Eusmilia fastigiata

Scleractinian

Pterogorgia sp.

Octocoral

Helioseris cucullata

Scleractinian

Agelas clathrodes

Sponge

Madracis areolata

Scleractinian

Agelas conifera

Sponge

Madracis decactis

Scleractinian

Amphimedon compressa

Sponge

Meandrina meandrites

Scleractinian

Clionia delitrix

Sponge

Montastraea cavernosa

Scleractinian

Geodia neptuni

Sponge

Mycetophyllia ferox

Scleractinian

Ircinia campana

Sponge

Orbicella faveolata

Scleractinian

Niphates erecta

Sponge

Orbicella franksii

Scleractinian

Verongula sp.

Sponge

Porites astreoides

Scleractinian

Xestospongia muta

Sponge

Porites porites

Scleractinian

Dictyota sp.

Macroalgae

Pseudodiploria strigosa

Scleractinian

Halimeda sp.

Macroalgae

Siderastrea siderea

Scleractinian

Lobophora sp.

Macroalgae

Stephanocoenia intersepta

Scleractinian

Stypopodium sp.

Macroalgae

Millepora alcicornis

Scleractinian

Turf algae *

Antillogorgia sp.

Octocoral

Filamentous cyanobacteria **

Turf Cyanobacteria

The fish community at MCD is composed of 115 species (Tables 18 and 19). Table 18 shows the commercially important fish species with their fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005), conservation status according to the IUCN red list, and trophic group according to Ennis et al. (2019). The commercially important species registered at MCD are groupers (red hind, coney, graysby) and snappers (mutton snapper, mahogany snapper, schoolmaster). Table 19 shows representative fish species found at this site and their fisheries status

according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005). Note that since 2011, the presence of the lionfish was already registered in this Marine Managed Area. Table 18. Representative commercially important fish species recorded by TCRMP and Garcia- Saez et al, 2014 at the LB. Scientific Name1

Common Name1

Fisheries2

UICN Red List Status3

Trophic Group1

Graysby Coney

Groupers Groupers

Least Concern Least Concern

Piscivore Invertivore

Red hind

Groupers

Least Concern

Invertivore

Epinephelus striatus

Nassau grouper

Groupers

Critically Endangered

Piscivore

Mycteroperca interstitialis

Yellowmouth grouper Groupers

Vulnerable

Piscivore

Mycteroperca tigris

Tiger grouper

Groupers

Data Deficient

Piscivore

Mycteroperca venenosa

Yellowfin grouper

Groupers

Near Threatened

Piscivore

Paranthias furcifer

Creolefish

Groupers

Least Concern

Planktivore

Lutjanus analis

Mutton snapper

Snappers

Near Threatened

Piscivore

Lutjanus apodus

Schoolmaster

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus buccanella

Blackfin snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Piscivore

Lutjanus cyanopterus

Cubera snapper

Snappers

Vulnerable

Piscivore

Lutjanus griseus

Gray snapper

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus jocu

Dog snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Piscivore

Lutjanus mahogani

Mahogany snapper

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus synagris

Lane snapper

Snappers

Near Threatened

Piscivore

Ocyurus chrysurus

Yellowtail snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Planktivore

Caranx bartholomaei

Yellow jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx crysos

Blue runner

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx latus

Horse eye jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx lugubris

Black jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx ruber

Bar jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Seriola rivoliana

Almaco jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Balistes vetula

Queen trigger

Triggerfish

Near Threatened

Invertivore

Canthidermis sufflamen

Ocean trigger

Triggerfish

Least Concern

Planktivore

Holacanthus ciliaris

Queen angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Invertivore

Pomacanthus arcuatus

Gray angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Spongivore

Pomacanthus paru

French angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Invertivore

Scarus guacamaia

Rainbow parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Near Threatened

Herbivore

Scarus taeniopterus

Princess parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Scarus vetula

Queen parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Sparisoma aurofrenatum

Redband parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Sparisoma rubripinne

Yellowtail parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Stoplight parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Cephalopholis fulva cruentata Epinephelus guttatus

Sparisoma viride 1

From Ennis et al. 2019; According to CFMC 2005; According to UICN Red List Status

Table 19. Other fish species recorded by TCRMP and Garcia- Saez et al, 2014 at the LB. Scientific Name1

Common Name1

Fisheries2

Cantherhines macrocerus

Whitespotted filefish

Triggerfish

Melichthys niger

Black durgon

Triggerfish

Xanthichthys ringens

Sargassum triggerfish

Triggerfish

Mulloidichthys martinicus

Yellow goatfish

Goatfish

Pseudupeneus maculatus

Spotted goatfish

Goatfish

Anisotremus virginicus

Porkfish

Grunt

Haemulon aurolineatum

Tomtate

Grunt

Haemulon flavolineatum

French grunt

Grunt

Haemulon plumierii

White grunt

Grunt

Haemulon sciurus

Bluestriped grunt

Grunt

Holocentrus adscensionis

Squirrelfish

Holocentrus rufus

Longspine squirrelfish

Squirrelfish

Myripristis jacobus

Blackbar soldierfish

Squirrelfish

Holocentrus rufus

Longspine squirrelfish

Squirrelfish

Myripristis jacobus

Blackbar soldierfish

Squirrelfish

Acanthurus bahianus

Ocean surgeonfish

Surgeonfish

Acanthurus chirurgus

Doctorfish

Surgeonfish

Acanthurus coeruleus

Blue tang

Surgeonfish

Malacanthus plumieri

Sand tilefish

Tilefish

Bodianus rufus

Spanish hogfish

Wrasses

Lachnolaimus maximus

Hogfish

Wrasses

Pterois volitans

Lionfish

Scomberomorus regalis

Cero

Sphyraena barracuda

Great barracuda

Dasyatis americana

Southern stingray

Carcharhinus perezi

Caribbean reef shark

Ginglymostoma cirratum

Nurse shark

7.5 Primary scientific studies that have or are taking place within LB The primary fisheries scientific studies at LB are summarized below. Nemeth et al. (2007) compared the spatial and temporal patterns of red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) movements and migrations from annual spawning aggregations on St. Thomas (MCD) and St. Croix (Lang Bank). Around St. Thomas, E. guttatus migrated 6–33 km from a functional spawning area of 500 km2, and around St. Croix, E. guttatus migrated 5–18 km from a place 90 km2 apart. Similar movement timing, temporal and spatial changes in sex ratios, annual and lunar predictability were synchronized with

environmental cues. E. guttatus spawning aggregations in the Virgin Islands occur between the winter solstice (i.e., after December 20) and February 20 of every year and show a distinctive peak 20–40 days after the winter solstice. Nemeth et al. (2008) investigated what factors influence timing of spawning or selection of aggregation sites in red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) in the eastern Caribbean. The surveys were conducted at MCD, Lang Bank, and Saba from December 2005 through February 2006. Authors compared to seven years of previous research on red hind spawning within the USVI. At each site, visual counts were conducted using SCUBA diving to estimate red hind density. The spawning population was sampled daily to determine the female gonadal-somatic index. An acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) was deployed during the spawning season to measure current speed, direction, and water temperature. Primary findings were presented in section 6.6. García-Sais et al. (2014) characterized the mesophotic habitats of LB. Also, they conducted an independent fishery survey of 22 commercially important fish and two shellfish species (queen conch and spiny lobster). Only the two shellfish and four fish species were represented by more than 15 individuals in this fisheryindependent survey. The main findings of these surveys are presented below. The invasive lionfish (Pterois sp.), species with potential commercial value as food, was the most abundant fish larger than 25 cm and occurred within the entire mesophotic depth range studied. Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) showed densities within the range estimated from visual surveys at other mesophotic habitats within the Caribbean basin. Mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) was the most abundant commercially important snapper observed from all benthic habitats studied. The queen triggerfish (Balistes vetula) was observed from all mesophotic habitats. It showed sizes near the maximum length reported for the Caribbean, suggesting that their population at mesophotic habitats from LB are not severely overfished. Queen conch (Strombus gigas) were observed in very high densities (up 50 Ind/1000m2) but mainly concentrated on Colonized Rhodolith Reef habitats. Spiny lobsters (Panulirus argus) were highly abundant at LB, particularly at the Colonized Pavement habitat. Kadison et al. (2017) used two long-term fisheries independent datasets, collected by the U.S. Virgin Islands Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment, to compare both the occurrence and size of several species of large and commercially important reef fishes between the northern USVI St. Thomas and St. John) and St. Croix. These fishes are primarily apex piscivores and generally the first species overexploited in small-scale fisheries. The disparities between the fish communities on the two island shelves cannot be explained solely by differences in habitat (coral cover, rugosity) or fisheries management, such as the relative amount of marine protected area in local waters. They are instead probably caused by a combination of several other interrelated factors, including water depth, fishing methodology, fishable area, and the presence or absence of viable fish spawning areas. The authors discuss the positive effects of the proximity of the two reserves (GB and MCD) and a wide island shelf. In contrast, LB and MSSA are more isolated and surrounded by a narrower island platform. The authors suggest that St. Croix is an example of a severely overfished Caribbean island. This study illustrates the need to manage artisanal fisheries that are tailored to the physical and spatial constraints imposed by shallow insular platforms.

8. Mutton Snapper Spawning Aggregation (MSSA) 8.1 History and description of MSSA The NMFS using the MSFC & M Act, established the Mutton Snapper Fish Spawning Aggregation area (MSSA) in 1993 as a part of a rule that intended to protect and conserve the highly exploited mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) populations (Federal Register 1993). In 1996, NMFS added a technical change to the regulations to alter the boundary of the MSSA area to make it compatible with USVI regulations (Federal Register 1996). MSSA is located in the territorial waters of USVI offshore SW St. Croix is located at A 17°37.8' N 64°53.0' W; B 17°39.0' N 64°53.0' W; C 17°39.0' N 64°50.5' W; D 17°38.1' N 64°50.5' W; E 17°37.8' N 64°52.5' W (Fig. 25).. The total area is total area: 8.9 km2, and the no-take area is 8.9 km2. MSSA is governed by the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (CFMC), The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), and the Virgin Islands Department of Natural Resources (VI-DPNR). MSSA is a seasonal no-take zone with a closure initially from March 1 to June 30 and amended in 2005 to April 1 to June 30 (Pittman et al. 2014, Schärer-Umpierre et al., 2014).

Figure 25. Location of the Mutton Snapper Spawning Aggregation (MSSA) with the locations of the main studies done at MSSA.

8.2 Marine ecosystems present in MSSA MSSA is recognized as an offshore shallow reef (Ennis et al. 2019). MSA is located 4 km off the southwestern point of the island of St. Croix (USVI). Kojis and Quinn (2011) described the habitat types present within this Marine Management Area. They identified eight habitat types: coral limestone, gorgonian plains, dense algae, sparse algae, algae on sand, algae and invertebrates, sand invertebrates, sand no ripple, sand ripple (Figure 26). Coral limestone habitat corresponds with a spur and groove coral reef and is the habitat with the greatest structural complexity. Most of the other habitats are flat areas with a diverse cover of biota. The spur and groove reef´s sessile epibenthic animal community is dominated by the boulder star coral (Orbicella spp.), with sub-dominance of sponges.

Figure 26 . Benthic habitats presented at Mutton Snapper FSA (Kojis and Quinn 2011).

8.3 Condition and changes through time of marine ecosystems in MSSA The TCRMP, carried out by scientists of the UVI, has a permanent sampling site at MSA. This sampling point is named “Mutton Snapper FSA site”, 24 m depth, at 17,63660 N and -64,86240 W, and has been monitored since 2003. Ennis et al. (2019) showed the prevalence and extent of bleaching at TCRMP sites (figure 13). In the case of the Mutton Snapper FSA site the 2005 event was the strongest, with a prevalence close to 100% and an extent higher than 90%. The 2019 bleaching event had a prevalence higher than 50% and an extent close to 20%. According to Ennis et al. (2019) the main threats at Mutton Snapper site are: i) Fishing pressure as evidenced by the numerous fishing line and fishing trap debris. ii) Susceptibility to long-term seawater warming. The main documented changes are summarized below.

8.3.1 Benthic community structure According to Ennis et al. (2019) the Mutton Snapper site’s sessile epibenthic animal community is dominated by the boulder star coral (Orbicella spp.), with sub-dominance of sponges. This site lost an extreme amount of coral cover (87.0%) in the 2005 coral bleaching event and has not regained any cover as of 2011 (fig. 27a). Since 2011 coral cover has remained relatively stable but with very low values. The

algal community is co-dominated by the macroalgae Lobophora variegata and epilithic algae. Since 2005 macroalgae and filamentous cyanobacteria cover has shown an apparent increase. Filamentous cyanobacteria reached extreme cover values (57.7%) in 2009 (fig. 27b). Current levels of herbivory no longer appear to be able to control algal abundance.

Figure 27. Mutton Snapper benthic cover and coral health through time (mean ± SE). a, Coral cover; b, Cover of other benthic community components; c, Prevalence and extent of bleaching; d, Prevalence of reported diseases; e, Prevalence of old and recent mortality (modified from Ennis et al. 2019).

8.3.2 Coral Health In the case of the Mutton Snapper FSA site the 2005 event was the strongest, with a prevalence close to 100% and an extent higher than 90%. The 2019 bleaching event had a prevalence higher than 50% and an extent close to 20% (Figure 27c). Bleaching prevalence has remained high for most years since 2005, but at low colony extent, indicating continued impairment of corals. There was an increase in the percentage of corals experiencing bleaching in 2019 at a predicted 6 DWH. White disease has been at consistently high values through many years of monitoring. Figure 27d shows disease prevalence. Partial mortality increased after 2005, and then whole colonies were lost from the system. Impairment of this site is puzzling as stressors besides fishing appear to be low. Clear water and low genetic diversity of corals may increase susceptibility to environmental stress and white disease. Figure 27e shows old and recent mortality prevalence (Ennis et al., 2019).

8.3.3 Reef fish The Mutton Snapper site is an offshore, shelf edge site with a diverse and rich fish community. Mutton Snapper site is reportedly in an area that mutton snapper spawn, however this species has been rare in surveys conducted at the site over the years. On the other hand, the lionfish have been observed regularly on Mutton Snapper, since his first sight in 2012, probably because the reef is offshore and does not receive the recreational diving and hunting pressure of nearshore sites (Ennis et al. 2019).

8.4 Reported species within MSSA TCRMP has a sampling site within MSSA (Lang Hind). Additionally, in 2011 a study characterized this Marine Managed Area and found new benthic biota and reef fishes (Kojis and Quinn 2011). The results from these studies on the benthic species and reef fish are summarized below. There are 25 species/taxonomic groups of benthic algae, sponge, scleractinian corals, hydrocorals, and octocoral species reported within MSSA (Table 20). The most abundant groups are algal turfs and the macroalgae Lobophora variegata. Among scleractinian corals, the most common is Orbicella franksii. The fish community at MSSA is composed of 134 species (Tables 21 and 22). Table 21 shows the commercially important fish species with their fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005), conservation status according to the IUCN red list, and trophic group according to Ennis et al. (2019). The commercially important species registered at MCD are groupers (red hind, coney, graysby) and snappers (mahogany snapper, yellowtail snapper). Table 22 shows representative fish species found at this site and their fisheries status according to the Caribbean Reef Fish FMU (Fisheries Management Unit) proposed by CFMC (2005). Note that since 2012, the presence of the lionfish was already registered in this Marine Managed Area.

Table 20. Most representative benthic species reported by TCRMP, Kojis and Quinn, 2011 at the MSSA. Species/Groups

Type

Species/Groups

Type

Agaricia lamarcki

Scleractinian

Sea Fan

Octocoral

Agaricia sp.

Scleractinian

Clionia delitrix

Sponge

Eusmilia fastigiata

Scleractinian

Encrusting sponge

Sponge

Montastraea cavernosa

Scleractinian

Sponge

Madracis decactis

Scleractinian

Macroalgae

Orbicella faveolata

Scleractinian

Cladophora spp.

Macroalgae

Orbicella franksii

Scleractinian

Dictyota spp.

Macroalgae

Porites astreoides

Scleractinian

Lobophora variegata

Macroalgae

Porites porites

Scleractinian

Macroalgae

Stephanocoenia intersepta

Scleractinian

Peyssonellia spp.

Calcareous Macroalgae

Siderastrea siderea

Scleractinian

Coralline algae

Calcareous

Millepora alcicornis

Hydrocoral

Turf algae

Erythropodium caribaeorum

Octocoral

Filamentous cyanobacteria

Turf Cyanobacteria

Table 21. Representative commercially important fish species reported by TCRMP at MSSA (from Kojis and Quinn, 2011). Scientific Name1

Common Name1

Fisheries2

UICN Red List Status3 Trophic Group1

Cephalopholis cruentata

Graysby

Groupers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Cephalopholis fulva

Coney

Groupers

Least Concern

Invertivore

Epinephelus adscensionis

Rock hind

Groupers

Least Concern

Invertivore

Epinephelus guttatus

Red hind

Groupers

Least Concern

Invertivore

Epinephelus striatus

Nassau grouper

Groupers

Critically Endangered

Piscivore

Paranthias furcifer

Creolefish

Groupers

Least Concern

Planktivore

Lutjanus analis

Mutton snapper

Snappers

Near Threatened

Piscivore

Lutjanus apodus

Schoolmaster

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus cyanopterus

Cubera snapper

Snappers

Vulnerable

Piscivore

Lutjanus griseus

Gray snapper

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus mahogani

Mahogany snapper

Snappers

Least Concern

Piscivore

Lutjanus synagris

Lane snapper

Snappers

Near Threatened

Piscivore

Ocyurus chrysurus

Yellowtail snapper

Snappers

Data Deficient

Planktivore

Caranx bartholomaei

Yellow jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx crysos

Blue runner

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx lugubris

Black jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Caranx ruber

Bar jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Seriola rivoliana

Almaco jack

Jacks

Least Concern

Piscivore

Balistes vetula

Queen trigger

Triggerfish

Near Threatened

Invertivore

Canthidermis sufflamen

Ocean trigger

Triggerfish

Least Concern

Planktivore

Holacanthus ciliaris

Queen angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Invertivore

Pomacanthus arcuatus

Gray angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Spongivore

Pomacanthus paru

French angel

Angelfish

Least Concern

Invertivore

Scarus coelruleus

Blue parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Scarus taeniopterus

Princess parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Scarus vetula

Queen parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Sparisoma aurofrenatum

Redband parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Sparisoma chrysopterum

Redtail parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Sparisoma rubripinne

Yellowtail parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

Sparisoma viride

Stoplight parrotfish

Parrotfishes

Least Concern

Herbivore

From Ennis et al. 2019; 2 According to CFMC 2005; 3 According to UICN Red List Status

Table 22. Other fish species reported by TCRMP, Kojis and Quinn, 2011 at MSSA. Scientific Name1

Common Name1

Fisheries2

Caranx hippos Cantherhines macrocerus

Crevalle jack Whitespotted filefish

Jacks Triggerfish

Melichthys niger

Black durgon

Triggerfish

Xanthichthys ringens

Sargassum triggerfish

Triggerfish

Mulloidichthys martinicus

Yellow goatfish

Goatfish

Pseudupeneus maculatus

Spotted goatfish

Goatfish

Anisotremus surinamensis

Black margate

Grunt

Anisotremus virginicus

Porkfish

Grunt

Haemulon aurolineatum

Tomtate

Grunt

Haemulon flavolineatum

French grunt

Grunt

Haemulon plumierii

White grunt

Grunt

Haemulon sciurus

Bluestriped grunt

Grunt

Holocentrus adscensionis

Squirrelfish

Holocentrus rufus

Longspine squirrelfish

Squirrelfish

Myripristis jacobus

Blackbar soldierfish

Squirrelfish

Holocentrus rufus

Longspine squirrelfish

Squirrelfish

Myripristis jacobus

Blackbar soldierfish

Squirrelfish

Acanthurus bahianus

Ocean surgeonfish

Surgeonfish

Acanthurus chirurgus

Doctorfish

Surgeonfish

Acanthurus coeruleus

Blue tang

Surgeonfish

Malacanthus plumieri

Sand tilefish

Tilefish

Bodianus rufus

Spanish hogfish

Wrasses

Lachnolaimus maximus

Hogfish

Wrasses

Pterois volitans

Lionfish

Scomberomorus regalis

Cero

Sphyraena barracuda

Great barracuda

Dasyatis americana

Southern stingray

Carcharhinus perezi

Caribbean reef shark

Nurse shark

Ginglymostoma cirratum 1

From Ennis et al. 2019; According to CFMC 2005.

8.5 Primary scientific studies that have or are taking place within MSSA The primary fisheries scientific studies at MSSA are summarized below. Kojis and Quinn (2011) described the benthic habitats of MSSA. Also, they conducted during 2009 and 2010 an study to provide information on the status of the Lutjanus analis spawning aggregation on the southwestern insular shelf of St. Croix, USVI, verify the spawning period for this species, and provide life history information. The authors attempted to observe the reproductive aggregation of this snapper at the historically recognized time and site, but did not observe such an event. Faced with this scenario, they conducted a CPU study that showed very important information. Based on this CPUE survey the authors concluded that the spawning aggregation of mutton snapper in or near the MSSA appears to be fairly robust. This is despite fairly heavy fishing pressure that continued until the seasonal prohibition on possession of mutton snapper in territorial and federal waters 2006 went into effect. The skewed sex ratio of the catches, a result of a high proportion of small males, which start reproducing at a smaller size than females, may reflect high fishing pressure before 2006 and the initial recovery of the population. Given the high female fecundity reported in this study, recovery may occur quickly if fishers continue to respect the seasonal possession prohibition and enforcement is adequate.The authors suggested that the actual site of the mutton snapper aggregation still needs to be confirmed, and proposed a new site that will be checked to identify the currently spawning site.

9. General discussion, gaps and recommendations Coral reef habitats should provide essential habitat (i.e., spawning grounds) for the survival of commercially important species. This premise, while intuitive, should be based on scientific studies in these MMAs. From our review of the information, we could not find studies that explicitly test if coral reef habitats are necessary beyond spawning aggregations (i.e., feeding grounds) for commercially important species and what role they play in the recovery of their populations. If coral reefs are essential for the sustainability of fish populations, then a continuous monitoring program of these reef areas is imperative. Monitoring efforts should be based on permanent transects that would allow estimating changes through time and the current state of the benthic communities. Currently, only a few of the MMAs (i.e., Grammanik Bank) have this monitoring in place. All others have only been characterized once (i.e., Bajo de Sico) or surveyed in different years at different habitats or depths, making comparisons inadequate across time. The MMAs summarized in this report were created to manage and allow the recovery of different commercially important fish species. Management measures in locations such as the Grammanik Bank and the Marine Conservation District seem to be working and have allowed the recovery of some fish populations. We recommend periodic (every five years) stock assessment analysis of the top commercially important species to understand the current status of their populations. Such an analysis would serve as the baseline for future comparisons that would allow us to determine if populations are declining and adjust management efforts accordingly. Acoustic tagging and telemetry could also be implemented more broadly across the MMAs to complement fisheries-based assessments. These telemetry approaches provide 1) Identifying specific habitats within MMAs that fishes use for reproduction or feeding. 2) Provide a powerful tool to evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies, the optimal MMA size, ecological connectivity (adult movement) among MMAs, and selection of nearby protected areas. 3) Provide baseline information about multispecies spawning aggregations. 5) Long-term acoustic monitoring can determine if spawning aggregation shifts spatially or temporally and the extent of the spawning season within MMAs, allowing managers to adjust conservation measures (i.e., extend closure times). New technologies are becoming more available, easy to operate, and affordable. For instance, managers can use drones to quantify the presence and quantity of fishers during banning times and design patrolling activities based on these observations. Similarly, underwater drone-type equipment coupled with highresolution cameras guided by virtual reality and GIS adjusted maps could provide a new way to give a more comprehensive way to monitor benthic and fish communities. Videos also have the added value that can be reanalyzed in the future if needed. From our literature review, most MMAs and MPAs have been established as individual sites of local significance rather than synergistic interconnected components of a broader network. Evidence, however, indicates that ecological connectivity enhances the effectiveness, biodiversity, productivity, stability, and resilience of marine protected areas (MPAs) and MMAs. For example, the structure of marine communities and the performance of an MMA/MPA in replenishing fish populations can be influenced by connectivity among coastal marine ecosystems and offshore habitat, with well-documented examples including interconnected nursery habitats, ontogenetic shifts to deeper water, migrations to spawning aggregations, 73

and larval supply. The need for improved information on ecological connectivity within the US Caribbean is evident and urgent. Targeted transdisciplinary scientific research and decision support tools that explicitly incorporate ecological connectivity into the design and management of MMA and MPA networks are required to support near-term capacity building for managers across the US Caribbean. The US Caribbean hosts a collection of protected areas linking land and sea, some with high biodiversity, cultural importance, and increasing vulnerability to human activities, including climate change. There are 58 areas with some level of protection, including areas managed by the CFMC and areas managed by the PR or USVI Departments of Natural Resources. From our review, it is clear that most areas are managed as single units and not as networks of protected areas. We thus recommend the different managing agencies generating a committee/task force that begins the coordination of activities across the various protected areas and design strategies that incorporate the network nature of these managed areas. This committee should also coordinate monitoring programs and scientific efforts to understand the level of connectivity across the different protected areas and the habitats within and among the various protected areas. In our revision of the scientific literature, we only found two studies (Jackson et al., 2014; Bernard et al., 2016) addressing whether larvae from populations in Grammanik Bank are self-sustained. Authors of both studies suggest that larvae are instead coming from areas outside the US Virgin Island with high connectivity across populations. However, models of passive particles indicate that populations in the USVI are self-maintained with a high probability of local recruitment (Canals 2019). These ambiguous findings warrant further evaluation of the nature of recruitment in these areas. A comprehensive study of genetic analysis should address whether the 58 protected areas in the US Caribbean are self-sustained, or if instead, they depend on larvae/recruits coming from the lesser Antilles, the Bahamas, or the Dominican Republic. It should also incorporate a Caribbean-wide connectivity analysis of the top commercial species (and the main coral species that provide habitat to those fish populations) to understand if populations in the US Caribbean are different stocks from those in Florida, the Bahamas, and the Mesoamerican reefs. Some observations point out to spawning behaviors of previously unreported species. For example, Garcia et al., 2013 observed at Tourmaline Bank the reproductive behavior of two species, Lutjanus jocus and Lutjanus cyanopterus. We recommend new studies using acoustic tagging to understand these species' spawning behavior further and test whether the MMA is also allowing the recovery of populations in these two species. All collected data (i.e., SEMAP) from and all locations should be made publicly available and easy to download so that managers and researchers can use it to analyze patterns either on the benthic community or fish populations. Publicly available data facilitates work by managing agencies, decreases chances for duplicating efforts, stimulates research, and allows for analysis of changes through time of the habitats within these MMAs.

10. References Appeldoorn, R., Alfaro, M., Ballantine, D., Bejarano, I., Ruiz, H., Schizas, N., et al. (2019). Puerto Rico. pp. 111– 129. Appeldoorn, R.S., Schärer-Umpierre, M.T., Rowell, T.J. & Nemeth, M. (n.d.). Usando la Producción del Sonido como Medida de las Densidades Relativas del Mero Cabrilla (Epinephelus guttatus) durante la Agregación de Desove: Consistencia Dentro y entre Los Lugares, 3. Appledoorn, E., Zayas, C., Sharer, M., Clouse, K. & Appledoorn, R. (2018). Temporal Patterns Among Multiple Courtship Associated Sounds in the Red Hind Epinephelus guttatus Indicate Two Spawning Aggregations During a Single Lunar Cycle. Proceedings of the 71st Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, GCFI 71. Armstrong, R.A., Singh, H., Torres, J., Nemeth, R.S., Can, A., Roman, C., et al. (2006). Characterizing the deep insular shelf coral reef habitat of the Hind Bank marine conservation district (US Virgin Islands) using the Seabed autonomous underwater vehicle. Continental Shelf Research, 26, 194–205. Baker, N., Appeldoorn, R. & Torres-Saavedra, P. (2016). Fishery-Independent Surveys of the Queen Conch Stock in Western Puerto Rico, with an Assessment of Historical Trends and Management Effectiveness. Marine and Coastal Fisheries Dynamics Management and Ecosystem Science, 8, 567–579. Baker, N., Appledoorn, R. & Torres-Saavadra, P.A. (2015). Population Trends and Management Effectiveness of Queen Conch, Strombus gigas, in Western Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 68th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, GCFI 68. Becker, S.L., Finn, J.T., Novak, A.J., Danylchuk, A.J., Pollock, C.G., Hillis-Starr, Z., et al. (2020). Coarse- and fine-scale acoustic telemetry elucidates movement patterns and temporal variability in individual territories for a key coastal mesopredator. Environ Biol Fish, 103, 13–29. Bernard, A., Feldheim, K., Richards, V., Nemeth, R. & Shivji, M. (2012). Development and characterization of fifteen novel microsatellite loci for the Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) and their utility for crossamplification on a suite of closely related species. Conservation Genetics Resources, 4, 983–986. Bernard, A.M., Feldheim, K.A., Nemeth, R., Kadison, E., Blondeau, J., Semmens, B.X., et al. (2016). The ups and downs of coral reef fishes: the genetic characteristics of a formerly severely overfished but currently recovering Nassau grouper fish spawning aggregation. Coral Reefs, 35, 11. Biggs, C. & Nemeth, R. (2016). Spatial and temporal movement patterns of two snapper species at a multi-species spawning aggregation. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 558. Brandtneris, V.W., Brandt, M.E., Glynn, P.W., Gyory, J. & Smith, T.B. (2016). Seasonal Variability in Calorimetric Energy Content of Two Caribbean Mesophotic Corals. PLOS ONE, 11, e0151953. Bryan, D., Feeley, M., Nemeth, R., Pollock, C. & Ault, J. (2019). Home range and spawning migration patterns of queen triggerfish Balistes vetula in St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 616, 123– 139. Caribbean Fishery Management Council. (1985). Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for the ShallowWater Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. NOAA. Available at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/18386. Last accessed 13 April 2021. Caribbean Fishery Management Council. (2005). Comprehensive Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) of the U.S. Caribbean to Address Required Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA. Available at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/18269. Last accessed 13 April 2021. Cherubin, L.M., Dalgleish, F., Ibrahim, A., Scharer-Umpierre, M., Nemeth, R. & Appledoorn, R. (2018). New Insights on Fish Spawning Aggregation Dynamics from Autonomous Robotic Platform. GCFI 71. Chérubin, L.M., Dalgleish, F., Ibrahim, A.K., Schärer-Umpierre, M., Nemeth, R.S., Matthews, A., et al. (2020). Fish Spawning Aggregations Dynamics as Inferred From a Novel, Persistent Presence Robotic Approach. Front. Mar. Sci., 6.

Cherubin, L.M., Nemeth, R.S. & Idrisi, N. (2011). Flow and transport characteristics at an Epinephelus guttatus (red hind grouper) spawning aggregation site in St. Thomas (US Virgin Islands). Ecological Modelling, 222, 3132–3148. Day, J., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Holmes, G., Laffoley, D., Stolton, S., et al. (2019). Guidelines for applying the IUCN protected area management categories to marine protected areas. ( No. Second edition). IUCN, Gland. Switzerland. De’ath, G., Fabricius, K.E., Sweatman, H. & Puotinen, M. (2012). The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 109, 17995. Debrot, A., Brunel, T., Schop, J., Kuramae, A. & Bakkers, Y. (2020). Assessing effectiveness of the seasonal closure of the Moonfish Bank of the Saba Bank for two species of concern, the Red Hind and the Queen Triggerfish: the first five years. Ennis, R., Kadison, E., Heidmann, S., Brandt, M., Henderson, L. & Smith, T. (2019). The United States Virgin Islands TERRITORIAL CORAL REEF MONITORING PROGRAM Annual Report (Annual Report). TERRITORIAL CORAL REEF MONITORING PROGRAM. The Center for Marine and Environmental Studies, University of the Virgin Islands, The Division of Coastal Zone Management, USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources, The Coral Reef Conservation Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Federal Register Vol. 54, No.235, December 8, 1989 - Content Details - FR-1989-12-08. (2021). Federal Register. Available at: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fapp%2Fdetails%2FFR-1989-12-08. Last accessed 13 April 2021. Federal Register Vol. 55, No.135, July 13, 1990 - Content Details - FR-1990-07-13. (2021). Federal Register. Available at: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fapp%2Fdetails%2FFR-1990-07-13. Last accessed 13 April 2021. Federal Register Vol. 55, No.213, November 2, 1990 - Content Details - FR-1990-11-02. (2021). Federal Register. Available at: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fapp%2Fdetails%2FFR-1990-11-02. Last accessed 13 April 2021. Federal Register Vol. 58, No.139, July 22, 1993 - Content Details - FR-1993-07-22. (2021). Federal Register. Available at: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fapp%2Fdetails%2FFR-1993-07-22. Last accessed 13 April 2021. Federal Register Vol. 58, No.197, October 14, 1993 - Content Details - FR-1993-10-14. (2021a). Federal Register. Available at: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fapp%2Fdetails%2FFR-1993-10-14. Last accessed 13 April 2021. Federal Register Vol. 58, No.197, October 14, 1993 - Content Details - FR-1993-10-14. (2021b). Federal Register. Available at: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fapp%2Fdetails%2FFR-1993-10-14. Last accessed 13 April 2021. Federal Register Vol. 69, No.220, November 16, 2004 - Document in Context - FR-2004-11-16. (2021). Federal Register. Available at: https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fapp%2Fdetails%2FFR-2004-1116%2Fcontext. Last accessed 13 April 2021. García-Sais, J., Castro, R., Sabater-Clavell, J., Carlo, M., Esteves-Amador, R.F., Bruckner, A.W., et al. (2007). Characterization of benthic habitats and associated reef communities at Bajo de Sico seamount, Mona Passage, Puerto Rico final report. undefined. García-Sais, J., Castro-Gomez, R., Sabater-Clavell, J., Esteves, R., Williams, S. & Carlo, M. (2010). Mesophotic benthic habitats and associated marine communities at Abrir La Sierra, Puerto Rico. García-Sais, J., Williams, S., Esteves, R., Sabater, J. & Carlo, M. (2013). Characterization of mesophotic benthic habitats and associated reef communities at Tourmaline Reef, Puerto Rico. García-Sais, J., Williams, S., Esteves, R., Sabater, J. & Carlo, M. (2017a). MONITORING OF CORAL REEF COMMUNITIES FROM NATURAL RESERVES IN PUERTO RICO: 2017. García-Sais, J., Williams, S., Sabater, J. & Carlo, M. (2019). Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program: 2019 Survey.

García-Sais, J., Williams, S., Sabater-Clavell, J., Esteves, R. & Carlo, M. (2014). Mesophotic benthic habitats and associated reef communities at Lang Bank, St. Croix, USVI. García-Sais, J.R., Sabater-Clavell, J., Esteves, R., Carlo, M. & Box, P.O. (n.d.). Fishery independent survey of commercially exploited fish and shellfish populations from mesophotic reefs within the Puertorrican EEZ, 91. García-Sais, J.R., Williams, S.M. & Amirrezvani, A. (2017b). Mortality, recovery, and community shifts of scleractinian corals in Puerto Rico one decade after the 2005 regional bleaching event. PeerJ, 5, e3611. Garcia-Sais, J.R., Williams, S.M., Sabater-Clavell, J. & Carlo, M. (2017). PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITY 6CORAL REEF MONITORING PROGRAM, 272. Gardner, T.A. (2003). Long-Term Region-Wide Declines in Caribbean Corals. Science, 301, 958–960. Groves, S., Holstein, D., Enochs, I., Kolodziej, G., Manzello, D., Brandt, M., et al. (2018). Growth rates of Porites astreoides and Orbicella franksi in mesophotic habitats surrounding St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs, 37. Holstein, D., Smith, T. & Gyory, J. (2015). Fertile fathoms: Deep reproductive refugia for threatened shallow corals. Scientific Reports, 5. Holstein, D.M., Smith, T.B. & Paris, C.B. (2016). Depth-Independent Reproduction in the Reef Coral Porites astreoides from Shallow to Mesophotic Zones. PLOS ONE, 11, e0146068. Ibrahim, A., Cherubin, L., Schärer, M., Zhuang, H. & Erdol, N. (2018a). Automatic classification of grouper species by their sounds using deep neural networks. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144. Ibrahim, A., Cherubin, L., Zhuang, H., Schärer, M., Dalgleish, F., Erdol, N., et al. (2018b). An approach for automatic classification of grouper vocalizations with passive acoustic monitoring. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143, 666–676. Ibrahim, A., Zhuang, H., Cherubin, L., Schärer, M., Muhamed Ali, A., Nemeth, R., et al. (2019). Classification of red hind grouper call types using random ensemble of stacked autoencoders. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 146. Ibrahim, A., Zhuang, H., Cherubin, L., Schärer, M., Nemeth, R., Erdol, N., et al. (2020). Transfer learning for efficient classification of grouper sound. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148. Jackson, A.M., Semmens, B.X., Mitcheson, Y.S. de, Nemeth, R.S., Heppell, S.A., Bush, P.G., et al. (2014a). Population Structure and Phylogeography in Nassau Grouper (Epinephelus striatus), a Mass-Aggregating Marine Fish. PLOS ONE, 9, e97508. Jackson, J., Donovan, M. & Cramer, K. (2014b). Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970-2012 (Lam VV (editors)). Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Jackson, J., Donovan, M., Cramer, K. & Lam, V. (2014c). Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970-2012. Jossart, J., Nemeth, R., Avram, P. & Stolz, R. (2017). Extreme passive acoustic telemetry detection variability on a mesophotic coral reef, United States Virgin Islands. Marine Biology, 164. Kadison, E. (2009). Nassau Grouper (Epinephelus striatus) in St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands, with Evidence for a Spawning Aggregation Site Recovery. Proceedings of the Sixty second Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Society, 62, 273–279. Kadison, E., Brandt, M., Nemeth, R., Martens, J., Blondeau, J. & Smith, T. (2017). Abundance of commercially important reef fish indicates different levels of over-exploitation across shelves of the U.S. Virgin Islands. PLOS ONE, 12, e0180063. Kadison, E., Nemeth, R., Brown-Peterson, N., Blondeau, J., Smith, T. & Calnan, J. (2010). Yellowfin Grouper (Mycteroperca venenosa): Reproductive Biology, Behavior and Conservation of a Large Caribbean grouper. 63Proceedings of the Sixty Three Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 63, 157–160. Kadison, E., Nemeth, R., Herzlieb, S. & Blondeau, J. (2006). Temporal and spatial dynamics of Lutjanus cyanopterus (Pisces: Lutjanidae) and L. jocu spawning aggregations in the United States Virgin Islands. Rev. Biol. Trop., 54.

Kobara, S., Heyman, W., Pittman, S. & Nemeth, R. (2013). Biogeography of transient reef-fish spawning aggregations in the Caribbean: a synthesis for future research and management. Oceanography and marine biology, 51, 281–326. Kojis, B. & Quinn, N. (2010). INVESTIGATION OF THE SPAWNING AGGREGATION OF MUTTON SNAPPER, Lutjanus analis (Cuvier), ON THE SOUTHWESTERN SHELF OF ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. Kojis, B. & Quinn, N. (2011a). Distribution and Abundance of Fish Populations in Various Habitats in the Mutton Snapper (Lutjanus analis) Conservation Area on the South Shelf St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Kojis, B.L. & Quinn, N.J. (2011b). Validation of a Spawning Aggregation of Mutton Snapper and Characterization of the Benthic Habitats and Fish in the Mutton Snapper Seasonal Closed Area, St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. NOAA Coral Reef Grand Program, Caribbean Fishery Management Council San Juan, Puerto Rico. Kojis, B.L., Quinn, N.J. & Agar, J.J. (2017). Census of licensed fishers of the U.S. Virgin Islands (2016). Maher, R.L., Johnston, M.A., Brandt, M.E., Smith, T.B. & Correa, A.M.S. (2018). Depth and coral cover drive the distribution of a coral macroborer across two reef systems. PLOS ONE, 13, e0199462. Mann, D., Locascio, J., Schärer, M., Nemeth, M. & Appeldoorn, R. (2010). Sound production by red hind Epinephelus guttatus in spatially segregated spawning aggregations. Aquatic Biology - AQUAT BIOL, 10, 149–154. Marine Managed Areas and Fisheries, Volume 69 - 1st Edition. (2021). . Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/books/marine-managed-areas-and-fisheries/johnson/978-0-12-800214-8. Last accessed 13 April 2021. Marshak, A. & Appeldoorn, R. (2008). Evaluation of Seasonal Closures of Red Hind, Epinephelus guttatus, Spawning Aggregations to Fishing off the West Coast of Puerto Rico Using Fishery-dependent and Independent Time Series Data, 60, 566–572. Mitcheson, Y.S. de & Colin, P.L. (Eds.). (2012). Reef Fish Spawning Aggregations: Biology, Research and Management. Fish & Fisheries Series. Springer Netherlands. Mora, C. (2008). A clear human footprint in the coral reefs of the Caribbean. Proc. R. Soc. B., 275, 767–773. Nemeth, R. (2010). Dynamics of Reef Fish and Decapod Crustacean Spawning Aggregations: Underlying Mechanisms, Habitat Linkages, and Trophic Interactions. In: Ecological Connectivity among Tropical Coastal Ecosystems. pp. 73–134. Nemeth, R., Herzlieb, S. & Blondeau, J. (2006a). Comparison of two seasonal closures for protecting red hind spawning aggregations in the US Virgin Islands. Nemeth, R. & Kadison, E. (2013). Temporal patterns and behavioral characteristics of aggregation formation and spawning in the Bermuda chub (Kyphosus sectatrix). Coral Reefs, 32. Nemeth, R., Kadison, E., Blondeau, J., Idrisi, N., Watlington, R., Brown, K., et al. (2008). Regional coupling of red hind spawning aggregations to oceanographic processes in the eastern Caribbean. Nemeth, R., Kadison, E., Brown-Peterson, N. & Blondeau, J. (2019). Reproductive biology and behavior associated with a spawning aggregation of the yellowfin grouper Mycteroperca venenosa in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science, 96. Nemeth, R., Kadison, E., Herzlieb, S., Blondeau, J. & Whiteman, E. (2006b). Status of a Yellowfin (Mycteroperca venenosa) Grouper Spawning Aggregation in the US Virgin Islands with Notes on Other Species. Presented at the Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. Nemeth, R. & Quandt, A. (2005). Differences in fish assemblage structure following the establishment of the Marine Conservation District, St. Thomas U. S. Virgin Islands. Nemeth, R.S. (2005). Population characteristics of a recovering US Virgin Islands red hind spawning aggregation following protection. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 286, 81–97. Nemeth, R.S. (2021). Comparative Investigations of Red Hind (Epinephelus guttatus) spawning aggregations under different management strategies | Dutch Caribbean Biodiversity Database. Available at: https://www.dcbd.nl/document/comparative-investigations-red-hind-epinephelus-guttatus-spawningaggregations-under. Last accessed 13 April 2021.

Nemeth, R.S., Blondeau, J., Herzlieb, S. & Kadison, E. (2007). Spatial and temporal patterns of movement and migration at spawning aggregations of red hind, Epinephelus guttatus, in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Environ Biol Fish, 78, 365–381. Nemeth, R.S., Blondeau, J. & Kadison, E. (2009). Defining marine protected areas for yellowfin and Nassau grouper spawning aggregation sites. Presented at the Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 61, pp. 329–330. Nemeth, R.S., Smith, T.B., Blondeau, J., Kadison, E., Calnan, J.M. & Gass, J. (2021). Characterization of deep water reef communities within the marine conservation district, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands final report. NOAA. Available at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/568. Last accessed 13 April 2021. Novak, A., Becker, S., Finn, J.T. & Pollock, C.G. (n.d.). (PDF) Scale of Biotelemetry Data Influences Ecological Interpretations of Space and Habitat Use in Yellowtail Snapper. ResearchGate. Novak, A.J., Becker, S.L., Finn, J.T., Danylchuk, A.J., Pollock, C.G., Hillis-Starr, Z., et al. (2020). Inferring residency and movement patterns of horse-eye jack Caranx latus in relation to a Caribbean marine protected area acoustic telemetry array. Animal Biotelemetry, 8, 12. Ojeda-Serrano, E., Appledoorn, R. & Ruiz-Valentin, I. (2007a). “Reef fish Spawning Aggregations of the Puerto Rican Shelf” (Final Report). “Reef fish Spawning Aggregations of the Puerto Rican Shelf.” Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, Mayagüez, PR 00681-9013. Ojeda-Serrano, E., Appledoorn, R.S. & Ruiz-Valentine, I. (2007b). Reef Fish Spawning Aggregations of the Puerto Rican Shelf. 59th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, GCFI 59. Pickard, A., Vaudo, J., Wetherbee, B., Nemeth, R., Blondeau, J. & Kadison, E. (2016). Comparative. Pittman, S.J., Bauer, L., Hile, S.D., Jeffery, C.F.G., Davenport, E. & Caldow, C. (2014a). Marine Protected Areas of the US Virgin Islands (Ecological Performance Report). NOS NCCOS 187. NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Pittman, S.J., Monaco, M.E., Friedlander, A.M., Legare, B., Nemeth, R.S., Kendall, M.S., et al. (2014b). Fish with Chips: Tracking Reef Fish Movements to Evaluate Size and Connectivity of Caribbean Marine Protected Areas. PLOS ONE, 9, e96028. Quinn, N. (2010). Validation of a Mutton Snapper (Lutjanus analis) Spawning Aggregation in the Mutton Snapper Seasonal Closed Area, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Quinn, N. & Kojis, B. (2011). Habitat Description of the St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands South Coast Mutton Snapper (Lutjanus analis) Seasonal Closed Area. Roberts, C.M. & Polunin, N.V.C. (1991). Are marine reserves effective in management of reef fisheries? Rev Fish Biol Fisheries, 1, 65–91. Robinson, W.L. (2009). Regulatory amendment to the fishery management plan for the reef fish fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands modifying the Bajo de Sico seasonal closure including a regulatory impact review and an environmental assessment. NOAA. Available at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/626. Last accessed 13 April 2021. Rodriguez-Ferrer, G., Cruz-Motta, J.J., Schizas, N.V. & Appeldoorn, R.S. (2020). Modelling distribution of the common bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus off the southwest coast of Puerto Rico. Journal of Marine Systems, 210, 103371. Rowell, T., Nemeth, R., Schärer, M. & Appeldoorn, R. (2015). Fish sound production and acoustic telemetry reveal behaviors and spatial patterns associated with spawning aggregations of two Caribbean groupers. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 518, 239–254. Rowell, T., Schärer, M. & Appeldoorn, R. (2018). Description of a New Sound Produced by Nassau Grouper at Spawning Aggregation Sites. Gulf and Caribbean Research, 29, 22–26. Rowell, T., Schärer, M., Appeldoorn, R., Nemeth, M., Mann, D. & Rivera, J. (2012). Sound production as an indicator of red hind density at a spawning aggregation. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 462, 241–250. Rowell, T.J., Appledoorn, R.S., Rivera, J.A., Mann, D.A., Kellison, T., Nemeth, M., et al. (2010). Use of Passive Acoustics to Map Grouper Spawning Aggregations, with Emphasis on Red Hind, Epinephelus guttatus, Off Western Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 63rd Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Use of Passive

Acoustics to Map Grouper Spawning Aggregations, with Emphasis on Red Hind, Epinephelus guttatus, Off Western Puerto Rico, GCFI 63. Sale, P., Cowen, R., Danilowicz, B., Jones, G., Kritzer, J., Lindeman, K., et al. (2005). Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 74–80. Sanders, I.M., Barrios-Santiago, J.C. & Appeldoorn, R. (2005). Distribution and relative abundance of humpback whales off western Puerto Rico during 1995-1997. Caribbean Journal of Science, 41, 101–107. Schärer, M., Nemeth, M., Mann, D., Locascio, J., Appeldoorn, R. & Rowell, T. (2012a). Sound Production and Reproductive Behavior of Yellowfin Grouper, Mycteroperca venenosa (Serranidae) at a Spawning Aggregation. Copeia, 1, 134–144. Schärer, M., Rowell, T., Nemeth, M. & Appeldoorn, R. (2012b). Sound production associated with reproductive behavior of Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus at spawning aggregations. Endang. Species. Res., 19, 29– 38. Schärer, M., Zayas Santiago, C., Appeldoorn, R., Tuohy, E., Olson, J. & Keller, J. (2019). The Purr of the Lionfish: Sound and Behavioral Context of Wild Lionfish in the Greater Caribbean. Gulf and Caribbean Research, 30. Schärer, M.T., Nemeth, M.I., Rowell, T.J. & Appeldoorn, R.S. (2014). Sounds associated with the reproductive behavior of the black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci). Mar Biol, 161, 141–147. Scharer-Umpierre, M., Pena-Al Verado, N., Smith, S.G., Appledoorn, R. & Ault, J.S. (2018). Deeper Water Fauna Caught Incidentally in the Puerto Rico Fishery. Proceedings of the 71st Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, GCFI 71. Smith, T., Ennis, R., Kadison, E., Nemeth, R. & Henderson, L. (2016a). The United States Virgin Islands TERRITORIAL CORAL REEF MONITORING PROGRAM Annual Report (Annual Report). TERRITORIAL CORAL REEF MONITORING PROGRAM. The Center for Marine and Environmental Studies, University of the Virgin Islands, The Division of Coastal Zone Management, USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources, The Coral Reef Conservation Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Smith, T., Kadison, E., Henderson, L., Gyory, J., Brandt, M., Calnan, J., et al. (2011). The United States Virgin Islands TERRITORIAL CORAL REEF MONITORING PROGRAM Annual Report (Annual Report). TERRITORIAL CORAL REEF MONITORING PROGRAM. The Center for Marine and Environmental Studies, University of the Virgin Islands, The Division of Coastal Zone Management, USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources, The Coral Reef Conservation Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Smith, T., Nemeth, R., Blondeau, J., Calnan, J.M., Kadison, E. & Herzlieb, S. (2008). Assessing coral reef health across onshore to offshore stress gradients in the US Virgin Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56, 1983– 1991. Smith, T.B., Blondeau, J., Nemeth, R.S., Pittman, S.J., Calnan, J.M., Kadison, E., et al. (2010). Benthic structure and cryptic mortality in a Caribbean mesophotic coral reef bank system, the Hind Bank Marine Conservation District, U.S. Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs, 29, 289–308. Smith, T.B., Brandt, M.E., Calnan, J.M., Nemeth, R.S., Blondeau, J., Kadison, E., et al. (2013). Convergent mortality responses of Caribbean coral species to seawater warming. Ecosphere, 4, art87. Smith, T.B., Brandtneris, V.W., Canals, M., Brandt, M.E., Martens, J., Brewer, R.S., et al. (2016b). Potential Structuring Forces on a Shelf Edge Upper Mesophotic Coral Ecosystem in the US Virgin Islands. Front. Mar. Sci., 3. Smith, T.B., Gyory, J., Brandt, M.E., Miller, W.J., Jossart, J. & Nemeth, R.S. (2016c). Caribbean mesophotic coral ecosystems are unlikely climate change refugia. Global Change Biology, 22, 2756–2765. Steneck, R.S., Paris, C.B., Arnold, S.N., Ablan-Lagman, M.C., Alcala, A.C., Butler, M.J., et al. (2009). Thinking and managing outside the box: coalescing connectivity networks to build region-wide resilience in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs, 28, 367–378.

Taylor, J., Cherubin, L., Schärer, M., Michaels, W., Caillouet, R., Campbell, M., et al. (2020). Emerging Science and Technology to Improve Monitoring and Assessments of Fish Spawning Aggregations Report from the 2019 Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Workshop. The United States Virgin Islands TERRITORIAL CORAL REEF MONITORING PROGRAM Annual Report (Annual Report). (2018). TERRITORIAL CORAL REEF MONITORING PROGRAM. The Center for Marine and Environmental Studies, University of the Virgin Islands, The Division of Coastal Zone Management, USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources, The Coral Reef Conservation Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Townsend, J. (2019). Lesion recovery of two reef-building coral species across shallow to mesophotic depths. Master of Science in Marine and Environmental Sciences. University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands. Tuohy, E., Nemeth, M., Bejarano, I., Schärer, M. & Appeldoorn, R. (2015). I>In situ Tagging of Nassau Grouper Epinephelus striatus Using Closed-Circuit Rebreathers at a Spawning Aggregation in Puerto Rico. Marine Technology Society Journal, 49. Weinstein, D., Sharifi, A., Klaus, J., Smith, T., Giri, S. & Helmle, K. (2016). Coral growth, bioerosion, and secondary accretion of living orbicellid corals from mesophotic reefs in the US Virgin Islands. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 559, 45–63. Weinstein, D.K., Klaus, J.S. & Smith, T.B. (2015). Habitat heterogeneity reflected in mesophotic reef sediments. Sedimentary Geology, 329, 177–187. Weinstein, D.K., Smith, T.B. & Klaus, J.S. (2014a). Mesophotic bioerosion: Variability and structural impact on U.S. Virgin Island deep reefs. Geomorphology, Coral Reef Geomorphology, 222, 14–24. Weinstein, D.K., Smith, T.B. & Klaus, J.S. (2014b). Mesophotic bioerosion: Variability and structural impact on U.S. Virgin Island deep reefs. Geomorphology, Coral Reef Geomorphology, 222, 14–24. Williams, L., Smith, T., Burge, C. & Brandt, M. (2020). Species-specific susceptibility to white plague disease in three common Caribbean corals. Coral Reefs, 39. Williams, S.M. & García‐Sais, J.R. (2020). A potential new threat on the coral reefs of Puerto Rico: The recent emergence of Ramicrusta spp. Marine Ecology, 41, e12592. Zayas-Santiago, C.M. (2019). Red hind Epinephelus guttatus vocal repertoire characterization, temporal patterns and call detection with micro accelerometers. Thesis.

DIANA M. BELTRÁN

US CARIBBEAN MARINE MANAGED AREAS LITERATURE REVIEW

CONTENT ▸ Summary of the literature review of the seven US Marine Managed Areas (MMAs) ▸ Generalities, studies carried out, gaps, and recommendations in each MMA ▸ General view of the US Caribbean MMAs/MPAs, including those in territorial waters ▸ The goal of conserving 30% of oceans by 2030 (UN and the WH) ▸ What is the current status of the US Caribbean MPAs under IUCN categories? ▸ How much of the US Caribbean waters is currently MPA/MMA? ▸ How can we improve? ▸ General recommendations (MPAs/MMAs as networks)

TEXT

MARINE MANAGED AREAS IN THE US CARIBBEAN ▸ Abrir La Sierra: Seasonal closure (December 1 to February 28/29) ▸ Tourmaline Bank: Seasonal closure (December 1 to February 28/29) ▸ Bajo del Sico: Seasonal closure (October 1 and March 31) ▸ Grammanik Bank: Seasonal closure (February 1 and April 30) ▸ Red Hind Marine Conservation District: Year round closure ▸ Red hind Closure at Land Bank: Seasonal closure (December 1 to February 28) ▸ Mutton Snapper Spawning Aggregation: Seasonal closure (April 1 to June 30)

ABRIR LA SIERRA ▸ Seasonal Fishing Closure Area; 1996; December 1 to February 28

Marine Managed ALS No. Last*

Type of scientific studies carried out at the MMAs

Coral reef species a. Benthic composition b. Coral species heatlh c. Coral species biology/ecology Reef fish species a. Visual censuses b. Fishery Independent Survey c. Assessing SPA site/Species (accustic/telemetry) d. CPUE - Independent fishery survey

Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus)

▸ Gaps and Recommendations:

*Last year where the studies were conducted;

a PR-CRMP;

1 1

2013 2013

2 1 7

2013 2012 2020

b USVI TCRMP

▸ The last and only benthic and reef sh surveys were done in 2013 (Garcia-Sais et al., 2013). Need new surveys to know the current state and to know if the closure is helping the recovery of red hind populations ▸ Lack of shery-independent surveys and/or CPUE studies (with data discriminated by sampling point, not by landing point) ▸ Promote studies to quantify the density of other commercially important reef sh species using ALS as a spawning aggregation site

▸ Encourage/support more acoustic studies to understand sh home ranges and connectivity with nearby MMAs. This will allow us to know if the size of the area is adequate for managing red hind populations

TOURMALIN BANK

▸

Seasonal Fishing Closure Area; 1993; December 1 to February 28/29

▸

TB partially coincides with the Puerto Rican marine reserve of Tourmaline

▸

EEZ (40%) and PR (60%)

▸ Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus)

Type of scientific studies carried out at the MMAs

Bajo de Sico

Tourmaline Bank

Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) Abrir la Sierra Bank

Marine Managed TB No. Last*

12 12 2

2019a 2019a 2019

12 1

2019a 2013

Gaps and Recommendations:

‣

Are there other commercially important reef sh species that use TB as a SPA?

‣

Carry out shery-independent surveys and/or CPUE studies with data discriminated by sampling point, not for landing points

‣

To carry out passive acoustic telemetry and an acoustic receiver array along TB to track the movements of snapper and groupers that may are using this MMA as a SPA

*Last year where the studies were conducted;

‣

a PR-CRMP;

b USVI TCRMP

▸ Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus)

▸ Seasonal closure; 1996; October 1 to March 31

Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus)

Nassau grouper (Ephinephelus striatus)

▸ Acoustic studies: Black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci) and Nassau grouper (Ephinephelus striatus) ▸ Gaps and Recommendations: ▸ Last and only benthic and reef sh surveys were done in 2007 (GarciaSais et al., 2007). Need new surveys to know the current state of benthic habitats and to know if the closure is helping the recovery of sh populations ▸ Lack of shery independent-surveys and/or CPUE studies (with data discriminated by sampling point, not by landing point) to evaluate the current state of populations of groupers and snappers ▸ Continue passive acoustic telemetry and an acoustic receiver array studies to track the movements of snapper and groupers within BS

Black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci)

Marine Managed Areas Type of scientific studies carried BS out at the MMAs No. Last* Coral reef species a. Benthic composition b. Coral species heatlh c. Coral species biology/ecology Reef fish species a. Visual censuses b. Fishery Independent Survey c. Assessing SA site/Species d. CPUE

*Last year where the studies were conducted;

BAJO DE SICO

1 1

2007 2007

1 1 8

2007 2012 2019

a PR-CRMP;

b USVI TCRMP

GRAMMANIK BANK ▸ Seasonal closure; 2005; February 1 to April 30

▸ Species recorded during spawning aggregation at GB: yellow n grouper, Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus), dog snapper (Lutjanus jocu) and cubera snapper (Lutjanus cyanopterus), Bermuda chub (Kyphosus sectatrix)

St. Thomas

Nassaugrouper (Ephinephelus striatus)

St. John

Yellow n grouper (Mycteroperca venenosa)

▸ ▸

Gaps and Recommendations:

Type of scientific studies carried out at the MMAs

Best studied MMA in the US Caribbean Passive acoustic and acoustic tagging studies have determined temporal reproductive activity, and site use

▸

Nassau grouper and yellow n grouper

During the closed season, these species enter and leave GB to MCD (2.5 km) and cross an unprotected coral corridor (potentially being shed). Consider including this corridor as part of the seasonal closure

▸

Males arrive earlier and stay longer than the closing season, suggesting a closure extension from three to six months

Coral reef species a. Benthic composition b. Coral species heatlh c. Coral species Reef fish species a. Visual censuses b. Fishery Independent Survey c. Assessing SA site/Species d. CPUE e. Populations genetics (Nassau grouper) *Last year where the studies were conducted;

Marine Managed GB No. Last* 19 19 8

2020b 2020b 2016

2020b

2020

2016

a PR-CRMP;

Maximum number of Nassau groupers by year in 2002/2019

▸

GRAMMANIK BANK

Recapture locations (dots within shaded areas) of E. guttatus tagged at spawning aggregation sites in St Thomas and recaptured by shermen. Spawning aggregations are located with the two protected areas shown as polygons, and numbers along radiating lines indicate total recaptured sh within each shaded area (from Nemeth et al. 2007)

Nassau grouper across all northern USVI sites conducted annually from 2003-2017 (from Smith et al. 2018)

b USVI TCRMP

▸ Year-round no-take zone; 1999

▸ Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) ▸ Tiger grouper (Mycteroperca tigris)

Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus)

▸ This MMA is allowing red hind populations to increase (2005)

Tiger grouper (Mycteroperca tigris)

▸ New study to estimate current population density at MCD Type of scientific studies carried out at the MMAs Coral reef species a. Benthic composition b. Coral species heatlh c. Coral species biology/ecology Reef fish species a. Visual censuses b. Fishery Independent Survey c. Assessing SA site/Species (accustic/telemetry) d. CPUE - Independent fishery survey *Last year where the studies were conducted;

a PR-CRMP;

Managed Marine Areas MCD No. Last* 19 19 3

2020b 2020b 2019

2020b

9 1

2020 2005

b USVI TCRMP

LANG BANK ▸ Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus)

▸ Seasonal closure; 1993; December 1 to February 28/29

Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus)

▸ Gaps and Recommendations: ▸ Lower predatory sh density in St Croix than in the Northern Virgin Islands (Kadison et al. 2017; " sh-encounters" in sh surveys) ▸ Lack of current/new shery-independent surveys and/or CPUE studies (with data discriminated by sampling point, not by landing point) to quantify the red hind current population size

Marine Managed Areas Type of scientific studies carried LB out at the MMAs No. Last* Coral reef species a. Benthic composition b. Coral species heatlh c. Coral species Reef fish species a. Visual censuses b. Fishery Independent Survey c. Assessing SA site/Species d. CPUE

*Last year where the studies were conducted;

16 13

2020b 2020b

14 2 1

2020b 2014 2019

a PR-CRMP;

b USVI TCRMP

MUTTON SNAPPER SPAWNING AREA ▸ Seasonal closure; 1993; December 1 to February 28/29 ▸ Mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis)

▸

Gaps and Recommendations:

▸

The visual census did not nd spawning aggregations, but an independent shery study suggest a robust mutton snapper spawning aggregation (exact location unknown) (Kojis and Quinn, 2011)

▸

TCRMP, UVI's scientists had visited MSSA several times and found few specimens of the mutton snapper

▸

Alternative methods are needed. To nd the primary spawning site, we can conduct acoustic telemetry with acoustic receiver arrays along MSSA

▸

Lower predatory sh density in St Croix than in the Northern Virgin Islands (Kadison et al. 2017; " sh-encounters" in sh surveys)

Lack of current/new shery-independent surveys and/or CPUE studies (with data discriminated by sampling point, not by landing point) to quantify the mutton snapper current population size at MSSA fi

▸

Type of scientific studies carried out at the MMAs Coral reef species a. Benthic composition b. Coral species heatlh c. Coral species biology/ecology Reef fish species a. Visual censuses b. Fishery Independent Survey c. Assessing SA site/Species d. CPUE *Last year where the studies were conducted;

Marine Managed Areas MSSA No. Last* 17 17 1

2020b 2020b 2013

14 1

2020b 2013

2011

a PR-CRMP;

b USVI TCRMP

SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES

Marine Managed Areas Type of scientific studies carried out at the MMAs

ALS

MCD

MSSA

No. Last* No. Last* No. Last* No. Last* No. Last* No. Last* No. Last*

Coral reef species a. Benthic composition

2013

2019a

2007

2020b

b. Coral species heatlh

2013

2019a

2007

2020b

2019

2016

2019

2013

2020b

c. Coral species Reef fish species a. Visual censuses

2013

2019a

2007

b. Fishery Independent Survey

2012

2013

2012

c. Assessing SPA site (acoustic/telemetry)

2020

2019

d. CPUE - Independent fishery survey *Last year where the studies were conducted;

a PR-CRMP;

b USVI TCRMP

2020

2005

2020b

2014

2013

2019 1

2011

SUMMARY OF SPECIES REPORTED PER MMA Marine Managed Areas Recorded species that spawn at the MMAs

Red hind/Mero cabrilla (Epinephelus guttatus)

ALS

Nassau grouper/Mero cherna (Epinephelus striatus)

Yellowfin grouper/Guajil (Mycteroperca venenosa)

Tiger grouper/Mero tigre (Mycteroperca tigris)

Yellowmouth grouper / Cherna boca amarilla (Mycteroperca interstitialis)

Mutton snapper/Sama (Lutjanus analis)

Dog snapper/Pargo colorado (Lutjanus jocu)

Cubera snapper/Pargo cubera (Lutjanus cyanopterus)

Queen trigger/Pejepuerco (Balistes vetula)

MCD

ALL PROTECTED AREAS IN THE US CARIBBEAN

US CARIBBEAN (ALL AREAS -INCLUDING THOSE IN TERRITORIAL WATERS) ▸

The World database on Protected Areas (WDPA) developed by IUCN http://prtotectedplanet.net

▸

The MPA Inventory, developed National by the Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminitrations (NOAA) http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.govaboutmpas/

▸

A Comprehensive Inventory of Protected Areas and other Land Conservation Mechanisms in Puerto Rico. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry.

▸

51 protected areas (including all types of designations). Need standardization of the categories of the protected areas (IUCN)

▸ Need to standardize worldwide classi cation ▸ What is a MPA (Marine Protected Area): "A protected areas is a clearly de ned geographical space, recognized, dedicated and management, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associate ecosystems service and cultural values” (IUCN, 2008)

▸ Under IUCN: "Temporal or permanent shing closures that are establish primary to help build up and maintain reserve stocks for shing in the future, and don’t have wider conservation aims or achievements are not considered to be MPAs” (IUNC, 2019) fi

IUCN CATEGORIES (INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE)

IUCN CATEGORIES ▸ Need to standardize worldwide classi cation

Day et al, 2019

COMPATIBILITY OF FISHING/COLLECTING ACTIVITIES IN DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

Day et al.,2019

WHERE ARE WE IN THE US CARIBBEAN?

So how much of the US Caribbean EEZ is protected?

How much in the USVI?

How much in the Puerto Rico?

▸ In territorial waters, we are close to the 30 % goal (about 27%). Far in the EEZ (2%) ▸ Consider year-round closures on sections of MMAs, so they become MPAs ▸ Consider increasing size in areas that studies suggest they should increase (i.e., GB-MCD) ▸ Consider increasing the area of no-take in existing MPAs/MMAs. Some are too small for sh home ranges

▸ Revise all management plans and develop one in areas that do not have one

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

▸ Periodic (every ve years so) stock assessment analysis of the top commercially important species to understand changes through time and the current status of their populations ▸ Coral reef habitats are essential sh habitats in the MMAs (i.e., spawning grounds). ▸ Monitoring on permanent transects would allow estimating changes through time and the current state of the benthic communities. Currently, only a few of the MMAs (i.e., Grammanik Bank) have this monitoring in place. All others have only been characterized once (i.e., Bajo de Sico) or surveyed in different years at different habitats or depths, making comparisons inadequate across time. ▸ Acoustic tagging and telemetry could also be implemented more broadly across the MMAs to complement sheries-based assessments. These telemetry approaches provide: ▸ 1) Identifying speci c habitats within MMAs that sh use for reproduction or feeding ▸ 2) Help to evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies, the optimal MMA size, ecological connectivity (adult movement) among nearby protected areas ▸ 3) Provide baseline information about multispecies spawning aggregations

▸ 4) Allows determining if spawning aggregation shifts spatially or temporally and the extent of the spawning season within MMAs, allowing managers to adjust conservation measures (i.e., extend closure times). fi

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ▸ Start considering new technologies for monitoring/surveys ▸ For instance, underwater drone-type equipment coupled with highresolution cameras guided by virtual reality and GIS adjusted maps could provide a new way to give a more comprehensive way to monitor benthic and sh communities ▸ Managers can use drones to quantify shers during banning times and design patrolling activities based on these observations

▸ Publicly available data facilitates work by managing agencies, decreases chances for duplicating efforts, stimulates research, and allows for analysis of changes through time of the habitats within MMAs. All collected data (i.e., SEMAP) from and all locations should be made publicly available and easy to download

FINAL CONSIDERATION ▸ Evidence indicates that ecological connectivity enhances the effectiveness, biodiversity, productivity, stability, and resilience of marine protected areas (MPAs) and MMAs. For example, the structure of marine communities and the performance of an MMA/MPA in replenishing sh populations can be in uenced by connectivity among coastal marine ecosystems and offshore habitat, with welldocumented examples including interconnected nursery habitats, ontogenetic shifts to deeper water, migrations to spawning aggregations, and larval supply. The need for information on ecological connectivity within the US Caribbean is evident and urgent. Targeted transdisciplinary scienti c research and decision support tools that explicitly incorporate ecological connectivity into the design and management of MMA and MPA networks are required to support near-term capacity building for managers across the US Caribbean

▸ Larval connectivity genetics, parentage analysis, assignment tests, physical models, acoustic tagging, otoliths microchemistry, chemical dying

FINAL CONSIDERATION

▸ There are 51 areas with some level of protection, including areas managed by the CFMC and areas managed by the PR or USVI Departments of Natural Resources. From our review, it is clear that most areas are managed as single units and not as networks of protected areas

▸ We recommend a committee/task force that begins the coordination of activities across the various protected areas and design strategies that incorporate the network nature of these managed areas. This committee should also coordinate monitoring programs and scienti c efforts to understand the level of connectivity across the different protected areas and the habitats within and among the various protected areas

CONNECTED AMONG THEM!

Cowen et al, 2000

Cowen et al, 2006

Strategic Plan Framework Caribbean Fishery Management Counci April 27-28, 2021

Overview • Brief review of strategic plan component • Sources of informatio • General plan organization/structur • Review and selection of draft Vision, Mission, Goal statement

• Review and approval of draft island-speci c objectives as modi ed by DAPs

Strategic Plan Components VISION

Desired future state an organization would like to achieve (aspirational)

MISSION

Fundamental purpose or focus of an organization and its approach to achieve its vision

GOALS

Broad outcome that helps an organization achieve its vision

OBJECTIVES

Speci c, often measurable target that helps an organization achieve its goals; mini-steps or a subset of the goals

STRATEGIES

How an organization will meet an objective

Problem: I’m tired, I’m grumpy and my pants don’t t* Vision: I look and feel fabulous

Goal: Get healthy

Objectives

Exercise more

Eat better

Lower stress

Strategies

Jog 3x week

Make dinner at home 5x week

Yoga 2x week Spend time with dog

Yoga 2x week Reduce meat Take the stairs

Increase vegetables

*Credit: SAFMC staff, March 2013 Snapper Grouper 4 Visioning Workshop

Strategic Plan Components VISION

What does the Council want U.S. Caribbean sheries to look like in the future?

MISSION

Council’s mandate for management under the Magnuson Act

GOALS

Big picture focus areas; describe the ultimate impact of the Council’s work; necessary to achieve the Vision

OBJECTIVES

Speci c and observable; describe intended results; can be directly linked to an issue or problem

STRATEGIES

The approaches the Council will take to meet its objectives

Sources of Information • Council Vision Statement brainstorming sessio • Stakeholder Input Report - District Advisory Panels (DAPs), Outreach & Education Advisory Panel (OEAP) and Council feedback and issue prioritizatio - Management partner outreac - Public Comment For

• Island-Based Fishery Management Plans and previous public input

Stakeholder and Public Input Discussion Themes

Management & Operational Issues

Resource Health

Social, Cultural & Economic Issues

Communication & Outreach

Strategic Plan Structure Vision

Mission

Goal Statement Themes Management ● Ecosystem and Resource Health ● Social, Cultural & Economic Issues ● Communication and Outreach* STT/STJ Objective 1

PR Objective 1 PR Strategies

STX Objective 1

STT/STJ Strategies

STT/STJ Objective 2

PR Objective 2 PR Strategies

STX Objective 2 STX Strategies

STT/STJ Strategies

STT/STJ Objective 3

PR Objective 3

STX Strategies

PR Strategies

STX Objective 3

STT/STJ Strategies

*Communication and Outreach objectives apply to entire CFMC jurisdiction and are not island-speci c 8

STX Strategies

Vision and Mission

Healthy island ecosystems that support sustainable and resilient local sheries and shing communities.

Thriving and resilient island ecosystems, sheries, and shing communities that provide cultural, social, and economic bene ts for all.

Healthy island ecosystems and sustainable, resilient sheries that provide cultural, social, and economic bene ts for all.

10 fi

Vision Statement Alternatives

Mission Statement Alternatives The Caribbean Fishery Management Council conserves, restores and manages shery resources in the U.S. Caribbean consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Act.

The Council is committed to the stewardship of these marine resources and supporting island ecosystems through collaboration and stakeholder input. The Council is committed to advancing the collaborative stewardship of these sheries and supporting island ecosystems through education, outreach, and stakeholder input. The Council is committed to advancing the stewardship of these sheries and associated island ecosystems through stakeholder outreach, education, and collaboration. fi

Goal Themes

Management Goal Alternatives Develop management strategies that provide for healthy, sustainable island sheries and shing communities, and re ect local ecosystem productivity. Advance management approaches that provide for healthy, sustainable sheries, account for local ecosystem productivity, and consider the needs of island shing communities. Advance management approaches that promote healthy local sheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island shing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

Ecosystem and Resource Health Goal Alternatives Support ecologically sustainable uses that provide for healthy, resilient marine resources and maintain island ecosystem structure and function.

Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient shery resources.

Advance ecosystem-based approaches that support healthy, resilient shery resources and promote local ecological, productivity, structure, and function.

Social, Cultural, and Economic Goal Alternatives Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island shing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

Promote fair and equitable resource use while considering the social, cultural and economic needs of island shing communities. Ensure that management decisions promote fair and equitable resource use and consider the unique social, cultural, and economic characteristics of island shing communities.

Communication and Outreach Goal Alternatives Engage a variety of audiences through education and outreach that fosters understanding of, and participation in, the Council process.

Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process.

Foster engagement in the Council process through communication and outreach that informs and educates a variety of audiences.

Draft Island-Speci c Management Objectives

General Observations • Within each theme, overlaps in priority issues identi ed by the DAPs and Council result in similar island-speci c objectives

• Many priority issues are more appropriately addressed as island-speci c strategies, or activities as part of an implementation plan

• Ultimately, all U.S. Caribbean island districts are working toward same broad goals.

PR Draft Management Objectives Support the development of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs. (Seven potential strategies) Promote sher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-speci c science and information needs. (Five potential strategies)

Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement. (Three potential strategies) Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and ef cient management that considers diverse community interests. (Five potential strategies)

STT-STJ Draft Management Objectives Support the development of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs. (Four potential strategies) Promote sher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-speci c science and information needs. (Six potential strategies)

STX Draft Management Objectives Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs. (Five potential strategies)

Promote sher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-speci c science and information needs. (Five potential strategies)

Draft Island-Speci c Ecosystem and Resource Health Objectives

PR Draft Ecosystem and Resource Health Objectives Implement the Fishery Ecosystem Plan as a roadmap for future Council actions to maintain the ecological relationships, roles, and services of Puerto Rico's island ecosystem. (Five potential strategies) Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other shery resource habitats of Puerto Rico. (Six potential strategies) Collaborate with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters on ecosystem structure and function. (Four potential strategies)

Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships. (Three potential strategies)

STT-STJ Draft Ecosystem and Resource Health Objectives Implement the Fishery Ecosystem Plan as a roadmap for future Council actions to maintain the ecological relationships, roles, and services of the St. Thomas and St. John island ecosystem. (Four potential strategies)

Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other shery resource habitats of St. Thomas and St. John. (Five potential strategies) Encourage efforts to create and rehabilitate shery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function. (Three potential strategies) Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships. (Two potential strategies) Collaborate with science partners to identify and address ecological data and information gaps. (Three potential strategies) fi

STX Draft Ecosystem and Resource Health Objectives Implement the Fishery Ecosystem Plan as a roadmap for future Council actions to maintain the ecological relationships, roles, and services of the St. Croix island ecosystem. (Five potential strategies) Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other shery resource habitats of St. Croix. (Six potential strategies) Encourage efforts to rehabilitate and/or create shery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function. (Three potential strategies)

Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships. (Two potential strategies) Collaborate with management partners to ensure that ecosystem approaches are responsive to climate and environmental change. (Two potential strategies) fi

Draft Island-Speci c Social, Cultural and Economic Objectives

PR Draft Social, Cultural and Economic Objectives Promote the collection of social and economic data that informs management decisions. (Three potential strategies)

Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions/actions across user groups. (Four potential strategies)

Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and shing communities. (Three potential strategies)

Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal shing in Puerto Rico on economic opportunity and social well-being. (Two potential strategies)

STT-STJ Draft Social, Cultural and Economic Objectives Promote the collection of social and economic data that informs management decisions. (Three potential strategies)

Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions/actions across user groups. (Two potential strategies)

Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and shing communities. (Three potential strategies)

Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal shing on economic opportunity and social well-being. (Two potential strategies)

STX Draft Social, Cultural and Economic Objectives

Promote the collection and dissemination of social and economic data that informs management decisions. (Four potential strategies)

Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions/actions across user groups. (Two potential strategies)

Consider the impacts of non-regulation, enforcement and illegal shing on economic opportunity and social well-being. (Two potential strategies)

Draft Communication and Outreach Objectives

Use a variety of communication tools that consider the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of target audiences in coordination with the OEAP. (Six potential strategies)

Promote participation of a variety of stakeholders in the Council process. (Seven potential strategies)

Improve public and stakeholder understanding and awareness of sheries management, current issues, and the Council process. (Eight potential strategies)

Draft Communication and Outreach Objectives

Next Steps •

DAP review of potential strategies for island-speci c objectives within each theme

•

OEAP review of Communication and Outreach strategies

•

Council approval of draft Strategic Plan for public review and feedbac

•

Review public input and suggested changes

•

Approval of nal Strategic Pla

•

Development and approval of Implementation Plan .

Questions Michelle Duva michelle@mellivoraconsulting.com