174th CFMC Regular Meeting Documents (July 21, 2021

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Notices DATES: Written, telefaxed, or email

comments must be received on or before August 2, 2021.

ADDRESSES: These documents are

available upon written request via email to NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov.

Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Please include File No. 25761 in the subject line of the email comment.

Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to NMFS.Pr1Comments@ noaa.gov. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D. or Sara Young, (301) 427–8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The applicant proposes to film pinnipeds in Washington for a film about the foraging and hunting behavior of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina).

Pinnipeds may be filmed from land, an unmanned aircraft system, and underwater via a stationary camera, pole camera, or snorkelers. Up to 450 harbor seals and 90 California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) may be filmed annually. The permit would be valid for two years.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

Dated: June 28, 2021.

Julia Marie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2021–14043 Filed 6–30–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:45 Jun 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

35073

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

July 21, 2021

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

9 a.m.–9:30 a.m.

—Call to Order —Roll Call —Adoption of Agenda —Consideration of 173nd Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions —Executive Director’s Report

[RTID 0648–XB198]

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 174th public meeting (virtual) to address the items contained in the tentative agenda included in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. DATES: The 174th CFMC public meeting (virtual) will be held on July 21, 2021, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The meeting will be at AST (U.S. Caribbean time, presently same as EST).

ADDRESSES: You may join the 174th 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= VmVsc1orSUtKck8xYk1XOXNDY1 ErZz09.

Meeting ID: 830 6068 5915.

Passcode: 995658.

One tap mobile: +17879451488,,83060685915#,,,,,,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:

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

9:30 a.m.–10:30 a.m.

—Five year Strategic Plan Presentation—Dr. M. Duval 10:30 a.m.–11 a.m.

—Update on Fishery Ecosystem Plan Stakeholder Engagement Workshops—Dr. M. Duval 11 a.m.–11:30 p.m.

—SSC Report—Dr. Richard Appeldoorn 11:30 a.m.–12 p.m.

—Closed Seasons for Certain Species— Dr. Mitchell Scharer 12 p.m.–1 p.m.

—Lunch 1 p.m.–1:30 p.m.

—Draft Tech Memo on Managing with ACLs for Data-Limited Stocks.

1:30 p.m.–2 p.m.

—Enforcement Issues with Nassau Grouper and other Fish Species in St. Thomas/St. John, USVI 2 p.m.–2:30 p.m.

—DAP Chairs Report on Buoy Gear Federal Regulations 2:30 p.m.–4 p.m.

—Other Business —Capt. Silva’s Letter on Deepwater Snapper Grouper Fishery (Letter in Spanish to be Read into the Record for Translation) —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.

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

The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

35074

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Notices

meeting will begin on July 21, 2021, at 9 a.m. AST, and will end on July 21, 2021, at 4 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Special Accommodations

Prophetic Versus Working Examples Prophetic examples, also called paper examples, are typically used in a patent application to describe reasonably expected future or anticipated results.

Prophetic examples describe experiments that have not in fact been performed. Rather, they are presented in a manner that forecasts simulated or predicted results. In contrast, working examples correspond to work performed or experiments conducted that yielded actual results. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) states that prophetic examples should not be described using the past tense. MPEP 608.01(p), subsection II. Prophetic examples may be written in future or present tense. This drafting technique assists readers in differentiating between actual working examples and prophetic examples.

Simultaneous interpretation will be provided.

For simultaneous interpretation English-Spanish-English follow your Zoom screen instructions. You will be asked which language you prefer when you join the meeting.

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: June 25, 2021.

Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2021–14005 Filed 6–30–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No.: PTO–P–2021–0020]

Properly Presenting Prophetic and Working Examples in a Patent Application AGENCY: United States Patent and

Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and

Trademark Office (USPTO) is reminding applicants that patent applications must properly present examples in a manner that clearly distinguishes between prophetic examples that describe predicted experimental results and working examples that report actual experimental results. The distinction must be clear to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements and comply with the applicant’s duty of disclosure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ali Salimi, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571– 272–0909, and Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571–272–7728, both with the Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patents, USPTO.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:45 Jun 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

USPTO is reminding patent applicants of their duty to ensure that patent applications are written in a manner that clearly distinguishes prophetic examples with predicted experimental results from working examples with actual experimental results.

Written Description and Enablement Requirements To be complete, the contents of a patent application must include a specification containing a written description of the invention that enables any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention pertains to make and use the invention as of its filing date. See 35 U.S.C. 112(a). At least one specific operative embodiment or example of the invention must be set forth. The example(s) and description should be sufficient to justify the scope of the claims. MPEP 608.01(p). The specification need not contain an example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such a manner that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (CCPA 1970). See MPEP 2164.02.

The courts have sanctioned the use of prophetic examples to meet the written description and enablement requirements for a patent application.

See, e.g., Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 796 F.3d 1293, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘efficacy data are generally not required in a patent application’’ and ‘‘a patentee is not required to provide actual working examples’’). A patent application does not need to provide a guarantee that a prophetic example actually works. Id. at 1310. ‘‘Only a sufficient description enabling a person

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

of ordinary skill in the art to carry out an invention is needed.’’ Id. The courts have further cautioned that the presence of prophetic examples alone should not be the basis for asserting that a specification is not enabling; rather, a lack of operative embodiments and undue experimentation should be determinative. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Disclosed results of tests and examples, whether working or prophetic examples, in a patent application are not normally questioned unless there is a reasonable basis for doing so.

However, when prophetic examples are described in a manner that is ambiguous or that implies that the results are actual, the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure may come into question. If the characterization of the results, when taken in light of the disclosure as a whole, reasonably raises any questions as to whether the results from the examples are actual, the examiner will determine whether to reject the appropriate claims based on an insufficient disclosure under the enablement and/or written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) following the guidance in MPEP 2164 and 2163, respectively. When such a rejection(s) is made, the applicant may reply with the results of an actual test or example that has been conducted, or by providing relevant arguments and/or declaration evidence that there is strong reason to believe that the result would be as predicted, being careful not to introduce new matter into the application. MPEP 707.07(l) and 2161– 2164.08(c).

Applicant’s Duty of Disclosure Care should be taken to see that inaccurate or misleading statements, inaccurate evidence, or inaccurate experiments are not introduced into the record. MPEP 2004 sets forth best practices to avoid duty of disclosure problems (see, in particular, MPEP 2004, item 8). As noted above, prophetic examples should not be described using the past tense. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Promega Corp., 323 F.3d. 1354, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (improperly identifying a prophetic example in the past tense validly raises an inequitable conduct issue based on the intent of the inventors in drafting the example in the past tense, when the example, in fact, is prophetic). Knowingly asserting in a patent application that a certain result ‘‘was run’’ or an experiment ‘‘was conducted’’ when, in fact, the experiment was not conducted or the result was not obtained is fraud. Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc., 763 F.3d 1354, 1362

E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM

01JYN1

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 .................................... 5 Adoption of Agenda ............................................. 5 Consideration of 172nd Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions . 6 Executive Director’s Report .................................... 6 Southeast Assessment, Data, and Review (SEDAR) Update .......... 7 Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) Update .............. 9 Scientific and Statistical Committee Report ................... 14 Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Technical Advisory Panel Report ........................................................ 25 Puerto Rico Port Sampling and Catch Validation Project ........ 36 Presentation on the Regional Electronic Technologies Plan: 20202024 .......................................................... 49 Evaluation of Marine Reserves in the U.S. Caribbean ........... 52 Island-Based Fishery Management Plans Proposed Rule Status .... 61 Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition for the Harvest of Managed Reef Fish, Draft Gear Amendment 1 to the IBFMPs ............... 61 Modification of Spiny Lobster Reference Points Based on Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR 57) Stock Assessment, Draft Amendment Revisions ........................................... 74 CFMC Five-Year Strategic Plan ................................. 91 Listening Session of President Biden’s E.O. Titled “The Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad: E.O. 14008 Section 216(c) ......... 103 CFMC Five-Year Strategic Plan (Cont.) ........................ 119 Lane Snapper: Filling in Critical Gaps for Life History Parameters in U.S. Caribbean Waters ..................................... 125 1

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 49

SSC and Panel Appointments ................................... 134 DAP Reports .................................................. 136 St. Thomas/St. John ..................................... 136 Puerto Rico ............................................. 139 St. Croix ............................................... 141 Overview of the Aquaculture Opportunity Areas Initiative ..... 141 Aquaculture Project - Parcelas Suarez Loiza .................. 154 Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Report ................. 161 CFMC Liaison Officers Report ................................. 167 Puerto Rico ............................................. 167 St. Croix ............................................... 170 St. Thomas/St. John ..................................... 170 Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat Designation .................. 172 Queen Conch Status Review Update ............................. 173 Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program and Visualization in Marine Biodiversity Observation Network ...................... 174 USVI Compatible Regulations with Federal Waters .............. 184 Recreational Fishing License Program for the USVI ............ 184 Puerto Rico Electronic Data Reporting ........................ 185 Social Network Report ........................................ 192 Enforcement Reports .......................................... 194 Puerto Rico DNER ........................................ 194 USVI DPNR ............................................... 195 U.S. Coast Guard ........................................ 195 NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement ................ 196 Other Business ............................................... 198 Update Timing for Red Hind Spawning ..................... 198 Public Comment ............................................... 204 Adjournment .................................................. 207 - - 2

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 MOTIONS PAGE 35: Motion for the council to approve sending letters to other agencies and institutions within the USVI and Puerto Rico that have collected data that may be useful in understanding overall trends in the ecosystem and inviting them to share the data with the EBFM TAP. The motion carried on page 35.

PAGE 72: Motion to accept 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 twenty-five hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. The motion carried on page 73.

PAGE 81: Motion that the preferred alternative be the constant catch approach. The motion carried on page 83.

PAGE 85: Motion in Action 1 in the Spiny Lobster Draft Framework Amendment, the council moves to accept Sub-Alternative 3b (5 percent management uncertainty reduction buffer) for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix to set the ACLs from the ABCs. The motion carried on page 88.

PAGE 89: Motion in Action 2 in the Spiny Lobster Draft Framework Amendment, the council moves to accept Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for the AM trigger for spiny lobster in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix.

The motion carried on page 90.

PAGE 133: Motion to allocate funding for conducting life history information for lane snapper in the U.S. Caribbean as presented by Dr. Virginia Shervette. The motion carried on page 134.

PAGE 134: Motion to remove Jesse Rivera and Gary Engstrom from the Puerto Rico DAP and to appoint Joel Gonzalez.

The motion carried on page 134.

PAGE 134: Motion to appoint Joshua Quetel as a new member of the St Thomas/St. John DAP. The motion carried on page 134.

PAGE 134: Motion to reappoint all the rest of the members of the DAP St. Thomas/St. John, DAP Puerto Rico, and DAP St. Croix and all the O&E AP, the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel. The motion carried on page 135.

PAGE 135: Motion to reappoint Dr. Jason Cope to the SSC. motion carried on page 135.

3

The

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

PAGE 135: Motion to appoint Todd Gedamke to the vacant position on the SSC. The motion carried on page 135.

PAGE 135: Motion to reappoint all the members of the SSC. motion carried on page 136.

- - -

4

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

CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 173RD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Webinar APRIL 27-28, 2021 The Caribbean Fishery Management Council convened via webinar on Tuesday morning, April 27, 2021, and was called to order at 9:00 o’clock a.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL LIAJAY RIVERA: We will start with the roll call, starting with myself, Liajay Rivera, Miguel Rolon, Angie de los Irizarry, Alexis, Alida Ortiz, Carlos Farchette, David Ortiz, Diana Martino, Edward Schuster, Guillermo Cordero, Helena Antoun, Jessica Stephen, Jocelyn D’Ambrosio, John Walter, Jose Rivera, Julian Magras, Julie Neer, Kevin McCarthy, Marcos Hanke, Maria Lopez, Matt Walia, Michelle Duval, Nelson Crespo, Orian Tzadik, Rich Appeldoorn, Ricardo Lopez, Robert Copeland, Sarah Stephenson, Sennai Habtes, Shannon Calay, Stephanie Martinez, Wilson Santiago, Vanessa Ramirez, and Yasmin Velez-Sanchez. Those are all of my attendees on my list.

MARCOS HANKE: Today is April 27, 2001, and it’s the 173rd CFMC Meeting, and we started at 9:03 a.m. Right now, it’s 9:06 a.m., and we just listed the roll call made by Liajay, and we’re going to pass now for Adoption of the Agenda.

MIGUEL ROLON: Before you go into Adoption of the Agenda, we need to excuse Graciela Garcia-Moliner, due to the passing of her father, and Vanessa Ramirez will join us after lunch. She’s also at another family funeral this morning, and so those are the two that have been asked to be excused.

LIAJAY RIVERA: I also missed Christina Olan, who is the one driving the presentations.

ADOPTION OF AGENDA MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Liajay. On the Adoption of the Agenda, any extra consideration, or we need a motion.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, tomorrow morning, we would like to start at 8:30, and there will be a presentation of a proposal by Dr. Virginia Shervette, and it’s about the project that she’s proposing the council to consider for funding for the lane snapper.

Then, in Other Business tomorrow, we should read, for the record, 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

the letter sent in by Dr. Michelle Scharer regarding the red hind closed season and closure, for the record. Then you decide what to do at that time tomorrow morning, tomorrow at the other session, excuse me. Other Business.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel, and one other very small change on the agenda is that Sam Rauch will be presenting for Paul Doremus on the listening session.

MIGUEL ROLON: that hour.

He will be presenting and running the meeting for

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, and we need a motion to adopt the agenda.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: TONY BLANCHARD:

Motion to accept the agenda as read.

Second.

Good morning.

I am here with Julian.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos and Tony. There is a motion to adopt the agenda.

Is there any opposition?

Hearing none, the agenda is approved.

Next is Consideration of the 172nd Council Meeting Verbatim Transcription. Any comment or a motion to accept it?

CONSIDERATION OF 172ND COUNCIL MEETING VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION CARLOS FARCHETTE: TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE: it’s approved.

Motion to accept the verbatim minutes as read.

Second.

Thank you, both.

Any objection?

Hearing none, Executive Director’s Report, Miguel.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There’s not much to add, except that we received the funding for this year, and we are waiting for maybe additional funds during 2021, but the monies that we have received are enough to undertake our operations for this year.

The council, as you know, is working with the WECAFC, the United Nations Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission, and we are participating in several working groups. This year, the council will be assisting in funding with NOAA’s International Fisheries Office in the workplan that was adopted last year by the Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission. We will be able to have those meetings virtually this year, maybe in December, and we will 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

have a mix of virtual and in-person meetings.

Due to the pandemic problems that we all know is happening, the council staff will continue to do teleworking, with sporadic visits to the council office, and the building is also requesting every office to maintain a COVID-19 control plan, and so we will be continuing working until 2022, but the council staff is available for any business that we need to deal with within this year.

The August meeting was supposed to -- We were hoping to have an in-person and virtual meeting, but it’s probably not going to happen, because we have problems in Puerto Rico, and elsewhere, and it seems that we have a third or fourth wave of COVID that will preclude us from having that meeting in-person.

The other issue that we were discussing before had to do with the -- Not issue, but the notification that the CCC will meet in May, and the agenda is already adopted by the majority of the groups.

Then the five-year strategic plan is going to be presented at this meeting by Dr. Michelle Duval, and we are proposing to have a oneday meeting of the council by July 21 to finish the process of adopting the document, and remember the document has to go through the public process, and so we can adopt the five-year strategic plan in 2021. That’s what we have so far, Mr. Chairman.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. I just want to recognize Andy Strelcheck from SERO. I just received Maria’s text that he was having problems to connect. Do you have any words for the council, Andy, and words on the process?

ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos.

I really appreciate the introduction. I’m serving as the Acting Regional Administrator currently for the Southeast Regional Office, after Roy’s retirement on December 31, and so I look forward to working with you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much for attending our meeting, and thank you very much for your interest, and let’s keep moving forward. Thank you very much. We have the next item on the agenda is the Southeast Data Assessment and Review, that presentation.

SOUTHEAST DATA, ASSESSMENT, AND REVIEW (SEDAR) UPDATE JULIE NEER: There is no presentation, and I was just going to give you guys an update on SEDAR 80, Caribbean queen triggerfish.

This is Julie Neer, by way, SEDAR Coordinator.

For this assessment, SEDAR 80, queen triggerfish, the assessment started 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

- I do have -- There is a schedule that was supplied to you guys in the briefing book, I believe, and we could put that up, if you wanted to see that.

Basically, we started, in early January of this year, with this assessment, and we had a data scoping call for the life history group, and it was at that time that the group was informed that there is no -- That the ages will not be ready until the end of September, and so there was some discussion amongst the group, and council staff was present as well, and SSC representation as well, and it was determined that we really want those ages.

The Science Center informed the group that they could continue with the schedule on track, as planned, and finishing it on time, but it would certainly limit the availability of options, with regard to what type of assessments we could do, without having those age data, and so it was determined by the group that they prefer to push the assessment back and to allow for that age data to be made available.

Instead of the assessment basically being underway now, full bore, with a completion date in the fall, we now have pushed most of the assessment process back, waiting on that age data, and now the assessment will be completed in April of 2022 instead of -- I believe it was originally October of 2021, but the group really thought it was critical to have that age data available for consideration and inclusion, for the possible modeling options that it would afford us, and that’s pretty much all I had with regard to an update for that.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. Do you have any questions or any other observations for the council, or that’s it?

JULIE NEER: That was pretty much it, with regard to triggerfish, and then I believe Graciela mentioned that, at some point, the council is going to talk about -- Well, I heard you’re going to talk about a proposal, potentially, for lane snapper. The Steering Committee is meeting in May, May 13, at which time we need to know the council’s requests for 2024. We need to know what species, what platforms, you guys are interested in having assessed for 2024. We will need that information in about three weeks.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for putting in context the need of those information to come up to the council. Thank you very much, Julie.

JULIE NEER: MARCOS HANKE:

Sure.

We have the next item on the agenda, if there isn’t 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

any questions for Julie. Hearing none, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. This is the part of the agenda for the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and, Miguel or Liajay, who will be presenting on that part?

SOUTHEAST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER (SEFSC) UPDATE CLAY PORCH: Good morning, Marcos.

I just got back from the chiropractor, and so I think John Walter was going to give a little synopsis of where we are, but, John, you’re muted.

MIGUEL ROLON: We have some difficulties on John Walter’s end. is trying to join in again.

SHANNON CALAY:

Can you hear me?

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

He

SHANNON CALAY: We can wait a few more minutes for John, but, if John is not able to get his audio straightened out, I am prepared to introduce this topic.

CLAY PORCH:

Why don’t you go ahead, Shannon?

SHANNON CALAY:

Okay.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Shannon.

SHANNON CALAY: We do have some news to announce, and I will be yielding the floor, ultimately, to Kevin McCarthy, but, first, I did want to introduce Kevin McCarthy. Many of you know him well, and he has been a member of the Caribbean SSC for a number of years, and he is now our Acting Branch Chief of the new Caribbean Branch at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and he will be introducing them shortly.

Also, I wanted to introduce Keeley, and, unfortunately, John knows -- John could introduce Keely much better than I can, but Keeley is our new Communications Officer at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and she’s working directly with Clay and with John to facilitate our communications. We really want to say that I think that’s a great addition to our directorate, and we look forward to improving our communications with this council, and so, at this point, I will now open the floor to Kevin, who will tell you more about the Southeast Fisheries Science Center topics.

MARCOS HANKE:

Good morning, Kevin.

9

Go ahead.

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

KEVIN MCCARTHY: Good morning, Marcos.

Thanks, Shannon, and thanks, Marcos.

Good morning, everyone.

I won’t belabor the introduction of myself, since Shannon has already done it, and a number of you already know me, but I would like to introduce the staff of the newly-formed Caribbean Branch at the Science Center in Miami.

Some of the names you will recognize, and some will be new to you all, and so Nancie Cummings, Adyan Rios, Stephanie Martinez, and Refik Orhun comprise the staff, along with me. Of course, Nancie and Adyan are familiar to a number of you, from previous stock assessments, and Nancie also has an important and leading role in the WECAFC group.

Stephanie is new to the Caribbean, at least in terms of her work with the Science Center, but she’s from Puerto Rico, and so she’s not new to the Caribbean in her own life. Refik has done, for years now, work in the Gulf of Mexico, but he’s also done a lot of work with aquaculture, and so the group itself brings together a lot of expertise, data supply, data analyses for stock assessments, stock assessments themselves, as I mentioned, and aquaculture, with Refik’s background.

Also, a number of folks have been involved with outreach and education, and Adyan Rios, for example, has done some work in the region with outreach and education, and a number of you may have seen her presentations in the past.

Just a couple of other items, before I yield the floor back to Clay or John or Shannon, whoever may be picking up the baton from here, but we’re working -- The group here is working collaboratively with DPNR and DNER and universities in the region, the University of the Virgin Islands, for example, other federal agencies, and contractors on more than fourteen projects in the region, and so we’re excited to keep those going, and I’m excited to have some other folks coming in to work on those.

These include improved port sampling, life history information, gear selectivity issues, and we also want to improve our communications with you all, not just with the new communications director, but in general directly between this new Caribbean Branch and council staff and other folks in the region, but I would say that we want to maintain the channels of communication that we’ve already established.

For example, council and SSC requests should still go to Larry Massey, John Walter, Shannon Calay, and now me. We’re also working with other folks in the Science Center that aren’t necessarily in 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

Miami, although there are some other folks in Miami that will continue to do Caribbean stuff. Kim Johnson, for example, is in the Miami Lab, but not in the Caribbean Branch, and so we’ve got some cross-branch work going on within Miami, and many of you may be aware of this, but we’ve got staff in Panama City and Galveston and the Pascagoula Laboratory, among others, that are doing work in the region.

One of the things I’m going to do is set up a regular meeting, maybe a monthly meeting, with council staff, with Graciela and whoever else is appropriate, just to be talking more and staying on top of issues that we don’t want to fall through the cracks, due to lack of communication.

I want to reiterate a number of the points that Julie Neer just made, that SEDAR 80 is underway, queen triggerfish, and the project schedule, as she has mentioned, has been adjusted to allow some of the critical age data from Virginia Shervette to be included, and there is an updated schedule on the website.

I think we also would like to reiterate that a stock assessment prioritization should be conducted.

Let’s get the highestpriority species on a routine schedule and some sort of appropriate assessment frequency. We can work, in this new Caribbean Branch, to help facilitate that, to help facilitate identifying the highvalue species and indicator species that should receive some high priority in regular assessments.

We’ve got just a couple of science issues that I will go over, and then I will yield the floor back to others at the Science Center.

We do have Cooperative Research Program funding, and we’ve got a project in Puerto Rico right now, and the Cooperative Research Program -- That is a project -- Those are projects that directly involve the industry, and so either commercial folks or the people from the recreational sector are directly involved in the process with scientists, and so that’s a program that we’re very excited about.

It facilitates not only the science, but it gets the community involved to take an active role in collecting the data for management of their resources, and so I think that’s a very important program, and we’re really excited about it, and hopefully that funding will continue into the future, and we’ll expand the programs and the research that we’re doing through that mechanism.

One of the other issues that we’ll be working with Puerto Rico DNER scientists is to automate the correction factor calculation.

As you all know, the landings in Puerto Rico utilize a correction 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

factor to calculate, or to estimate, the total landings, and that, for Puerto Rico staff, is fairly laborious, and so the Science Center staff are going to work with DNER to improve that process.

Right now, it takes quite a while to get the data entered and to analyze the data, and that’s a process that we think we can automate and make it a bit more streamlined and rapid. That way, we won’t be waiting longer than is absolutely necessary to have those landings in. Because the landings are so important to the management process, we would like those to come through as quickly as we can get them through.

We’re also working with Virgin Islands DPNR Division of Fish and Wildlife scientists to improve port sampling efficiency. Folks at some of the landing spots and the boat ramps may see -- They may see the Fish and Wildlife scientists out. What we’re trying to do is improve the speed at which port sampling occurs. We don’t want this to be any more burdensome to the fishers than it absolutely has to be, but the landings and the size composition of the landings are critical for management, and so we’re excited that this project is beginning, and so you may see a bit more activity with DFW staff.

They are going to be using photography to help facilitate this process, but what they’ll be doing is they’re taking pictures of the landed catch.

They’re not taking pictures of people, and they’re not taking pictures of vessels. They’re taking pictures of the catch so that we can more readily automate species identification, and we’ll get lengths of the fish from those photographs. I mean, this is a process, and we’ll have to work through it, and so it won’t be fully underway immediately, but it’s a method to try and improve sampling efficiency, so that, when somebody comes in with a bunch of fish, and they’re due to be sampled, it won’t take an extraordinarily long time to sample their catch.

What we’re trying to do is make this less burdensome for the fishers, and so that’s the kind of activity that you may be seeing in the coming weeks and months at some of the landing sites in the Virgin Islands, and so that, I think, is all that I had, and so I’m prepared to yield the floor back to John or Shannon or Clay, whoever needs to take this up.

JOHN WALTER: I wanted to just apologize for my inability to manage Zoom. Good morning to everyone, and we’re really happy to have Kevin onboard and to have formed the Caribbean Branch, and I won’t take up any more time here on that, but I think we’ll be working very closely, and it’s going to increase our ability to focus on 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

the Caribbean and provide a much higher level of service.

Also, I think Shannon noted Keeley Belva, our Communications Manager, and so we’ll be able to communicate a lot better, as we’ve hired a dedicated communications manager, and that’s a really big thing for our Center, and so, with that, I will yield to anyone else from the Center. Thanks.

CLAY PORCH: Thank you for that, John and Shannon and Kevin. I really appreciate it. You did a very thorough job. The only thing I would add is that, as I mentioned at a previous council meeting, the Southeast Center is going through a complete reorganization, and so I am the blame for that, but the idea is that we’re trying to find ways to be more efficient with the resources that we do have.

As many of you know, resources have been pretty scarce everywhere, including in the Caribbean, and we just got a $1.2 million budget reduction this year, and so it’s all the more important for us to try and figure out how we can be more efficient, and one of the ways we can do that is to centralize across our own organization, both in terms of things like administrative tasks, but also trying to do a better job of having people who are experts in a particular field supervising only that field and not trying to be a jack-ofall-trades.

We have completed two phases of that reorganization, and, from our perspective, we’ve completed the final phase, and we’re almost ready to go, but it’s just that it’s hung up in the Department of Commerce now. Hopefully that will happen soon, and then we’ll be completely reorganized, and you’ll start seeing a lot more efficiencies.

As part of that reorganization, we stood up the Caribbean Branch that you’ve already heard about, and John Walter’s position as Deputy Director for Council Services is also part of the reorganization, and that’s something that I put in place, because our Center is the only one that has three councils, and, really, a fourth council, when you count HMS sharks, because, although they’re not formally a council, they act like one, because the sharks aren’t managed by another management body.

Essentially, we have four councils, and the most any other Science Center has is two, and being that divided, with so many meetings, it’s really hard for me to give the due attention to everything, and so John is going to be my right hand, helping me staff the meetings and make sure you get the service that you deserve, and, as he mentioned, Keeley Belva is our new Communications Lead, and 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

we’re looking to step up our game in both internal and external communication, and I will say that we’re courting funds to try and expand our engagement in the Caribbean.

We have some good leads, and possibly we’ll end up getting some funds, but it’s really too early to say anything definitive yet, but, overall, I have to say that I’m pretty excited. You listened to that long list that Kevin gave of all the accomplishments that we’re making in the Caribbean, and the spiny lobster assessment is a huge one, actually, and that’s the first time we’ve had an assessment of that level completed in the Caribbean, and so we’re really excited to see that get used in management, and, overall, just we’re really happy with the way people are coming together, and we’re starting to see some real progress in the Caribbean, and so thank you very much.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. Does anybody else from your group want to speak?

Otherwise, I have comments.

I want to welcome all the new members of the Caribbean Branch, and, at the same time, I want to say thank you to the previous people that have been addressing this and forming this great group to work with our region, especially to Kevin, Adyan, Shannon, and Kevin.

The communication with the fishermen has been improved, and especially based on working with the fishermen and being available and transparent during the processes.

Also, they’re very patient in explaining the technical and scientific elements to the fishing community, and that’s essential for this area, because this is where the connection takes place, and that didn’t happen in the past, and this team is able to do it, and, in this way, I’m very happy for this new timing and that new accomplishments and the new things coming up. Thank you to all, and are there any comments from the rest of the council members before we move on? Any questions?

Hearing none, if you guys see, I am speeding up the whole process, because we have a very loaded agenda. Thank you very much to the presenters so far. Hearing no questions, we are going to go to the next item on the agenda, which is the Scientific and Statistical Committee.

SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL COMMITTEE REPORT RICHARD APPELDOORN: Thank you, Marcos. There is a presentation.

This is the report of the SSC. At our last meeting, we discussed two issues, the ecosystem conceptual model and updates to the spiny lobster ABC process, and so I’m going to go first with the conceptual model.

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

This is going to be somewhat of a review from what I gave last time to the council, and so the SSC has been working on a single generic model, and it’s been a very evolved process as we’ve gone along, and that model, as you will see, is highly complex, and this reflects the diverse expertise and experience of the SSC members, and we have biologists, stock assessment people, economists, sociologists, et cetera, and so we have a very broad area of expertise represented, and that expertise and the issues that they deal with are expressed in the model.

One of the concerns is the time to develop a model versus how many models we were asked initially to do, and so we’ve been working on one generic model, as opposed to three separate models for each platform, because we have spent all this time just on one model so far, and to triple it would be -- Well, it would be an ongoing, perhaps never-ending, process.

We were also concerned about the independence of the product. That is to say we’re developing a generic product, and, if there’s any expertise on the platforms, it’s largely with Puerto Rico, but, for any of the platforms, for the SSC to really develop something, we would have to heavily rely on the input and knowledge base of the people from those areas, and that would be specifically the DAP members, who have already produced their own models, and so, to keep our model independent, that was another reason for not doing three separate models. We think that the generic model will be suitable for comparison purposes, and I’ll talk more about that at the end.

Just as a review, we started out looking at a bunch of sub-models that spanned the human dimensions that you see on the left and the natural dimensions that you see on the right, and so each one of those sub-models has a bunch of things in them, and the lines there represent potential connections between those sub-models, but, at the time -- This is just kind of where we were at that time, and things have gotten more complex.

As I said, it got more complex, and this was still early in the stage, and this was back in September of 2020, and we have progressed from there, and this is -- We have eight sub-models, and those sub-models vary in the number of components, and the numbers listed in there show the number of components within each sub-model.

It turns out that, if you were to look at all the potential connections, that’s 64,000 potential connections that you’re going to argue in committee, and you can see how laborious the process 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

would be.

We broke this down, and we were looking at, first, the connections within the sub-models, and this is a matrix of all the sub-models, along the top and along the sides, and so the diagonal is within sub-models, and the kind of peachy coral color that you can see in those boxes represent where there are connections within a submodel, between components of that sub-model.

The green, don’t really pay much attention. That was early thinking on potential connections between sub-models, but we haven’t gotten there really yet, and so you can see that there’s a lot of connections just within sub-models, which is why we have the sub-models, but there is a lot of white space out there that remains to be looked at.

We had this exercise where we were looking at the priority connections between the components within each pair of sub-models, and so, for each pairing of sub-models, we asked each of the SSC members to identify their three most important connections, the direction, as is it a positive relationship or a negative relationship, and their strength, and that is to say low, medium, or high in their strength.

This would produce what we were thinking of at the time as interim results that could be used by the council and the TAP, and they could also be used by other projects, like the Lenfest project and the ecosystem status report.

To give you an example of what we went through, this is the spreadsheet we were working on, and there’s fifty-six sets of comparisons across those eight sub-models, not including and without having the within-sub-model connections, and so we asked each one to say, okay, what would be the driver component in one sub-model and who would be the target component, or the response component, in the other sub-model, what’s the direction of that relationship, and the strength, and so this is a spreadsheet that everyone had to fill out on the SSC. As an example, again, and I think I gave this at the last review, but, just as an example of what we were thinking about, the three most important connections from the socioeconomic and cultural drivers sub-models affecting the fisheries sub-model could be seafood imports and exports affecting commercial catch, market demand affecting commercial catch, and tourism affecting recreational catch. In this case, there were two driver components affecting the same component, as shown in the next one.

This is the list of the components in each one of those models, and you can see that, as an example, here are three things that 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

could be affecting two other ones, as perhaps the priorities, but then, in a graphical form, it would look like that. It’s a little bit more messy, but it shows the same thing.

Here’s how you would score that on our sheet, where you see the driver component or response component, the direction, and you can see, for seafood imports/exports, that direction is zero, and that means it’s both positive or negative, depending on whether you’re talking about imports or exports, and then some example of what the strength might be, in terms of medium and high in this case.

This is an example of the actual outputs, and this is just one of those fifty-six sets of comparisons, and this is competing uses of resources versus land-based uses, and you can see that, although we were asked to identify our three top priorities across the SSC, there were ten connections that were given by at least one SSC member, and the scores that you see are the strengths, and so three would be a high, and we get a number of data points from that.

We get what was the mean score, if you’re looking along the righthand side there, and we also get the tally, which is the number of SSC members who ranked something as being that high, and then we get the product of those, which would be the sum, and there is also variance values that are associated with it, and so we’re able to take this ranking process and generate some quantitative information, in terms of where the SSC saw importance and how that importance was scored.

Remember that, with each one of these, there’s also a direction that’s associated with these, and so this is the kind of information we were generating.

Each one of these comparisons was discussed, and people were allowed to change their scores, after hearing arguments from other people, and so it took a while to get through all of this.

The overall result was that there were 484 connections identified between components across sub-models. The minimum number would have been 168, if we all agreed on what the top three were, and, as a consequence, we had a 288 percent increase over that minimum.

This gives you a color representation, and now we’re ignoring the diagonal, and the red blocks are where we see connections between sub-components, and you can see there’s a lot of red there, and we can use just this graphical output to identify some key areas right away.

For example, there are thirty-six cases where natural disturbances was identified as being an important driver across many of the sub-models, and so a lot of components within the sub-models were 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

identified, and so, if we’re looking at what’s the role of something, natural disturbances have a strong influence across the system as a whole.

To a lesser degree, but still strong components, were coastal development and the regulatory structure, affecting, again, a lot of the components in the various sub-models, and so there’s some key sub-components that have a broad reach across all of the models.

We can also look the other way, which identifies who is being impacted a lot, and you can see coral reefs, and here is the lead, where there were twenty-eight components from various sub-models that are impacting coral reefs. Fishing ground is the next one, and there are twenty-seven components that affect the fishing grounds component, and seagrass beds were affected a lot, as were inshore forage fishes, and this is not surprising, and these are the basis of our fishing, the habitats, the food base, and the locations where things occur.

We had 484 connections across sub-models, and we add those to the 304 connections between components within each sub-model, and so we have 788 total connections within the model as a whole, and we’re getting quantitative outputs for these that reflect the diversity and strength within the SSC. I think compilation is still in process, although it may be close to being finished now, in the sense that there were asked to be written descriptions and definitions of each of the components, and that information and discussion, regarding the strength and direction of stuff, and that’s all stuff that’s extracted from the transcripts of our discussions from these meetings that have been going on for I think over a year.

Where are we? The SSC has finalized its generic ecosystem model for the U.S. Caribbean, and so we would like to stop there. The SSC believes that the ecosystem conceptual model, in its 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.

The SSC recognizes that the ecosystem conceptual model will be useful in developing the next steps in the process of developing 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

a fishery ecosystem plan and in addressing concerns specific to the SSC, and here are some examples. It will be useful to generate questions to help prioritize management strategies, such as management strategy evaluations. It can help generate questions to help prioritize future research and identify data and knowledge gaps.

It can be used to identify hypotheses to be tested using available data in quantitative modeling approaches, and we noted that, of the identified linkages that were given priority, 28 percent of them actually have data, and so that shows us that there are places that we can work, but then there is also lots of gaps that we need to look at to try and get the data for them, and so this is just how some data does not account for the data extent or quality, but at least there is some data for 28 percent of those.

Continuing on examples, we can identify key ecosystem linkages and indicators for risk assessment, and we can explore different visualizations and communication tools for effective outreach of conceptual model outcomes.

There are specific issues, like magnitude, variability, and directional relationships, that will need to be dealt with, or confronted, in order to realize these next steps, and so there’s still work to be done.

I think that’s it, and so our conceptual model, as I’ve joked before, kind of started looking like this. Then things actually got out of hand, and it was looking a lot worse, but I think we’ve actually gotten things a little bit more under control, and it looks a little bit more contained, but we did not see the -- At this point of having to slog our way through 64,000 boxes, when we’ve already got seven-hundred-and-eighty-something taken care of.

That’s the end of the conceptual model review, and then now we’re going to talk about our recommendations regarding OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster. The recommendations that we’re making are going to be in response to things that were brought from the council and the Science Center, and so these are going to be discussed, I believe, by the Science Center later this morning, or at least later in the council meeting, and so the details of those I think you have to wait for, and I will just give what our recommendations are on this.

First of all, there was an issue that we are making changes just by kind of updating data and not really changing how we’re doing anything, and it was requested by the Center to allow the Chair to approve those updates without having to call a full meeting of the SSC, and the SSC voted to accept that, and so they will allow the 19

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

Chair to approve updated OFL projections and ABC estimates for spiny lobster using updated landings data and expansion factors, such as Puerto Rico for 2019, which should be coming online, for presentation to the council, and so that should simplify things as we go forward.

The SSC requested the Center to run updated projections with revised Puerto Rico landings data for spiny lobster for 2019 and the 2019 correction factors and then updating the ABCs and OFLs accordingly for the five-year period of 2021 to 2026.

The SSC recommends, for the purposes of the Draft Framework Amendment to the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix Fishery Management Plans, to modify spiny lobster management reference points based on the SEDAR 57 stock assessments, and the SSC recommends both a constant catch or variable catch ABCs for 2021 to 2023, as has already been done, and so we’re just being consistent with our recommendation that either one of those approaches is okay.

The SSC requests that the Science Center perform an interim assessment for spiny lobster by April 2022 and update all the landings and the TIP data into the model for the three islands.

The final data will be for 2020 or 2021, depending on what’s available at that time.

The SSC reminds the council to request that spiny lobster be scheduled for a SEDAR operational assessment, given that the previous assessment used data from 2016. Note that the SEDAR data operates with a two-year lead time, as Julie had mentioned previously, and so we’re kind of running toward the end of that period where have confidence in the data, and so we want to look forward to making this a regularly-scheduled process.

In the unlikely event that subsequent rulemaking with updated spiny lobster OFLs and ABCs and ACLs is not in place by the end of the SSC-recommended year period of 2023, the SSC recommends the following: For each island group, for both the constant and variable scenarios, that the OFL and ABC for 2024 and beyond would be equal to the variable OFL and ABC for 2023, until modified by subsequent rulemaking. This is a situation we are hoping would not occur, but we wanted to be on record that this is what should happen, should something unfortunate happen.

I think that’s the last one. No, there’s one more. We recommend that, for spiny lobster stocks, the council continue using the arithmetic mean for ACL monitoring purposes, that is to say for triggering the AM correction and calculating the length of AM20

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

based closures. This was a question that was brought to us from the Science Center of should we use the geometric mean or the arithmetic mean. What we’ve done in the past is the arithmetic mean, and we would like the -- We recommend to the council that they continue using that.

We had one other concern, and this is actually going to come up this morning. The SSC recommended to the council that they request to the Center to give high priority to reviewing the MER Report on the Puerto Rico port sampling and catch validation project. We think this is really going to be a valuable tool, going forward, on how to improve statistics landing collection and the correction factors in the future, and we’re excited about that, and we would like to see that presented to the SSC, as soon it clears approval through the Center, and then try to utilize this information to make those improvements within Puerto Rico, following recommendations, as reviewed by the various groups that are involved.

We’re excited about that, and we would like to see it move forward as quickly as possible, and so that’s my last slide, and I understand there are some questions.

MARCOS HANKE:

Richard, we have Tony Blanchard.

TONY BLANCHARD: Good morning, Rich.

I see that the SSC recommends, on the conceptual models, to only have a generic model.

I mean, in my opinion, I don’t believe in anything being generic, for the simple reason, as I understand, the line of reasoning that they want to come up with the generic model, but it would be like going to untuck it, and you have a custom made shirt to fit you, and then you go to the regular store and you buy a shirt, and that shirt will not fit you like the custom-made shirt. I would just like to put that out there, that, in my opinion, I don’t believe in the generic fit, and I will just leave it at that.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: Okay. I think your point is well taken, that the generic model is not custom designed to fit any of the islands, and, if the council and the TAP want us to go that extra step, we can do that. It will take a lot of time. However, we think that there are a lot of parallels between all of the models that have been used, and they are custom fit, from the DAPs’ point of view, but I think that they all fit in that kind of framework, but, for the SSC to continue down this road, we would have to get -- If the council and the TAP wanted an independent assessment, we would have to get expertise, further expertise, on those systems that would be independent of the DAPs, and I don’t see that happening, because the DAPs are in fact the leading expertise in these areas.

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

One could then say, okay, we don’t want something totally independent, but we would like a hybrid system that is custom made to that, and, if the council would like us to do that, we’re certainly open, but it’s going to take time and a lot of meetings to do that, and so your comments are correct, but this is also the realities of time and effort that we’re talking about.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Richard. Any other questions? Go ahead, Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: I don’t believe in cutting a corner, and I understand that we’re taking a sharp curve, because usually, and I’m not saying all the time, when you take the shortcut, or you don’t go the route, you end up running into a problem where it takes you more time, because you realize that this just ain’t working, and you should have just done it the right way first, in my opinion, and eliminated going over what should have been fixed.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Tony, for your follow-up. Does any other council member wish to participate or have any question or comment?

ANDY STRELCHECK: I have a question about the generic model and then a couple of questions about spiny lobster.

First, Rich, thanks for the presentation and the work on the SSC. I guess I’m interested in your perspective, the SSC’s perspective, with regard to the generic model and kind of one versus three models.

I’m getting up to speed on this, but it seems like the drivers and impacts, as identified in the generic model, likely are going to be similar drivers and impacts across all three platforms, and so I’m just curious kind of your reaction to that comment and kind of the need to go to three islands versus the ability to use this generic model kind of across the three platforms.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: First of all, I think that you’re right that there is similarities. Where you see a lot of differences are -Well, not differences so much, but it’s that things will collapse down, perhaps, when you start going into each of the island platforms, because perhaps a lot of things are concentrated in say one agency, and so we have a lot of boxes, but they all go down to like one agency is handling those kinds of things.

Some of the problems that we were dealing with are much more prominent in Puerto Rico, which, for example, has permanent rivers, and so runoff is much more of an issue there than in St. John and St. Croix and St. Thomas, but I think those things would show up when the TAP and the other group -- Like Lenfest is also going to, 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

I think, use these models and try to look at stacking these things, and I think that process will identify where we have those similarities and differences, and, if it becomes a problem, in those stages, they can certainly come back to us and say, hey, wait a minute, we need some guidance on how you would handle this in this specific situation.

I think, at this point, the model is so complex that someone really needs to take a look at it and use it and find out if it’s suitable for the purposes for which we were asked to produce it for, and we do have a couple of TAP members on the SSC, and they were sort of comfortable, at this point, with let’s see how this works, before we go and spend a lot of time doing something that maybe we already have sufficient information for, and so that’s kind of where we left it. We’re not averse to going forward, but it was kind of like we’ve done a lot of work, and we would like to have someone who is going to use this say this is good enough, or it’s not good enough.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Rich. That’s helpful context. Then I guess the two questions, which aren’t necessarily directed at Rich, but there was two recommendations that the SSC was offering to the council, and one was to ensure that we don’t lose sight of scheduling an operational assessment for spiny lobster, and the other pertained to the Science Center’s review of the MER catch report, and so I don’t know, Miguel or others, if we need to make a recommendation regarding the operational assessment for spiny lobster, given the coming Steering Committee meeting, and then I would certainly be interested in hearing from the Center about the review process for the catch report and any thoughts on an independent peer review of that.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: If I may, that discussion is exactly what we need to do, and I would like to hear from the Center the reaction to the questions posed by Richard’s report, if we want to pursue this in the best way possible, and so I believe the next thing is to hear from the Center the reaction to the questions and the requests by the SSC. Regarding the models, remember this is not the last time that you are going to be seeing this. The next step -- Also, I want to remind the group that you can have the biggest model you can get, but, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the only thing the council is supposed to be working at is anything that is related to the fishery, and so I believe that the SSC has done the work that it was for them to do, and now we have to wait for the Lenfest group, 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

and the Charitable Trusts is working on the other components of the models, and then we need to sit down with those three, the SSC and those two other groups, and look at the similarities that we have and the differences that we have, so we can put together a list of next steps.

Certainly Tony’s comment is not -- We need to go back to each one of the islands, the island-based FMPs, and we need to see what part of the model fits into each one of the areas and what parts do not fit and then how can we come up with the best available approach for this model, and so that’s where we are, and I believe that maybe somebody from the Center can answer the question that Andy posed and the SSC. CLAY PORCH: Marcos, I can jump in on that.

We haven’t had a chance to thoroughly review the MER report, although we think it’s a huge step forward.

What we plan to do is get somebody with survey statistics expertise, just to give it an extra sort of independent look, just like we do with any of our information, and we want to make sure it’s the best available science before we push forward on it.

As for the spiny lobster operational assessment, we do support that. It’s getting kind of out-of-date now, because it’s taken a while to act on the information, and so, ideally, we would get an operational scheduled here fairly soon. It shouldn’t be a huge lift for us to pull that off.

MARCOS HANKE: other steps?

Thank you.

Miguel, do we need to do anything, any

MIGUEL ROLON: No. From this meeting, Graciela and I will pull together a list of actions regarding the spiny lobster, and we will report back to you at the August meeting. There is a lot of conversations that we need to do with the Center, and, of course, we are going to touch base with the SSC, but, at this time, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the SSC report is, number one, finish the task that was assigned to them at this time for the model, and, also, it incorporates the recommendations regarding the spiny lobster.

Certainly many of the acronyms and things that we use here will be explained a little bit better at the August meeting, so that everybody will understand where we are, and so I believe that that closes it, and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest for you to ask those people who came later, and I just admitted Nicole Angeli, to identify themselves for the record.

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

MARCOS HANKE: I would like to recognize the new people. identify yourselves on the record.

TODD GEDAMKE:

Todd Gedamke has arrived.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you very much.

Please

Anybody else?

UNIDENTIFIED: Hi. This is -- (Name not audible on the recording.)

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

LOREN REMSBERG: Hi, Marcos.

Office of General Counsel.

This is Loren Remsberg from the NOAA

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you very much.

TAUNA RANKIN:

Tauna Rankin is here.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Tauna.

MICHELLE SCHARER: MARCOS HANKE: ADYAN RIOS:

Anybody else?

Chelsea, are you there?

This is Michelle Scharer, SSC.

Thank you, Michelle.

Do we have anybody else?

Adyan Rios, Southeast Fisheries Science Center.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Adyan.

MIGUEL ROLON:

I have Virginia Shervette that just joined in.

MARCOS HANKE:

Welcome, Virginia.

VIRGINIA SHERVETTE:

Hi.

Anybody else?

Sorry I’m late.

MARCOS HANKE: No worries. I don’t think we have anybody else.

Otherwise, please post in the chat, and we will recognize you later on.

Let’s keep moving with the agenda.

We have the next presentation with Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Technical Advisory.

ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL REPORT SENNAI HABTES: Good morning, and thank you for the recognition, Mr. Chair. This is Sennai Habtes, Chair of the Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Technical Advisory Panel.

Good morning again, everyone, and I know we have a busy schedule, and so I won’t take up too much of your time, but I wanted to update you on some 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

of the things that are ongoing with the EBFM TAP, or the EcosystemBased Fisheries Management Technical Advisory Panel.

We held our most recent meeting February 4 and 5 of 2021, and what we went through there was a review of the current updates from our partners, meaning what’s going on with the Lenfest project, as well as the ongoing process for collecting and analyzing existing datasets that can be used to understand overall ecosystem trends within the U.S. Caribbean, and also a better understanding of the process for which we’re going to collect information on conceptual models through these stakeholder meetings that Lenfest and other partners are conducting.

We also identified a need for creating a sub-group on data validation and hosting, and I will bring that up in a recommendation to the council a little later, but, essentially, as we are working with all of our regional partners to collect and analyze these existing datasets, we’ve realized that there is a need for us to get clarification from the council on how we can create a centralized repository for the hosting, QA/QC, and the sharing of this data, and even if that’s necessary for what we’re trying to do.

In addition, we have identified the need for some of the council’s help inviting some regional agencies and partners to submit data that we can use for identifying these overall ecosystems trends, and, finally, we approved the latest drift, or finalized a draft, of the FEP goals and objectives, which I will present to you, and we would like for the council to either provide any necessary feedback that they feel fits, or we would suggest that you guys make a motion to approve them.

The main thing that we came up with was the timeline of activity that the TAP is going to follow to conduct the necessary requirements, in order to draft -- End up with a final process for drafting an FEP. As you guys know, that is going to incorporate two larger subsets of work. First, it’s looking at the overall indicators and trends in ecosystem services, as well as data across the U.S. Caribbean, and the other is to look at the management objectives and conceptual models derived from stakeholders and the SSC and do the stacking technique that Rich had described to understand where these overlap, where they can be used, and how they best fit for being used to identify threats and factors that influence change in overall ecosystem services in the U.S. Caribbean.

What this looks like is we have finished revising and drafting the 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

EBFM TAP goals, and we have that to present to the council, and we will continue working on the existing datasets through the end of 2021. We hope to have, by that time, either December or January, December of 2021 or January of 2022, a finalized repository that contains all the information and datasets that we’ll be using for analyzing ecosystem trends.

Hopefully, within August of 2021, we will have completed all of the stakeholder meetings and designs of the conceptual models that we will be analyzing in the TAP, and hopefully, by April of 2022, we will have completed the process of looking at the different conceptual models that have been created by our partners and Lenfest, as well as the one that was associated with the SSC and the ones that will be devised through the stakeholder meetings, to identify best uses for the overall FEP that we’re trying to draft.

By December of 2022, we hope to have the strategic objectives prioritized and a completed outline, as well as the beginning of some of the writing for the FEP, and continue that work towards developing operational objectives with concrete action items for writing assignments associated with the FEPs. Then, finally, in 2023, the plan will be to develop performance measures for the last section of the FEP and a draft management strategy that can be submitted to the council for approval, as well as a feedback mechanism for using the information from the FEP that can also be improved by the council towards creating operational decision-making using ecosystem-based fisheries modeling. Then, finally, complete the FEP document and submit it to the council for approval between August and December of 2023.

Having said all that, what’s ongoing currently is our partners at Lenfest, and I want to make clear that this is an additional project that is outside of the TAP, but many of its members are people that work within the TAP, and so they are doing this work as part of a separate proposal that’s funded by the Lenfest Program, and we will evaluate their efforts as part of the TAP. They are continuing holding stakeholder meetings with Melivora Consulting and Lenfest.

They had the first with St. Croix environmental NGOs on April 22, and that will continue throughout the summer, and then the Lenfest project team will work to create and develop stakeholder meetings to identify the basis for conceptual models with regional scientific agencies and fishermen over the rest of the summer.

That’s what is ongoing, in terms of all that, as well as the continued reaching out to agencies, to try and collect all of the 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

necessary information for understanding the overall ecosystem trends that we’re trying to put into these conceptual models.

Having gone overall of that, some of the things that we’ve identified as needs, which would like to suggest that the council approves, and, if the council is so moved, they are welcome to use the wording that I have provided on the slide, but the first thing is that we are really in need of creating a sub-group within the TAP to create some sort of data repository as well as the procedures and methods by which we evaluate how we within the TAP can host and share that information with partners.

A lot of the information that comes in has privacy concerns, and so we want to make sure that we have clear protocols for using that data appropriately, and so what we would like to do is create a sub-group that contains members of the TAP as well as -- Excuse me. I’m speaking about the next slide, and I’ll come back to that one.

What we’re currently requesting is that the council allows the TAP to work with council staff to draft letters and email a request to other agencies and institutions within both the USVI and Puerto Rico, as well as nearby jurisdictions, that will allow us to have them share data that may be useful in understanding overall trends in the ecosystem, inviting them to share their data with the EBFM TAP. This is a recommendation, and we are asking the council to consider it, and, if necessary, vote on it. You are welcome to use the wording that I have proposed on the slide.

The next motion that we are recommending that the council takes a look at -- I just noticed that Michelle put in the chat that the dates for Puerto Rico are incorrect.

I apologize for that, Michelle, and I will try and get the correct dates from you for that and update this presentation and send it back to the council.

The next thing that we would like to recommend to the council, or suggest that you take a look at, is the FEP goals and sub-goals that the TAP has drafted, and we have sent this to the council previously, and we have not heard back if there were any comments or edits or revisions that you would like to make, and, if there are none, what we would like to suggest is that the council moves to approve and accept these goals for the Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management TAP’s fishery ecosystem plan, and I will just quickly allow you guys to look at those while we discuss.

If the council so moves to bring this to a vote, or to a motion, they’re welcome to use the information on this slide, again, to do so, and I would be happy, after the presentation, to discuss any 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

questions, revisions, or edits to these goals, prior to the council taking a look at these.

Last, but not least, as we are trying to get a lot of this data that can be used to understand the overall ecosystem trends, we will need to create some sort of sub-group that can work on both the logistics of creating a data repository, but also methods and procedures by which we maintain confidentiality, protect privacy, and understand how to use this data effectively in the repository without breaking any of the needs of our partners, their sharing the data with us.

As such, we would like for the council, or we suggest for the council, to direct the EBFM TAP to create a sub-group of the TAP to provide guidance on data management policies and data repository options, for the purpose of archiving the data used for the development of the FEP. We already have four EBFM TAP members who have indicated that they would be willing to sit on the subcommittee and a list of potential outside members that we would like to bring in as invited experts to help us develop both the procedures and the logistics of the repository. If there’s time, we would love for the council to think about this motion and bring it to a vote.

With that, that’s what we’ve been working on in the TAP, and, at this point, I will be happy to take any questions or concerns or put any of the suggested motions that we would like for the council to consider back up for review.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Can anybody help me with the chat or the list or the participants?

MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, you have a question by Tony Blanchard.

MARCOS HANKE:

Tony, go ahead.

TONY BLANCHARD: Good morning, Mr. Habtes. I have a question as to which government agency would be contacted for information.

Which local government agencies would that include?

SENNAI HABTES: Sure.

At present, we’ve reached out to DEP in Puerto Rico, DPNR, Fish and Wildlife, and CZM, as well as all of the universities and institutions and agencies. We’re also working with some people within NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and we would be happy to, if you can think of any other agencies, and I’m sure I’m missing a few, but, if there are ones that you know of that have information on long-term data collection, meaning things like abundance and distribution of organisms -- One of the 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

areas we’re looking to try and bring in is the National Parks Service, and that’s one of the ones we would like the council’s support with, perhaps drafting a letter and seeing if we can create more collaboration with getting some of their data.

MARCOS HANKE:

Anybody else?

MIGUEL ROLON:

There is nobody else in the chat.

MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Hold on a second, Marcos.

MARCOS HANKE:

Clay, go ahead.

Sennai, you requested -You have one from Clay.

CLAY PORCH: Thank you.

I am looking at the spaghetti diagram that Dr. Appeldoorn showed us, just getting at the complexity, and also at your presentation, which seems really ambitious, but the resources aren’t equal to the task in the U.S. Caribbean, and so I wonder if you’ve given any thought to maybe carving -- Thinking about the fishery ecosystem plan, carving this up into some bitesized chunks, where we identify some of the things that we think are the most important drivers and then focus our resources on that.

I mean, we’re taking that approach, largely, in the Gulf of Mexico, just because the system is too complex, and we don’t even have the resources there, and so we’re focusing on things like red tide, or, in that case, one of the most abundant fish, forage fish, is menhaden, and so we have projects working on that, but the idea is to pick those things that everybody agrees that are likely important and channel our resources there, and hopefully come up with useful results, because we put enough resources to actually get a result there.

I wonder if there’s been much thought about doing something like that in the Caribbean, because it’s so complex. There are so many things that you could look at, and I could see us kind of treading water for a long time before we really make any progress.

SENNAI HABTES: Sure, and I would say I think that part of the purpose of doing the conceptual models with stakeholders is to identify exactly those important areas that we can focus. We’re still in the planning stages, and so it’s hard to really think that we can accomplish everything that is listed as ecosystem drivers, primarily because there are data limitations to what’s available that we can understand.

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

I think those two factors are going to be driving the direction that we use to develop the FEP, and that, I believe, is exactly the purpose of the TAP, is to take all of that information into account, from the conceptual models and the stakeholder-driven process, as well as looking at the overall trends that are identifiable in the data that we’re able to collect, through our partners with the Lenfest program, and use that to identify the areas that need to be the drivers for the FEP. Of course, all of that is at the discretion of the council, and so, if they have sections that they direct us on to be focused on that are more important, we can obviously add those in, and we hope that this becomes an iterative process, meaning a management tool that can be used repeatedly to identify directions for more research or for more management needs, based on an ecosystemsbased approach.

CLAY PORCH:

Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON: You have Jocelyn D’Ambrosio and Michelle Duval waiting for a turn to speak.

MARCOS HANKE: I recognize Jocelyn D’Ambrosio, and, after, Michelle Duval, but I need to make a comment before we end. Go ahead.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you. One point that I wanted to make was about the potential for the sub-committee of the TAP and the potential recommendation for persons outside the TAP to be on that sub-committee. I would recommend against having persons outside the TAP on the sub-committee, because that could sort of bring us back into needing to make sure we’re complying with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, these committees of the council are exempt from that act, but, if we have people that are sort of outside the TAP, that might sort of run back into Federal Advisory Committee Act issues, and so you could have speakers come and offer input, or not necessarily input, but rather just have a presentation rather at a public meeting, but having them actually on the committee, on a sub-committee, might be a little bit confusing, and so, if we wanted to add them to the TAP and then have them as part of the sub-committee, that would be a potential process, but I just wanted to be careful about Federal Advisory Committee Act issues.

MIGUEL ROLON: To that, that was the comment that I was going to make. The TAP was created as a unit, eight members and that’s it, and you work on it. Anything outside of that, we have to come 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

back to the council, and we are not going to add anybody to any sub-committee, because of FACA, and that’s why we need to find -I can talk later with Sennai about other possibilities to incorporate people for what they need for the discussion at the TAP, but what Jocelyn D’Ambrosio just said is really what we need to be guided for, or guided by, at this time.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Now you have Michelle Duval.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick comment, and so apologies to Sennai for you not having the correct dates for the Puerto Rico outreach meetings that we’re doing, but those are May 25 for businesses and May 27 for NGOs, and I will also just quickly address a comment from Raimundo in the chat, and so those invitations go out one month in advance, and so today is the day that those invitations will go out, and be checking your email this afternoon, after I finish my presentation to the council.

Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Kevin.

KEVIN MCCARTHY: Thank you, Marcos. Just circling back to the TAP and the sub-committee, so long as the committee can seek outside expertise for some guidance, I think we’re fine.

I’m thinking particularly when we’re talking about databases and database construction and development, and that’s some -- That’s a very complicated business that requires a lot of expertise, and, having done some of that myself -- I haven’t done the development, and I have consulted with experts.

I know that it’s very complicated, and so, as long as there’s a mechanism that we can receive guidance from experts, I think that’s really important for the work of the committee, and so they don’t need to be on a new sub-committee, as we’re clearly not going to do, but some mechanism to get some outside guidance I think would be extremely helpful, and I think I heard from Jocelyn that there’s a mechanism to do that.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Kevin.

Miguel, do we have anybody else in the chat, or can I make my question?

MIGUEL ROLON:

No, but, after you talk, I have a comment.

MARCOS HANKE: Okay.

Sennai, can you please put back the presentation with the blue table that you have that starts the activities?

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

SENNAI HABTES: for us.

Christina has it, and so I think she can put it up

MARCOS HANKE: Sennai, I’m going to make a series of questions, and please write them down, about the blue table that you have there, and my opinion is that I am not ready for approval of the goals and objectives, the way you guys presented, and the reasons are that -- You stated there on the number -- Use the conceptual models and additional products to create island-specific risk assessment. Once you establish the risk, once you identify those risk assessments, which management implication will that have?

That’s number one.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, time is a concern, and, number one, I don’t think that you have time.

You are already over time for this topic, and it’s such an important topic that I believe that we should have time between here and the next meeting of the council, on July 21, and we can have -- Let’s say, in the morning, we will have two hours dedicated to the five-year strategic plan, and, in the afternoon, we can have two hours to address all of this.

Graciela and I can meet with Dr. Sennai Habtes and then go over each one of them, because you cannot assess any of this without looking at the fishery management plan that you are working on, the draft that you have, and so we need to work this a little bit more, but I believe that we would like to thank the TAP, because this is exactly what we need to do. We need to revisit those goals and objectives and make sure that we don’t confuse goals and objectives with other things.

We can come back with a clear picture of what is needed from the council.

Regarding the data collection, we need also to ask the question today, or maybe on the 21st, of do we need to be the repository of that data, and what form do we need that data, and remember that you have to keep an eye on your goals and objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act that are really fishery related stuff, because, in the models, you have data -- If you accept the wording that you have here, you will need to ask NASA and all these people to tell us about the hurricanes and everything, and those are components that we have in the model, and, of course, nobody is thinking about that.

I believe that what the TAP is suggesting is to look for data that is germane to what we need to do and that is directed to what we need to do, but my suggestion is to allow the staff to work with the TAP and come back at the July meeting with these specific questions. However, one that we can address now is to see if you 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

agree with one motion about allowing the staff to send letters to institutions to see if we can have contact that can allow us to get the information that we need.

That doesn’t mean that we are going to duplicate -- Then we can - If we do that, we can start sending those letters. Christina, can you put the wording of the motion that Sennai presented regarding the letters?

SENNAI HABTES:

It’s Slide 4, Christina.

MARCOS HANKE: Miguel, as the Chairman, my intention was just to highlight a few things for the council members to think about and to consider, because, at the end of the day, it’s important for the council members to participate and to have an opinion about it.

I want to just highlight the things that I think they should think about it, which is the risk assessment element on the indicators and the implication and what you’re going to use the indicators for and the use of the CFMC process wording in there of develop an operational objective with concrete action items and how that will interfere with the way the council interacts with that, and, also, the management strategy that is used for the situation during the CFMC decision-making.

All of those implications are in there, and I think we need the council members to have an opportunity to really analyze this, and that’s why I am not ready, personally, to approve it, the way it’s written, because we need a better understanding, and that’s all that I wanted to say. Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON: No, that’s perfectly all right, and that’s why I am suggesting to do it at the July meeting and then do today what we can do today.

Also, we will need a memo from you to all the council members of everything that you just said, and the council members should think about this presentation, and it will be, of course, on our webpage.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, our suggestion is this is an easy one, if it’s allowed legally to do, which is to allow the staff, in coordination with the TAP, to send letters to other agencies and institutions within the U.S. Caribbean that can give us some information as to data that they collect, which are the contact persons that they have, and see how these agencies respond to us.

Of course, Dr. Habtes indicated, in his answer, that they have an idea of these agencies.

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

In addition, the other two projects, Lenfest and the Pew Charitable Trusts, they are doing the same thing, and Dr. Michelle Duval has been working with them on that matter, and so, at this time, the question is if the council members agree with this language, with this motion, and, if you think it’s agreeable, then let us know what the next steps should be for the TAP and the staff.

MARCOS HANKE:

Any council member that would like to participate?

TONY BLANCHARD: I would like to make a motion to support this motion that is on the screen here, but I have a question as to -Well, I shouldn’t say a question, but I would like to make a comment as to how I think it should be done.

I think that the local agencies that should be contacted is the same local agencies that the DAP had requested to have made contact with, and that’s the statement I would like to make, but I will support this request for the approval of the council to send letters to the other agencies and institutions.

MIGUEL ROLON: Tony, you are exactly right.

I believe that we have on the record, and Graciela and I put it together, based on a request made by the DAPs in 2019, will be used by Dr. Habtes and the staff, and Graciela, to word this. If you agree with that, I can read, for the record, the motion, as written by Dr. Habtes and the group, and then we need a person to move to approve the language and a second, and then you can vote.

For the record, following Mr. Blanchard’s statement, the language of the proposed motion will be: The EBFM TAP is requesting the approval of the council to send letters to other agencies -- The motion will be for the council to approve sending letters to other agencies and institutions within the USVI and Puerto Rico that have collected data that may be useful in understanding overall trends in the ecosystem and inviting them to share the data with the EBFM TAP. TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE: Any second?

So moved.

So we have a proposed motion by Tony Blanchard.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: It was seconded by Carlos Farchette. Any opposition or any comments? Is there any discussion or comments? Hearing none, any opposition? The motion carries.

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

MIGUEL ROLON: Dr. Habtes, anything else that you would like the council to consider at this time, or can you wait until the July 21 meeting?

SENNAI HABTES: I think the rest can wait until the July meeting, but I would really appreciate if council members can take a look at the FEP goals and sub-goals and provide us with concrete feedback on things that they really feel either work or do not work or are within the purview of the TAP or not.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay.

Thank you, Dr. Habtes.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that Graciela and I will put together a communication to the council members, and it will be posted on our webpage. Just to remind everybody, these are the goals and objectives that we have so far, and these are the goals and objectives that we would like to propose for consideration at the July 21 meeting. Then you can move to the next agenda item.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, we’re going to move to the next agenda item, and I really invite the council members to read about this and submit their comments. Thank you, Miguel. The next item on the agenda is the Puerto Rico Port Sampling and Catch Validation Project.

PUERTO RICO PORT SAMPLING AND CATCH VALIDATION PROJECT TODD GEDAMKE: Thank you, Marcos. There is a number of faces here that I haven’t seen in a while, and so a hello to those that I know, and there are also some others here that I do not know.

MIGUEL ROLON:

We don’t know you.

Can you identify yourself?

TODD GEDAMKE: I am working on it. My name is Todd Gedamke, and I am presenting on behalf of MER Consultants and for a project that we’ve been working on for the last about five or six years, and, for those that do know me, I have been given fifteen minutes to give a summary of this three-year report and touch on details of queen triggerfish, details of lobster, recommendations on species of interest, and planned next steps.

For those that know me, they know that I can’t get a bad joke or tell one of my stories in fifteen minutes, and so I’m going to go really fast during this presentation. I have maintained figure numbers and table numbers that refer to the much more in-depth report on this whole thing, and I also wanted to just make two quick points outright at the beginning.

Trap fishers, I heard a bunch of the VI guys, and, at the end of 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

this, I would love your input on a couple of things, and we are also going to be looking for people to be working with us in Puerto Rico.

First of all, this has been a long group effort. It started in 2010 with data improvement meetings, and it really wouldn’t have been possible without the team of people that you see on the screen right here, and it wouldn’t have been possible without hundreds of people, but Steve Turner, Daniel Matos, Peter Freeman, Michelle Scharer, Marcos, and, anyway, I am going to miss a lot of people on this, and my role was just to guide everyone on the ground to accomplish this work.

In Puerto Rico, we dubbed this project Censo de Pesca, and we began working, in 2014, to try to figure out how to come up with a design for the U.S. Caribbean. Me and John Hoenig, in the bottom-left of the screen there, wandered all -KEVIN MCCARTHY: Todd, sorry to interrupt, but, if you think you’re presenting slides, we don’t see them.

TODD GEDAMKE: KEVIN MCCARTHY:

Well, that would have been good.

Well, I’m glad that we caught it early.

TODD GEDAMKE: Really, the only thing that’s important -- I will just show you a couple of pictures from the beginning, just out of interest, and this is just a list, and there is so many people to thank for this that I want to make sure that we get everyone onboard, but, anyway, we started working on this in 2014.

Basically, it was just trying to get a handle on how to design an efficient port sampling program. We worked all over the USVI and Puerto Rico, and we developed training programs, and we started working in partnership with territorial agents all over the Caribbean. We developed reference materials, and we developed ID manuals.

We also developed an electronic reporting platform to work with this team, and we had these people -- I’m going to go back, but these people here trained for three days, and then we threw them into the field.

We needed a way of making sure that we could validate their work entirely, and this reporting platform served very, very well.

We had the ability to evaluate data the evening that it was collected, and it was stored locally and uploaded and went online.

We had fish identification ability on there, and we had the ability 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

to track individuals, to make sure that they were onsite. This is one location in one day, where you could see the sampler was there, and you got the times they were there.

In a previous presentation, I showed someone in Puerto Rico leave his location in Humacao and go visit his girlfriend in Caguas, and so we were very easily able to keep track of people as we went, and, most importantly, we were also able to keep track of the fish IDs. We ran a pilot study in April and May of 2016 in Puerto Rico, with fifty-seven sites, to get an idea of the variance structure, and what I mean by variance structure is the relative use of sites.

In St. Thomas and St. Croix, there’s a limited number of sites, and it was easy for us to basically look at those and say, yes, these are high, but, if you look down in the north, our first guesses as to what were high-use locations and low-use locations was incorrect, and that’s what pilot studies do. They allow you to arrange these in a way that you minimize the variability of your estimates.

The final product of that whole thing was to basically take a look at how much money is it going to cost to achieve the objective, and so, if you wanted to put 200 people out sampling, you could get a standard error of ten, and so, in other words, plus or minus 20 percent on whatever estimate you come up will result from this.

Given all this information, we basically were tasked with saying, okay, you now have it, and let’s go into the field and study -Let’s get a full year of data for Puerto Rico. We started with some training programs, again, and we got good at this, and we started investing a little more time, and we started coming up with fishers contributing fish. This is an obvious need, doing fish ID. We also did things like how and why to sub-sample. Yes, those are cool moves, and we played games like seven-year-olds, but the idea was to teach people that, if you’ve got a cooler of mixed-species fish, how do you go in there and get random and representative samples, and then I think one of the most challenging things to do is to figure out how to approach the captains and the vessels who are -- How do you get yelled at gracefully, and how to thank fishers and walk away, and so we try to keep all components of the training.

We went through the whole process, and we basically limited down to thirty-nine key sites in Puerto Rico, and we started on August 7 of 2017, eight samplers a day, from 9:00 to 5:00, and we had 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

forty sites initially, and then we added other samplers later on, but we started on August 7, 2017.

I am going to give you the results as we go along and feed them in, because, for those that are real familiar with the dates, we started our sampling, and then two events came in, which sort of changed everyone’s life a whole lot.

For those that don’t know, I sailed a boat down to do this project, and, once I was in that situation, I thought that I was not sticking around for Irma, and I’ve seen enough. We sailed south of Irma, and we got just south of it, and I do have a lesson for the fishermen in the crowd, not that anyone wants to do it, but the rack lines on the southern edge of a hurricane -- You can fish through for refrigerators, and it was phenomenal down there.

We got back, and I went to Florida for Irma 2, and I got back for a refresher training, of course, and then Maria kicked right in after that, and I never left the dock, but, luckily for me, that’s my poor little boat, and I got the nickname Spider Man after this, and I somehow got through the hurricane, and now I know less about the ocean than I did before, and I’m very glad that all my friends made it through, and it was a very, very trying time for everyone.

We had to go take a new look at things, and we were not able to sample during the time period right after Maria, up until March 18, when you can see the levels of landings started to slowly recover, but, luckily, we had a full team of people ready to go on the ground during the recovery period. As soon as it was safe, we had people out spot-checking and doing site evaluations and doing damage assessments for DRNA. This was pretty helpful in getting a bead on people, but it was also slightly overwhelming at times, looking at the communities that are busting their butt, and, in a lot of cases, a lot of the infrastructure had disappeared.

We had a little bit of a camaraderie, and the team had a strong camaraderie with some of the communities, and all of our work -- In the reports that we have put out, we dedicate all of this work to the fishing and fishing communities of Puerto Rico.

For those that haven’t seen the video on this, and there’s a link to it in the report, and you’ll have all these slides to take a look at later.

Since August of 2018, we have consistently been sampling these forty-one sites, and, once we get into sampling the sites, you don’t need to have the details, and, once again, I am going to -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

These slides will be up, but the point you’re looking at here is the black are sites that we determined were high use, and the lighter color was lower-use sites. In January and March, in the beginning of that year, we were finding some sites that we thought were low, or maybe having less activity, but the key is, if you look at the south from the beginning and to the end, we basically had them all stacked up. We had a good understanding of how the site and effort had reallocated themselves following the hurricane.

Because we had the electronic reporting, we were able to look at this almost monthly, and we did pull the analyses every three months, to make sure that our design was appropriate for what we were looking for.

In March of 2018, we felt comfortable with what we were looking at, and the sites had recovered, or some sites had recovered, and so we began our daytime sampling again, and this whole thing is going to fill out as I talk. The dark lines with the arrows, the darker lines, are the estimates that came out of the study, and the reported data is this gray line.

You can see, in this time period, when we first started sampling, our estimates are generally below the values that are being reported by the fishermen during this time period, and this was not unexpected, because we were missing a lot of locations, and we started auxiliary sampling, which means we went out 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and we went out from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and we began to sample Vieques and Culebra, and also on Sundays.

Vieques and Culebra, we sampled two to four times a month, and then we also, for Sundays and nights and evenings, we used a bus route, or roving sampling, design. This allows the sampler, say in the southwest coast, to visit Puerto Real and three locations, and, basically, during the course of the sampling, they would drive to these three sites and look at activity.

There are expansions that come out of this, which can be challenging, but this allowed us to get a good evaluation of those non-target areas, and so, once we add those in, we can just take a look at the sampling effort we did as a whole, and the sampling we did as a whole, where we accomplished almost 5,000 total, when you add in the auxiliary assignments completed during the whole year-and-a-half period.

During that period, those 4,700 trips, or 5,000, turned into a sampling close to 9,344 trips, and the sampling team actually had eyes, watched, 435,000 pounds come in, and so we expanded from 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

there, but I think it’s important to note that the other thing that we learned throughout this whole thing is that, on the ballpark, a sampler is going to see two trips on an assignment, and the average trip weight is about forty pounds a day, acrossthe-board.

Now, this is a total summary of everything by region, the total estimated pounds here, the observed pounds here, and this is the number of sampled trips, and so, actually, 8,758 commercial trips in here, and then this big one at the end, which is number of unique species.

First of all, I want to point out, over here on our total estimated pounds, the reported, during this same time period, was about 2.7 million pounds, and so our estimates were surprisingly close to the reported landings data, and trust me. You will see that it doesn’t mean that everything was a one-to-one match.

We were really high on some, and low on others, but it just kind of happens that it was a one-to-one, but, most importantly, and of most use immediately from this research, is the number of species that we observed.

We documented 267 species, and the number of species reported during the same time period was seventy-six species. Yes, there is fifty or sixty aquarium banded arrow crabs and other things like that in here, but there’s a larger number of species that we documented, as we all know, but we now have the ability, with some of this, to at least, at this point in time, break up some of those larger categories.

This just shows you the contributions of the different types of sampling that were done during the project, and so weekly estimates from daytime sampling are up in the 20,000 a week, or 30,000 a week, range. Everything else, morning bus routes, P.M. bus routes, and Sundays, came in with values that are in the thousands. This one blip right here, these four points for the A.M., is two king mackerel trips that were observed on the same morning and expanded out. It’s called rare event, and it’s easily filtered, but I just wanted to show that daytime is still driving the results that we came up with in this study.

We now added the auxiliary sampling into this, and we went in fullfledged, starting in about September of 2018, and you can see our estimates and the reported estimates more or less track themselves over the rest of the time period that we sampled. Now, I want to make a point here for the statisticians and the design people. I never ever, ever, in my life, thought that I would be presenting weekly estimates of landings from this type of study, because they 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

normally would be all over the place, really, really noisy.

I would have separated this by month, to smooth it out a little, but this pattern -- Here, we were lower, and we added the A.M. and P.M., and we jumped right back up in line with exactly what’s being reported.

Now, like I said, I never would have thought weekly, but this I also found amazing. If you look at this pattern from reported and our estimates, and you start just looking at the peaks and the drops, there is a consistent drop in this location. This is where we did not have auxiliary sampling, but we started the auxiliary sampling here, and you had a rise, both reported and our estimates, and you got a drop coming, both reported and our estimates, and another drop, another rise, another drop, another rise, another drop.

These patterns are from two entirely different data sources, and one is the fishermen reporting their data, and the others are our observations at the dock. Is this lunar cycles? I can’t prove it right now, because I just haven’t had the time, and it doesn’t match up exactly on the full moon, and, for those that have yelled at me that I have no idea what I’m talking about, about yellowtail snapper fishing and how important the currents are and the moon, hey, this is my objective, is to show science and actually pick some of these things out, and I really look forward to exploring this a lot more as another way of identifying covariates.

I am now going to get in and present a couple of things, and I heard the question asked of the Center and their next process, and I just want to be absolutely clear that this work was commissioned

by NOAA and the Center. They are buried, and they have not had the opportunity to send this out yet, and so I am presenting on behalf of myself.

This has not been determined to be the best available science.

The other thing, which I will repeat again in one second, is that we did not use official DRNA 2019 expansion factors. We did not have them, but I used 2018, for illustrative purposes.

Now, this is the same exact image that we just looked at, but I have put the expanded data for total pounds in these soft dots over the top. 2018, these, from here over, are official expansion factors that were used in 2018. From 2018 forward, we just simply used the expansion factors from the previous year, and so this data is not official in any way, shape, or form, but it does illustrate what I hope that everyone can obviously see, which is that, overall, the expanded values in here are higher than what 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

both we estimated and what is being reported by the fishery.

Now, I am not going to let that statement sit, and any fisherman in Puerto Rico, or any other fisherman that is listening, I want to make sure that you understand something in this case. Neither of these estimates are the truth. They are both estimates. The reported landings are taken by DRNA, and they estimated what percentage are reporting, and they multiply up to come up with expanded.

If you look at conch, here, the reported is at this level, and they expand up into this level here, and we are totally consistent with the reported conch landings, given the currently-used expansion factors. The dashes, or the shaded area, means standard error, and so, in other words, those expansion factors, over this time series, worked perfectly.

For Caribbean spiny lobster, we are a little lower, until we started doing our auxiliary sampling.

Our standard error now starts overlapping lobster, and so, in other words, what we’re saying here is that the expansion factor used by region are doing all right for queen and spiny, but I really want to stress that neither of these are true. Both are estimates, and no management should be done with one data stream. For the statisticians, or the fisheries people in the crowd, you can take a look at the bottom two plots on your own.

I am just going to skip through some of these images and give you an overview. If I spend a lot of time on here, I’m going to go forever, but, by region, in the north, our estimates were below, and then picked up, but basically kind of track and showed similar noisy patterns to what we would expect, but the important thing in the north is look at this axis.

This is 5,000 and 10,000. All the others are 20,000 and 10,000, and so north has a much lower overall landings. You go to the east, and we basically have the reported landings just below ours throughout, and so slightly underestimated, or ours are under those -- Excuse me.

Our estimates are slightly higher than those estimated by the expanded landings.

In the south, it’s pretty close, when you look at reported versus expanded, except for this right here.

This is a rare-event species. This is two king mackerel trips, and it something that, as the data goes on for a few species, like tiger shark, like king mackerel, when you end up with a lot of pounds being landed in one trip, you can expand up for this, and the report shows exactly how to deal with this type of situation.

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

In the west coast, you can see that we estimate values that are a good bit less than what is being reported on the west coast, which, in any survey design, that is a red flag. You don’t want to be under, and the expectation is that there will be underreporting, rather than people overreporting, but this is due to queen snapper and silk snapper, which I will touch on in one second.

Again, I’m not going to go through the whole table, but this is the species composition from 90 percent of the landings. The only thing that I really want you to notice is lobster and conch makes up 53 percent of all of the landings that we observed, and so this is a lobster and conch-driven fishery, as we all knew.

If you take a look at this next table, it adds a little more information.

Once again, lobster and conch were the top 50 percent, and you can see here that, during our day, we estimated 671, and we end up with 740,000 as our total combined estimate, and the reported landings are 703,000. Conch, our total estimate is 575,000 pounds, and the reported is 500,000 pounds, and so these are very, very close.

If you look at king mackerel, and I put this in to show you that the numbers tell us this might be questionable.

During the daytime, we had 21,000 pounds, and our auxiliary estimate -- Once again, this is two trips of about 800 pounds, and it is much farther off than the reported landings, and it shown in our proportional standard error right here.

For those with the knowledge, this is all here, and you can look down to see how accurate our estimates are here, and I want to point out a couple other things. Octopus common, we got 54,000 pounds estimated, and there is no reported octopus common. It’s all reported as octopus.

Queen triggerfish is the one that Graciela and the council wanted me to look at, and 50,000 pounds, and there is 88,000 pounds reported, and we had 50,000 pounds.

There is only one species of trigger, and we found five species of trigger.

Also, just out of curiosity, this is real data, and 10,000 pounds, or 11,000 pounds, of Spanish slipper lobster were landed during the course of the year, and Spanish slipper lobsters ranked twentyseventh in landings in Puerto Rico.

I’m just going to flip through a couple of these images, so you get a feel for by species. We’ve looked at the lobster, and we’ve looked a little bit at the conch. King mackerel, you can see here, once again, that’s our spike, and you can see this one alone, and 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

this is also, driving a little bit of an overestimate.

Dolphin, on the other hand, you can see that we’re capturing dolphin, and this is a pattern that would show from a stratified random design. On some days, we end up with higher estimates. On other days, we end up with lower estimates.

Overall, over the year, our estimate is pretty close.

Octopus, I just showed you that, for common, we caught a lot, and none were reported.

I can’t even see the species with that blocking me. Queen triggerfish. Our estimates, once again, are a little lower than reported, most likely due to species. Mutton snapper, we tracked it almost dead-on.

Yellowtail snapper, as expected, we didn’t track it that well. Can you guys still my slides?

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, Todd.

Can you please --

Thank you.

TODD GEDAMKE:

I’m almost done.

MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

We are really tight on time.

Thank you.

TODD GEDAMKE: You got it, and so I’ll show you the octopus. Silk snapper, we had some differences. If you look at hogfish, it’s right on. Red hind is right on. This, I will skip over. For the statisticians, please use this, but the bottom line with this plot is, the more landings you have, by the bubble size, you end up with more precision, and we have less of a clue when you start looking up at tiger shark and striped mojarra.

I touched on the species reporting questions. The groupers, all of them tracked very, very well. Why? They’re basically driven by red hind. Triggerfish, once again, it tracks very, very well, all of them, but we got ocean triggerfish, and we had gray triggerfish landed, 100 to 200 pounds a week, and the queen is up in the thousands, and durgon, and so we found multiple species, and that’s going to have to be addressed.

The same thing with parrotfish. It tracked very, very well, and multiple species are tracked on there.

The last thing, or the last two things here, and then I will be done in three minutes, but recommendations on species of interest.

This work really is not going to give you a good clear -- There’s a lot of work that has to be done with the species before you’re going to get species of interest for this assessment, and so I have one recommendation, and that is use existing work.

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

I saw Virginia is on this call, and I think Virginia and Hoenig’s work should be used as a point to make these decisions right now, and they went into the fisheries and looked at maturity, and the bottom line for queen triggerfish -- This had the lowest percentage of mature fish in the catch, 86.4 percent mature, but these other species, these six, had almost 95 percent of the population that they sampled in the catch at full maturity, and, theoretically, it’s impossible to crash these stocks, given those results with the same selectivity. So, the next species of interest, focus on stuff that has auxiliary research like this.

For our planned next steps on this thing, we’re following up, currently, on deepwater snapper, yellowtail, silk snapper, and Vieques. We are following up on a rapid sampling project, which some have seen before, and have the ability to put fish on a scale.

It will weigh in and photograph it and automatically measure it, and we are working on species ID for this.

Why? I have measured tons of fish in the USVI, and you have to sort the fish, and you then have to put it on a scale, and you then have to measure it. You should not be handling or touching a fish more than one time.

It leads to Chub busting his butt, and other people walking around writing notes down, and it happens everywhere in the world that I have done this, but I have also done enough port sampling, and you need one person and the right equipment to get this thing done.

This system was developed in the USVI by me and Peter Freeman, and he worked with J.P. on marine spatial planning over there, and we worked directly with the fishermen, and we tested at Hull Bay. The program currently gets annotated for length, and it uses spectral analysis, and it suggests fish, right here, and we’ll get automated length.

We’ve even got the computer artificial intelligence working to give hot spots right here, and so Cornell Ornithology Lab will be onboard on this very, very soon. Write down “Merlin app”, and they can ID pictures of birds in trees, and also birds from their sound, and we’ve got them running our analytics on this program.

Lastly, we are repeating a cooperative selectivity study as we go.

Nicky helped, and I saw Cindy sign on. Cindy, I hope you’re well.

She ran this project, and we are doing the same thing, because the last assessment of lobster raised questions about the selectivity curve. Is it dome-shaped, which means it looks like this, or it is flat-topped, and the difference here will determine the amount of lobsters that are on the bottom for the health of the population.

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

Trap fishermen, I am going to stick on. If there’s a lunch break, and they will let me do it, I want your input on this, but we are designing a trap to catch bigger lobsters, but less overall, and we’re designing catch of the typical size, and we’re designing one to catch more of the small ones, and so COVID times has made it challenging, but we’re currently in the process of building.

We have a standard design with a ten-inch opening, six-inch drop, and a four-inch drop-down for the opening. Trap fishers, a quick discussion on three options for this and how you catch big fish would be fantastic. Thank you very much for giving me the little extra time. I tried my best, but you guys all know that I am very long-winded, and, for those also that are in Puerto Rico, or have friends maybe looking for work, we are going to be hiring team leaders, samplers, and analysts over the next two months, and so please spread the word, and thank you very much for the opportunity. This is exciting, exciting, exciting to me, and we’re making huge steps in progress, and so thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Todd. Unfortunately, we don’t have the opportunity for much more details, but, for sure, it’s a lot of very important data. Nelson, very quick. One minute.

NELSON CRESPO: Hi, everyone. That’s very specific information, and that has convinced me that we have to put on the ground the port samplers again, to validate all of that information, and we have to have them in the field, definitely. Thanks.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Nelson. please. Thank you.

Julian, the same.

One minute,

JULIAN MAGRAS: I still have the same issue like I had before. It clearly shows, with the data that was presented, they are off by big numbers.

Where we say small numbers, 100,000 pounds difference, with the actual hands-on, from the way this project was done is a big difference.

That can drive my fishery into accountability measures, and I will continue to repeat that the only way to get proper information, which is needed for the SEDAR process, is to measure each fish.

Right now, our Fish and Wildlife has four people that are measuring the fish, where it used to be done by one individual working alongside the fishermen. In St. Thomas/St. John and Puerto Rico, you can get the job done and collect way more accurate information, and I do not believe in taking pictures to come up with length and weight. I believe that you take each fish, and you weigh them, and you measure them, and you get the correct information that is 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

needed, and that’s my comment.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for your comment, and I cannot keep going on with the back-and-forth on the presentation. Miguel, go ahead.

MIGUEL ROLON: We don’t need to do any of that, but we will ask Dr. Gedamke if the report will be available sometime this year.

TODD GEDAMKE: I’m not sure if that’s directed at me. The report, and I can send a link, is available now, with the same disclaimer that the Southeast Fisheries Science Center has not had the opportunity to vet it. I don’t think they have any major concerns, but, legally, someone else independently has to review it.

I want to say that -- It’s critical, Marcos, and give me fifteen seconds. Julian said this could take us into accountability. I made the strict point that neither are the truth, and what we’re doing is collecting a separate set of information.

If our information shows there is an eleven-inch ruler to measure a fish, that fish is eleven inches.

The accountability measures and everything would all have to be adjusted, given new ways of estimating landings, and so, Julian, no, I don’t -- There is no direct line from new research to accountability measures on this.

The ACL, as the way of calculating sustainability, would also have to change, and the other thing I just want to say is that the idea of using pictures -- The length of each individual fish is captured, but I want everyone to be absolutely clear that there is no way that I said, yes, this is the amount of fish we estimated, and someone says, well, that’s true and you go into accountability measures. The Center has a lot of work, and the territorial, to figure out exactly how to apply and use this stuff. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for the clarification. We are very aware of all of that, and let’s keep moving to the next presentation.

Thank you very much, Todd, for your excellent presentation. The next presentation -- Before I will move on, I will ask if there is anybody on the group that has a problem to cut the lunchtime to half-an-hour, because of our agenda. I was trying to speed up the most I can, and is there any opposition to that?

MIGUEL ROLON: What you’re saying is to go to 1:00 and then have a half-an-hour lunch and come back at 1:30? Is that what you’re talking about?

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, Miguel. Let’s keep moving to the next item on the agenda, please, which is Presentation on Regional Electronic Technologies Plan.

48

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 ON REGIONAL ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES PLAN: 2020-2024 JESSICA STEPHEN: Thank you.

Today, I just wanted to bring to your attention that the Southeast is working on a regional electronic technologies implementation plan.

I have worked together with folks from the Science Center to put this plan together, and what we’re going to show you now is just a brief presentation over the highlights of it, and then shortly, in a few weeks, I think you’ll be getting the actual plan and have the ability to comment on it.

I wanted to go over a little bit of the history of the electronic technology plans. We began our first plan framework in 2013, and then we actually began the first plans within 2015, and these were finalized in January of 2015, and we used biannual updates through 2017.

In 2019, there were -- Consultations were initiated that had looking at how the plans were being used and how to compare them across regions, and a new plan goal was set for 2020. This goes along with the electronic technologies fishery-dependent data collection policy that was put forward, and the main intention of the new plans was to make the plans comparable among the different regions and to have status reviews annually done by leadership.

Unfortunately, with the pandemic, our intention of getting the plans done in 2020 got pushed back, and the new plans are now due in 2021. Our current status is that we have a draft document of it that is nearing finalization.

The new electronic technologies plan was to establish kind of a regional vision for electronic reporting, which we refer to as ER, and then electronic monitoring, which is EM, and to forecast what the region intended to do for the next five years, and so that’s going through -- It was originally through 2024, and I need to make an update on the slide that, with the pushback from the pandemic, we’re now going to make these plans viable through 2025.

Inside of the plans was the vision for developing, integrating, and implementing various different types of ET programs across the different councils, and so the plan does include regional priorities, as designated by NOAA Fisheries, and we’re also going to be looking for past council actions and future council actions in the research and development. We will be coming back to the councils to get their input as well on what they feel the priorities -- Particularly if they differ from what the regional priorities are.

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

The purpose of these plans was to help prioritize the internal and external funding for electronic technologies within NOAA, and that’s made a little bit easier by the comparison and the similar type of plan across regions.

It was to highlight areas where integration efforts and coordination and standardization might increase the ability of ER or EM to function and then identify what the challenges were implementing electronic technologies and identify, as well as the costs and any funding transition plans.

Finally, kind of go over a status of the review.

For the plan, and I know I’ve mentioned that now it’s 2020 to 2025, our general vision for the Southeast Region as a whole is to align our electronic technologies with the regional strategic priorities, to identify and quantify the costs of electronic technologies, and this includes such things as infrastructure, cloud servers, staffing, and software, and hopefully to continue to expand electronic reporting within the region.

We’re also looking to develop processes to review the electronic reporting programs we have to-date and their progress, looking at things such as the lessons learned and potential areas of cost savings. Another area we’re working in is a concept of one-stop reporting with the Greater Atlantic Region and the states up along the Atlantic coastline and that is that, if someone has to report to multiple NOAA regions, and/or states, hopefully that they can report once, instead of multiple times, and that one report gets to all needed parties.

Then the last concept was to look over our data governance plan and form a data governance committee. The data governance would look at how we manage our data, how the data work flows, who has access to it, and hopefully streamline the ability to share data with our partners moving forward.

Continuing on with where we are currently with electronic reporting, we are looking to continue the for-hire reportings that both the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico are working in. We want to streamline and approve this process and the data connectivity, and we’re hoping some of the information and lessons learned from this region would also apply to the other regions, as we’re moving forward.

We’re also looking at our commercial electronic reporting in the South Atlantic, to move wreckfish logbooks over to our coastal logbooks, and potentially move wreckfish into a catch share program electronic online system, and, in the Gulf, we’re looking at our commercial electronic logbook system that is currently out of date, 50

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 we’re looking modernized.

to

have

a

replacement

system

that’s

more

Overall, as a whole, within the region, we are also looking at updating our permits and our catch share systems.

Both are currently in the middle of modernization processes, and we’re hoping to move into cloud services, and so, when we’re impacted by hurricanes, these systems can continue to run.

Along the lines of electronic monitoring, which, again, is the video aspect of electronic technologies, we’re looking to coordinate with Mote Marine Lab for a lot of their electronic monitoring information. They are considered a center of expertise now, and we’re working with them through various other grants, such as through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation or the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program.

Another aspect that applies, particularly to this council, is we’re looking at the rapid sampling in the Caribbean, and I believe you guys just had quite a bit of a presentation on that, and so we’re hoping to continue that as a high priority moving forward.

In general, kind of the idea here, again, is using the fish under the cameras and using artificial intelligence to help identify the species and the size.

I think this is my final slide, and I just wanted to give you an overall idea of what the current ongoing initiatives are. There again, it’s the for-hire reporting in both the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, the catch share programs in both, again, the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic, modernization of our permit system, moving our commercial logbooks electronic, moving the Gulf shrimp commercial logbooks electronic and modernizing them, and then to finalize the rapid sampling of the EM project here in the Caribbean.

Here, I would be happy to take any questions that you have about this electronic technologies plan as a whole, and keep in mind that you will have an opportunity to comment on it, and we will be doing annual updates to it, and, on the annual updates, we’ll be coordinating with you earlier in the process, to get your information and thoughts put into that annual update, and that will be generally between February and March of each year.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for your presentation, Jessica. Do you need anything from the council, because we are very tight on time, and, if you don’t mind, we can ask them to put the questions over the chat and interact with you.

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

JESSICA STEPHEN: That is fine. I don’t need any feedback directly right now. If you guys can get some comments later to us, that would be helpful.

MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Thank you very much for a great presentation.

Thank you. The next presentation is Evaluation of Marine Reserves in the U.S. Caribbean by Diana Beltran.

EVALUATION OF MARINE RESERVES IN THE U.S. CARIBBEAN DIANA BELTRAN: Hello, everybody. I am Diana Beltran, and today we will talk about the U.S. Caribbean marine managed areas literature review that I made for seven focus areas in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Caribbean.

Today, I will present the summary of the literature review of the seven of the U.S. marine managed areas, some generalities, studies carried out, gaps and recommendations of each of them.

Then I will move to a general view of the U.S. Caribbean MPAs, including those in territorial waters and others. I will present one of the analyses, taking into consideration the new global initiative that, by 2030, that we have 30 percent of the ocean preserved.

Under these visions, I want to show you what is the current status of the U.S. Caribbean marine protected areas and the IUCN categories, how much of the U.S. Caribbean waters is currently an MPA or MMA, and how we can improve that situation that we have, and, after all this, I will give you a general recommendation that I suggest.

First, you can see the seven focus areas that are Bajo de Sico, Tourmaline Bank, and Abrir la Sierra that are located in the U.S. part of Puerto Rico.

The other ones are Hind Bank Marine Conservation District and Grammanik Bank that are south of St. Thomas, and then we can also have, here on the right side, the Mutton Snapper Spawning Aggregation and the Red Hind Spawning.

Here, we have the same seven areas, and most of them are seasonal closures, and you have here the dates that the closures are in that area, and we have one of them that is a year-round closure, and so we will start to do some explaining one-by-one.

Here, we have Abrir la Sierra in the table on the right side of my slide, and you have a table that shows how many studies we found, and remember that these are scientific studies that were made in the last ten years in each of those areas.

This is Abrir la Sierra, and it’s a seasonal fishing closure area, and it was established in 1996.

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

The principal location of that area was protecting a hind spawning aggregation, and so most of the work that I collected in that area came from one study that was made by Garcia in 2013 and seven more that are using acoustic or telemetric methodologies, and the gaps and recommendations that we have for that area is that the last and the only benthic and reef fish surveys were done in 2013, and so we will need a new survey to know the current state or status and to know if the closure is helping to recover the hind population.

The other thing that I found is it was very difficult to get the information for fisheries-independent surveys, because it’s not available for the layperson in Puerto Rico, and it’s very difficult to find that, and so it probably is a good option to do one of those studies again, because it’s important, and another thing that is very -- We can promote studies to quantify the density of the other commercially-important reef fish species that are using that area as a spawning aggregation site.

Also, we want to encourage and support more acoustic studies to understand fish home ranges and connectivity with the nearby marine managed areas, and this will allow us to know if the size of the area is adequate for managing that population, and I know that most of the acoustic studies there were working only on the red hind, and so we can also explore if there are other species that are using that area.

The next one is Tourmaline Bank, and this is a seasonal fishing closure area also, and it was established in 1993, and the Tourmaline Bank, as you see here in this map, partially coincides with the Puerto Rico marine reserve of Tourmaline, and so that gives a little more information, scientific information, because this is a point that we can find information from the Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program, and so we have there some data that came, every two or three years, from that program, and that helps to understand more the status of that reserve.

As you can see here, we can see what are the areas that the monitoring program and other studies are being -- Were taken there, and so most of them, the areas that the lab is sampling, are in the end of the platform, and that area was also established to protect the red hind, the Epinephelus guttatus. It’s important to know if other commercially-important reef fish species are using Tourmaline Bank as a spawning aggregation site.

I recommend also to know more information about the fisheryindependent surveys, because the information was not available, 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

and so it’s important to know what happened there, and I also recommend to carry out passive acoustic telemetric and acoustic receiver array along Tourmaline, to track the movement of the snappers and groupers that are using that area. Garcia et al., in 2003, they suggested that probably some other species, aside from red hind, are using that area as a place for a spawning aggregation.

We continue with Bajo de Sico, and so Bajo de Sico is a seasonal closure that was established in 1996.

It also was created to protect the red hind, the Epinephelus guttatus, and, here, we have more variety of the work that was doing acoustic studies with other species, like the black grouper and the Nassau grouper.

The last and only benthic and reef fish surveys in that area were done in 2007 by Garcia, and so it’s important to improve and update that information, to understand those habitats that are important for the spawning aggregation species. The same, like before, we don’t have -- Probably we have it, but we didn’t have available the data from independent surveys, and so maybe we have to have that data available for everyone that wants to analyze and understand the status of the populations.

I think that the continued passive acoustic telemetric and acoustic receiver arrays, to track the movement of snappers and groupers within this area is very important, and, also, I think that methodology helps to understand a lot of the behavior of the species, not only what is using the area, but, also, we can understand what is the perfect timing when those aggregations are starting or happening.

Then we move to Grammanik Bank, and so Grammanik Bank is a seasonal closure, and it was established in 2005. I think this has been the most studied area in the Caribbean, in the U.S. Caribbean, and we have a lot of information here, and we have very, very detailed information, and so, here, we can give more specific recommendations for improving the area, because of the quality of the data that we have available.

In this area, the species are recorded during the spawning aggregation, species like yellowfin grouper, Nassau grouper, dog snapper, cubera snapper, and Bermuda chub. As you can see here, we have here the Grammanik Bank, and we have this small area, and we have up here the Red Hind Marine Conservation District.

In this area, we can see what is the points of the studies that we find there.

Most of this area is the area of the spawning aggregation.

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

As I said before, we have a lot of information there, and very good information, and so we can see, for example, in this graphic, that the number of Nassau groupers through the time is increasing, and so that means that the protection of that area is working, and so the species that are there are protected in the spawning aggregation area, and they need the opportunity to continue and increase and do the fertilization and increase growing the population.

Also, another thing that is important here is that, for example, in this area, we can see one study from Nemeth in 2007, and he tagged some fishes from the spawning aggregation, and then those fishes were recaptured in those areas here, where you see this plot, the gray squares, and so that means that the animals that are there have the ability to move and move and share with another marine protected area or marine managed area.

One of the recommendations of several studies that were made there is that it’s important to increase the size of that reserve, and, also, if we cannot increase the size of the reserve, we can create a corridor to give the opportunity to the animals to move and share between spaces and between marine protected areas and be less endangered for the fishing pressure.

Another thing that they found there is that they may arrive earlier than the timing of the spawning aggregation, and they may stay longer, and so probably we have also to extend the closure of that area, to give the opportunity to protect all these animals that came and to do their aggregation there.

We are moving to the Red Hind Marine Conservation District, and this is a year-round no-take zone, and it was created in 1999, and so it was initially -- It was established to protect red hind and tiger grouper. This marine managed area is allowing the red hind population to increase, and so we have that area from 1999. In the first studies, when they evaluated, the increasing, or the improvement, of the population of the red hind was more or less in 2004 and 2005, and, in that moment, they already understand that the population was increasing. That means that that area was doing a very good job for that species that we are protecting.

After that, we don’t have any other studies to estimate the current population of the red hind there, and so it’s important to do something new in that area. Here, we have the points that most of the studies are sampling.

We are moving to Lang Bank, and that is a seasonal closure that was established in 1993. The principal objective of that area was 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

to protect the red hind, also. In that area, we don’t have too much of a variety of studies, and most of the information that we have came from the territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program from the U.S. Virgin Islands, because they have a sampling point there.

Another thing that is important there is that Kadison, in 2017, found that the species that -- They found lower predatory fish density in St. Croix than in the northern Virgin Islands, and we already have a lack of current or new fishery-independent surveys, and this is important to have this information, to evaluate what is the status of the population.

Then we are moving to the Mutton Snapper Spawning Area, and this is a seasonal closure, and it was established in 1993, and the principal objective of that area was to protect the mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis. Here, we have the map of the area and the points that the -- I think the only independent study that has taken place there.

In 2011, they went to the area and tried to find the spawning aggregation by diving, but they never found the spawning aggregation, and so what they ended up doing was a fisheryindependent analysis to understand what was the situation with the mutton snapper. The result of that study showed that the mutton snapper is important in that area, because of the capture of the species was bigger, and it was significant, and so they considered that this is an area where the species join to the spawning aggregation, but, unfortunately, they didn’t find the correct place where the spawning occurs.

Here, we can recommend alternative methods are needed to find the primary spawning site. We can do, for example, acoustic telemetry with acoustic receivers and arrays along the mutton snapper spawning area. Also, in other study, Kadison, in 2017, found lower predatory fish densities in St. Croix than in the northern Virgin Islands, and so they found that they have -- In the northern Virgin Islands, the species have a bigger size comparing to the St. Croix.

Also, we have here a lack of current and new fishery-independent surveys, or catch per unit effort studies, and so this is another thing that we can do to improve the knowledge of that area.

After that, here I show you a summary of the scientific studies that we found in the last ten years in those areas. Most of the marine managed areas that are located in the U.S. Virgin Islands have a lot of information that came from the territorial coral reef monitoring program. In Puerto Rico, we don’t have the same case. We have only Tourmaline as a point in the Puerto Rico Coral 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

Reef Monitoring Program, and we have a few established in the other ones, and so it’s necessary to improve and support more research in those areas, to have actual information and to compare this information with the last studies.

Here, we have the summary of the species that are reported for the marine management areas, and so, as I said before, the Grammanik Bank has a lot of information, and so there are several researchers working there in different species and in different methodologies, and so we see here the difference in the absence of -- When you compare the Grammanik or the areas.

Here, we are moving to the summary of those areas, and we are moving to see one of the evaluations that I did with the marine protected areas in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico compared with the number of -For doing this analysis, I took the information from three different databases, and so one is coming from the WDPA that is developed by the IUCN, and the other ones came from the MPA inventory that comes from NOAA, and another one is a comprehensive inventory of protected areas and other land conservation mechanisms in Puerto Rico that was developed by the Department of Agriculture Forest Service International Institute of Tropical Forestry.

The idea here is that most of the agencies are trying to update all of the databases, and so I have to use three, because most of them have the different marine protected areas in their databases, and so I want to complete and join all the information.

The first thing that they want to do, the global initiative wants to do, is the necessity to standardize worldwide classification of the marine protected areas, and so we are following the definition of the IUCN in 2008 as to marine protected areas. It’s a protected area that has a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and management, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associate ecosystem service and cultural values.

Under the IUCN, for example, all the temporal or permanent fishing closures that are established primarily to help build up and maintain the reserve stocks for fishing in the future and don’t have wider conservation aims or achievements are not considered to be marine protected areas. This is why, in the following slides, the marine management areas are not in any of the categorization of the IUCN. 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

As I said before, we need to standardize worldwide classification, and we have some areas that are very, very restricted no-take areas, and those areas are called MPAs, and we have other ones that have wider regulations that have less restrictions, and so, in the conservation means, the healthiest oceans and benefits to the people needs to be in that direction, the high protection of the areas.

Here, we have a different table that shows us the different categorization for the IUCN categories, and so we have -- The Ia, that means the most protective zone, and that’s a no-take zone, and we are moving down to areas that are less protected.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Diana, you have five more minutes.

DIANA BELTRAN: Okay. We have here the areas, the different marine protected areas in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Caribbean, with the management areas, and so, in the color here, we have the representation of the eleven of the categorization of the IUCN, and so, if you see, most of the areas right now are in the Category IV. That means that that category has a condition that the area probably needs to have active intervention for the requirements of particular species to maintain habitats, or, for example, needs to have more enforcement to provide all the commitments.

How much of the U.S. Caribbean Economic Exclusive Zone is protected? Here, we have, in the map, all the areas represented, and, here, we have the percentage of the protected areas that are in the whole U.S. Caribbean, and so that means only 2.02 percent will have protection in all the EEZ. How much of those areas are no-take zone, or are in the extreme part of the full protection?

We have less than 1 percent in that area.

If we are moving to how much of those we have in the U.S. Virgin Islands, we have, including territorial waters and outside of the territorial waters, we have the total percentage of the protected areas in the territorial waters are 27.68 percent. If we want to know how many of those areas are no-take zones in the territorial waters, and that means into the three nautical miles, it’s 11.20.

How much of those are no-take outside of the three nautical miles, we have only 0.15.

How much of those areas are in Puerto Rico? We have, in the total area of Puerto Rico, we have thirty-seven areas, and that means that the 28.46 percent are protected. In the territorial waters, and that means into the nine nautical miles, we have only 0.94 percent, and, in the Exclusive Zone, we have 0.03 percent.

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

In the territorial waters, we are close to -- You know that we have, right now, a global initiative that wants to have 30 percent of the ocean protected by 2030, and so we are -- If we are looking at only the territorial waters, we are close to that goal, and we are about 27 percent, but, in the EEZ, considering how we can improve that, we can consider the year-round closures of the sections of the marine management areas, so they can become MPAs. We can consider increasing size in the area that the studies suggest that they should increase, for example Grammanik Bank and the Marine Conservation District. Also, we can consider increasing the area of no-take in existing MPAs or MMAs, and so some areas are too small for protecting the fish home ranges. Also, we can improve revising all management plans and developing new ones in areas that we don’t have any management plan.

Here, I have some of the recommendations, bigger recommendations, and most of them I already said, but something that I wanted to talk about is that the acoustic -- For example, we can, or we need, to -- We can develop a monitoring program with the acoustic tagging and telemetric. That methodology helps a lot to understand what is the home range and the situation of the spawning aggregation.

Also, in the area that we don’t have information, we need to implement monitoring of permanent transects that will allow us to estimate changes through time and the current state of the benthic communities. Another thing that we will have is a stock assessment for some of the species that are already protected from the areas.

We can use also another type of new technology that, right now, are more easy to acquire and are cheaper, and so that helps a lot to doing a lot of the patrolling or doing the surveys right now.

Another thing is that is important also was getting the information, and so, for example, I think the design needs to be open, so that most of the information of the data that came from the studies gets to be available, so the other people can analyze and use for the next types of research.

Another thing that I found that is in the initial phase to designate those areas is they don’t think too much about the connectivity, and so this is very important in the marine realm, and so we need to think of those management protected areas, marine managed areas, as a connection, as a network, and so we have to do and move with some research to help to understand how those species are connected in those areas.

We can use, for example, genetics, and we can use physical models, 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

and we can use acoustic tagging, and we can use also microchemistry of otoliths, or we can dye the otoliths also, to understand what is the movement of the fish and what are the areas that those fish are using.

MARCOS HANKE: Diana, we are really short on time. start to wrap it up? Thank you.

Can you please

DIANA BELTRAN: Yes. This is another thing that I have to say, is maybe to understand that the productivity is an important issue, and we can form a committee, or a taskforce, to understand that situation and join with the territories to begin the coordination of activities in the various protected areas and design strategies that incorporate coordination of these management areas.

Thank you very much.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Diana.

Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: With the time that we have, we don’t have time to go over the whole thing, but I believe that, first, I would like to thank Dr. Diana Beltran.

This is an excellent, excellent report, and I’m looking forward to her final report to us. We are going to distribute the report, and it will go up on our webpage for everybody to see, but now the next step will be for staff to sit down and look at all this information and prioritize the information.

Then I believe that we should go back -- Once the island-based FMPs are implemented, we should go back with each one of those recommendations she has and present the recommendations to the DAPs of St. Thomas/St. John, St. Croix, and Puerto Rico, because I need to thank the group from St. Thomas/St. John, because this is an initiative that they started, Tony and Julian and Ruth. They all were asking me what’s going on inside those areas, and so this is the first step, and I believe that Dr. Beltran has indicated to us the path to follow in any of these areas that we have.

Of course, there’s a lot of work here and a lot of consideration, even legal, because we don’t follow IUCN. We follow MSA, but this information also is very helpful for Section (a) of 14008 that we are going to discuss this afternoon at 3:00. Of course, we are going to discuss the Executive Order 14008, Section 216(c), which is the one that deals with fisheries, but also Section (a), dealing with the closed areas that she was mentioning, the Thirty-byThirty nickname, at this time.

Probably by August, Mr. Chairman, we will be able to give you some ideas of what the staff is looking at with Dr. Beltran’s report 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

and what the next step will be.

If the island-based plans are implemented this year, then we will start immediately to work on some of the issues, modifications, et cetera, that we need to do to make sure that we focus on each one of the areas, St. Thomas/St. John, St. Croix, et cetera, the issues that we need to address to modify the island-based FMPs and to implement some of the recommendations that we have seen today.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. Any comments or any questions?

Please send them via the chat to Dr. Diana Beltran, and you guys can interact with her. Let’s go for the next presentation, IslandBased Fishery Management.

ISLAND-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS PROPOSED RULE STATUS MARIA LOPEZ: Hi. Good afternoon, everybody. This is Maria Lopez, and I just have a quick update from the island-based FMPs. At this time, I really don’t have any new information regarding the implementation of the plans, as to when they are going to be effective, other than that we’re making really good progress with the review of the very extensive proposed rule that reorganizes the Caribbean regulations by FMP. We hope that we will be able to provide more information at the August meeting, and that’s all I have, Mr. Chair.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Maria, for a very short participation, and precise. Modification of the Buoy Gear, please.

MODIFICATION TO THE BUOY GEAR DEFINITION FOR THE HARVEST OF MANAGED REEF FISH, DRAFT GEAR AMENDMENT I TO THE IBFMPs MARIA LOPEZ: Okay, and so this is me as well. Christina, I sent you a presentation, if you can put it on, please. Thank you very much.

I am going to be presenting on an amendment, a draft amendment, that staff is working, as requested by the council, to modify the buoy gear definition for the harvest of managed reef fish in federal waters of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix.

What I’m going to be presenting today is going to be basically a summary of the Draft Amendment 1, the first version of the draft, that is included in your briefing book. Last time that we heard about this topic was at the December meeting, when we presented an options paper with, obviously, the potential options of how to deal with this, and so that transformed into a draft amendment that we’re still working on, but I wanted to give you an overview.

The issue that is being dealt with in this amendment is the type 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

of buoy gear that is used to fish commercially for deepwater fish, and, when I refer to deepwater fish in this presentation, it’s going to be snappers and certain groupers in Puerto Rico and in the U.S. Virgin Islands, does not conform to federal regulations, and I added in the name, the local name, in Puerto Rico, and that is cala con boya, and, in the USVI, it’s deep-drop buoy gear.

Although this local-use commercial fishing gear type is very similar to the buoy gear that is defined in federal regulations applicable to Caribbean Fisheries, it differs in the number of hooks that are allowed to be used with the gear, as we discussed in previous meetings.

Buoy gear is defined in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 as a gear that cannot -- I’m sorry. One of the parts of the definition of the buoy gear that is defined in the federal regulations is that it cannot contain more than ten hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end, and I am just pointing this out because this is the part of the definition that the gear configuration that is used in the U.S. Caribbean does not conform to.

The definition of the buoy gear, as it is in the regulations, is included at the end of this presentation, in case you want to revise it.

State regulations for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with respect to the number of hooks that can be used with this gear, they do not specify the number of hooks, and there is also no definition for this gear in Puerto Rico or the USVI regulations.

Although this gear configuration is used in both federal and state waters of each one of the island management area, and it’s most used in Puerto Rico and less used in the U.S. Virgin Islands, it is not clear how much harvest occurs using gear containing more than ten hooks between the buoy and the terminal end in federal waters, and so 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.

Then this also refers to what we have discussed before, with respect to this action.

The use of any gear not listed as authorized for the fishery is prohibited, and this is the use of any gear not listed is prohibited for its use in federal waters, and so authorized gear types for the commercial harvest of reef fish in the island-based FMPs includes automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, rod-and-reel, trap, pot, and spear.

A gear type configuration that has more than ten hooks between the buoy and the terminal end does not meet the legal definition of 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

buoy gear in federal regulations, and it is not considered an authorized buoy gear, and so this gear does not meet the definition of any other hook-and-line gear authorized, and so what this means is that the 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.

Also, as you have heard before, the federal regulations set forward the process for a person seeking to use a gear not authorized for a particular fishery to notify the appropriate council of the intent to use that gear and to obtain permission to do so.

In this amendment, with that said, the council then proposes to modify the definition of buoy gear included in 50 CFR 622.2, which is the federal regulations, as it applies to those persons that are 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 deepwater reef fish.

I am going to stop here a moment, before continuing with the discussion of what is included as an action in the amendment, because we need to address an area that’s very important for continuing the development of this amendment, and that is the description of the Puerto Rico and the USVI fisheries, in terms of the deepwater reef fish component.

The information that I have listed in here is a summary of some of the information that we have included in the Chapter 3, which includes the description of the fishery, and this information comes from interviews with deepwater fishers, from DNER staff, from testimony at past council meetings, and also from some publications, like the socioeconomic study of the hook-and-line fishery in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, among others.

What I would like to ask of any of the deepwater fishers and other people that are knowledgeable about this fishery is, if you see anything in here that is not correct, or needs more context or more clarification, to please let me know, because this is very important so that we can capture a good description of the fisheries that are occurring in our waters.

As I mentioned earlier, the local name in Puerto Rico is cala con boya, and the species targeted with this local buoy gear type are silk, blackfin, black, vermilion, and wenchman, and these are caught in shallower waters, from forty to a hundred fathoms, and 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

then it’s also used, and mostly used, to harvest species in deeper waters, from 170 to 230 fathoms, such as for species that are included in the Snapper Complex Number 2, queen and cardinal snapper, and also misty grouper and yellowedge grouper, and also to capture big silk snappers in those deeper waters as well.

Some of the bycatch species that we should have mention are caught using this gear include the glasseye snapper, the Atlantic scombrids, or cartucho prieto, and the dogfish. The hooks that are used are circle hooks and are related to fishing effort, depth fished, previous experiences with lost gear, among others.

In terms of the number of hooks, species that belong to the Snapper Complex 1, which are the ones that are deepwater species, but still shallower than the Snapper Unit 2 species, they’re typically fished with less hooks, and that is like from five to ten hooks, and then, for those species that are harvested in deeper waters, they are fished with more hooks, sometimes up to a maximum of thirty.

From the information that I recall hearing from many of the fishers, most of the harvest of these species that are from deeper waters, in Puerto Rican waters, occurs with that local buoy gear, and, also, this is a very specialized fishery. The average number of set lines used is three, but, obviously, that can vary. The bait used in little tunny, sardines, bonito, and bacora, and the west coast and the east coast are important landing areas for these species.

Now, another particularity of this fishery is that, in Puerto Rico, state waters has a special permit for cardinal and queen snappers that has been in place since 2013, and it has consistently had around sixty participants that are allowed to participate in this fishery.

It is estimated that approximately 200 fishermen use this gear in Puerto Rico to fish for all of those species that I mentioned before. The market is restaurants and villa pesqueras, and then the price per pound fluctuates between $7.50 and $8.50.

Other things that were mentioned is that the number of hooks used is adjusted to balance the potential for that maximum productivity, and the factors that affect the gear used are strong current, swells, high predation potential, weather, area fished, and experience, for example, and that fishing occurs only for a few hours, and this gear is very expensive, and so fishers do try to save some gear, and some have noticed that there is no need to use that many hooks to obtain the desired landings.

They also noted that this gear acts as a spring that lifts the weight and moves the line to another place, by using the current 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

and the weight. The gear bounces on the bottom, and it doesn’t drag, and it’s very important for the fishers to not lose their gear, and so they don’t want it to snag.

This is just a snapshot of harvest that occurs, and, in the landings data, it’s classified as bottom line, or bottom hook-andline, and this is not cala con boya, and this also includes other -- It includes cala con boya, which is the type of buoy gear configuration, but it also includes other bottom line configurations that are used to fish for deepwater species, for example, and so with the reels attached to the boat, et cetera.

This snapshot that I am presenting here is just to give you an idea, and it’s just for the three species that have some of the most landings with this gear. I just did this data current, and so this is not final, and so it needs to be corroborated, but this is just to give you an idea of the harvest that may be occurring in federal waters, Puerto Rico waters, and also what is classified as unknown, which means that no information was provided as to where that harvest took place.

If you see the graph on the left, this is cardinal snapper, and the blue is the percentage of landings that occur in state waters, and the orange is the percentage of landings that occur in federal waters, and the gray line, which in 2012 is pretty high, is unknown, meaning that it was not specified, and so, as you can see, for cardinal snapper, most of the landings occurred in state waters, or occur in state waters, and another thing that we can see is, in 2019, we do have an increase in percentage of landings from federal waters, but we also know that, through time, that information that has been listed as unknown has diminished.

In terms of queen snapper, we can see that the percentage of landings from federal waters is a little higher, and we also see that the unknown, listing of unknown, gets better through time.

Lastly, for the silk snapper, we have also state waters having a higher number of landings, in terms of percentage, although, at the end, it’s kind of comparable with the unknown.

This gives us an idea of how much harvest occurs in federal waters, which is what we’re trying to accomplish in here with this action, but we don’t really know how much of the harvest reported occurs in the specific type of buoy gear configuration that contains more than ten hooks between the buoy and the terminal end, and so this is some kind of information that we would like to have more refined, if possible, so we can include it in this amendment.

Now I’m going to turn my attention to the USVI fisheries deepwater 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

reef fish component, and there is even less information available for the deepwater reef fish component, and it’s probably because it’s not a fishery that is conducted a lot in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and so the local name is deep-drop buoy gear, and, again, as I mentioned earlier, and I’m sorry for the interruption, but, if you see anything that you can provide more context, or needs to be corrected, please let me know, and we will be happy to do that, and we need your input on this.

The species targeted are almost the same as in Puerto Rico, the queen snapper, blackfin snapper, black snapper, vermilion, the goldeye or glasseye snapper, and misty grouper.

The deep-drop buoy gear is used from 300 to 1,200 feet, and fishing with this gear type is more common in St. Croix than in St. Thomas and St. John, and I forgot to mention, but this information comes from a couple of publications, and so, for example, the USVI fish census from Kojis 2004 and then Kojis et al. 2017, and also from another publication from Olsen in 1974, as well as recent personal communications with USVI fishers and fisher administrators by NOAA Fisheries staff.

The number of hooks used varies, but fishers mentioned an average of twenty-two. It can be up to fifty, and I have an asterisk in there, because I think this is some of the information that still needs to be corroborated. Some fishermen may use up to six buoy lines, and some use just one line, and, as in Puerto Rico, the number of hooks is also related to the fishing effort, the depth, the species targeted, the areas fished, and previous experiences with lost gear or the cost of buoy gear, et cetera.

The bait used in the U.S. Virgin Islands is little tunny, squid, and small skipjack.

The species that are harvested using this gear are sold in the local marketplace, usually on Saturdays, and the price per pound usually fluctuates -- I’m sorry.

Usually, it’s around $8.00.

Other names for this buoy type that we found in the publications is vertical set lines, or vertical longlines, and there seems to be some confusion between the buoy vertical lines that are used to fish for pelagic species and the buoy vertical set lines that are used to fish for deepwater snappers and groupers, and so this is definitely some of the information that we still have to gather.

When we tried to create similar charts as the ones that are presented for Puerto Rico, we found that these species are harvested with all the gears that are listed in there, but then we don’t really know which one of these gear types that vertical set line, or the deep-drop buoy gear, falls under, and then, also, for 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

the purposes of creating charts and tables, there is also the confidentiality issues, because of the low number of participants.

In terms of the USVI, we definitely need more information, and this amendment will benefit greatly from having a little bit more information from the USVI to complete the description of this fishery.

I am circling back to the action proposed in the amendment, after we talked about the description of the fisheries, and so every amendment has a draft purpose and need, or a purpose and need, and, in here, the purpose is to modify that definition of buoy gear that is included and 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.

The need is to ensure that commercial fishermen fishing in federal waters of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands for managed reef fish can use the gear type preferred by some fishers with those additional hooks.

The alternatives that are proposed in the amendment is the -- This is only a one-action amendment, and a different alternative can be selected for each island management area, and I’m just saying this, but, obviously, this only has two, but the Alternative 1 is the one that we always include as the no action.

The current definition of buoy gear specified in 50 CFR 622.2 would be retained.

Then Alternative 2 will modify the definition of buoy gear as it applies to the commercial sector of the fishery for managed reef fish to allow the use of up to twenty-five hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end.

What this Alternative 1 means, it means that nothing changes, right, and that definition remains unchanged, but one of the specific requirements under this definition is that that buoy gear cannot contain more than ten hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end, and so, in those components of each of the island-based FMP fisheries where buoy gear is an authorized gear, which means the commercial sector harvesting managed reef fish is the only one from the council-managed fisheries where this gear is authorized, but fishers then must limit the gear to those ten hooks.

Under Alternative 2, then this modification will increase the number of hooks allowed to be used to up to twenty-five, instead 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

of the ten, and then that will allow those fishers that are fishing commercially in federal waters for those managed reef fish to legally use that gear configuration that is employed in some state and, to some degree, federal waters.

That modification would only apply to those using this gear to fish commercially for managed reef fish, and the rest of the specifications that are included in the definition of buoy gear, the federal definition, such as the weight and the construction materials for the drop line and the length of the drop line, will remain unchanged.

Now, in the amendment, in this draft amendment, we included some preliminary effects analysis, but this analysis, at this point, because we’re still gathering some data and trying to clarify some things about the data, and also some more information that will help us better describe the fisheries, but this analysis that is included in the draft amendment is qualitative.

The way that it was done, and, at this point, I’m not going to get into a lot of details about it, but it’s assuming that changes in the total -- That there will be changes in total landings of target species because of those changes in the total number of hooks used per trip, and now some of the questions that perhaps are appropriate for the council, and for fishers, is would increasing that number of allowable hooks per set affect -- Would it have any effect on the total fishing pressure and potential for additional catch and landings or additional bycatch?

There is a couple of things in here that are unknown, because harvest reported is -- You saw that there were some ways of distinguishing some of that harvest between federal and state waters, but harvest reported is combined, usually, between state and federal waters, and we don’t really know the number of fishers, and that may be possibly increase the hook numbers.

Also, harvest levels may already be counting harvest with more than ten hooks, and so the IPT, which is the interdisciplinary planning team that is working on this action, will try to complete -- I’m sorry. We will complete, for the next draft, an effects analysis that hopefully can include more information that would help us answer some of these questions.

This is my last slide, and these are some of the next steps that we are recommending. We would like to obtain some input from the district advisory panels to complete the description of the fisheries, as I mentioned earlier, and so we want to ask the council if they think it’s appropriate to task the DAPs to gather 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

that information from fishers and to report their findings to staff.

Then the interdisciplinary planning team, or IPT, would analyze the data and available information and finalize the effects and other sections of this document, and the IPT is going to draft the second version of the amendment and present that to the council at the August meeting for potential final action, and so this is the end of my presentation.

If you have -- If there is time for questions or for further clarification of some of the items that I presented, please let me know.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Maria.

MIGUEL ROLON:

I have Nelson Crespo.

MARCOS HANKE: I am going to give an opportunity for Nelson, and, obviously, he is the expert among the fishermen on that, and please make sure that you put all your comments, even if it’s a little detail, in the chat, and we are going to be informing you which way we can organize the future participation from the DAP and others to support Maria’s effort. Nelson.

NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Maria. Excellent presentation. I know all the time that you put on that, and we appreciate that. I took the time to read the presentation, and the second paragraph that says that increasing the number of hooks may increase the fishing pressure, at present, the deepwater fishermen are using more than ten hooks, as we always have long before the Magnuson law was created.

I mean, we are not going to increase the pressure on fishing, and Alternative 2 would cause the fishermen who still use more than twenty-five hooks to have to reduce the number, and, consequently, reduce the pressure of fishing. Also, at the present, we are only -- By local regulation, we are only allowed to fish 120 days per year for deepwater snapper, and an increase of fishing days beyond that is not possible. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Nelson, and make sure, everybody, to put your comments -- Like, in Puerto Rico, I think you are missing the use of squid as bait, and that’s very, very commonly used around Puerto Rico, too. The next presentation is the Modification of the Spiny Lobster.

MARIA LOPEZ: Marcos, if I may, real quick, I think Carlos has a comment, Carlos Farchette.

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

MARCOS HANKE:

Carlos, go ahead.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Real quick, thank you, Maria.

On page 8, I believe it is, I was reading Alternative 2, around the fifth sentence, where it says: “Under existing regulations of those fishing for managed reef fish in federal waters, only those fishing commercially can use buoy gear.”

Is this language in the CFR, because I know that, on St. Croix, are waters are very deep in territorial waters, and some fishers may fish for that species in territorial waters, but I don’t think that gear is prohibited by recreational users.

MARIA LOPEZ:

Mr. Chair, if I may.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, go ahead.

MARIA LOPEZ: The federal regulations of the buoy gear, as it’s listed in federal regulations, is not just for managed species by the council, but it’s also an authorized gear, and remember that I’m referring to federal waters here.

It’s also an authorized gear for other non-managed fisheries. For example, it’s called non-FMP pelagics, et cetera, and it is not -- For federal waters, it is not listed as an allowable gear for recreational use.

I do not know the particularities of the regulations in the USVI for this gear, and my understanding, based on me reading the gears that could be used by recreational, is that it wasn’t listed for recreational use, but, if you, or somebody else from the USVI, can clarify that, will be great, but I can only speak as to what is allowed in federal waters.

The reason that we’re being very specific in the alternative, as to what this will be modifying, is because this change is only meant to be for those council-managed reef fish. Anything else that this gear type is an allowable gear for will remain at the ten hooks, and so that’s why, in the alternative, it says for managed reef fish, and I hope that answers your question, Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Maria. We really need to pass to the next presentation, and thank you for everybody’s cooperation. Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, before you rush into the next presentation, you people have to really understand Maria’s presentation and also decide whether this is only for the management unit or it will be 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

across-the-board for anybody who fishes those gears in the federal waters. You don’t have to say that now, but you have to think about it, because, otherwise, you will be dragging this issue forever, and that’s what Maria is trying to explain here.

In one public hearing in Mayaguez, there was a recreational fisher who used jigging, and he explained to us what jigging was, and he was concerned that jigging would be prohibited in Bajo de Sico and others, and so those issues are still pending, and the council members are encouraged to look at it and come to us with recommendations or suggestions, because, once this is approved, although this will go through the process of going through public meetings and everything, and public hearings, of course, but we want to make sure that the council, as a group, understands what Maria just presented to us.

MARIA LOPEZ:

Marcos, if I may.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, go ahead.

MARIA LOPEZ: One of the things that I am requesting in this presentation is for the council to -- If they would like to request the district advisory panels to provide information, to collect information for this, and I don’t know if that’s something that the council would like to do at this time.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, if I may.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: We can ask the members of the council, and we have to be careful not to call it a survey, but we can ask -- Maria and Graciela and I can put together some information that we need from the DAPs, and we can send emails to each one of them, through the chairs especially, Nelson and Eddie and Julian, and see if they can contribute the information that Maria is needing to collect, and we can do that between here and the next meeting, and so, if you all agree, and I need to have your consent, so we can go ahead and ask the DAPs about the information that she needs.

MARCOS HANKE: I think the council would agree. Any opposition to the idea? Hearing none, let’s do that, Miguel, and move forward.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. Graciela and Maria will get together some time in the near future, and, for the next meeting, we hope to have the information from the DAP members. Thank you.

ANDY STRELCHECK:

Marcos, I don’t know if the council wants to 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

wait for the information from the DAPs, but, kind of given timing and proceeding with public hearings and final action, if the council is ready to select a preferred alternative today, that would be, obviously, helpful for the development of the document.

MARCOS HANKE: Well, I think, from my part, as the Chairman and being involved in this discussion for a long time, I think the preferred alternative, for sure, would be Number 2.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, if I may, we need to put that on the screen, and we need a motion for that.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, I understand. Is there anybody that can help me out with a motion, if you agree with Alternative 2 to be the alternative that -MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, we need to put that on the screen first.

Let the staff put it on the screen. Christina, will you please share the screen with the alternative?

CHRISTINA OLAN:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, here we are, and the language is Alternative 2, modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector of the longline/hook-andline component of the fishery for managed reef fish to allow the use of up to twenty-five hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end, and that will be your motion.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

MIGUEL ROLON:

That alternative language.

MARCOS HANKE: Alternative 2?

Is there any second for my motion to accept the

MIGUEL ROLON: No, no, no.

You cannot make the motion.

Marcos, we need to have the motion.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I move to accept Alternative 2 as written on the screen, 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 twenty-five hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end.

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

MARCOS HANKE: TONY BLANCHARD:

Thank you, Carlos.

Any second?

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Tony, for the second. Any opposition to the motion?

Any comments?

Hearing none, the motion carries.

Thank you to all.

Now I think we are on the way to the next presentation of the spiny lobster. I am little concerned with the time constraint. Miguel, do you have any recommendation on how we accommodate, or should we keep going with the next presentation?

MIGUEL ROLON: You can break now, at 1:00, and have the presentation at 1:30, and then you will -- But you have to break at 3:00, sharp. For example, the DAP reports can be done tomorrow, first thing in the morning, after 8:30.

We have the 8:30 presentation by Dr. Michelle Duval, and then you can move the presentation by the DAPs after that.

MARCOS HANKE:

I think that sounds like a plan.

MIGUEL ROLON: You can break for lunch now, and the spiny lobster reference points is very important.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Let’s break for lunch now and come back -It’s 12:53, and we will come back at -MIGUEL ROLON:

1:30, sharp.

MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

1:30.

No opposition.

At 1:30, sharp.

(Whereupon, the meeting recessed for lunch on April 27, 2021.)

- - APRIL 27, 2021 TUESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION - - The Caribbean Fishery Management Council reconvened via webinar on Tuesday afternoon, April 27, 2021, and was called to order at 1:00 o’clock p.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke.

MARCOS HANKE: Good afternoon, everyone. This is Marcos Hanke.

We’re going to restart the afternoon session for the 173rd CFMC Meeting. The next presentation, and thank you so much to Sarah for waiting to present after lunch, with the modifications that we 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

made on the sequence of presentations, and go ahead, Sarah, with the Modification of the Spiny Lobster Reference Points.

MODIFICATION OF SPINY LOBSTER REFERENCE POINTS BASED ON SOUTHEAST DATA, ASSESSMENT, AND REVIEW (SEDAR) 57 STOCK ASSESSMENT, DRAFT AMENDMENT REVISIONS SARAH STEPHENSON: Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I’m Sarah Stephenson, for the record.

This presentation will provide a summary on the draft framework amendment to update management reference points for spiny lobster, following the accepted SEDAR 57 stock assessment.

At the December council meeting, the council was presented with a first look at the draft amendment to update spiny lobster management reference points following SEDAR 57 and the stock’s change from a Tier 4 to Tier 3 under the ABC Control Rule that is included in the island-based FMPs. The council reviewed the two actions and the alternatives that were included in the amendment. Under Action 1, the council would select a preferred approach for setting OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for 2021 to 2023, and the two approaches included a variable catch approach, in which the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs would change each year, and a constant catch approach, in which the values would be the same each year. Then, under Action 2, the council could revise the AM trigger for spiny lobster, which selects the year, or years, of landings to be compared to the ACL. After reviewing the draft amendment, the council requested that the Science Center update the OFL projections and ABC estimates for Puerto Rico using complete 2019 landings data adjusted using the 2019 expansion factors. At that time, the 2019 landings were available, but the expansion factors were not.

The council also requested that the SSC review components of the draft amendment that were related to the timing of the OFLs and ABCs, specifically the shelf life of those values. The council also requested guidance from the SSC on the use of an arithmetic average, versus a geometric average, used in the process to trigger accountability measures.

The interdisciplinary planning team for the spiny lobster amendment would make any necessary updates to the actions and alternatives, following outcomes from the February SSC meeting, and would add in a high-level comparison of alternatives for council consideration, and that was for this meeting.

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

During the February SSC meeting, the updated OFLs and ABCs for Puerto Rico were not available at that time, and so the SSC agreed to allow the Chair the ability to approve the updated projections and estimates for Puerto Rico for recommendation to the council when they became available.

Specific to Action 1 in the amendment, the SSC discussed the years for which OFLs and ABCs should be included in the spiny lobster amendment, as well as the council’s intent to request an interim assessment by 2022 to update those values to reflect more recent data. The SSC decided to continue to recommend both the variable catch and constant catch OFLs and ABCs for the period of 2021 to 2023.

In the event that subsequent rulemaking with new OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs that are updated from that interim assessment is not in place by the end of 2023, the SSC recommends that the OFL and ABC for 2024 and later be equal to the OFL and ABC set for 2023 under the variable catch approach. This would apply for both the constant catch and the variable catch approaches, and, since the ACLs are derived from the ABCs, it would apply to the constant catch and variable catch ACLs as well.

Specific to Action 2, in which the SSC was asked for guidance on the type of average use for ACL monitoring, the SSC recommended that, for spiny lobster, the council continue using an arithmetic mean for ACL monitoring purposes.

Here’s a quick look at major changes to the draft amendment since the December meeting, which will be discussed in more detail in the following slides. The OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for Puerto Rico were updated using complete 2019 landings data with 2019 expansion factors, and the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for 2024 and later we set based on SSC recommendation from their February meeting.

The alternative in Action 2 that ramped up to a three-year average, meaning it started with a single year of landings, followed by a two-year average of landings, and then a three-year average of landings as the AM trigger, was replaced with an alternative that just uses a three-year average of landings as the trigger.

In other words, no ramp-up. The sub-alternatives using the geometric averages were removed based on SSC recommendation.

A high-level comparison of the alternatives was added for each action, including effects to the physical, biological, ecological, economic, social, and administrative environments.

Chapter 3, which is the description of the environments affected by the actions, was added, incorporating, by reference, information from 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

the island-based FMPs, where applicable, and then, finally, references and appendices were added to the draft amendment.

Version 2 of the draft amendment is included in the council’s briefing book, which is on the council’s website and is available for your review.

For each action, the draft amendment includes a no action alternative that provides a baseline for comparison of the considered alternatives. Under Alternative 1 of Action 1, if the council were to take no action, the OFL proxy, which in the islandbased FMPs was the SYL, the sustainable yield level, under Tier 4 of the ABC Control Rule, the ABC and the ACL specified for spiny lobster would remain as set in the island-based FMPs, which are listed here in this table.

However, Alternative 1 would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 2 Guidelines, in that they would not be based on the best scientific information available, and the ACLs would be higher than the ABCs recommended by the SSC following the SEDAR 57 assessment.

The other two alternatives under Action 1 allow the council to select its preferred approach for setting reference points under this amendment. Under Alternative 2, the council would select the variable catch approach and use the variable catch ABCs to derive the variable catch ACLs for spiny lobster. Under Alternative 3, the council would select the constant catch approach and use the constant catch ABC to derive the constant catch ACL for spiny lobster.

The top table has the OFLs and the ABCs under the variable catch approach, and the bottom table has the OFLs and ABCs for the constant catch approach, and I will point out that the values here in these tables for St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix are the same that you saw in December, and only the Puerto Rico values have been updated.

You can see that, for either approach, the values for 2024 and later are the same. Those values were recommended by the SSC at their February meeting, in the event that subsequent rulemaking with updated reference points is not in place by 2024.

Alternatives 2 and 3 each include three sub-alternatives that would allow the council to set the ACL from the ABC, based on the level of management uncertainty perceived for the fisheries targeting spiny lobster, and management uncertainty refers to uncertainty in the ability of managers to constrain catch so that ACL is not 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

exceeded and the uncertainty in quantifying the true catch amounts.

This table lists the proposed sub-alternatives for setting the variable catch ACLs from the variable catch ABCs. Under SubAlternative 2a, which is the third column in the table, no management uncertainty buffer would be applied, and so the ACLs would equal the ABC. Under Sub-Alternative 2b, which is the fourth column, that would apply a 5 percent management uncertainty buffer, and the ACLs would be equal to 95 percent of the ABC. Then, finally, Sub-Alternative 2c, which is the last column, would apply a 10 percent management uncertainty buffer, and the ACLs would be 90 percent of the ABC. Just to point out here what the plus sign is on the year 2023, since the ACLs are derived from the ABCs recommended by the SSC, the ACLs for 2024 and later would be equal to the values specified for 2023, and so the values set for 2023 would continue in time, until amended. Again, the council intent is to ask the Science Center to conduct an interim assessment for spiny lobster for each island from which a subsequent amendment would be developed with, at minimum, updated OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs. The hope is to have the rule updating those values in place by the 2024 fishing season.

These are the proposed ACLs under the constant catch alternative, which is Alternative 3.

The reduction buffers, the management uncertainty buffers, proposed here are the same as those under the previous alternative. Sub-Alternative 3a, which is third column, would have no management uncertainty, and it would set the ACLs equal to the ABC. Sub-Alternative 3b, the fourth column, would apply the 5 percent management uncertainty buffer, and SubAlternative 3c, which is the last column, would apply that 10 percent management uncertainty buffer.

Under this alternative, the ACLs for 2024 and later would be set equal to the value specified for 2023 under the variable catch approach.

Again, those values were based on the SSC’s recommendation for ABCs for the years after 2023. The values for 2024 and later are just based on the SSC recommendation for ABCs, and those would continue until amended, and then just to point out that the council could select a different alternative and subalternative for each island or island group.

The higher ACLs under Alternative 1 could offer greater economic benefits.

However, those higher ACLs could result in reduced biological benefits to the stock, through the greater risk of overfishing, based on SEDAR 57 outcomes. Increased biological and ecological benefits would be expected under Alternatives 2 and 3, when compared to Alternative 1, through the application of the 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

best scientific information available.

Managing based on best scientific information better ensures the spiny lobster stocks are harvested sustainably.

Although the approaches for setting OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs differ under Alternatives 2 and 3, the total catch allowed under the variable catch approach, which is Alternative 2, would equal the total catch under the constant catch approach, which is Alternative 3, and so the long-term biological benefits to the stock would be the same.

Setting constant management reference points under Alternative 3 could provide greater benefits to the socioeconomic environment, when compared to the changing reference points under Alternative 2, since the catch targets would not be changing from year to year.

The table shows the total catch allowed under the two approaches for the sub-alternatives that use a 5 percent reduction buffer.

When you compare the variable ACLs to the constant ACLs, the catch allowed in a given year differs, but the total sum over the four years shown here would be the same for each island, and that’s the bold numbers at the bottom, and this outcome occurs for the other sub-alternatives as well as for the OFLs and the ABCs. For Action 1, the council would want to consider if they prefer changing ACLs over the 2021 to 2023 period or static ACLs and what level of uncertainty they have in the management of the stock.

Under Action 2, the council could revise the trigger for accountability measures for spiny lobster from what was described in the island-based FMPs. Alternative 1 is the no action alternative, and it would use landings from a specific sequence of years to evaluate an overage of the spiny lobster ACL. This ramp-up process would start with a single year of landings from 2018, followed by a single year of landings from 2019, and then a two-year average of landings from 2019 and 2020, followed by a three-year average of landings from 2019, 2020, and 2021, and then, thereafter, a progressive, running three-year average.

Under this step-wise process, the no action alternative will not use a three-year average of landings as the trigger until the fourth year of implementation.

Alternative 2 would use the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM. An AM would be triggered if average landings exceeded the average ACLs in place during those years. The years of landings used to trigger an AM could be adjusted to account for the best scientific information 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

available.

Alternative 3 would use the most recent single year of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM, and an AM would be triggered if landings exceeded the ACL in place during that year. The year of landings used to trigger an AM, again, could be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available.

This table was included in the draft amendment to help illustrate the years of spiny lobster landings that would be used to trigger an AM under each alternative.

This analysis was based on two assumptions. The first assumption was that final landings are not available until two years after the year in which the fishing occurred, and the second assumption is that that island-based FMPs and the spiny lobster amendment would be effective in the same year, and, in this table, that’s Fishing Year 2022, and that the years specified in the FMPs as the AM trigger would be updated to reflect the most recent landings available.

In this table, if the FMPs and amendment were implemented in 2022, the most recent landings available at that time would be from 2020, and the sequence specified in the FMPs would be updated to use 2020 as a starting year.

In this analysis, Alternatives 1 and 3 would use the same years of landings in the first two years as the AM trigger, but then Alternative 1 would start using a multiyear average. Alternative 2 would use a three-year average from the first year of implementation.

It wouldn’t be until the fourth year of the amendment application, and, in this table, that’s Fishing Year 2025, until the Alternative 1 trigger would use a three-year average, and that would be the same three-year average used as the trigger under Alternative 2, under these assumptions that were made. At that point and later, the AM trigger under Alternatives 1 and 2 would be the same. Alternative 3 would only ever use a single year of landings as the trigger.

In general, using a multiyear average of landings to trigger an AM would be expected to account for biological and economic variability in the landings, thereby reducing the probability that an AM would be triggered. However, if landings in a particular year are very high, when using a three-year average as the trigger, that one year of high landings could be used to calculate the average landings multiple times, potentially triggering AMs in three consecutive years, and so the benefit of the three-year average depends on the magnitude and the variability in the landings.

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

Landings for 2020 are not available at this time, but it is expected that they would be less than the previous year’s landings, due to the reduced fishing effort that occurred in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. If future landings of spiny lobster in Puerto Rico are landed at the 2018 or 2019 levels, then AMs would likely be triggered every year under all of the alternatives, as those landings would exceed the proposed ACLs under Action 1, and they would greatly exceed them.

Annual landings of spiny lobster on St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix since 2012 have generally been less than the ACLs that are proposed under Action 1. If landings continue at those levels, an AM would not be triggered under any of the Action 2 alternatives.

At the December 2020 meeting, the council preliminarily preferred the constant catch approach to setting OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs, which is Alternative 3 under Action 1, and using a three-year average as the AM trigger, which is now Alternative 2 under Action 2.

For next steps in the amendment process, following any questions from this presentation, the council could select preferred alternatives for the two actions at this meeting. For Action 1, the council would first select a variable catch or constant catch approach for setting management reference points, and it would then select a management uncertainty reduction buffer for spiny lobster used to set the ACL from the ABC. For Action 2, the council would select the AM trigger for spiny lobster.

The IPT would then develop the framework amendment for final action at the August 2021 council meeting, and, if so requested by the council, staff could present a summary of the draft amendment to the district advisory panels before the August council meeting, and, with that, I will take any questions.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much for a great presentation.

Council members, do you have any questions or any comments? Let me see in the chat. Miguel, is there anybody that has requested a turn to ask in the chat?

MIGUEL ROLON: I don’t see any. I believe what we should do is to go back to the last slide, where Sarah was presenting to the council the action needed, and then, if you agree, we have to make the motion to staff, and you will see it on the screen, but you need to, after this presentation, select, in Action 1, which is your preference, select the constant catch approach, select management uncertainty, et cetera. Then, in Action 2, you need to look at the trigger for spiny lobster, the AM trigger for spiny lobster.

80

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 have a question, Miguel. the things in consideration or a part?

The motion is with all

MIGUEL ROLON: Each one is separate, and Sarah can help us with the language, if she wishes.

MARCOS HANKE:

Sarah, can you please suggest the motion?

SARAH STEPHENSON: Yes, and I do have some drafted.

Would you like me to draft that in the chat or send it to Liajay?

MIGUEL ROLON: You can put it in the chat right now and send it to Liajay at the same time, whatever is easier.

SARAH STEPHENSON: I did just do one motion for each of the actions, and so I combined the two steps the council would need to consider for Action 1 into this one motion that I dropped on the side, and you will just need to fill in -- Where I have, for example, Alternative X, you would select either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, and we would change that to be corresponding variable catch approach or constant catch approach, and then, down later in the sentence, we would just -- Where it says “Sub-Alternative XY”, we would just change that to 2a or 2b, and then we would add what percent management uncertainty buffer that corresponds to it.

MARCOS HANKE: Let’s go baby steps, because I am not hearing anybody requesting the floor, and I have a question for the council members. On Action 1, select variable or constant catch approach, I need to hear from the council members.

Anybody?

Carlos, go ahead.

TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE:

Tony Blanchard, for the record.

Go ahead, Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: I will select Action 1, select variable or constant catch approach.

MIGUEL ROLON:

That’s the question.

You need to select one.

SARAH STEPHENSON: Tony, the variable approach would change the values from year-to-year, and the constant approach would have the same ACL for 2021 to 2023, and it would change slightly for 2024 if new rulemaking isn’t in place by that time, but those are your two options.

TONY BLANCHARD:

My option would be a constant catch approach.

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

SARAH STEPHENSON:

Okay.

MARCOS HANKE: I just want to make a comment. We have discussed this in the past, and, at that time, the council was in agreement with the constant approach, like Sarah just explained.

Does anybody in the group have any other comments about this specific discussion?

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, for the record, you need to develop the record. You have to say, you know, which will be best for the fishery, the constant approach or the variable approach, and then you go with it, but you have now also Carlos Farchette that wants to say something.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Carlos.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Then Andy.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Well, I wanted to second Blanchard’s motion to use the constant approach.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Why?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

For Action 1.

Do you have a rationale?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: meeting.

Well, that was agreed upon at the December

MIGUEL ROLON: Yes, but we need to develop the rationale here.

Otherwise, we don’t need this meeting. We need to hear from the council members that, okay, I select the constant approach because -- Then you develop the record here, and I believe that we also have Andy Strelcheck who would like to add something, Marcos, maybe before you have the motion.

MARCOS HANKE: Before Andy participates, I want to remember, Carlos, that, once we discussed this, the main rationale behind it was that it was much easier for all the participants for this scheme of management to have a constant approach that doesn’t change, and that will be too confusing over time, and that was one of the main things. Let’s give the opportunity to Andy.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos. I am certainly supportive of a constant catch approach, for some of the reasons that have already been stated. It certainly provides, in my view, greater stability 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

to the industry, and understanding that the catch limits, obviously, won’t be changing from year to year. You also look at the landings data for, in particular, the USVI, and landings are well below those catch levels, and so, whether you set it at a variable or constant catch level, you aren’t expected to hit the catch limits, based on at least current or historical landings data, and the Puerto Rican data is not dramatically changing whether you select a variable approach or a constant approach, and so I would recommend the constant catch.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you very much.

Tony Blanchard.

TONY BLANCHARD: The constant catch approach is because you know what to expect every year, meaning as to what the ACL is going to be. Staggering up and down is going to be confusing, in my opinion.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

TONY BLANCHARD: consistency.

MARCOS HANKE:

Any other --

Fishers want consistency.

Fishermen all want

Thank you, Tony.

MIGUEL ROLON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The motion by Tony Blanchard is for the council’s preferred alternative to be the constant approach regarding the spiny lobster, and it was seconded

by Carlos Farchette.

MARCOS HANKE: Correct, and we are in the discussion about that motion right now, and there is a rationale behind it already stated on the record, and is there anybody else that would like to add to the discussion? Hearing none, I think we are ready to vote. Is anybody in opposition? Hearing none, the motion carries.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, you have to say is there anybody in opposition, abstentions, and then your motion carries, just in case.

MARCOS HANKE: Anybody in opposition? Anybody in abstention? The motion carries. Thank you, guys. Thank you to all. The next item for discussion -- Sarah, can you help us again?

SARAH STEPHENSON: Yes, and it would be what level of management uncertainty do you want to apply to set the ACL from the ABC for each island for spiny lobster, and so the options were no buffer, and so the ACL would equal the ABC, a 5 percent reduction buffer, and so the ACL would be 95 percent of the ABC, or a 10 percent buffer, and the ACL would equal 90 percent of the ABC. 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

Just for reference, in the island-based FMPs for spiny lobster, for all three FMPs, the council selected a 5 percent management uncertainty buffer, and so they set the ACL equal to 95 percent of that ABC, and so that’s what you did with the island-based FMPs, but the options here are slightly different, and we are in a different tier, and so I guess the council just needs to, for each island, determine what their level of management uncertainty they feel is, and, if you want, we can go back to the slide that has those buffers.

MARCOS HANKE:

Please do.

SARAH STEPHENSON: This is your constant catch ACLs, which is the first motion you just made. From those constant catch ABCs, now you are going to set the constant catch ACL, and Sub-Alternative 3a, which is that third column, would be your ACLs for Puerto Rico for 2021 to 2023, and then, if we don’t have new rulemaking in place by 2024, it would drop, and so, for each of your islands, that’s what -- Then the next column, Sub-Alternative 3b, has a 5 percent buffer, and then the last column has the 10 percent buffer, and so these are the options presented in the amendment.

MARCOS HANKE: Sarah, a question, just for clarification. On the 388,750, how many times -- I am going to use Puerto Rico as an example, but how many times has Puerto Rico, over the years, passed that number?

SARAH STEPHENSON: In the table that I had in there, it went over -- I’m just going to go back in time, and so 2019 was higher than that, 2018 was higher than that, 2016, 2015, and so those four years were higher than the 388,750, and so four times in the past however many years.

MARCOS HANKE: I’m sorry to be repetitive with my questions, but what is the difference in terms of, for the livelihood of the fishermen, of having -- Exceeding using the 5 percent, or 95, versus equal to ABC, in terms of if you’re going to pass it anyway?

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, there is another issue with this. Remember the discussion that we had before, where Dr. Roy Crabtree told us that, because of the uncertainty that you have, you also have to have a strong rationale to present to the Secretary as to why you equal ACL to ABC and the buffer that was offered that you all agreed of 0.95 was because that took into consideration that requirement, because of the buffer, and 0.90 was too much. If you want to be consistent, then you have 0.95. The question here is 0.95 across the three areas, in each island FMP, or do you want to 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

leave that floating somehow?

MARCOS HANKE: My intention, as the Chairman, was to create a little bit of elaboration on this over again, a little bit repetitive, just to refresh the minds of the council to get to this point. I want to hear from the other council members.

TONY BLANCHARD: Marcos, I would go with Sub-Alternative 3b, the 0.95, to stay consistent, for one thing, and, on the other hand, we have not overrun the ACLs for -- I don’t think it was ever overrun, and so I don’t see the 0.95 as being, with a small buffer, a problem, and, because of the size of our lobsters, and we have a three-and-a-half-inch carapace minimum size.

That’s my rationale for going with the 0.95.

MIGUEL ROLON: motion, Tony?

Would you like to present that in the form of a

TONY BLANCHARD: Okay.

I would support --

I might need some help with the wording.

MIGUEL ROLON: The wording will be for the council to adopt the alternative of 0.95, as presented in the table here, and so the setting of the alternative that you have in Action 1, you select, as your preferred alternative, ACL equals ABC times 0.95. In other words, you are giving a 5 percent buffer.

TONY BLANCHARD: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes. So we need a second for that one, Mr. Chairman.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE: comment?

Second.

Let’s go for discussion.

Does anybody else want to

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I have a comment. I noticed, in the fine print on page 10, where it says that, if a subsequent assessment is not completed, and an amendment is not implemented by 2024, the ACL equals the value specified in 2023, and so that means that it would reduce by 19,000 pounds automatically in 2024 if an assessment -Not a full stock assessment, and that’s just an interim assessment, and is that -SARAH STEPHENSON:

Yes, that’s correct.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: So who would do that interim assessment? that come out from the Division of Fish and Wildlife?

85

Would

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

SARAH STEPHENSON:

No, that would be the Science Center.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Wildlife, right?

But that data would have to come from Fish and

SARAH STEPHENSON: They would use the same data that they used, I believe, in the SEDAR assessment, and so they would get updated landings data and updated length data, the TIP data, and they would use that to conduct an interim assessment internally at the Science Center, and please feel free to jump on and correct me, anyone from the Science Center, if I said that wrong, but they would do it, and they would update the OFL projections, and they would use the same ABC control rule that the council and the SSC has already established for the Tier 3 spiny lobster stocks, and so they would get updated OFLs and ABCs, and we would apply the same management uncertainty buffer as you guys are selecting here and get new ACLs. That is all to be done in the future, and it was the council’s intent to request that interim assessment, and you remember, in the beginning, the Science Center gave us six years of OFL projections, and the council didn’t want to use all six years, and so they said let’s use three years, and let’s get an updated assessment, after those three years, to set the next round of management reference points, and so that’s what the fine print is alluding to, if that helps answer your question.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I am just concerned that, if something doesn’t happen, all of a sudden, the fishermen are going to lose 19,000 pounds, and, as it is right now, we’ve lost quite a bit of fishermen, through attrition, and so the lobster harvest is not as high as it used to be, and so I’m a little concerned about what would happen if they just dropped it because no assessment was done.

MIGUEL ROLON: But the point is that all of that could happen anyway.

What you are setting up here is a mechanism for the interim assessment in 2024, and this is the best approach that the council could think of.

I understand your concern, and the data that is examined by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, which is the ultimate authority for us, is the data that is submitted by the local governments and/or any data that is collected that is fisheryindependent for any particular species that they are going to be looking at. To your question, aside from everything that Sarah told you, which I believe she is right on the money with the process, the data that the Center receives comes from the two local 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

governments.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. That was kind of my concern, because I think that, recently here, Fish and Wildlife has been doing a great job, but who knows what’s going to happen in 2024 if there’s no continuity of government.

MIGUEL ROLON: guess.

Well, you have to vote for the right people, I

MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

Any further discussion?

ANDY STRELCHECK: Marcos, I have a comment. I’m supportive of the recommended sub-alternative of a 0.05 buffer. I will comment that, for Puerto Rico spiny lobster, given recent landings history, we are potentially looking at a situation where the accountability measures will be exceeded, given the catch limit being set relative to the prior landings history, and so that’s something I think just to be aware of, and, regardless of what buffer you set, if we’re unable to constrain the catch to that catch limit, that will result in future triggering of accountability measures, if landings stay at these higher levels.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, I agree with you, and that’s why my original question when I started to speak about this, and there is a long conversation behind that. One of the points is that Sarah just described that we have five years that the numbers, reported numbers, of landings are higher, and I’m just hopeful that the new scientific information that comes up is going to help us understand a little better what is really going on in the water, and my concern is that I don’t want to tie anything on a science that we need to improve, and we are doing that right now, and that’s my point. That’s my concern, but, anyway, about the motion, I would like to see the motion, for everybody to be clear, or anybody that can read it for the group, to move along.

One of the things in the motion is that I want to make sure that it includes all the areas and not just one area, if the motion presented by Tony is -MIGUEL ROLON: Word software.

Mr. Chairman, let Liajay put it together in the

MARCOS HANKE: Okay. A question for Tony is, on your motion, just to be clear, do you want to include all the three areas on your motion?

TONY BLANCHARD:

Yes. 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

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Tony.

LIAJAY RIVERA: This is the motion wording. Please let me know if the wording is okay, or is exact, or if there’s any modification.

Apologies if I put the wrong people in the motions. Let me know.

SARAH STEPHENSON: Liajay, I dropped an updated one in the chat for you, since we already did the first part of this motion. I think you can just -LIAJAY RIVERA: Can you please send it on email, because we cannot copy-and-paste this from the chat. I am not able.

MIGUEL ROLON: Just wait. Let’s play like we are in the room.

Just dictate to Liajay what we need to have on the screen, and that will be better.

SARAH STEPHENSON: Okay. You’re actually going to leave how it starts, and you’re going -- For Action 1 in the Spiny Lobster Draft Framework Amendment, the council moves to accept Sub-Alternative -- So we’re going to grab “Alternative X all the way to SubAlternative” and delete that, and so all the stuff in the middle will get deleted.

3b, 95 percent -- Actually, it’s just a 5 percent buffer. Then, after the parentheses, add in “for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix”.

MIGUEL ROLON: For the meeting in December, we would like to invite Sarah Stephenson to come to Puerto Rico.

SARAH STEPHENSON:

I believe that should do it.

MIGUEL ROLON: So, Tony, do you agree with the language as written on the screen?

TONY BLANCHARD: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes. Okay, and the seconder, Mr. Carlos Farchette.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes, I do.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. That’s it, Mr. Chairman. any further discussion and a vote.

We are ready for

MARCOS HANKE: Any further discussion? Is there anybody else that wants to make a comment or are in opposition? Hearing none, we don’t have any abstentions, and the motion carries.

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

MIGUEL ROLON: Liajay, just put unanimously accepted. Perfect.

Sarah, is there any other action that we need to undertake at this time?

ANDY STRELCHECK: action.

We need to discuss the accountability measures

SARAH STEPHENSON: I was talking on mute.

Yes, and thank you, Andy.

The Action 2 alternatives, you have -- The first was Alternative 1, to keep what is in the island-based FMPs, which is that extended ramp-up.

Alternative 2 is to use a three-year average of landings, and then Alternative 3 was to just use a single year, and so those were the options presented.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, we need to hear from the council which is your preferred alternative.

TONY BLANCHARD: I would go with the three-year average, because that’s what we have been doing. Number one, it seems to have been working, and just to keep consistency.

MARCOS HANKE: TONY BLANCHARD: MIGUEL ROLON:

Anybody else?

Tony, can you make a motion?

I will need some help with the wording.

Okay.

Let Sarah and Liajay work it out first.

SARAH STEPHENSON: So we’re going to copy the first part of the last action, and we’re just going to change it to Action 2. For Action 2 in the Spiny Lobster Draft Amendment, the council moves to accept -- You can copy that first whole sentence of your last one and just change the number, and so grab it from the beginning.

Change it to “2”. We’re going to change it from “sub-alternative” to just “alternative”, and that’s going to be Alternative 2, and then you can delete the stuff in the parentheses and just put -Leave for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix. Delete “to set the ACLs from the ABCs” and replace that with “as the AM trigger for spiny lobster”. After “Alternative 2”, you can delete the islands that are duplicated. Perfect.

MIGUEL ROLON: For the record, Mr. Chairman, the motion, to be considered by Tony, is, for Action 2 in the Spiny Lobster Draft Framework Amendment, the council moves to accept Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for the AM trigger for spiny lobster in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix. We need a second.

MARCOS HANKE:

Tony, do you agree with the language?

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

TONY BLANCHARD:

Yes.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Second.

MIGUEL ROLON:

You are making the motion easier for Liajay.

LIAJAY RIVERA:

I was just waiting, and I didn’t want to --

MIGUEL ROLON: That’s great. We thank you and Sarah for this.

Mr. Chairman, there you have the language.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, and we’re going to hear from the council now. Is there anybody in opposition? Hearing none, is there any abstentions? If there are no abstentions, the motion carries.

MIGUEL ROLON: presentation?

Sarah, have we finished with the spiny lobster

SARAH STEPHENSON:

Yes.

Thank you very much.

MIGUEL ROLON: I would like to thank you and Liajay for an excellent job. Thank you very much.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you to all. Let’s go to the next item on the agenda. We’re going to the listening -- What time is it? It’s twenty to.

Miguel, do have time for the strategic plan before 3:00?

MIGUEL ROLON: We can start now with Michelle’s presentation, and, if the discussion goes until let’s say five to three, we can stop there and continue afterwards, if you agree with that.

MARCOS HANKE: Does everybody agree with that? comment. Let’s go with Michelle Duval.

I didn’t hear any

MIGUEL ROLON: Just for the record, what we are going to have today, especially for those of you who are unfamiliar with the council, at 3:00, we will have a listening session.

It’s like moving from this building to another, and that listening session will be chaired by National Marine Fisheries Service, by Sam Rauch, and so the Chairman will introduce him at that time, at 3:00.

From 3:00 to 4:00, we have that listening session of Executive Order 14008, Section 216(c). Michelle, are you ready?

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thanks, Miguel. I was going to ask if I could share my screen, and it might actually go faster if I can do that.

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

MIGUEL ROLON: the floor.

Okay.

We will make you a host.

Okay.

You have

CFMC FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN MICHELLE DUVAL: Great. Thank you. First of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, council members. I will do my best to be efficient here today, and so I just have a presentation for you on the draft strategic plan framework.

Just a brief overview of what I’m going to cover, I’m going to just quickly review the components of the strategic plan, because it’s been a little while since we’ve talked about those, and I’m going to review the sources of information that were used to develop the draft framework.

I will go over the general plan, organization, and structure, and then the next steps are really review and selection of draft vision, mission, and goal area statements by the council and review and approval of the draft island-specific objectives, as modified by the DAPs. Mr. Chairman, my suggestion is that I go through the entire presentation, and then we can circle back to those items that are needed for action by the council, if that’s okay.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Go ahead.

MICHELLE DUVAL: All right. Just a quick review of the components of a strategic plan, and so there’s five major components. There is the vision, which is the desired future state an organization would like to achieve, and this is meant to be very aspirational.

There’s the mission, which is really the fundamental purpose of an organization, sort of what its reason for existence is and its general approach to achieve its vision.

The goals are meant to be those very broad outcomes that help an organization to achieve its vision, and they are not measurable, but they’re just steps along the way. Objectives are those items that are specific, and they are often measurable, and you can think of those as mini steps, or a subset of the goals, and then the strategies are really how an organization is going to meet an objective, and those are more action oriented, and so, just to translate this into an example, I am bringing this back from our vision statement brainstorming session back in August of 2019.

My problem is that I’m tired, I’m grumpy, and my pants don’t fit, and that probably serves a lot of us right now, after a year of COVID, but my vision is that I look and feel fabulous, and so, to 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

achieve that vision, my goal is to get healthy, and so, to achieve this goal, I have established three objectives, which are to exercise more, eat better, and to lower my stress, and so these are mini-steps to achieve my goal.

The strategies are how I’m going to achieve these three objectives, and so, to exercise more, I’m going to jog three times a week, do yoga a couple of times a week, and take the stairs. To eat better, I’m going to make dinner at home five times a week, eat less meat, eat more vegetables. Likewise, to lower stress, that yoga is also going to help me lower my stress, and I’m going to spend a little bit more time with my dog.

To translate these components into the council’s world, the vision is really what does the council want U.S. Caribbean fisheries to look like in the future, and the mission is really the council’s mandate for management under the Magnuson Act, and so what, by law, the council is required to do, as well as its approach for achieving its vision.

The goals are really the big-picture focus areas, and so these should describe the ultimate impact of the council’s work, and they are necessary to achieve the vision, and then the objectives, again, will be specific and observable, and these are intended to describe results, and they can be directly linked to an issue or a problem, and then the strategies are just the approaches, again, that the council will take to meet its objectives.

I do just want to review the sources of information that went into the development of these draft vision, mission, and goal statements.

First of all is the council vision statement brainstorming session, which we had in August of 2019, and the next is the stakeholder input report, and so I gave you all a presentation on this in December, but this contained all the input from the strategic planning sessions that the district advisory panels went through last August, as well as feedback from the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel and council feedback and issue prioritization, and so we reviewed a bunch of issues and four major theme areas, which I’m going to show in a minute, and prioritized those.

We also conducted management partner outreach, and so this includes the folks at the Southeast Regional Office, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, as well as the territorial management partners, and then we also had a public comment form that was on the council’s website that allowed members of the public, who may not have been able to attend one of the other DAP meetings, or a council meeting, the opportunity to provide input. Then, finally, the island-based 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

fishery management plans and the previous public input received through that process, and so the goals and objectives of the island-based fishery management plans were also part of the sources of information for this process.

These are just the four different stakeholder and public input discussion themes. You will recall seeing these previously, and so these were focused on management and operational issues; resource health; social, cultural, and economic issues; and communication and outreach.

This is just the structure of the draft strategic plan, or the draft framework, and the Caribbean Council will have just a single vision and a single mission that the council is unified under, and then, underneath that vision and mission, we have four different goal statement themes, again based on those four discussion areas that I showed you on the previous slide, and those are management; ecosystem and resource health; social, cultural, and economic issues; and communication and outreach.

For the first three of these, and so management, ecosystem and resource health, and social, cultural, and economic issues, we will also have a series of island-specific objectives for each one of those goals, and so, for example, the management goal will have a series of Puerto-Rico-specific objectives, and each one of those objectives will have a series of strategies that are specific to Puerto Rico.

Similarly with the other goal areas, with the exception of communication and outreach. If you recall, this was an area that is something that is council-wide, and the priorities that were brought forward during our strategic planning sessions last year spanned all of the council’s districts, and so, again, this is how we are planning to set up the strategic plan so that we can most appropriately recognize the unique characteristics of each of the island districts as well as address each island district’s priorities.

Now I’m going to get into the vision and mission statement alternatives, and I’m going to start with the vision statement alternatives, and, again, these really build on the concepts that came out of the vision brainstorming session that you all had in August of 2019, and some of the themes that came forward from that were sustainable and resilient fisheries, healthy ecosystems, cultural and social and economic benefits, as well as stakeholder and community input and support, and so you all had directed me to take the results of that brainstorming session and develop three to five different vision statements.

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

These are the three different vision statement alternatives, which are healthy island ecosystems that support sustainable and resilient local fisheries and fishing communities; thriving and resilient island ecosystems, fisheries, and fishing communities that provide cultural, social, and economic benefits for all; and healthy island ecosystems and sustainable, resilient fisheries that provide cultural, social, and economic benefits for all.

Next, we’ll review the mission statement alternatives, and so, again, remember the mission statement reflects the council’s mandate under the Magnuson Act, and so what the council is required to do, and so this first sentence that you see here in white up at the top of the slide, which reads: The Caribbean Fishery Management Council conserves, restores, and manages fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean consistent with the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act. This is really the council’s mandate, its reason for being.

The second sentence, which are there three different alternatives here for you to consider, this reflects the council’s approach to carrying out its mission and achieving its vision, and so, again, these were based on the feedback that came out of our visioning session that we had in August of last year, which emphasized collaboration and stakeholder input, and so those three alternatives are 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 fisheries and supporting island ecosystems through education, outreach, and stakeholder input. The third is the council is committed to advancing the stewardship of these fisheries and associated island ecosystems through stakeholder outreach, education, and collaboration.

Next, I’m going to review the different goal theme statement alternatives, and so we’re going to start with the management goal alternative, and so some of the common management goals across the different island-based fishery management plans were managing within local ecosystem limits, ensuring the continued health of fishery resources, providing for sustained community participation, fostering territorial and federal collaboration, and minimizing adverse ecosystem impacts.

These three alternatives reflect those themes, and the first is develop management strategies that provide for healthy, sustainable island fisheries and fishing communities and reflect 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

local ecosystem productivity.

The next is advance management approaches that provide for healthy, sustainable fisheries, account for local ecosystem productivity, and consider the needs of island fishing communities. The third is advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

The next set of goal statement alternatives are the ecosystem and resource health goal alternatives, and so some of the common ecosystem and resource health goals across those island-based fishery management plans were focused on ensuring continued provision of ecosystem services, again managing within the limits of ecosystem production, ensuring the continued health of fishery resources.

The three alternatives here are -- The first is support ecologically-sustainable uses that provide for healthy, resilient marine resources and maintain island ecosystem structure and function. The next is promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources. The third is advance ecosystem-based approaches that support healthy, resilient fishery resources and promote local ecological productivity, structure, and function.

The next set of goal statement alternatives are the social, cultural, and economic goal theme area, and so, again, common goals and objectives across the island-based FMPs were focused on providing for sustained participation of communities, minimizing adverse impacts on communities, promoting fair and equitable use of the resource, and recognizing differences in local environment, culture, and user groups, among other things, and so these three alternatives -- The first is ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities, while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

The second promote fair and equitable resource use, while considering the social, cultural, and economic needs of island fishing communities, and the third is ensure that management decisions promote fair and equitable resource use and consider the unique social, cultural, and economic characteristics of island fishing communities.

The next set of alternatives that we’ll review are the communication and outreach goal alternatives, and so, again, these -- The communication and outreach goal is something that spans the 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

entire council jurisdiction, and some of the themes that came out of our strategic planning meetings with the district advisory panels and the O&E AP and the council were, first of all, that more outreach is needed, and more is always better.

They were also focused on the diversity of tools to reach different audiences, increasing public participation in the process, increasing educational outreach materials, specifically for the general public, things like ensuring that our communications are clear and understandable.

The three different communication and outreach goal alternatives are engage a variety of audiences, through education and outreach, that fosters understanding of and participation in the council process. The second is engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the council process. The third is foster engagement in the council process, through communication and outreach, that informs and educates a variety of audiences.

Now I’m going to quickly review the draft island-specific management objectives, and so, again, these were developed based on the island-based FMP objectives as well as the feedback from the district advisory panels during the strategic planning sessions that we had last summer, and I do want to note that these have been reviewed by the DAPs. They did that at the very end of March, and they provided feedback on these island-specific management objectives, and they also reviewed a set of potential strategies for each one of those, and the DAPs are going to be meeting again in June to provide additional input with respect to strategies under these objectives.

Before I actually get into those, I do want to offer a few general observations, and so, within each theme, there are significant overlaps in the priority issues that were identified by the DAPs and the council, and so this results in very similar, and often identical, island-specific objectives, and this is not very different from the island-based FMPs. There is a lot of overlap in the goals and objectives among each of the three districts, and some of the islands actually have exactly the same objectives within their FMPs. The next is that a lot of the priority issues that the DAPs and the council discussed are really more appropriately addressed as island-specific strategies or as activities as part of an implementation plan, and that will be sort of the final product of this process, is an implementation plan for next year, and so I 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

just want to make sure that everyone understands that, ultimately, all U.S. Caribbean island districts are working towards the same broad goals.

These are just -- I am not going to read these, the way that I read the different alternatives for the vision and mission and goal statement themes.

I just want to note that these are the draft Puerto Rico management objectives, and you are going to see that the ones for St. Thomas/St. John, as well as St. Croix, are very similar, and, in some instances, identical.

I’m just going to highlight some of the commonalities that were identified during our planning sessions, which were themes of accurate and timely commercial and recreational data collection, enforcement of existing regulations, fisher involvement in data collection, territorial licensing requirements, incorporation of climate change, balancing commercial and recreational concerns, and things like that.

Each one of the DAPs had slightly different takes on that, with respect to potential strategies, but you will see that these four objectives reflect accurate and timely data collection programs, promotion of collaborative research and fisher involvement in meeting our science and information needs, ensuring that management measures encourage regulatory compliance, and then collaboration with both domestic and international partners on the management approach and ensuring that those management approaches are efficient.

It’s very similar for St. Thomas/St. John, and, in fact, those first four are exactly alike.

The one thing that was also identified as a priority by the St. Thomas/St. John DAP was climate change, and so there’s an additional objective here considering the potential impacts of climate change.

Then, finally, the St. Croix draft management objectives, again, these are identical to those four that you saw for Puerto Rico, again due to the fact that all of the DAPs had significant overlap in the identification of priority issues.

The next set are ecosystem and resource health objectives, and so, again, there was a lot of commonality in the priorities that were identified by the different DAPs, and so these included a suite of issues related to erosion and sedimentation, coastal development, different forms of pollution, habitat loss and destruction, as well as habitat creation and rehabilitation, a lack of biological and ecosystem information, as well as illegal fishing and climate change.

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

These four draft objectives are meant to incorporate those, but, also, the significant amount of work that the council has been doing over the past couple of years with respect to the development of your fishery ecosystem plan, which is sort of the framework that you’re using to implement your island-based FMPs, and so that’s what this first objective is about, is to really implement what’s being incorporated into that plan.

The second objective is focused on identifying and managing and protecting the habitat resources, and the third is about collaborating with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters, and this is something that was specifically identified by the Puerto Rico DAP, and then collaborating with management partners to address enforcement concerns that can affect ecological relationships.

Similarly, for St. Thomas/St. John, again, we have an objective that’s focused on implementation of the fishery ecosystem plan, specifically as it relates to the St. Thomas/St. John ecosystem.

Again, an objective about habitat rehabilitation and restoration of fishery resources, collaboration with management partners, again, to address those enforcement concerns that can impact ecological relationships, and then a final one is collaborating with science partners to identify and address ecological, data, and information gaps.

Again, these are the St. Croix draft ecosystem resource health objectives, and they’re very similar to the last two sets that you saw, because of the overlap that has been identified, and so we have an objective on the fishery ecosystem plan, an objective pertaining to habitat, an objective pertaining to rehabilitation and/or creation of fishery resource habitats to support that ecosystem structure and function, collaboration with management partners to address enforcement, and then, also, ensuring that ecosystem approaches are responsive to climate change.

Finally, we get to the draft social, cultural, and economic objectives, and so, with respect to those, again, some of the overlaps, the issue overlaps, were pretty significant here, and so one of the things that all three of the DAPs and the council identified were things like closed seasons and stock assessments for affected species, and this was something that actually affects or is incorporated into objectives that cross all of the different goal theme areas.

Illegal and unlicensed commercial fishers, lack of social and economic data, things such as infrastructure needs that impact the 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

social and economic ability, or success, of fishing communities, the impacts of inadequate enforcement on social and economic wellbeing in these communities, and so these four draft objectives that you see here for Puerto Rico, again, you’re going to see similarities for St. Thomas/St. John, as well as St. Croix, but the first is focused on promoting the collection of that social and economic data that is needed to make decisions.

The second is focused on evaluating the social and economic impacts of management decisions across different user groups. The third is focused on promoting efforts that will support social and economic opportunity and stability, and then the final one is focused on those impacts of enforcement that everybody identified.

Again, these are very similar, identical in fact, for St. Thomas/St. John. Then, for St. Croix, the St. Croix DAP offered a few edits to these draft objectives, and so these are incorporated here, and the first objective focused on the collection and dissemination of that social and economic data that informs management decisions, and the next is evaluating the impacts of management decisions, and then the third is really considering the impacts of not just enforcement, but nonregulation and illegal fishing, and that was identified by the DAP. Then, finally, we get to the draft communication and outreach objectives, and so there were three major areas that emerged from the discussions under this theme area, and the first was really focused on tools, and the second was focused on participation, and the third was really focused on understanding and awareness.

This first objective is use a variety of a communication tools that consider the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of target audiences, in coordination with the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel. The next was to promote participation of a variety of stakeholders in the council process, and then the third is improve public and stakeholder understanding and awareness of fisheries management, current issues, and the council process.

Just the next steps in this process are, as I mentioned earlier, the district advisory panels are going to be convening in June to review the potential strategies for island-specific objectives within each theme, and we sort of had an initial cut at that at the end of March, but we felt it was important for the DAPs to have an opportunity to really thoroughly review those and refine them.

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

Also, O&E AP review of the communication and outreach strategies, and then, after that is incorporated, we’ll have a complete draft of the strategic plan, and, as Miguel mentioned at the beginning of this meeting, the council will approve the draft of the strategic plan for public review and feedback in July, and, once we get comments back, I will present that public input to you all and provide any changes that have been suggested as a result of that input, and then we’ll have approval of the final strategic plan.

We’re coming to the light at the end of the tunnel, and then one final component is development and approval of an implementation plan, and so an implementation plan really takes those strategies and objectives and translates those into actions specific to the upcoming year.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I think what -- As I indicated at the beginning of the presentation, the council action that is needed is really selection of a draft vision statement, mission statement, and goal statement alternatives for each one of those goals, and then we’re just recommending that you approve the island-specific objectives under each one of those themes, since they’ve already been reviewed by the DAPs and will undergo further review in the upcoming months, and so I’m happy to take any questions.

MARCOS HANKE: Any questions to Michelle? I have an observation to you. Depending on the question of how this goes, do you have any strategy of how we can move this in an effective way during this meeting, and does that depend on the comments that we receive?

MICHELLE DUVAL: My suggestion is that we take these one at a time, and so, up here on the screen, I have the vision statement alternatives, and so I think -- I will also defer to advice from Miguel as well, but I think, if the council can select one of these three alternatives and come to some consensus for approval of that, I can identify that, and we can do the same thing for the mission statement in each one of those four goal area statements, and then, Mr. Chairman, if a motion is needed, I do have -- We can just slip the alternative number into some text that I have developed that I could quickly email to Liajay that could be displayed on the screen.

MARCOS HANKE: Any comments from the council members? anybody else like to make a comment?

Would

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, we have nine minutes to three, and so I suggest that we go one-by-one, and, rather than having a motion for each one of them, we pick one, the one that we like, and, if 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

you like it, then, by silence, you approve it.

Then, on the 21st, we will have a chance to go over this again, and we will have a meeting in June with the DAPs, and Michelle will be able to fine-tune that is needed to added or changed or whatever, and so you will have an ample opportunity on July 21 to go through the whole document, but, at this time, if you look at the vision statement, and remember that vision is where you want to go.

The goal is where you are now, and then the objectives is what you’re going to do to achieve your goal, and so, here we have -They look like motherhood and apple pie, but they are not, and they are subtle changes, but very important changes, and so, if you look at the vision statement, then you have -- The first alternative will be healthy island ecosystems that support sustainable and resilient local fisheries and fishing communities, but you also have, in the case of the second alternative, thriving and resilient island ecosystems, fisheries, and fishing communities that provide cultural, social, and economic benefits for all.

Healthy island ecosystems and sustainable, resilient fisheries that provide cultural, social, and economic benefits for all.

One is a little bit different from the other, but I believe that the one in the middle goes in tune with what the island-based FMPs essence is, which is addressing each area by itself, and then I believe that this vision statement is encompassing all that we have been discussing, because you want resiliency in each one of the island ecosystems, and you want that fishery to be thriving and be resilient, and you want the fishing communities that provide the cultural, social, and economic benefits for all also thriving and resilient.

It goes more into the specifics of what you have been saying all along for the last ten years, and so my personal vote would be for the one in the middle, but it’s up to you, really, which one you like.

MARCOS HANKE: I think I share with Miguel that the middle one is the most complete and describes why we are seeking this on the council, and I would like to hear from the rest of the council members, maybe to move along on this one, if you guys agree. Are there any comments against it?

MICHELLE DUVAL: Mr. Chairman, I see in the chat that Damaris has said that she agrees.

MARCOS HANKE:

Anybody else want to say something?

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

TONY BLANCHARD: I would agree with Miguel and Marcos, because I think this is the one that covers basically what we have been saying and looking for, and so I would support Number 2, or the one in the middle, however you would like to put it.

MARCOS HANKE: Okay. The one in the middle, or the second one on the list, it looks like is the consensus from the people. Is there anybody in opposition to choosing this one? Hearing none, that’s the one.

MIGUEL ROLON:

It’s five to three.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Was there a motion?

MIGUEL ROLON: No, you don’t need a motion. Just go with it. By the overall silence, I believe that everybody agreed with it, and we heard from Damaris in the chat, and Tony stated it, and we’ll move to the second one, to the other one, and we have time, I believe, for one more.

MICHELLE DUVAL: So, again, the mission is really your reason for existence and what the council’s mandate is, and so that’s what that first sentence reflects, and so that’s the first sentence of your mission statement, and it’s really the second sentence that represents the council’s approach, and that’s what you’re focusing on right here in this three alternatives.

MIGUEL ROLON: Here, we need to select one of these three, and, again, if you look at it, consider it based on what you decided to be your mission statement, and so, rather than me picking one, I would like to, for example, hear, Marcos, what you think and then followed by the others. At 3:00, we will break for the listening session.

MARCOS HANKE: From what I am -- I am really between the first and the second, and I feel like the second is a little more inclusive and complete, and I will say that the second one is the one that I will pick. Anybody else?

TONY BLANCHARD: I am in agreement with Marcos. I think the second one is probably the best alternative, or the best statement.

MARCOS HANKE: it?

Anybody else want to comment or is in opposition to

MICHELLE DUVAL: I see that Damaris says, in the chat, that any of the three, and so she seems to be in agreement.

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

MARCOS HANKE: It looks like it’s the same case, and we will stay with that middle one, the second one on the list.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should break here and then ask Dr. Duval -- How many other decisions do we need from the council? When we break at 4:00, we can come back to them.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Miguel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We just need four more. We have management; ecosystem and resource health; social, cultural, and economic issues; and then communication and outreach, selection of those goal statements.

I think, because the district advisory panels have already reviewed the island-specific objectives, and because we plan to reach out to the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel on the objectives as well, that input funnels up to the council, and so, if there’s no objection to any of the island-specific objectives, we can leave those for when we have the complete plan, and there’s just four more selections after the listening session.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Okay, Mr. Chairman.

MARCOS HANKE: I think that sound like a plan. Let’s do that.

Miguel, the process now to -- We’re going to pass the screen.

MIGUEL ROLON: Let me thank Michelle for understanding and offering the alternatives and to continue after 4:00. I believe that we are ready, at 3:00, for the listening session that will be chaired

by Sam Rauch, and he will be leading this meeting, and he just entered the meeting. Marcos, can you introduce Attorney Rauch for the group?

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I would like to introduce and pass the meeting, the running of this meeting, to Sam Rauch for the listening session of President Biden’s E.O. Titled “The Climate Crisis At Home and Abroad”. Sam. LISTENING SESSION OF PRESIDENT BIDEN’S E.O. TITLED “THE CLIMATE CRISIS AT HOME AND ABROAD: E.O. 14008 SECTION 216(C) SAM RAUCH: Thank you very much for having me here to discuss the recent Executive Order.

On one of his first days in office, President Biden issued Executive Order 14008 titled “Tackling the Climate Crisis At Home and Abroad”. It is quite lengthy, and it has a number of sections dealing with a wide variety of subjects, wind, oil and gas, and other issues.

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

One of those sections is Section 216, which itself has a number of sub-provisions, and I will talk about a few of them. The one in particular that we wanted to talk about is 216(c), and that one, and I will read it.

I thought I would have a slide that would say it, but I’m going to read it, and I apologize for reading it verbatim, but it requires NOAA to initiate efforts, in the first sixty days from the date of this order, to collect input from fishermen, regional ocean councils, fishery management councils, scientists, and other stakeholders on how to make fisheries and protected resources more resilient to climate change, including changes in management and conservation measures, and improvements in science, monitoring, and cooperative research.

That’s what we’re doing here today, and, for those of you who are not familiar with me, I am the Deputy Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service. I oversee the Regional Offices and the Headquarters Offices, and, on behalf of the whole administration, I am formally asking for the council’s input and advice on how to make fisheries and protected resources more resilient to climate change, including changes in management and conservation measures and improvements in science, monitoring, and cooperative research.

I will say this knowing full well that this is not something that is new to the councils. The councils, in general, manage with an eye towards ecosystem resiliency, to try to ensure that we can provide a stable source of marine seafood and recreational opportunities, year after year, despite the various environmental perturbations that may occur.

We constantly design our conservation and management measures to look at things like that, and the councils have been looking at climate change as one of those changing variables and trying to figure out how that works into management, such that we can continue to provide the resources that we do and make sure that the protected resources are not adversely impacted as we do that.

The councils have a long role, and I think the President recognized that when, explicitly, he indicated that the councils should provide advice on this subject.

We know that climate-related changes are affecting our ecosystems in various ways, whether we’re talking about warming oceans, increasing acidification, rising seas, and that affects not only the resource, in that you may have stocks that are adversely affected, and so they may not be as healthy as the population, or they may just move, following a temperature gradient or an acidity gradient.

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

The fishing communities themselves, which are often on the coastline, we can see significant impacts to those as sea level rise affects that, and it affects the coastal estuarine areas that are important for productivity.

This is something that councils deal with quite substantially across the country, and I know this is something this council has also dealt with, but we’re asking for your input here, as required by the Executive Order, and we do look forward to getting your comments and expertise on this issue about things either that you’re currently doing or things that you believe we could be doing better, both we as the federal government or you, clearly with your strong role in developing management conservation measures and providing stakeholder outreach and initiatives to get input from the fishing community.

We would like your thoughts on those things, and it is not just - Although you clearly, you yourselves, are a Magnuson-Stevens Act body, but it’s not just related to that. To the extent that you have views on how we can use other authorities, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Sanctuaries Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act and others, all of that is subject to input, and we would like your feedback on that.

The President did not lay out explicitly what we are supposed to do. The Executive Order just indicates that we are supposed to start the process of collecting information, and, in doing that, he did not indicate explicitly how we are supposed to use that information, but we will use it as we, and you, take actions, over the course of the next year or more, to inform rulemaking, policymaking, resource planning that we may do, in terms of how we allocate resources here or there.

Specifically, we are looking at the next series of our regional action plans that we developed under the NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy, and we will clearly take input into that.

I have been giving this presentation to a number of councils, and a couple of other things that come up, before I take public comment, and one is we recognize that the councils do not meet in constant session, and so, if you give us input today, we will very much take that. If you give us input later, we will also take that.

This is not a one-and-done kind of approach.

We are interested -- Much like the councils themselves, and you’re constantly looking at your policies and strategies and tweaking them and making them better, and we’re interested in doing the same thing. If you’re not able to provide full comments today, but wanted to take time over a meeting or two, that would be all 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

right as well.

We did have a public comment period that ran through the beginning of April for the members of the public who wanted to provide independent of the council process, and that has been concluded, and we did get some valuable input from that, and we look forward to adding the council’s views to that as well.

One last thing that I want to talk about, because this always comes up, which is the other part of 216, 216(a), and so we’ve been talking about 216(c), which is the one that explicitly mentions the council and is a requirement on NOAA. 216(a) is a requirement on the Interior Department to prepare a report on how we might conserve 30 percent of the U.S. land and waters by 2030. The Executive Order does not define “conserve”, and it doesn’t use the word “protect”. It means conserve, and it does not say that we are going to conserve anything tomorrow, but it is a report that the Interior Department has been working on, and I imagine -- I have not seen the report, but I imagine that the report, when it comes out, and it is due any day now, or at least to the White House, would -- Rather than outline specific areas, which says conserve this area, conserve that area, I imagine that it will lay out a process for which you would evaluate how much of the ocean is currently being conserved, what that metric actually would look like.

That metric is not defined, and so we do not currently know what is the definition of “conservation”, how much of the ocean or land is being conserved, and then what would be the process for stakeholder engagement in deciding if we are below 30 percent and how you would get to 30 percent, and so this an Interior-related effort.

The report is due imminently to the White House, but Interior is still taking comments on that, and I envision that, even once the report comes out, there will be a public process for gaining further input into some of those questions. Any comments that you give us now under 216(a), we will forward to the Interior Department, and they will be taken into consideration, to the extent that the administration develops a process going forward for stakeholder engagement.

That was quite a number of things, Mr. Chairman, and I do apologize, and I thought that I would have a brief PowerPoint, but that’s fine. I am happy to take any questions or comments that the council may have on that issue.

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

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. you like to comment?

Council members, would any of

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, if I may, first, thank you to Sam Rauch for opening the meeting and the presentation.

The first part is 216(c), which is comments on how we can make the fisheries resilient to climate change, and protected resources, and how do we need to change any management scheme that we have, conservation measures, and how we can improve monitoring and cooperative research to the things that we have.

My proposal is, and taking into consideration what Sam just said, I suggest that we can put together a committee of maybe staff and the Chair and put together a letter, a draft letter, taking into consideration the comments that we have received and the comments that we might receive today, so we can send it to Sam’s office for consideration.

Regarding 216(a), which is mostly the one that people are more concerned about, 216(a) is really for the Department of Interior, as stated today.

However, we can put together also a letter addressing that, and other councils have done so, and, for example, there is an issue about what is the meaning of “conservation”, because, for us, conservation is anything that you do under the Magnuson Act to manage the fishery on a sustainable basis.

For others, conservation is don’t take it and don’t touch it, and this is closed to any activity that will cause any harm to the fisheries and the habitat that we have here, and that is more or less the two issues that have been addressed by letters that we have seen, and so, for conservation, we would like to express the point that conservation, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is taken in consideration all the time, for the last forty years, and we consider that around 72 percent of the fisheries are under some sort of conservation management scheme, or management regime rather, where we protect the resources and protect the habitat and so forth.

Regarding Alternative (a), by coincidence, you just heard the presentation, and saw the presentation, by Dr. Beltran this morning, where she found that 27 percent of the areas within the area of jurisdiction of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Island already occurs, for some reason or another, and the National Marine Fisheries Service considers area closures for fishery purposes, but those are not considered by the Department of Interior, or the IUCN, for that matter, just for discussion, and just to make a point that we don’t follow IUCN. We follow MSA and the other applicable laws of the United States.

However, those laws, 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

sometimes, mimic organizations do.

what

the

IUCN

and

other

international

At this time, Mr. Chairman, what we would like to hear is -- We have an hour, until 4:00, and are there any comments that the group present here, council members and chairs of the DAPs, et cetera, may have to provide to Sam at this time regarding climate change and how we should be moving towards the management and conservation and moving the conservation measures that we have for improvement of the science, monitoring, and cooperative research that we have?

Today, we heard that we need to address those, for other reasons, and so this is the time for the group to talk.

MARCOS HANKE: We have Nelson online, Miguel.

Nelson Crespo.

Nelson Crespo is the Chair of the DAP Puerto Rico.

NELSON CRESPO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just want to read a letter that I have here, and I want some indications where to send my comments.

I hope to contribute something with my comments.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Nelson Crespo, and I am a commercial fishermen, and, in one way or another, I have been involved in the management and protection of our fishing resources for many years. These are my comments and suggestions to President Biden’s Executive Order 14008.

On Section 216(c), how to make fisheries and protected resources more resilient to climate change, as a commercial fisherman for more than forty years that have witnessed the changes in our coast, I understand that the greatest negative impact on our waters and resources in relation to climate change come from the land to the sea.

Coastal development and erosion and river runoff and water discharge to the sea are a few issues that should be addressed urgently to make habitats and the marine ecosystem stronger to fight climate changes. This pattern greatly affects our waters, which consequently affects the entire marine ecosystem in the U.S. Caribbean.

Develop and implement, among the fishing community, the use of new and effective fishing techniques and promote, in the market, the consumption of lower-demand species, and that would greatly help to reduce fishing pressure from other species with higher demand.

Finally, the allocation of the necessary resources to implement effective enforcement in the management plans would be a great help to achieve the proposed goal.

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

In Section 216(a), conserving at least 30 percent of our land and waters by 2030, the U.S. Caribbean cannot take any more closures.

It is a small size, and it has many closed areas in addition to the management plans under the Magnuson law. The Caribbean, by its location, has a great advantage to protecting their waters in a natural way.

In winter, we face cold fronts with high-pressure systems that bring strong winds and high swells. In summer, we are subject to tropical waves and storms and hurricanes.

In addition, we are facing periods of strong currents through the year.

The combination of all these factors will cover them not like closures.

In my opinion, the integration of coastal communities in the existing management plan and expand collaboration with the scientific community and the allocation of the necessary resources to implement a program of education, management, and enforcement will help to complement the health of our resources. Thank you very much.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Nelson. Sam, do you want to make any comment, or should we go for the next comment?

SAM RAUCH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have a discussion if you would like, and I think that those are very good comments, in terms of particularly the importance of climate change and how the council may or may not suggest we deal with them.

I would be interested in -- In terms of getting them to us, any comments that the council wishes to forward -- The public comment is closed, but we are happy to take comments from the council, including those comments as well, and so, if the council wanted to gather that written letter, or other comments, and send them to us, we would accept those.

MARCOS HANKE: I would like to propose to the council to create this committee to create the letter that was proposed by Miguel and to streamline and to make -- To produce a letter that has a little more elaborate ideas behind it and that can be helpful for the whole process that is taking place. Do all the council members agree with that? Hearing no objection -MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Also, for the record, we need to hear from the 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

voices of the council, because I can write a letter myself right now, but, if I don’t have any support from the council, we don’t do anything, because I am just a staff member.

MARCOS HANKE:

Miguel, I was just --

MIGUEL ROLON: Wait. What Sam is proposing is that we address a letter to him, with your signature, and then incorporate Nelson’s comments, as maybe an attachment to that letter, and any other comments that the rest of the council may have. In addition, the committee should be very small, with a due date, and no more than three weeks from now, that letter should be in the hands of Sam at the office in Washington.

Our proposal for the committee would be the Chair and the two local government designees, and the letter should be circulated among all the chairs of the DAPs and the SSC, et cetera, so we will have their input ready for the final drafting of that letter.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, Miguel, and I was just following up on that idea, and I want to ask, one more time, to the council members, if they have anything else to add. Otherwise, I have something to say. In the meantime, if people are thinking, I want to -TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE:

Marcos, I’ve got a comment.

Go ahead, Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: This is for Sam, because -- (Mr. Blanchard’s comment is not audible on the recording.)

MIGUEL ROLON: Tony, we are having problems with -- Tony, we have problems with your audio.

You will have to probably leave the room and come back again for a better audio.

MARCOS HANKE: TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE:

We cannot hear you very well.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Go ahead.

TONY BLANCHARD: This is my take on the whole thing of climate change. We all know that climate change is not a simple fix, but I believe in giving responsibility back to the people who hold the -- Let’s say who is responsible for taking care of certain things.

I am on the same page as Nelson -- (Mr. Blanchard’s comment is not audible on the recording.)

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

MARCOS HANKE:

We cannot hear you.

TONY BLANCHARD: Which I don’t know how much the council’s input can do anything about it, but -MARCOS HANKE: well.

That was very broken, and I couldn’t hear it very

JULIAN MAGRAS:

Just sign-off and come back on.

MARCOS HANKE: In the meantime, I want to say that Damaris Delgado just put in the chat her intention to participate on this special committee, because the local government DNR has projects and things running around the issue of climate change, and I want that to be on the record.

In the meantime, until Tony comes back, I would like to say something in terms of comments for the Section 216(c). I think supporting the local researchers and local fishermen, by creating a program, or a committee, or a system, like a national sustainability fishery program, that addresses the way we do the research and the way we conduct the fishing and the way we can adapt the science, and that will be something desirable to everybody, to take the decisions in the right direction.

Ideally, for the Caribbean, especially in the case of the Caribbean, we have very peculiar situations, in terms of habitat and cultural aspects and resources, that the local feedback from the fishing communities and stakeholders, and local researchers especially, are very important in this process.

In this regard, I sent a letter addressing, with a little more elaborate thought, a few weeks ago, and, also, I sent some comments on the Section 216(a), which is -- A question. Do you want to hear that now, or should I just leave it as a letter, a personal letter, or do you want to include that in the council discussion, Sam? SAM RAUCH: Well, that’s up to the council, Mr. Chairman. If the council would like to include your thoughts, or any thoughts, in that letter.

As I said, we are only specifically here talking about 216(c), but, if you would like to give us comments on 216(a), we will take them and circulate them to Interior, as appropriate, or, if there is a future collaborative role, and I imagine there will be, we’ll take those into consideration. If the council would like to do that, we will accept those comments on 216(a) and get them to the right agency, whether that’s us or somebody else.

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

MARCOS HANKE: Tony, are you ready? Tony is not ready, and I’m going to take the time to do that. Section 216(a), to include all managed areas in the analysis, because one size doesn’t fit all for all regions. Include in the analysis areas closed by special management, especially the ones that are created with extensive public input over the years, like MSA-managed areas. There is no point to arbitrarily close more areas just to meet a potentially arbitrary 30 percent of land and water and water closures, knowing that all the areas are not the same or include the same habitats or resources.

Appropriate management, while respecting the expertise of each federal and local agency, is, at minimum, appropriate. The U.S. Caribbean has already a major percentage of its fishable grounds and areas closed or fully managed by different agencies.

Any decision must be based on science and the socioeconomic effects of its creation.

Solution, add more and new resources to research and enforcement to the U.S. regions, especially the Caribbean. This will result in a great benefit to the natural resources and stakeholders. I invite you to consider a multinational effort to protect and manage natural resources, especially on species or issues that are Caribbean wide.

This will be more desirable and will result in a greater environmental benefit. The U.S. cannot fix the mistakes of other nations or countries, but we can manage our resources using science, always recognizing the U.S. and local communities and fishermen are responsible stewards of the sea, and that is my comment.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, to whom did you address your letter?

MARCOS HANKE: I sent the letter via email, and I wanted to share it with my partners on the council, and the email was to oceanresources.climate@noaa.gov, and I received a note that it was received, because I received like a receipt that my comment was received, and this is what I have to share with the council.

SAM RAUCH: Mr. Chairman, if I may, that was the public website that we opened to accept comments from the public during the comment period, which I mentioned was to April 2, and so you sent it through that public portal, and we received that, and that is in the record already, and I’m happy to receive that again through the council, but just to know that we did receive that through the public comment process.

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

MARCOS HANKE: For me as Chairman, I would like to receive comments or observations from my partners on the council, to see if they share the things that Nelson and myself have expressed today, or anything new, just to give clarity that we are all on the same page, which is what we are looking for in this message that you will take from us. Anybody else? I would like to hear from Carlos Farchette, if he can help us.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Sure, Mr. Chairman. I agree with what you and Nelson have already proposed in your comments, and I do believe that those two comments should be incorporated in that small adhoc committee that staff is going to form with Miguel and you and Graciela and whoever else they pull in there, and the two government representatives, and so I do agree.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Anybody else? I would like to hear from Tony, because he was cutting off, and I don’t want to miss what he had to say.

TONY BLANCHARD: recording.)

(Mr. Blanchard’s comment is not audible on the

MIGUEL ROLON:

Tony has still a problem with the audio.

MARCOS HANKE:

Tony, we cannot hear you very well.

TONY BLANCHARD: MIGUEL ROLON:

Can you hear me?

We are hearing you now.

Go ahead.

TONY BLANCHARD: I am in agreement with Nelson and, by the sound of it, Marcos is on the same line. I believe that the government, the local government, has a part to play, and a big part to play, in this. I believe that agencies need to step up to the plate and take the responsibility and do the job with management, as for DPNR, when it comes to runoff and certain other things that needs to be addressed.

I think some of the problems are fixable, and I think we have more than enough rules and regulations on the books that, if it was to be enforced, we would pick up some of this mess that we are in and clear it up, but I don’t know how much leverage the council actually has in doing so, in making the local government do what it needs to do.

Just like Nelson said, this starts from the ridge to the reef, and we could try to fix the reef all we want, but, if we don’t straighten out the problems on land that goes into the sea, we are 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

fighting a losing battle here, and that’s the reality of it. It would be like trying to plug a whole in a dike. You could only plug that dike so long before it blows, and so, unless we fix these problems from the shoreline, we can’t fix the problems in the sea, and that’s my comment.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, in the chat, I have from Damaris Delgado that climate change is a priority for the Puerto Rico DNR, the Natural Resources Department, and so she would be -- I believe that the three people who have spoken, Tony, you, and Nelson, are more or less in agreement, and so it’s a matter of drafting a letter containing those paragraphs and put it together so that everybody will have a chance to see it before we send it to the appropriate office, and I believe that we can send it to Sam Rauch, with a copy to Andy Strelcheck, who is the Regional Administrator.

We should do that as soon as we can, and so I propose that, if everybody agrees with the committee, we can draft the letter, let’s say by next week, and, the following week, we will circulate the letter, so we send it on time.

The reason for that is that, although the interpretation by National Marine Fisheries Service was that we have sixty days to start the process, and some people felt it was sixty days to submit all the documents, and so we are on time to submit that information. Marcos, do we have anybody else, Vanessa or Damaris or Nicole Angeli, that wants to -- Especially Nicole Angeli, who is going to be a member of the committee.

MARCOS HANKE: I just have a text from the chat for a turn to speak from Nicole Angeli.

NICOLE ANGELI: Thank you so much for bringing up this important issue and for having the listening session. I’m excited to be on the committee, and I was also on the committee for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the letter that they created, and I just wanted to read into the record not the specific goals, but the general principles that we’ve agreed on as directors across the country, that I believe may help guide any discussion.

The first is cooperation early and often, that state agencies, along with the federal agencies, have the primary responsibility and authority for conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats and uses. The second is to clearly define purpose and intent.

There is very considerable concern for definitional presupposition, and so what is protection versus conservation?

What is sustainable use? What is regulated hunting and fishing and trapping? Clear definitions will help us to sustainably use 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

our resources and not affect the livelihoods of communities, especially disadvantaged communities.

Third, a one-sized approach should not drive policies or actions, much like we have our island-based fishery management plans.

Individual states and jurisdictions should be recognized for their individuality in any legal criteria. Fourth, that science-based collaborations should drive policies and actions. State agencies have a long history of conserving natural resources, restoring natural resources, managing and regulating natural resources with scientists, and so any policies should recognize that demonstrable track record of our jurisdictions.

Fifth, that we should use our existing regional partnerships. I would recommend that our regional fisheries councils are included in any landscape conservation goals, because they affect multiple jurisdictions and provide the appropriate scale for collaboration and conservation of fisheries.

That we establish collaborative and transparent processes. The processes, the goals and successes, of the Thirty by Thirty will hinge on whether or not we take everyone’s viewpoint and perspective and facts into account. Robust stakeholder processes, like the CFMC, include fishers, anglers, outdoor enthusiasts, private landowners, our scientists, our state agencies, our federal agencies, conservation organizations, advocacy organizations, and that’s the only way we’ll have a true partnership.

Last, we have something in our states called species of greatest conservation need, and many of our fish are on those lists, and we have proactive and voluntary conservation of those species of greatest conservation need that include incentives, and incentives will be necessary to implement existing plans by our state agencies, as well as funding. Unfunded mandates are not useful.

That we focus on tools. Conservation measures and frameworks are just that. Rather, we need tools that are tied to outcomes for habitat and ecosystem functions.

Land protection, water protection, is just one tool, and it should not be considered the only tool.

There are permanent conservation mechanisms, semipermanent conservation mechanisms, including leasing and fouling, things that have sunset clauses. Those collaborative managements, based on state, tribal, regional, community-based science-driven and input-driven approaches will allow us to conserve habitat and ecosystem function.

I think this is maybe my favorite, but there are opportunities 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

ahead. The Thirty by Thirty conservation framework, rather than being a punitive loss of space or use, should prioritize intact, high-quality habitats and communities and their uses, especially when those uses are vulnerable to loss, fragmentation, degradation, and we should be considering connectivity of those landscapes and waters to enhance the resilience of fish to climate variability. This will allow us to fish into the future.

I hope some of these points we may include in our letter, so that we may allow the sustainable use of fish to provide food, to provide jobs, to provide economic sustainability for our region.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Nicole. You complement all the previous comments, some new and some more elaborate, which is great, and we have Julian.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, before Julian, Nicole, can you send us an email with that letter, so that we can use it for the draft letter that we are going to prepare for the committee?

NICOLE ANGELI:

Yes, of course.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE:

Julian.

JULIAN MAGRAS: Julian Magras, for the record, DAP Chair, St. Thomas/St. John. I am thankful for this great opportunity for us to get our points across. I totally agree with my counterpart, Nelson, and Marcos Hanke, as both fishermen, and their great concerns of actually what’s been taking place for all these years, actually, on the land that ends up in the ocean, where we suffer on a regular basis.

What I see is taking place here is very, very similar to what has been identified in the making of the eco-based management plans, where, in our case, we have identified thirteen top issues that are affecting our ecosystem, and there are so many plans in place to try to protect the ecosystems already, but they are not being followed, and, most importantly, they are not being enforced.

Enforcement is a big issue, and we continue to turn a blind eye to enforcing the people who have been breaking the laws that are affecting the fisheries. The only one that seems to be affected, 99.9 percent of the time, are the fishermen.

Back in 2004 and 2005, we did a 30 percent reduction, through the Sustainable Fisheries Act, to protect the fisheries, and, here 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

again, we are looking at another 30 percent, which I can’t see us taking any more closures or any more rules and regulations.

I think what needs to come out from this Executive Order is from the higher level, Sam Rauch and above, is how do we get the local government to actually do their job and correct the issues athand, you know, coastal runoff, the sewage being dumped directly into the ocean, and this is raw sewage, and don’t even talk about the oil.

You know, we have the bay area, where the levels of toxins are so high. You know, if we start by picking a few of these areas and correcting them, that would be more than a 30 percent reduction, instead of maybe looking at new areas to protect.

We have St. John, where we have the national park, which they have most of the land there, and I could be incorrect, but I say 50 percent or more, and we also have the coral reef monument.

I think there are a lot of measures out there already, and, somehow, the higher powers that be need to find a way to enforce and get these people to do their jobs and don’t leave it to come down where it’s going to affect the commercial fishers and the recreational fishers, and we are a socioeconomic community.

I want to put that out there, and, this committee that’s being formed, with the local entities from both areas and Mr. Chair Hanke, I don’t know if it’s possible to include the DAP chairs on this committee, yes or no, and I will leave that to Miguel and the team, but those are my comments. Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON:

To that point, Mr. Chairman?

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: The committee is to draft the letter, but all the chairs will have a chance to look at the letter and make comments.

The reason we have a small group is to be able to write it so that everybody will have a chance to see it, and so all the chairs will be able to look at the draft letter and make comments, and, once we receive the input from everybody, we will go ahead and send a letter to the appropriate -- In this case, it will be NOAA Fisheries, but let’s -- Be sure that you are going to be contacted for this letter.

MARCOS HANKE: Correct. It’s a very inclusive process, because we want to hear everybody that has something to say that is important to put in that letter. That will be the case, Julian. Sam, do you have anything else to say, to share with the group?

117

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

SAM RAUCH: Let me first of all thank you for your thoughtful comments on this.

In advance of receiving the letter, the discussion here has been very helpful to listen in on, and I want to reiterate what I said at the outset, that a lot of these issues are not new for the councils.

The councils do look at resiliency, and they do try to figure out how to manage to make sure that the resources we have are sustainable, through a wide variety of environmental changes, including climate change, and I know this is something that is important to the Caribbean Council, and so I do look forward to that. Thank you very much for the input that you’ve given us and the input that you’re going to give us. It will be very helpful.

Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Sam. Before we close, I want to use the comments that Julian made, and I think, someway and somehow, the government, at the upper level, should facilitate, or coordinate, the connection between the agencies, federal and local, to make the whole system of marine protection and land protection, to work it better, because, right now, they seem to be disconnected.

That’s another recommendation, or a comment, that I am making.

Thank you very much, Sam. Miguel, let me know if you need to close the meeting now and go for a break, or we can leave it open, or how do we do it?

MIGUEL ROLON: No, and the listening session is really NMFS’ session, and so Sam will say thank you, and we will close it. Your comments are contained in the letter that Nicole Angeli just read, and so they will be part of the letter that the council is going to prepare. The question is really for Sam. Can we close the listening session at this time?

SAM RAUCH: If we feel that we’ve got all the input that we’re going to get from the council, I think we can close the listening session with my thanks for all of your participation.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much.

The listening session is closed now, and we’re going to go to a break for five minutes and come back.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. Sam, I’m sorry that you are not able to go on a boat with Marcos again, but I hope to see you next time, COVID free, so that you can visit the Caribbean again. Thank you a lot.

SAM RAUCH:

Soon.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Soon that will happen.

Mr. Chairman, five minutes, and we will come back 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

at -MARCOS HANKE:

3:51.

I will see you guys back at 3:51.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Thank you.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

MARCOS HANKE: Welcome, everyone. We are back in business. It’s 3:51. Like I said, very sharp at 3:51, and we’re restarting the meeting, and the next item on the agenda is the public comment from 4:00 to 4:15.

Miguel, do we have to wait for 4:00 specifically? Maybe Jocelyn can let me know about that.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, it’s not public comment now. finish what we started with Dr. Duval.

We need to

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, let’s --

MIGUEL ROLON:

That will be the last presentation today.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Let’s do Dr. Duval’s presentation then, and then we will go to public comment, and, people from the public that want to comment, please stay connected, because we really want to hear what you have to say. Dr. Duval, go ahead.

CFMC FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN (CONT.) MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You all selected a draft vision and draft mission statement, and so next are the different goal themes and moving on to management, and so these were the three different management goal alternatives for your consideration, and, as Miguel has suggested, select one of these, and we will incorporate this into the full draft that you will see in July.

MARCOS HANKE: I will give a few seconds for people to read it again and to reengage in the discussion.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Again, I will just -- Maybe I can just highlight that these -- That the management alternatives were really -- These are based on overlap in the goals from the island-based FMPs that pertain to management, and so that was the basis for these different alternatives, and these cover a variety of themes, such as managing within local ecosystem limits, ensuring continued health of fishery resources, providing for sustained community participation, fostering territorial and federal collaboration, things of that nature, and so that’s what these three alternatives 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

are meant to encompass.

I am happy to read them again, but I thought perhaps other folks could read them on the screen and provide some thoughts.

MARCOS HANKE: Just to make sure, and I’m sorry to ask again, but we have to choose one, correct?

MICHELLE DUVAL: Correct. your draft alternative.

That’s correct, and so that will be

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and, again, I like the middle one, the second one on the list. I would like to hear the comments from the rest of the group.

TONY BLANCHARD: I think the last management goal alternative is the one that I believe works best, the advanced management approaches that provide healthy local fisheries and ecosystems and consider the needs of island fishing communities and foster collaboration among management partners, and I think that is my choice, and I think it’s the best choice. I think it takes into consideration all the things that we look for, or at least I look for.

MARCOS HANKE: Anybody else?

Okay.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

It looks like Damaris agrees with Tony.

I agree with Tony.

MARCOS HANKE: Then anybody else? Well, I don’t have any problem to change my -- I get his point, and the rest of the people, and I agree on the third bullet. The third bullet, Michelle.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let’s move on to the next, which is the ecosystem and resource health goal alternatives, and so, again, these were meant to encapsulate common themes across the goals of all three of the island-based FMPs, such as ensuring continued provision of ecosystem services, managing within the limits of local ecosystem production, ensuring the continued health of fishery resources, and, also, this is a goal that will encompass your work on the fishery ecosystem plan.

MARCOS HANKE: I am going to follow-up in the same line, and I am going to pick one, so people agree or disagree with me, just to move the discussion, and I pick the middle one, to promote sustainable utilization. Any comments? Is anyone in opposition?

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

I agree with you, Marcos.

120

The middle one.

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: Okay. Hearing no opposition, and the agreement of Carlos, the middle one, the promote sustainable utilization.

MICHELLE DUVAL: All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have just two more. This is the social, cultural, and economic goal statement alternatives, and, again, some of the common goals and themes from the island-based fishery management plans were providing for the sustained participation of communities, minimizing adverse impacts on those communities, promoting fair and equitable resource use, recognizing differences in the local environment, culture, user groups, and things like that.

MARCOS HANKE: Anybody else who would like to comment? I just saw Damaris, in the chat, said Number 1, and I am in agreement with her. Does anybody else want to comment?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I agree with Number 1, because it shows the unique characteristics of each island fishing community.

MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Any opposition to that? Hearing none, that’s the one.

TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE:

Give me a minute to pull these up.

No problem.

TONY BLANCHARD: recording.)

MARCOS HANKE: please.

We will wait for you.

(Mr. Blanchard’s comment is not audible on the Tony, we cannot hear you.

Put it in the chat,

TONY BLANCHARD: I was trying to say what is the different between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3? What is the difference between them, if you could explain that to me. This is a question for Ms. Duval.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Tony. I think, really, the difference between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 is which piece of the statement comes first, and so, in Alternative 1, it’s ensuring that management -- It puts the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities sort of in front of the fair and equitable resource use, and then the last alternative puts the promoting fair and equitable resource use in front of unique social, cultural, and economic characteristics of the fishing communities.

The

third

alternative

also

expands 121

on

what

those

unique

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

characteristics are, by calling out social, cultural, and economic characteristics.

The first alternative just uses the blanket phrase of “unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities”.

MARCOS HANKE: TONY BLANCHARD:

Tony, we are waiting for you.

I will support Alternative 1.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Tony.

Is there any other member in opposition?

Hearing none, Alternative 1, the first one on the list.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Okay, Mr. Chairman. This is the last one, and then you all can go to public comment, and so these are the communication and outreach goal alternatives, and so, again, these were focused on some of the themes that came out of the input that the council and the district advisory panels and the O&E AP provided about trying to encompass things like promoting public understanding and promoting participation and focusing on a diversity of tools and engaging audiences and educating those audiences, and so each one of these alternatives tries to incorporate all of those things.

MARCOS HANKE: Just to start the discussion, I prefer the Number 2. Anybody else?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: important.

I agree with Marcos on Number 2.

Engaging is

MICHELLE DUVAL: 3.

I see that Damaris said, in the chat, either 2 or

TONY BLANCHARD:

I will support Number 2.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Tony.

Hearing none, Number 2 it is.

Is there anybody in opposition?

MICHELLE DUVAL: All right, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, and thank you, council members. I really appreciate it, and I’m looking forward to -- Well, first of all, I’m looking forward to engaging with the DAPs and the O&E AP, hopefully in mid-June, I think were the dates that we settled on, and then a full presentation of the draft to the council in July for approval for some public review and comment. Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Mr. Chairman, that will be July 21.

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

MARCOS HANKE: July 21. Okay. Dr. Duval, thank you very much.

Like always, a great presentation, and it was very clear, and you are very organized and easy to deal with over the computer, and you make my life very, very easy. Thank you very much.

MICHELLE DUVAL:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MARCOS HANKE: The next item on the agenda is the public comment.

Is there anybody from the public that would like to have a fiveminute period?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I’m not from the public, but I would like to get a chance to say something, when I get a chance.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I kind of noticed that this morning was a mad rush, and I remember, in the December meeting, when Blanchard mentioned the same thing, about rushing through agendas, and I am wondering if maybe the council, when they have such a heavy load on the agenda, would consider maybe a two-and-a-half-day or a three-day council meeting, so that -- I think a lot of input was missed this morning, and no one got a chance to participate, because of how tight the schedule was. That’s it.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos, for saying that, and running the meeting was very, very tight, and I agree with you that we lost some opportunity of learning more and using the resources that we have available to us, and I totally agree with you that it’s something that, in some cases, we should explore that opportunity.

Anybody else? From the public, is there anybody else to connect from the public? Does anybody else want to make a comment at this time?

TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE:

I would like to make a comment, Marcos.

Go ahead, Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: I agree with Carlos. I thought that we were -It was a very heavy agenda, and I think -- (Part of Mr. Blanchard’s comment is not audible on the recording.) I think there were times that we weren’t able to discuss, because of trying to meet a timeline, and that’s -- Being on a computer, and not being faceto-face, and we can’t have a conversation, in my opinion, and I’m not a computer person, and I feel a little out of the water dealing with the meeting this way, and I don’t think that I’m the only one, and I don’t believe Carlos is the only one either, and so that’s just my -- We need to break down this and lighten up on the 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

agenda, and that’s what I’ve -MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Tony. For sure, we have to explore maybe a little more time, like Carlos said, or do less on the agenda. I think there were many important opportunities today to get informed, and we got a lot of information, but the comments are well noted.

Thank you very much for both.

We have a closed session coming up.

Miguel, do you want to make any final observations?

MIGUEL ROLON:

Observations of what?

MARCOS HANKE: If you don’t have any other comments, we’re going to adjourn the meeting, but not before saying that we moved the DAP reports for tomorrow. Miguel, can you help me with which time, again, we’re going to accommodate the DAP tomorrow?

MIGUEL ROLON: Tomorrow, we have, at 8:30, the presentation by Dr. Shervette, and that will be fifteen minutes. By the way, talking about the timing of the agenda, that’s okay if we spend the time, but, most of the time, there are only two council members talking, and the rest of you are silent doing nothing, and it’s very difficult to move the agenda.

If it wasn’t because Tony is there, and Marcos, and the other guys are quiet, and so we can have one hour for one discussion, but, if everybody keeps quiet, we don’t go anywhere. Anyway, I would like to thank Tony, especially, with all the audio issues that they have, and he was able to move with Carlos Farchette, and, for that, we are grateful.

Tomorrow, we can accommodate the presentation of the DAPs. They were put together by Graciela and Liajay, and so, right after Dr. Shervette’s presentation, we can have the presentation by the DAPs, and then you can move the rest of the agenda accordingly.

MARCOS HANKE: Okay.

Let’s do that then, and, right now, it’s 4:09 p.m., and thank you very much for everybody that attended the meeting. Thank you for being kind to the Chairman and to all the staff, and I want to say a big thanks to the staff for all the support that we have to organize the meeting.

Thank you, everybody, and the meeting is adjourned. We have a closed session coming up at 4:30 p.m.

(Whereupon, the meeting went into closed session on April 27, 2021.)

- - 124

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

APRIL 28, 2021 WEDNESDAY MORNING SESSION - - The Caribbean Fishery Management Council reconvened via webinar on Wednesday morning, April 28, 2021, and was called to order at 8:30 o’clock a.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke.

MARCOS HANKE: Good morning, everyone.

It’s 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 28, 2021. This is the CFMC Virtual Meeting 173rd, and we are going to start the meeting this morning. The rules of conduct are the same as yesterday, and we’re going to start with the roll call. Christina or Liajay, can you help us out, please?

LIAJAY RIVERA: I will do the roll call. Good morning. I will do the roll call, and I will start with myself, Liajay Rivera, Miguel, Rolon, Virginia Shervette, Christina Olan, Marcos Hanke, Andy Strelcheck, Alida Ortiz, Angie de los Irizarry, Carlos Farchette, Damaris Delgado, Diana, Edward Schuster, Guillermo Cordero, Helena Antoun, Iris Oliveras, Jack McGovern, Jesus Rivera, Jocelyn D’Ambrosio, Jose Rivera, Julian Magras, Kevin McCarthy, Maria Lopez, Michelle Duval, Nancie Cummings, Nelson Crespo, Nicole Angeli, Rich Appeldoorn, Robert Copeland, Sarah Stephenson, Sennai Habtes, Shannon Calay, Stephanie Martinez-Rivera, Vanessa Ramirez, Wilson Santiago, Yaritza Rodriguez.

Those are all in my participant list.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Liajay. Is there anybody that is not on this list, please send it through the chat, and Liajay and myself can recognize your presence. After the roll call, we’re going to address the SSC and the panel appointments. Miguel, are you there?

MIGUEL ROLON: Shervette.

No, the first thing today is a presentation by Dr.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes. I’m sorry. Dr. Shervette, let’s start with your presentation. Like we announced on the first day, for the agenda, we added your presentation. Go ahead.

LANE SNAPPER: FILLING IN CRITICAL GAPS FOR LIFE HISTORY IN U.S. CARIBBEAN WATERS VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: Thank you so much for giving me the chance to briefly talk to you about this request for support from the council 125

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

on lane snapper and filling in critical gaps for life history parameters across the U.S. Caribbean.

This work is in collaboration with the local fishing communities and with resource agency personnel in the Caribbean, and we hope to also discuss with Angela working together with her people in the Virgin Islands, in order to obtain samples and just get this critical information for a species that is upcoming for an assessment.

Basically, I wanted to just emphasize, initially, sort of some of the justifications as to why we need to support research like this, and also why our team of collaborative researchers, natural resource management agency personnel, anyone in the fishing community that we can work with. We’re super qualified to do this work and uniquely positioned to do it.

The tentative assessment calendar for SEDAR species for the Caribbean is something that we have been keeping an eye on, and we’ve been trying to target and focus a lot of our life history research geared towards addressing sampling needs for those species. Queen triggerfish is the one that’s being assessed right now, and we have extensive experience doing life history work, and we’ve been successful in getting multiple federal grants to fund this work, and we’ve published on our findings, as we get to the point where we have the data to publish.

Our sample numbers are solid, are very robust, for all of the species. Queen triggerfish, like I said, is right now, and redtail parrotfish is supposed to be assessed in 2023, and we’ve been working on that species, with the assistance of federal funding.

Queen snapper has been listed consistently for the past ten years, at least, on those federal national calls for funding proposals, for research proposals, as a priority species. We currently have a proposal under review that includes filling critical gaps for life history for queen snapper.

Yellowtail snapper is another species that we’ve been working on and have funding to do so, and hogfish as well. The one species that is listed for assessment that we do not have federal support right now for, and has not been listed as a priority species on those federal calls for proposals, is lane snapper.

In spite of that, we worked very closely with local fishers in the Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico to get some preliminary samples for lane snapper, so that we could get some preliminary data, but now we are at the point where we really need some funding in order to get the sample numbers that we need and that are needed for a 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

robust stock assessment to be successful.

More justification as to why this kind of research on lane snapper and then, in the future, mutton snapper is super important, and regulations in federal waters in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico -- Both of these species have annual closures in federal waters from the 1st of April, as you know, through the 30th of June. Then, in territorial waters, in the Virgin Islands, lane snapper and mutton snapper both also have a closure from the 1st of April to 30 June.

For Puerto Rico, in territorial waters, mutton snapper has the closure from the 1st of April through 31 May, and so, as species that are being regulated with these closures -- Again, it’s super important, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of regulations, such as closures like these, and so life history data and filling in these gaps for these life history parameters is super important, in order to evaluate these regulations, the effectiveness of these regulations.

What we are proposing currently is that the council support an investigation on lane snapper life history.

Like I said, the reasons and justification are that it’s upcoming assessment species, and we cannot complete a stock assessment without this critical life history data for U.S. Caribbean waters.

We have those federal and territorial seasonal closures for lane snapper, and then there is -- Other than those 200 samples that we have already collected and are working on, there is no age and growth information for the U.S. Caribbean populations of lane snapper at this point, and so age and growth are super important as part of those life history parameters.

I do have some information that I can show you, if there’s questions on some reproductive work that’s been done in the past, but that was just for Puerto Rico, and so there is also a lack of reproductive biology information on lane snapper from the Virgin Islands, and so, again, these data are essential, and they’re needed in order to be able to conduct a stock assessment and in order to evaluate regulations and so on.

With the council’s support, these critical data gaps can be filled for lane snapper.

The objectives of this study are pretty straightforward, and it’s basically to determine and compare growth rates and population age structure and sex ratios in and among multiple areas in Caribbean waters and to determine and compare reproductive seasonality, size, and age-at-maturity in and among multiple areas in U.S. Caribbean waters.

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 43 44 45 46 47 48

These are my standard objectives for all the species that we’ve been working on, and so that’s why “transition” is in there, because parrotfish and hogfish work we’ve been doing as well, but that doesn’t apply, clearly, to lane snapper.

A summary of our preliminary collections, like I said, we have been investing, personally, our time and some money into obtaining these preliminary samples, so that we get some basic data, so that we can demonstrate that we can do this and also justify the funding.

We have samples from Puerto Rico starting back in 2014 that we’ve just opportunistically collected, and then we also have been working with the St. Thomas Fishermen’s Association on obtaining samples from the Virgin Islands, opportunistically, for this age, growth, and reproductive biology work.

Clearly we need both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent samples, and we also need samples from across all the months, and that’s because of the reproductive seasonality component, and so we hope to be able to accomplish that, the collection of both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent samples, for the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, so that we have this data for all three management platforms.

I just have, up here, some information about the cost to do this.

Because we are already working and have funding to do collections for other species, that makes it so that we can also include lane snapper sampling, and so we have this ability, right now, at this point in time, to leverage time that we spend on other species, just expanding it to lane snapper.

We’re requesting funding for just a couple of trips for collecting in the Virgin Islands, and we’ll also collect other months, through our other -- We have funding for travel from our other grants to cover the other months. We also need to purchase fishery-dependent samples as well, and so we’ve got money in the budget for that.

Then our fishery-independent sampling in Puerto Rico is included in some yellowtail snapper work that we’re doing, and so we’ll be able to leverage those funds towards also getting lane snapper samples, and so we also have budgeted a little bit for some of the research, field, and lab supplies.

Then, of course, we need funding to support personnel that are focusing on working up these lane snapper samples.

The total direct cost for this research is a little bit under 128

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

$60,000. Again, if we were doing this study alone, without already being involved and have funding for working up samples from an assortment of species, then this would probably cost double, but, because we can leverage those funds and our time, we’re able to do this and ask for less than $60,000, and then the university process funding has an indirect cost rate that is actually a lot higher than 10 percent, but we’ve gotten them waive it at the University of South Carolina, to waive the bulk of it.

This work will also contribute to capacity building in the Caribbean, in the U.S. Caribbean, and I can go into detail about this with you, if you have questions about it, but we’re working -- This research is collaborative, and we’re working closely with the fishing community and with local scientists and with local resource management agencies, and so all sorts of capacity building is occurring as part of this.

Then hopefully this will be successful and, in the future, we can work towards filling in gaps for additional species that have been identified by the local fishing communities, such as mutton snapper, as a priority for life history research. Mutton snapper, we’ve been also opportunistically sampling up to this point, and so we do have preliminary data for that species as well.

Then just to note that we are hoping to work closely with the SEAMAP sampling efforts for lane snapper and any other species for fishery-independent samples, and so that’s been, in the past, a great collaborative interaction, and so we hope to continue that throughout any of this future work that we hope to be able to complete.

I just wanted to get through that, in case there were questions, and I know that the schedule is packed, but thank you again for listening to us and letting me request this.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Virginia, for a great presentation. I would like to hear from the council, but first from Miguel, on the possibility of how this could work, Miguel, in terms of if the council decides to support this effort.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is an unsolicited proposal to the council, and it’s a technical term meaning that we were not looking for it.

However, we were in contact with Dr. Shervette and asked her to have this presentation.

The administrative funding of the council is not programmatic, meaning that we do not budget for scientific studies, et cetera, at the beginning of each cycle of the budget. However, whenever 129

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 identify monies that are not obligated in the previous year, we can set aside some funds for special projects like this, let’s say in the first quarter of each year, and we believe that, Angie and I, that we can identify some funding, and we discussed with the Chair, with you, and it is possible to fund this project, subject to approval from the Grants Officer.

In this case, we need to prepare a source and submit it for approval. We do not foresee a major problem. However, we want to do that. From our point of view, and Graciela and I have been discussing this before, this is the type of project that we would like to pursue, now and in the future, because it’s a giant project, between the United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

The Fisheries Research Laboratory and Dr. Shervette’s unit are working together, and this is for the lane snapper, but, in the future, maybe we can add other species that the SSC has identified that we need life history parameters for, for stock assessment and other studies that we have to work with in the council, but it will be up to the council to approve it, and that has to be by a motion.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. I would like to hear from the council members.

I have Julian pending to speak, but, Julian, just give me a chance to hear from the council members first, and I will give you a turn right away. Do any council members have any comments about this possibility?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I am in full support of funding this lane snapper life history for the U.S. Caribbean.

I think it’s an important species for all three platforms, and it’s a species, to be honest with you, that I don’t see much of in the markets, when I’m talking to fishers, and so I think it’s important to get that information, and so I support it, and I’m willing to make a motion, whenever you’re ready.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, it’s not Julian asking for a turn.

Tony. He is with Julian.

MARCOS HANKE: I’m sorry. want the opinion of both.

I really want to hear both.

MIGUEL ROLON:

So, after Carlos, it’s Tony’s turn.

MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

It’s

I really

I am passing it now to Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: Good morning. I am on the same page with Carlos.

I think that we need to support this study, because we have a 130

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

seasonal closure on this fish, and we really have no data on it, as for age and everything else that comes into play, and so I think it’s a good study to support, and I think we should support it, even if it’s for the mere fact that we have closed seasons on it and we have limited information, and so that’s my take.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Tony. that would like to speak?

Anybody else from the council

VANESSA RAMIREZ: I will also support this kind of study. In the west area, we really get a lot of lane snapper, and so I think it’s one of the best ideas to study and get more information from the fishermen about this species.

In this area, it’s really commercial in our fish markets, and I can say that, for example, at this time, we have been getting the lane snapper up to two and two-and-a-half pounds, and so that’s big for this area. We usually get them really small, but we are seeing, during these days, that they are more bigger and, of course, they are also reproducing smaller, or at least like halfpound fishes are already in reproduction, and so I think it’s going to be a great idea to support these kind of studies. Thanks.

MARCOS HANKE: in the queue.

Thank you, Vanessa.

Julian.

I have Julian, Clay, and Andy

JULIAN MAGRAS: Good morning, everyone.

I am glad to see that this proposal is here on the table. This is one of the species that the fishermen have been asking for, to get some studies done, because of the seasonal closures that have been in effect from 2005.

The lane and mutton snapper, to start off with, is going to be very, very important and very good for us to get the information on what’s actually going on in this fishery, and so great presentation, and I am looking forward to the council’s full support in funding this project.

It’s the beginning of the projects that we would like to see continuing over the years to come, is getting all the information that’s needed to study the different stocks, so we can be prepared when we go into the SEDAR process. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Julian.

Clay.

CLAY PORCH: Following up on Julian’s comment, I believe you have a project for queen triggerfish, and SEDAR 80 is actually waiting for that project to be completed, so we can conduct that 131

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

assessment, and so I’m wondering if you could give us an update on the progress of queen trigger, and then I wonder, if we embark on this project, is that going to slow down the queen trigger work?

MARCOS HANKE:

Virginia.

VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: Thanks for the question, Clay. We are rapidly progressing with the ageing component of queen triggerfish, and so that was the holdup. We wanted to validate that otoliths would provide effective age estimates, and we were able to get a grant to fund age validation work, using bomb radiocarbon.

We just got that work published, and we found out this week that it was officially in press, and so that also enabled us to compare the estimates of the dorsal spines, which, in the past, have been the way to age triggerfish, and our ageing validation work actually demonstrated that those age estimates from the dorsal spine are not reliable.

Because we are trying to get through all of that, now we have that justification to use the otoliths, and we just have to finish ageing the otoliths.

Our plan that we presented at the SEDAR meeting was to have all of the age estimates for two-thousand-plus samples ready for the assessment needs by the end of the summer, and so this will not interfere with that, because we wouldn’t start sampling until that was complete.

MARCOS HANKE: up?

CLAY PORCH: MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Virginia.

No.

Clay, do you have a follow-

Thank you.

Thank you.

Andy.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Thank you for the presentation. You might have stated this, and I missed it, and I am supportive of data collection like this, and obviously improving information to inform stock assessments.

I also have seen projects kind of go awry based on collecting the data, and then we can’t use them in stock assessments, and so can you speak to any kind of coordination that has happened with the Science Center and others with regard to your proposal? I just want to make sure that, if we approve this going forward, that it’s easily used, obviously, for future scientific needs.

VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: Good question. Yes, and so, as I mentioned, we’ve been successful in publishing a lot of our past research 132

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’s very similar to this in the U.S. Caribbean on age, growth, and reproductive biology.

We have another paper that just was accepted and is now in press on one of the parrotfish species, for example, and so, for peer review, we’ve got backing.

We also have oversight by Nancie Cummings on multiple of our grants, and we have collaborative-funded proposals, again, with NOAA personnel, and we are in communication with Rich Appeldoorn from the council, concerning whatever the statistics committee needs or sees that we need to do differently, for example, and I don’t know, but we are keeping that in mind.

We know that some things fizzle. We do not have a record of that though, and so we have actually been very successful, and we continue to be successful, and we continue to work our butts off to get the data that needs to be gotten in a scientifically-sound way, and I don’t see that changing.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Virginia.

I just received Damaris’s full support through the chat. I just wanted to be on record for this project. Anybody else?

NELSON CRESPO: I want to bring my support to this project. This is the type of project that we want to see, because these species are going to help to reduce the pressure on other fisheries from the snappers, and that’s the type of fish that restaurants with low budgets want to keep to be in business, and it’s a really good project.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. Because of the time, I think we have a very clear record of the support, but we need a motion.

Carlos offered to make a motion. Carlos Farchette.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My motion is to allocate funding for conducting life history information for lane snapper in the U.S. Caribbean.

MIGUEL ROLON:

As presented by Dr. Virginia Shervette today.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: today.

Yes.

As presented by Dr. Virginia Shervette

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. The add-on of the language is accepted by Carlos. Is there any second?

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Second.

Okay.

Thank you, Vanessa.

133

Is there any opposition

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 this motion or abstentions? Hearing none, the motion carries.

Thank you very much to all, and we can continue with the meeting.

Next is the SSC and the panel appointments. Miguel.

SSC AND PANEL APPOINTMENTS MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The council met in closed session yesterday evening, and we have some recommendations for you today. The first one -- I will start with Puerto Rico, and the first one is to declare the position of Mr. Jesse Rivera and Gary Engstrom vacant, due to their absences in two or more meetings without any excuse and to appoint Mr. Joel Gonzalez to the DAP Puerto Rico, and so you can have two motions or one motion, in the case of Puerto Rico.

MARCOS HANKE:

We need a motion from the council members.

TONY BLANCHARD:

So moved.

MARCOS HANKE:

Any second?

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Damaris seconds. Any opposition? Is there anybody that would like to abstain?

Hearing none, the motion carries.

Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next one is the St. Thomas/St. John District Advisory Panel. We have a recommendation to appoint Joshua Quetel as a new member of the DAP St. Thomas/St. John.

MARCOS HANKE:

We need a motion for that.

TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE:

So moved.

Do we have a second?

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos. Is there anybody in opposition?

Any abstentions? Hearing none, the motion carries.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. The next one is to reappoint all the rest of the members of the DAP St. Thomas/St. John, DAP Puerto Rico, and DAP St. Croix and all the O&E AP, the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel.

134

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:

Do we have a motion, please?

TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE:

So moved.

Do we have a second?

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Any opposition? the motion carries.

Any abstentions?

Hearing none,

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, then, with the SSC, we have to reappoint Dr. Jason Cope, subject to his acceptance, and we sent him a note that he is being appointed for another term on the SSC. MARCOS HANKE:

Do we have a motion?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

So moved.

Is there a second, please?

TONY BLANCHARD:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Tony just seconded. The motion was made by Carlos Farchette. Is there any opposition? Any abstentions? Hearing none, the motion carries.

MIGUEL ROLON: The last one is to appoint Dr. Todd Gedamke to the vacant position on the SSC. MARCOS HANKE:

Is there a motion?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: So moved. Motion to appoint Todd Gedamke to the vacant position of the SSC. MARCOS HANKE:

Motion by Carlos Farchette.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE: TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE:

Is there a second?

Second.

Any opposition?

Any abstentions?

I will abstain.

Thank you, Tony.

The motion carries.

MIGUEL ROLON: The last motion is to reappoint all the members of the SSC for another term.

135

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:

Is there a motion, please?

NICOLE ANGELI:

So moved.

MARCOS HANKE: I heard Nicole Angeli with a so moved motion for that. Any second?

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: We have a second from Carlos Farchette. opposition? Any abstentions? The motion carries.

Any

DAP REPORTS MIGUEL ROLON: Then, Mr. Chairman, we moved, from yesterday, we moved the presentations by the three DAP chairs to this morning, and the presentations are around the ecosystem-based model that was presented to them by Dr. Graciela Garcia-Moliner and Liajay Rivera, and Liajay has the presentations.

The DAPs met twice before this meeting, and, at the first one, they incorporated their suggestions and changes, et cetera, to the five-year strategic plan, and that was presented by Dr. Michelle Duval yesterday, and they also, in another meeting, were informed that the island-based FMPs are in the process of being implemented, although the plans were approved last year, and they are in the process of being implemented this year.

Then we have a sort of discussion of the ecosystem model being prepared by the council, and that was presented by Dr. Graciela Garcia-Moliner, and so we would like to -- And Graciela prepared the presentation and the slides for Julian, Nelson, and Eddie to address the council. If you have any suggestions, or if you have any questions for them, this is the time. We are here starting with the presentations, and we can have Julian first, followed by Eddie and then Nelson Crespo, if they are ready.

MARCOS HANKE:

Julian, are you there?

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN

JULIAN MAGRAS: I am here. Good morning, everyone. Can we put up the St. Thomas screen, please?

First off, I would like to say thank you for allowing us the opportunity to be involved in the process of creating our own ecosystem conceptual model. It was quite a task, and it took some time with everyone’s involvement.

Even though we had some delays that we were not happy about, we were able to still complete this work here on April 19, 2021.

136

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 you can see, we not only did the eco-based, but we started to do a fisheries management plan as well, which it’s going to take some more work, and some more time, to eventually complete that one, but we were able to connect a lot of dots.

We had fifty-components in the big model and thirty-three components in the fisheries model, to total eighty-six components.

The total paired connections is 160.

The top drivers were the sargassum and the impacts to seven components, for example the inshore reefs and recruitment. Then we had education and outreach, and we had the lithium batteries, cruise ship transport, and ballast water.

These here were our top issues that were identified from I would say the very beginning of the process, all the way back when we first started in 2019, and they are enforcement, water quality, education and outreach, heritage and culture, natural disaster response, socioeconomic impacts, essential fish habitats, landbased sources of pollution, coastal management, coral disease, and large vessel impacts.

Now, this might seem like a very long list, but, really and truly, if we were to pick a couple of items out of this list and really get it moving, it would curtail a lot of the other issues that are taking place, and the perfect example of that is enforcement.

Enforcement is to keep any regulations that sit out there, and, in all of these areas, we have issues with enforcement. There are a lot of rules and regulations in place, and the enforcement is not happening, and so, at the end of the day, no matter how much rules and regs we put in place, if enforcement doesn’t do their part, we’re going to end up with failures.

That’s one of the key areas that we need to start improving, and another very important area that we have strived on making headway is with the education and outreach. The education and outreach committee for the council has been working very, very hard, and I give a lot of credit to them, because they have been listening to the concerns coming out of our committee, and also listening to the concerns that have been coming from the fishermen and have been working on projects to start to improve the education that is needed to the public, the fishers, everyone involved.

I am really hoping that we can continue to move forward in that direction, move forward ensuring that they have all the tools that are needed to get the job done.

With that said, I would say that everything else here falls under, 137

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

like I said before, enforcement, and that’s not going to improve these areas unless we get enforcement moving forward, and so the bodies that be, that manage these different areas -- Like I said yesterday, when we speaking with Sam Rauch, is -- (Part of Mr. Magras’s comment is not audible on the recording.)

MIGUEL ROLON:

Julian, we lost your audio.

MARCOS HANKE:

Julian, we cannot hear you.

Your audio is off.

JULIAN MAGRAS: Sorry about that. We’ve got some windy weather over here, and some rainy weather, and so the internet is very poor. Like I was saying, we need to hold people accountable to get the job done. Next slide.

LIAJAY RIVERA:

That is the last slide for St. Thomas/St. John.

MIGUEL ROLON: Julian, would you like to summarize? for the next steps?

Any thoughts

JULIAN MAGRAS: Like I said, I would like to continue working with the different bodies and the SSC and everyone to finalize our conceptual models, and one thing that troubled me a little bit over the last two meetings that we had, and I heard this yesterday from council members, is the time allotted to keep the meeting.

We really pushed the last two meetings in two hours for each meeting, and I think we need to allow at least another hour, minimum, that we don’t have to rush and make sure that we are getting all the information that needs to be carried across, so that the final product would be completed the correct way, and, like I said, I’m looking forward to the upcoming meetings, to finish some of the stuff that didn’t get finished, but I support where we are headed, and I would like us to continue working together as a team to accomplish everything that needs to be accomplished. Thank you very much.

MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you, Julian. The staff and the Chair have taken note, and we are going to allow more time and less crowded agendas for the following meetings, and that’s a very good point.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you presentation is St. Croix.

MIGUEL ROLON:

very

much,

Julian.

The

next

DAP

Mr. Chairman, you have Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: Good morning. I don’t want to really rehash what Julian had to say, but I think I need to make a couple of points 138

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

across the table.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Bring back up the St. Thomas presentation.

It’s on the screen.

TONY BLANCHARD: Let’s start with enforcement. Just like Julian said, a lot of this can be taken care of with enforcing the rules and regs we have on the books already. The only problem is, when I mention this, it seems to be that the only rules and regs applies to the commercial fisher, and I don’t know if it’s because he’s the guy with the license, or he is the most obvious, but I will give a perfect example of something that has nothing to do with catching fish.

Some of the people that have coming here, especially since the pandemic and before, they anchor in the grass beds, and they don’t go to flush out their tanks on a regular basis, and so where do you think they’re flushing their sewage tanks? There is ways to track this, if you just keep a log, and, when enforcement comes in to you, you could prove that you actually went to a pump-out station and pumped out your sewage, instead of pumping it out on the grass beds or on the reef.

Like I said, it seems like when I mention enforcement, because some of us mentioned enforcement, the enforcement only comes in for the commercial fisher, and this should be across-the-board, whether you’re commercial or recreational or you’re in violation of a regulation, especially on the water, and that would take care of some of this water quality that we’re talking about, along with probably other stuff that we have here on this list, and so that’s just my quick take on it, not that I wanted to rehash all of what Mr. Magras just stated.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Tony. Is there anybody else in the queue that I am not seeing here? Hearing none, the next presentation.

PUERTO RICO NELSON CRESPO: Good morning, everyone. At the last meeting, there were only a few topics left to discuss, which we did it in a short time, and so we ended up with sixty-two components and 127 paired connections.

The top drivers are the integrity of marine habitats, the effective management, the current intensity, the pollution, and hurricanes.

Like Julian said, all of those top drivers, in one way or another, have to be worked with enforcement.

Without it, all of those issues cannot be attended to properly, and so that’s what I’ve got for the moment.

139

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:

Any questions for Nelson?

MARCOS HANKE:

Any questions for Nelson?

ANDY STRELCHECK: MARCOS HANKE:

Hearing none --

I have a question.

Andy, go ahead.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Can you speak a little more specifically to the effective management? I see that there’s kind of five connections identified there, and what specifically would be ways to make management more effective, as recommended by the DAP? NELSON CRESPO: When we say effective management, all the management that is implemented are not going to work without enforcement, without -- We need to develop a rich program to reach effective management, because that is one of the biggest discussions that we have here. No enforcement, if you implement management, is not going to work, and the committee doesn’t know how it has worked, and it’s not going to work. That’s all the main topics that we have there.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, to Andy’s question, with effective management, we are looking at coordination between local and federal entities that do the management, enforcement, outreach and education, and engagement of the fishers at all levels of management, similar to what we do at the council, and those were the recommendations and the issues that they discussed.

MARCOS HANKE: questions?

Thank you for your question, Andy.

Any other

MIGUEL ROLON: I have here Richard Appeldoorn in the chat, and he asks what is current intensity?

Is that fishing pressure?

I believe that we are talking about -- Nelson, can you answer that one?

NELSON CRESPO: The current intensity is when we develop -Especially when we develop our fishing work, it’s against our work, and nobody can work with high current intensity, especially in the west coast of Puerto Rico, and we suffer because of high currents in the water, and so that’s -- To keep doing our work, and that’s, indirectly, going to help the fisheries to be protected.

MIGUEL ROLON: So current intensity means they are addressing ocean currents and not fishing pressure at this time. That’s the meaning of the phrase.

140

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 for the clarification, Miguel. Any other questions? Is there anybody in the queue? Hearing none, we can move on with the agenda. The next presentation is the overview of aquaculture.

MIGUEL ROLON:

No, we have St. Croix.

MARCOS HANKE:

I’m sorry.

The next one is St. Croix.

Go ahead.

ST. CROIX EDWARD SCHUSTER: Good morning. Edward Schuster, DAP Chair, St. Croix. On April 19, we went back over our conceptual model, and the green arrows indicate what we polished up on this.

As you take a look at it, it’s very complex. We had a total of fortysix components, and total paired connections were 233.

The top drivers were the need for education and outreach and the impacts to nine components, such as illegal fishing and unregulated fishing, and, also, non-point pollution. Hurricanes, development, fish, and increased water temperature.

We have a very sharp group, I would say, that are very versed in many, many different aspects within the fishery, and I can tell you that we covered everything, and I don’t think there’s any point that was never touched, and that completes my report and summary.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Any questions for Eddie?

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Eddie. I have a very big delay on my computer here today, and I’m sorry for the inconvenience.

Are there any questions for Eddie?

MIGUEL ROLON:

I guess we are clear, Mr. Chairman.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel.

Thank you for your support.

The next one then is the Overview of the Aquaculture Opportunity Areas Initiative with Jess Beck-Stimpert.

OVERVIEW OF THE AQUACULTURE OPPORTUNITY AREAS INITIATIVE KEN RILEY: Jess.

Hi.

This is Ken Riley, and I will be presenting with

MIGUEL ROLON: Ken, are you going to share your screen, or Jessica?

KEN RILEY:

We were kind of thinking that you guys were going to 141

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

show our slides that we had shared last week with you all.

LIAJAY RIVERA:

I just pulled it up.

Can you see it on my screen?

KEN RILEY: Yes. That looks beautiful. Jess is going to present the first few slides, and then I will speak to the later part of the presentation.

JESS BECK-STIMPERT: Good morning, everyone.

I am Jess BeckStimpert.

Thanks for having us here today.

I’m the Senior Aquaculture Coordinator for NOAA Fisheries Southeast Region, based out of St. Pete, Florida. You just had an introduction to Dr. Ken Riley, who is with NOAA’s Ocean Service, and Ken and I are going to tag-team this presentation.

I’m going to start off and just hand it off to Ken, and I just wanted to thank you all for taking the time to discuss aquaculture on today’s agenda. As many of you know, Executive Order 13921 is the Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth E.O., and it published in May of last year, and that focused on various actions related to marine aquaculture in the United States.

The Executive Order has three main bins of activity.

One is looking at regulatory reform, to remove unnecessary barriers to U.S. commercial fisheries. The second is looking at trade aspects of seafood, to ensure that U.S. seafood has a level playing field in the global marketplace, and the third looks at a suite of activities focused on the expansion of sustainable aquaculture production, and that is the part that Ken and I will be talking about today.

Ken and I are specifically going to present information on the process of developing aquaculture opportunity areas, which we will refer to as AOAs throughout this presentation.

As I mentioned, there are several aspects that speak to aquaculture in the Executive Order. Many of the actions allow federal agencies to build on efforts that are already ongoing and able to foster sustainable marine aquaculture and freshwater aquaculture, and the implementation responsibility for these actions is not only with NOAA, but across other federal agencies involved with aquaculture, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USDA/APHIS, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

I am going to focus on Section 7 of the Executive Order, which speaks specifically to aquaculture opportunity areas.

In this section, the Secretary of Commerce has directed NOAA, in consultation with other federal officials, the appropriate regional fishery management councils, in coordination with appropriate state and tribal governments, to do several things, 142

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 NOAA would be leading this effort.

Within one year of the date of the Executive Order, NOAA is to work with these entities to identify at least two geographic areas containing locations suitable for marine aquaculture, commercial marine aquaculture. Within two years of identifying each of those geographic areas, it has tasked NOAA and its partners to complete a programmatic EIS document that would fulfill our NEPA duties for each of those areas, to assess the impact of siting aquaculture facilities there.

After the first year, and each of the following four years, we would identify two more geographic years each year after and complete a PEIS within two years, and so, essentially, the first year would be identification of those locations, which Ken will be talking about, and we’re also in that initial identification stage, and so that first year, for our Round 1 of AOAs, and then, after that first year, or sometime around that timeframe, we will be beginning the NEPA process, or the PEIS process, and, while we are beginning that PEIS process for the first round, we’ll also be looking at identifying the next Round 2 of AOAs, and so looking at two new areas, and so the process will begin to overlap itself over the next seven to eight years.

Last year, southern California and the Gulf of Mexico federal waters -- I should specify federal waters of southern California and the Gulf of Mexico were selected as the first regions to host AOAs, because there was a lot of already available spatial analysis data and a lot of current industry interest in developing sustainable aquaculture operations.

Many of you know the efforts that were put forth by the Gulf Council to develop a comprehensive permitting program in the Gulf of Mexico, and that regulatory program is no longer in effect.

However, there was a really good framework of coordination and cooperation across federal and state agencies that was established, a lot of knowledge that was gained.

Also, out in California, there have been several projects that have also been very interested in establishing marine aquaculture, and so these are two areas that were really ripe for AOA discussion.

I will also mention that the E.O. is silent whether AOAs would or could be in federal or state waters, and the idea of having AOAs in state waters could be a possibility in future years, or future rounds, of AOAs, as long as the state is open to development of AOAs in their state waters, and we’ve actually had at least one state in our region, the State of Florida, who has expressed interest in AOAs in the future.

143

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

Some key takeaways from the process thus far is we just want to make the AOA concept as clear as possible, and Ken will be going into the data and the siting analysis piece of it, and, of course, we’ll have time to answer any questions, but, just so folks are aware, the AOAs are discreet locations in the ocean that have been vetted through a process of data gathering and stakeholder input.

We have gone to many of the councils thus far to talk about AOAs, and this is the first time we’re able to come to you all and discuss AOAs, and we’ll be happy to provide updates to you all, through a presentation or a verbal update in the future as well, and we also have gone through a process of public comment, which we did this fall, to ask about specific areas in the Gulf of Mexico and in the southern California region in federal waters that may be suitable for AOAs. We also asked about input for future AOAs, to help guide us in this next round of looking at areas that may be suitable for aquaculture and begin that process all over again. I also just want to point out that the AOAs are not huge swaths of ocean. They would be, rather, small dots in the ocean, and we anticipate that they would be a size that would support three to five operations for aquaculture, and those could encompass finfish, shellfish, macroalgae, or a combination of species. This is the size of AOA that we are looking at federal waters off the Gulf and southern California during this first round.

It’s also very important to note that identifying AOAs is really a process of deconflicting space and getting feedback from the various stakeholders, councils, commissions, et cetera, to ensure that we’re choosing the most suitable areas, and also looking at it from the science end as well.

This would not prohibit other legal activities from occurring within AOAs, as long as they are consistent with aquaculture as well, and I also want to mention that any AOA is developed, any operation that would be interested in establishing an aquaculture operation within that particular AOA, would have to go through all of the relevant federal and/or state permitting processes, in order to establish itself, and so, really, none of that would change.

This is not a regulatory process.

This is simply a planning process to look at areas that may be suitable for aquaculture in the future, but everyone would still have to go through the same process to follow the regulations and get their permits set up, in order to operate.

144

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 think that takes us to -- Now we’re going to Slide 5 now, how we identify AOAs, and I’m going to go ahead and hand this over to Dr. Ken Riley with NOAA’s Ocean Service, and he can go through the rest of the presentation with you.

KEN RILEY: We’re going to proceed to the next slide, which is a nice infographic, and it really describes the story and the vision around what is an aquaculture opportunity area, and the vision for an aquaculture opportunity area, or potential aquaculture opportunity area, is one that really seeks to identify high opportunity, high potential, for aquaculture development, and, as Jess said, it really could support aquaculture in a variety of format, and so macroalgae and kelp and shellfish and finfish.

We’re not modeling for a specific type of aquaculture, but we’re modeling using information that the industry has provided on the type of areas that would be suitable for potential aquaculture development.

The concept is that an aquaculture opportunity area could support three to five farming operations, and, based on some national intelligence from industry and the permitting actions underway right now, we know that areas between 500 and 2,000 acres, those small, postage-stamp-sized areas, in the coastal ocean would be suitable to be able to support a minimum of three to five farming operations, and it really is our interest to identify and site these potential aquaculture opportunity areas in places where they would also complement and support working waterfronts and other sectors of the blue economy, communities at-sea, and complement wild fisheries and aquaculture that is already existing.

This slide captures the schedule and the timeline for development, as was presented in the public notice.

I wanted to just walk through the AOA steps, and this would be relative to the work that’s underway currently and the work that would occur in the out years, the next four to five years.

At the beginning of the year, there’s a lot of public and stakeholder engagement, and a lot of outreach, to introduce the AOA concept. We then publish an RFI to collect information that we should use in the siting analysis, in the spatial planning, in the environmental review.

We then did, and have a continuing commitment to, provide updates to the councils, to commissions, to communities, coastal communities, with updates, and to continue to solicit feedback to help inform identification of aquaculture opportunity areas.

145

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, at the end of this one-year process, our organization, the National Ocean Service, the National Center for Coastal Ocean Science, will publish an aquaculture opportunity atlas. We’ll be publishing, this year, an aquaculture opportunity atlas for southern California and a separate aquaculture opportunity area atlas for the Gulf of Mexico.

I am pleased to introduce you to our spatial planning team, our team of scientists from the National Ocean Service, the National Center for Coastal Ocean Science, that are going to be leading the spatial analysis and planning for the aquaculture opportunity areas, to identify and produce the aquaculture opportunity atlases that we developed.

Our program is led by Dr. James Morris, and we have an interdisciplinary team of scientists, about fifteen, that range from spatial ecologists and geospatial scientists and oceanographers and engineers, and they all are providing critical input into our research process and into the science that’s informing this process.

In the National Ocean Service, we are part of the Coastal Aquaculture Siting and Sustainability Program, and our program focuses on four different areas, and, specifically, planning, spatial planning for regional scales, national scales, marine spatial planning in its traditional sense, to help inform coastal management of our ocean areas.

We do a lot of siting analysis and precision siting to help the aquaculture industry find just the right space, where they will be compatible with other industry users and with other national interests, as well as they would capture those opportunities to have the most success at their farming operation and maintain stewardship of the environment.

We have an environmental science team that largely manages a portfolio of environmental modeling to understand how aquaculture interacts with the environment, and then, with all of our products and tools in our science, we’re continuously looking to produce tools that the coastal management community and coastal managers can have at their fingertips to help them and aid them in making critical decisions about coastal management and aquaculture development.

The types of support that our program serves to provide and the science that we do focuses on that marine spatial planning, environmental modeling, environmental science advice, and engineering review. We serve at the request and provide science 146

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 support the federal agencies that are involved in managing aquaculture and reviewing aquaculture projects, and this includes largely the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Defense and its assets, as well as our own agency within NOAA, and then all of our coastal managers in our state agencies and partnerships across the nation.

Then a large product of our research goes into tools and technology development, so that individuals can make their own coastal management decisions.

I encourage you, out of these tools and technology, to look a look at Ocean Reports. It’s an automated spatial planning tool, and it’s a conversation starter that coastal managers, coastal stakeholders, coastal communities can use to explore the coastal ocean, to consider projects that might be developing in their coastal ocean, but ocean reports is one of our career tools, but we have a lot of other tools that are out there, and I encourage you to look at some of these tools that are presented on this slide.

For today, I’m just going to use the Gulf of Mexico to kind of review the AOA siting analysis, but we have a similar process, and it’s almost identical that’s occurring in southern California as well, and so we had numerous stakeholder meetings and meetings with industry and engagement to identify where should we be looking in the coastal ocean of the Gulf of Mexico, and so the study area was identified to include federal waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, depths between fifty and 150 meters depth, that would support a variety of aquaculture in those many different formats, but also ensure survivability from storms.

We met with a lot of engineering groups and said that, for the size operations and the scale of operations, that that fifty-meter depth was really important for engineering for storm survivability.

Then, because the Gulf of Mexico and the study areas were so large, we needed to break it up, so the data could be synthesized and our models could be run with reasonable computational power, and so we broke up the Gulf of Mexico into natural ecoregions, or study areas, that would help us analyze the data within areas of similar ecology and oceanography and those things.

This slide presents our siting analysis workflow, and it goes through the steps that are critical to the spatial planning and siting of potential aquaculture opportunity areas, from identification of the study area and how we go about doing the spatial analysis to overlaying grid cells and doing the spatial statistics to collecting the data and understanding which data 147

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

might be used for spatial modeling and which data might be used for environmental characterization, characterization of that ocean neighborhood.

It presents there our suitability model and then some of our statistical analysis that we’ll use to go in and identify the precise sites of an aquaculture opportunity area. I am going to go through some of these critical steps in the next few slides.

This is an example of a study area.

Now, this one is off of California, and it wasn’t really developed for the aquaculture opportunity areas, but it’s an example of how we identify the study area, and then the first step is to understand what is that bathymetric profile, because, in both the areas where we’re working, the aquaculture industry said the most important thing that you understand is that we hit the right bathymetry for our aquaculture opportunity areas.

Then we’ll overlay a grid cell, so that those grid cells will each receive a relative suitability score, and we can compare areas within one area of the study area to other areas, and each one of those grid cells will receive an individualized relative suitability score, so we can make statistical comparisons.

Then we use an exhaustive process and meet with many, many stakeholders and industry representatives and coastal managers and academic institutions and NGOs to collect data and to identify data for the site suitability model. Our data is binned in these different categories, from military and national security, navigation, industrial, and so oil and gas development and cables and pipelines, understanding fishing activities, understanding all the different sectors of kind of the blue economy, and especially shipping and port activities.

Oceanographic data, biological data, and then boundary data, the political boundaries that exist within our study areas.

On the right is just an example of essential fish habitat that is mapped across the Gulf of Mexico in relation to our study areas.

We then go about building a suitability model. On the left, you’ll see a list of different data types and how we have to transform those data types and characterizations into scores, and those scores for the suitability model all transform and will range from zero, meaning that they’re not suitable, or not compatible, with aquaculture development, to one, meaning that it would be suitable, or compatible, with aquaculture development.

Usually a score in the middle, a 0.5, means that perhaps that area is going to take some extensive review, and perhaps it takes a 148

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

detailed consultation, and so here are some examples of data on the left, and on the right is a suitability model example, and what you’ll see is that the suitability model really looks at and provides relative suitability scores and weights of some locations, versus other locations, and so, for this example off of southern California, we can see that the submarine cables there, that are in kind of the burnt orange or red coloration, and the oil and gas, those precise locations are not really suitable for aquaculture development, and so they are scored at a zero.

Then areas where we have increased fishing, or where we have increased ship and vessel traffic, you can see those areas -- That they don’t come out, and they don’t produce relatively high suitability scores, so that we try not to have a conflict with those industries.

Once we have our suitability scores for each of those grid cells across the study area, we then have to use spatial statistics to identify the potential sites, and so we use a process called cluster analysis that looks for a grouping of those grid cells that would add up to 500 to 2,000 acres, and so, in this example on the left, you can see the cluster analysis, and it’s picking the best of the best. This is essentially the absolute best of the scores in that particular study area, and then we have to go through a process to identify and locate those potential sites within those cluster analysis, and, on my next slide, I’m going to share with you how we do that, and it’s a process called precision siting analysis.

This is a precision siting analysis.

On the map to the right, you’ll see a black box in the center of that map, and that black box represents where a cluster analysis would have a grouping of the highest suitability scores. We then want to be able to locate the exact location of a potential aquaculture opportunity area that really maximizes the suitability in that cluster analysis, and so we have a model, and we built a model, and you can see, to the west of that location, there is some conflict. We don’t know what it is, but there’s some lower suitability scores. You can see we have optimally sited that 2,000-acre white box inside that cluster analysis, to help deconflict, de-risk, that area.

To go into even more detail into this, because this is a council meeting, and councils are largely responsible for understanding fishing and fishing interactions, we’ll go to the next slide, and I’ll show you exactly how we are using this precision siting analysis to minimize interaction with where the shrimp industry might be shrimping in the Gulf of Mexico.

149

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 is a demonstration of how we use this precision siting analysis, and you can see, to the west of that cluster analysis, that it was actually those relative suitability scores were driven down, because of the shrimp trawling that’s occurring to the west of that cluster analysis, and you can see, over a fifteen-year timespan, how we have tried to minimize the actual location and precision siting of a potential aquaculture opportunity area in that location, to really minimize that interaction of where the shrimp industry is fishing.

Here, we have one of the last steps that we do after we identify the potential aquaculture opportunity areas, and we then want to go back and look at all the different data that were included in the model, as well as other data that can be used to characterize that ocean space.

We’ll calculate the area of the space, the relative suitability scores, the bathymetry, the slope, the oceanography, the wave climate, the currents, the temperatures, the chlorophyll levels, and we’ll calculate the vessel traffic interactions, and then we’ll go through regulatory offices and identify which regulatory management offices have jurisdiction over that ocean space.

Then the last step is to develop the final report and that atlas, and so that atlas will contain a full description of our process, of our science, and then the maps of the potential aquaculture opportunity areas that will then be considered in the programmatic environmental impact statement and the NEPA review that will be conducted over the next two years.

With that, I will just say that I appreciate the opportunity to present, and Jess and I are here to answer any questions. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE:

Any questions for the presenters?

MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, you have Tony and Nelson Crespo.

MARCOS HANKE:

Tony, go ahead.

TONY BLANCHARD: Good morning. I was thinking that the MCD, like the Hind Bank, because of where it is located, the depth of water, and it’s a place that the tide goes through, and so, if you are raising fish, the waste off of the fish will not be congregating or falling in one small area, and it would be dispersed, and it would also serve two purposes, because I’m pretty sure, if you put in an aquaculture -- An AOA there, an aquaculture setup there, whether it be fish or algae or whatever, but it would have to be monitored, and so that would serve the purpose of enforcing what is supposed to be a closed area, an MCD for right now, and so it 150

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 serve two purposes, because it would be monitored 24/7. Now, I was wondering if an MCD would meet the standards that we are looking for or if there is exceptions for those.

MARCOS HANKE: TONY BLANCHARD:

That’s a question, Tony, to the presenters?

Yes.

JESS BECK-STIMPERT: So what is an MCD? recognize the acronym.

I’m sorry, but we don’t

MIGUEL ROLON: It’s a marine conservation district. It’s a marine reserve south of St. Thomas that has been established to protect the spawning aggregation of red hind and other species of snappers and groupers. Presently, there is no fishing allowed in the area.

KEN RILEY: Jess, I will just add that we worked very closely, in the Gulf of Mexico and California, and we had many, many stakeholder engagements with the National Marine Sanctuaries and similar areas that are marine protected areas for inclusion, and making sure that we get the scoring and the consideration of that just right. Then, additionally, our program maintains a modeling portfolio that looks at effluent and particle tracking and tracing, and it looks at the fading materials that comes from fish farms around the country, and we would bring that expertise. That would be included in some of the programmatic environmental review.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you for your answer.

Nelson.

NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am curious, and what would be the damage caused to the habitat and marine ecosystem with the waste produced with the aquaculture sediments?

KEN RILEY: Well, our science seeks to find the right location, where there is minimal detectable environmental impact from some of these farming operations, and we have extensive experience, over the last ten or fifteen years, in modeling and monitoring and understanding how net pen operations and finfish operations work, and we are increasingly working to understand shellfish and seaweed operations as well, because of the tremendous interest in growing algae for food and other uses is really, really important, but the specific impact would be carbon on the bottom, the release and emission of nutrients into the water column.

We find that, like this farm that’s pictured on the screen there, and that’s off of Kona, Hawaii, and there is really minimal detectable or discernable change in the environment in relation to that farming location.

151

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. That’s offshore in deep water or shallow water?

KEN RILEY: It’s 200 feet of water, and they grow almaco jack, an amberjack species.

MARCOS HANKE: That’s just to put in context your answer. Thank you. Any other questions? Hearing none -- Carlos, go ahead.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I was just wondering. Since determining an AOA -- Take, for example, the U.S. Caribbean. Since we, years ago, separated our EEZ for each jurisdiction, would an AOA be selected for the whole U.S. Caribbean, or could it be for each individual EEZ for like St. Thomas, St. Croix, and Puerto Rico has its own EEZ demarcation, geographical demarcation?

JESS BECK-STIMPERT: I think Ken and I can probably answer this together. In terms of state or territorial waters, when we put out a request for information every year, we’re really looking for information on where we should look at developing AOAs for -MARCOS HANKE:

The audio is off.

MIGUEL ROLON:

We lost you, Jessica.

KEN RILEY: I will pick up. In determining the AOAs, we review where industry is interested in going, in all those different formats, and then we also meet with the councils and meet with different teams to formulate the study areas, and we try to optimize and pick the right study areas, so that it also captures efficiency in work.

We’re not really interested in going places that wouldn’t be supported by aquaculture.

It just wastes a lot of labor and efficiency and things like that, and so there is a survey that occurs, as well as that public input process, to help inform where the aquaculture opportunity areas would go. It’s not limited to state or territorial waters or federal waters. It can span those, but just the present process is in federal waters.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I understand that, but my question really is, for federal waters, our federal waters have been separated for all three islands, and so, if an industry decides that, well, I want to do a farm, open-ocean farming, in the U.S. Caribbean, it may affect a particular island more than it would another one, and so I’m not sure how that would work out.

152

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: Carlos, if I may, the process just started with this Executive Order, and, really, what we are focusing now, we the government is focusing on, is the federal area surrounding the different jurisdictions around the United States, and so, in this case, this whole presentation is addressing the area surrounding Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands that we consider the EEZ. Later on, maybe, in the process, the government and federal government will join in efforts to look at aquaculture opportunity areas, but, at this time, the Executive Order as-is, we are looking for U.S. Caribbean EEZ waters that could be construed as areas of opportunity for aquaculture, and so that will come in the future, and the experience that we have in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands is we have several aquaculture marine water projects that have been within the area of jurisdiction of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

That is where we are now, and I believe that this record will be incorporated in the decision-making process, and I believe that we have Jessica back, if she wants to add something.

KEN RILEY: I would just add that our program is a science-based program, a research-based program, and we would be pleased to work in the Pan-Caribbean area, the broader Caribbean area, to share our methodologies, our process, if it would help inform those conversations. We have worked in the Caribbean before, and we’ve developed best management practices for aquaculture in the Caribbean, and we would be pleased to share that with the broader Caribbean conversation, but, for today, we are just talking about the Executive Order. Thank you for answering that, Miguel.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. I’m a little concerned with the time here. We have space for one more question, and then we will move on, and, also, to invite the presenters for a future presentation with a little more time, because, for sure, there is a lot of interest among the participants.

Anybody else in the queue?

MIGUEL ROLON:

We don’t have anybody asking.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel.

Thank you for a great presentation. The next presentation on the agenda is the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Report.

MIGUEL ROLON: Wait. You have the aquaculture project by David Miranda.

That’s the next presentation, and he will be asking Christina and Liajay to present from his computer.

153

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: That is my mistake. Sorry to the next presenter, David Miranda. We are waiting for your presentation. Go ahead, David.

AQUACULTURE PROJECT - PARCELAS SUAREZ LOIZA DAVID MIRANDA: Thank you so much. No worries. I am very honored to be here presenting to you MarePesca, which is a for-profit company that we started here in Puerto Rico, with the goal of really driving a tech revolution in agriculture and tackling some of the biggest problems that we have here in the Caribbean that I will be talking about in the next few slides.

The founders include myself and Carlos Nieves, who is also in the meeting, and I will be doing the presentation, but he’s there and can answer questions, as needed. We are Puerto Rican, born and raised, and we spent some time travelling around the world, and we have decided to come back and really apply a lot of the concepts that we have learned across the many years that we have been exposed outside of the Caribbean to really drive, as I said, a tech revolution here in the region.

I did my undergraduate in materials science and engineering from MIT, and then I have a PhD also in a program between MIT and Harvard in biomedical engineering. Carlos is an investor, trader, and analyst with a lot of years of experience developing electronic products across the world, and he trained as an electrical engineer from the University of Puerto Rico.

Really, we came together to impact some of the biggest problems.

When we think about food security and economic development and innovation and sustainability and protecting seafood stocks, those were issues that really drove our attention, and especially in the Caribbean, where we are starting to see the impact of climate change.

Here in Puerto Rico, we had a hurricane three years ago that really changed the way we started relating to the natural ecosystem, and so that really drove us to start thinking about how could we apply all of our engineering concepts to solve problems in the region, and one of the problems that really caught our attention was the idea, which is crazy, that we import in the region, especially here in Puerto Rico, that we import more than 90 percent of the seafood that is consumed.

This comes from remote places, and, obviously, this room knows this problem better than anyone, but that’s just bizarre.

You have people that come from all over the place to our region to eat 154

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

seafood, and, in reality, they’re eating seafood that has been brought from really remote places, and can we do something about it was something that drove us to this problem.

Quickly, we realized that there’s an unmet need for technology that enables local production, whether that be through aquaculture or other sources.

We decided to form MarePesca, and, really, our goal is twofold.

It’s to develop cutting-edge technology, in combination with local seafood production hubs in the Caribbean, that would allow us to increase productivity in the region and ultimately lead to food security.

Our first technology -- We’re working on a few, but one of the first that we are happy to share with you is that our team has developed a methodology for the commercial production of red snapper, and so we are now working, in collaboration with the town of Loiza, a town that has a long history of vulnerable and economic disadvantage and coastal relationships as well, and so we decided to reach out to them, but we thought we could have the biggest impact in that ecosystem, and we would be working with them to launch a recirculating marine-based or coastal land-based production there, which is, for those that are not too familiar with the geography of Puerto Rico, that town is about a thirtyminute drive from some of the biggest areas in San Juan, and so that also brought our attention to it, and so we’re working right now to launch, as I said, a land-based production of this red snapper product.

When we think about where we are and where we want to be in the next year and in the future, currently, we are in the process of finalizing our fundraising to launch that first pilot to start installing equipment and begin production by September, so that we can have our first harvest around spring of 2022.

Then, from there on, start thinking about expanding our production in Puerto Rico across the Caribbean to other -- To continue developing other technologies, and even consider offshore operations, as things start making sense.

One of the things that also drives us to this space is the opportunity for educational and touristic offerings. When you go all over the world, you often -- When you’re sightseeing, you get to visit a local production of anything, whether it be in Japan that you go see the assembly lines of Toyota or Honda, and can we develop something like that here in the Caribbean for aquaculture?

It’s something that is interesting to us and that we want to explore a bit more.

155

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

Also, can we use this as an opportunity to partner with educational institutions, or research institutions, in the area to also continue to develop, as we said, that technology revolution in the area and serve as a case study for multiple projects to come.

That’s a little bit about us.

When we think about what things that we could always take advantage of a resource like this group, we’re looking for potential collaborators and research institutions or individuals who are interested in developing technology in the aquaculture space, and can we work together, and feel free to contact us, and our information is at the bottom.

We’re looking for marine biologists with experience in recirculating systems to join our team and serve as production managers for that initial production and next to come, and, obviously, and this is true for every startup, but we’re always looking for funds, whether it be grants or other funds, preferably, that would allow us to carry out our mission and continue to provide food security and economic development in the region. As I said, here are our contacts, if you want to learn more or if there is something that comes to mind and we don’t get a chance to discuss it in the Q&A. That’s MarePesca, and hopefully we will be sourcing the seafood of the future from Puerto Rico and then expanding elsewhere in the Caribbean, starting with red snapper and other technologies yet to come. Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON:

You have a question from Raimundo.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Raimundo.

RAIMUNDO ESPINOZA: Thank you for the time to ask the question, and thanks, David, for the presentation. It was really great, and we really appreciate a lot of the work that you’re doing, and it’s something that’s very needed.

I have -- One is an offer, and we can help you connect with a lot of fisheries experts and aquaculture folks that have done things that are similar, so that we can help you connect with them, so you can kind of see where the bottlenecks in production can be, since efforts like this have been done similarly in the Gulf and a couple of other areas, and so I think we can connect you with them, to see where you can kind of find saves on the cost and the operation. Getting started is going to be -- That’s kind of one of the more difficult processes.

156

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 other thing that we would also like to help you guys out with is, if red snapper -- If it’s local, the production of more redfish for Puerto Rico is going to -- One of the things that we’re going to try to help with is to promote aquaculture, but avoiding some of the things that have happened in the past in the U.S., like creating the tension between aquaculture and wild-caught.

Your project sounds really exciting, but a lot of folks are going to see it as the right competition with the deepwater snapper fishery in Puerto Rico, which is something that is one of the most economically-viable fisheries in Puerto Rico, and so it’s one of those things that helping you connect to the local fisheries industry as well is really going to be very important, so that you can get support and see how you can work with the industry as well, with the wild-caught, so that there isn’t any of this tension that has been created in the past with other species that have happened in the U.S. and elsewhere, but I think it’s really great, and so I’m very happy to hear that this is happening, and it’s something that’s very needed, and it’s been a long wait, but you’re going to have a couple of obstacles, depending on the species you choose.

If it’s capitanos, because of the production of a predatory fish, and so the feed that you’re going to use, and so there’s a lot of discussion here that we can see how we can touch base and connect you with a lot of the folks that have been doing this in the past as well as local organizations that can help you with water quality and see how this can happen, but I think this is a very good project, and we really appreciate you taking the time to present it to the fisheries sector and to the council and allowing us to ask questions and participate, and so thank you so much.

DAVID MIRANDA: Thank you.

To your point, I wanted to clarify something. When we think about this opportunity, we really want to tackle the 90 percent that is being imported and not displace at all the 10 percent that’s being provided by the local ecosystem, and so, when we look at our business opportunity, or market opportunity, we really have been focusing on that sector, whether it be restaurants or retail or local direct consumer, that is mostly, or exclusively, being supplied by the imports.

We have really been careful in doing that, and we’ve been working, through the Sea Grant program, with the local fisheries and Jose Rivera, who is also in the meeting, has been a great advisor to our team, and so, Jose, thanks. I will use this opportunity to thank you. Yes, we’re looking forward to continuing to collaborate with the ecosystem and to continue to solve this big problem that we have of food insecurity.

157

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 have a question. Just to confirm.

When you’re talking about red snapper, it’s genus campechanus that we are talking about?

DAVID MIRANDA: To answer that question, we are working with a few of the lutjanus family, species within the lutjanus family, and campechanus has been one that we’ve looked at, but we’ve also started looking at the analis and purpureus as well, and so I would say, for now, we’re keeping it generic red snapper, but we are conscious about limitations, as it relates to regional species and environmental concerns of that sort.

MARCOS HANKE: I will complement my question later on, and I want to give space for two more questions. Any other participants?

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, we don’t have anybody else in the chat so far. One thing we would like to hear from the council members is that, although the council does not disapprove or approve of aquaculture projects, an expression of let’s say positiveness, that we accept this initiative, and we also -- Like sharing information, for example, and that will be good for the record that they are developing.

This is one of the projects that can start in Puerto Rico, but it also can be exported throughout the Caribbean areas, if it goes well, and we are trusting that the two partners, Sea Grant and other institutions, that are helping here, and the National Marine Fisheries Service is helping, through Jose Rivera, and Jose Rivera is a member of the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Office, and he’s in charge of aquaculture plans, among other things, and habitats, and so they are on the right path and also doing the right thing for making this project a success story.

The other point is that, to be very clear, they are by no means thinking of interfering with the fisheries, which is good, and, just for the record, we also import 90 percent of what we eat, and most of that import comes from aquaculture, especially if you look at the shrimp industry, and so this is a step in the right direction for this area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. Just to wrap up, I want to just say my endorsement to the idea, just personally, and I really think that it’s something to explore, based on science, and I just want you to know that I am very interested to learn a little more and maybe to explore the ideas, through your company, or through your group, the multitrophic production of aquaculture operations, and I think they are much more compatible to the Caribbean, and we should promote projects that have added value and added 158

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

restoration, improvement of water quality, restocking, and also supporting food security for the local communities.

About the species, from the first view of this, I really think that we should explore the use of the local species and the common species that are here and not to bring species that are uncommon for us, like campechanus and like what happened with the cobia in the past, and that’s my comment, and I would like to hear from the other council members, and then we’re going to wrap up.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, you have Damaris asking for a turn to speak.

MARCOS HANKE:

Damaris.

DAMARIS DELGADO: Good morning.

I agree with your comments, Marcos. This is an opportunity not only for food security, but in terms of the sustainability of the resources, and, as you said, for habitat restoration, and that has been our intention, or our interest, in the Bureau of Fish and Wildlife within DNER, and also within the secretariat of DNER, to promote aquaculture for the benefit of the resources as well, and so I see both objectives as very important and that we have great opportunities to work towards both goals.

In our research lab, we are starting some projects geared towards the objective of the sustainability of the resources, including protecting the wildlife resources.

Thank you for letting me express.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Damaris.

MIGUEL ROLON:

You have Carlos Farchette.

MARCOS HANKE:

Carlos, it’s your turn now.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m just wondering, and this sounded like it was a land-based operation, and so I’m kind of wondering how much input the council can have on a territorial issue, or is it just that we’re giving support?

MIGUEL ROLON: That’s what I said. The council -- Not even in local waters, but in federal waters, and that’s a long story, but, anyway, the council is always looking for ways of avoiding pressure on natural resources surrounding Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and so that’s what I said at the beginning. Although the council doesn’t have any jurisdiction in the area, an expression of endorsement or acceptance of this kind of project for this area is something that will be used by the project managers to support 159

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

proposals, et cetera.

The project is all land-based, so far, at the moment, but they also are planning to expand the project, and they are doing the right thing, because they are starting from the beginning, from scratch, looking at all the possibilities of establishing this project, and I believe that the project will be successful, and I wish that they are successful.

I have been working with aquaculture for many years, more than forty years, and I have all these crazy projects. I have two boxes filled of crazy projects on aquaculture, but this one is not a crazy project. This is a valid way of doing it, and so, anyway, we wanted the council to hear their presentation, so that you know this is happening here, and this -- Maybe in ten years it will be exported to other areas, and we don’t know, but that’s what we want at this time from the council.

MARCOS HANKE: I already stated my opinion and contribution. One more council member, just to wrap up, and we really need to wrap up this. Go ahead, Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: This kind of project is very interesting, and especially what I want for my comment is that we should share this kind of information with our commercial fishermen, so they understand this better and don’t think that this kind of business is going to be taking their fish, or taking their business, with the restaurant and all that, and so it’s a great opportunity, especially because we already know that we don’t have enough fishermen to give to the restaurants around the area.

I think that, in these kind of projects, we should start to give more orientation and education to our commercial fishermen for the new technologies that are approved and that they should share and don’t treat this kind of project like something that is going to be taking their business, and so they can share their knowledge, and, also, they can contribute their experience with these kind of species. Thanks.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Vanessa. Thank you very much for a great presentation, and you have the support of the council, and it’s an ongoing process that we all keep learning about it, and, anything you need to announce, or to communicate to the community, you can contact us to keep doing that with the fishing community. Thank you very much.

DAVID MIRANDA: Thank you. I appreciate everyone’s comments, and hopefully we’ll be in touch soon.

160

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. The next item on the agenda is Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Report.

OUTREACH AND EDUCATION ADVISORY PANEL REPORT ALIDA ORTIZ: Good morning, everyone. I am going to make a very short report since our last O&E AP meeting in March and what we have been doing up to this moment and what we propose or plan to do in the next month.

There have been a lot of meetings attended, because, as Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Chair, I’m a member of the NOAA Caribbean Steering Committee, and the MREP program also, and we have been working, especially through MREP, on the review and development for the curriculum for the workshop of the next program, or the next version, that is going to be presented in Puerto Rico.

Also, I have presented with Wilson Santiago, in the PEPCO workshops, the information about the ecosystem-based management to the fishers, and those are the meetings that we have been doing since January until March.

One of the activities that I am very interested in presenting to you is our approach to the schools and teachers for the marine fisheries ecosystem of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

We already had a presentation to a group of ninth graders in a school in science, and it was very, very successful, and there was very much interest by the students in what is all this about fisheries and how we can get information.

My idea is that the marine fisheries ecosystem knowledge is not just for the science courses, but it has to be all across the curriculum and all across the grades, and, actually, this afternoon, I have another presentation for what we call EcoSchools, and it’s a special program that has been in Puerto Rico for probably around ten years, and these are schools where environmental education is connecting content to the curriculum through all the grades, and so I want to see that learning about the marine fisheries ecosystem becomes also part of the environmental education that we have to promote among all of our students.

Usually, we have taken more time in working with the forests and working with the land-based ecosystem, but we know very little about the marine ecosystem, and one to get this in is to get it into the curriculum, and so this is something that I will continue, 161

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 it is something that I would like to request support from the council.

When we make these presentations, we have to present, especially in this moment, where we cannot go outside, we have to present a lot of images and videos and slides that will emphasize the content of learning the marine ecosystem is not just for marine ecology or for biology. When we do social studies, we have to do all the geography, and then, there, we can go to the shore and learn about the ways and the tides, and then, when we go to the people that live on the coast, we have to learn about the sociology and about the history and how these people live.

We also would like to promote and to have more students interested in studying fisheries disciplines and not just fisheries biology, but we need a lot of prepared people on the sociology and the social issues that deal into these fisheries communities.

We would like to request the council to support the development of activities, and it can be a learning guide, or we can take the information from the marine fisheries ecosystem in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and put it into a teaching, a learning, guide, especially based on what -- I think it’s more effective in this area, and that is the project-based learning, because, if the students take one issue, and then they visit a fishing village, and they talk to the fishers, and they may even go fishing with them, and they learn to recognize the species that they eat in that house, and that will be a great addition to this project of learning about the marine ecosystem.

We would like to have more PowerPoints for each of the themes and short videos, and we already have some on essential fish habitats, but we don’t have the same thing on the fishing activities, and so that’s something that we would like to request support from the council.

The other issue that we have been working in outreach and education projects and that I have informed to the council in previous meetings is our sustainable seafood consumption campaign, especially the recipe book that we’re working on.

Here, you see all the chefs that we have from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands at this moment, and we have been working with the consolidation, let’s say, or the production, to see what the book will look like, because we have the introduction, and we have the chapters describing the species, and we have the recipes, and we have the photos and biographies of the chefs.

162

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

At present, we have some limitations, because some of the species that were included from the beginning to work within the recipe book the fishers have been able to catch them, because of weather conditions, and there are many things that have put a little bit of a -- They have made it slower, the production, but we hope that, at the June presentation, we will have a very complete version of the book. UPR Sea Grant is working with us on the design of the entire book, and so we will have an update the next time.

Also, with this sustainable seafood consumption, other products are being developed, and we have already, and you may have seen them in the YouTube or in the Facebook page, and Christina will talk about that in a little while, but short videos on the underutilized species, because we don’t want to put more pressure on the fish that everyone eats and everyone asks for in the restaurant or in the market.

There are many, many species in the islands that are caught with the ones that are sold very well, and they are just as good, and they are easy to cook, and we should promote those, so that we can give a little bit of rest to the species that are overconsumed, and Jeanette Ramos and Christina Olan have been working on these videos, and we have one already, and they are working on more with lionfish, so that we can get rid of part of it, at least.

Then we also would like to develop or work with more materials on the underutilized species, and we have the coasters, and we have the placemats, but there are many, many other projects and many other products that will show how to recognize species and probably where can they be cooked, or how they can be cooked, and so that’s something that -- We will work with that as part of the products that will be produced. Here, you have the recipe from Cory Magras, and he’s a chef from St. Thomas, and the one that you have there is for queen snapper in a coconut pillow.

The other project that we are very intensively working is the outreach materials on marine protected areas in St. Thomas and St. John, USVI, and it has been a very close project developed with people from St. Thomas/St. John, and especially Julian has been working with us a lot, and Ruth Gomez, and Tony Blanchard, and we already have the poster that they went through the first draft, and we have to send them our latest review, so that they can see how it looks.

The poster is the one that you see on the left part of the slide, and, in the middle, you have the fact sheet, and the fact sheets takes the same information that is in the poster, but it has like four phases that will be distributed in the marinas, in the 163

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

restaurants, where the tourists go, everywhere, so that they can recognize and they can understand what are these MPAs, especially the Grammanik Bank and the red hind district, Marine Conservation District, and the importance that they know the regulations and why are there regulations and that they respect the regulations that are in place.

We are also producing these two placemats for seafood in St. Thomas and St. John, and this is the idea that we -- The same one that we had in Puerto Rico, and they were very, very successful, because the restaurants that had them -- People asked for them, and they wanted to take them, and so, on the back of the -- In the front, you have the species that are underutilized species, but they are available, and they can be served in this restaurant or in any other places, and, behind, there is the calendar for the regulations seasons of some of the species.

This, we will be probably getting the complete project finished by mid-May, something like that, and we will go back to the group in St. Thomas to see if they are totally in accord with it, and then we will do the production, the printing, for the people.

For 2021 to 2023, we are working on some other initiatives, and, from last year, we had the seafood chemistry conference that had to be postponed, because of the pandemic, and so we hope that it can be either by the end of this year or in 2022, but it’s a content that is very, very important, because we hear a lot about ciguatera, and we hear a lot about people getting poisoned with fish, but we don’t know much about what is the product, what is the substance, the chemistry, that is working, and this will be a conference for the Caribbean on that, and we had a lot of plans that we had people working on, on its development already, but it has been delayed, due to the regulations that this type of conference, or this type of group meeting, was not approved.

Also, the other thing is that we would like also to develop some kind of a meeting, big meeting, on the status of fisheries education in Puerto Rico and the USVI, and we have to find out where are fishers content included in programs, academic programs, that it’s in UPR, and it’s UPR not only Mayaguez or Humacao, and there are many other campuses in UPR Puerto Rico that deal with the marine environment, and so we want to know what is the status of that, and also in the USVI, because it’s important we get more people prepared in the science and the technicalities of these issues in the marine environment.

For so many years, at least from Puerto Rico, they have said that we live with our back to the sea, because we put more attention on 164

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 terrestrial ecosystem and on the terrestrial resources than we do with the sea, and, for that to change, we have to have people prepared in the scientific and in the legal and in the social aspects of marine sciences.

We also would like to work with fact sheets and short videos on the MPAs in the region and their impact on fisheries sustainability.

The presentation that Diana Beltran made yesterday to me was a very good beginning, because that is saying we have to put it in documents, or in products, that everyone can read, or that everyone understands what we are saying about the qualities or the characteristics or the reasons for these marine protected areas.

We will recover also the CFMC newsletter that we have produced for quite a long time on the in-person meetings, but now we will take a short glance at the meetings that we have virtually, and we will make that report again, and it will be part of the website, and we would also like to work, and we have talked to Wilson and with Christina about this, on a PEPCO workshop that deals with the marine fisheries environment and the marine fisheries ecosystem, because I do go to the PEPCO presentations, but it is just like a very, very short, short moment, and it is to explain the ecosystembased management approach and how it is important, but, before that, we have to learn a lot more about the marine ecosystem, and so it would be a very special PEPCO workshop on marine ecosystem knowledge. Now we have social media, and I think, if Christina is around, Christina is the person that is charge, and she will present this.

CHRISTINA OLAN: Good morning.

I will share my presentation.

Thank you for this moment to share with you what the CFMC is doing with social media, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram. I am very thankful for all the support that many persons -MIGUEL ROLON: audio.

Christina, we are having too much noise on your

CHRISTINA OLAN:

I am using the headphones, but --

MIGUEL ROLON:

We have too much noise, white noise.

CHRISTINA OLAN: MARCOS HANKE:

Could you wait just a moment?

It’s a little better.

Is that better?

Go ahead.

CHRISTINA OLAN: Okay. I am sharing the numbers, and I am not going into them in-depth, but, if someone has a question, just 165

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

feel free to ask me the question at the end of the presentation.

I think that I am having problems with my internet connection, and so I will stop sharing my presentation, and Liajay could share it, and maybe you will be able to hear me better.

LIAJAY RIVERA:

Okay.

No problem.

Give me a second.

CHRISTINA OLAN: The content that we mostly share through our social media pages are seasonal closures, meetings and activities, pictures and videos, educational materials, announcement of new publications, content produced by other agencies, and we are also collaborating with other organizations to produce content, and also, we are posting a monthly bulletin.

MIGUEL ROLON: Christina, stop using your mic, and call the phone, and Liajay can -CHRISTINA OLAN:

Okay.

ALIDA ORTIZ: After Christina completes her presentation, we’ll go to the liaisons from the area, and we have Wilson from Puerto Rico and Nicole Greaux from St. Thomas/St. John and Nikita Charles from St. Croix, and then I will go back to my presentation.

MIGUEL ROLON:

How much more time do you need, Alida?

ALIDA ORTIZ: Not very much, because, for me, I have finished my presentation, and the liaisons go after that.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. Once Christina fixes her audio problem, but we are now working with Christina and Liajay, as you know, for these presentations to the council, and so we are grateful to both of them, and they have done an excellent job. The problem is that Mayaguez is in and out of electricity power, and what we have done is that the social networks that have been coordinated by Christina has undertaken a lot of tasks that we have assigned to her.

We have the Facebook page, as you know, and we have What’s App, in coordination with Wilson Santiago, and we also have the YouTube channel, and this meeting is being streamed to the YouTube channel as we speak, and so it will be available. All of our videos are available for anybody who wishes to have a copy of them, and just contact Diana Martino or Christina from the council.

The videos that we were talking about are in response to the presidential order last year that you have seen today, where President Trump was requesting that agencies and programs that promote local seafood -- To increase the productivity of the United 166

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

States’ production of seafood, of course, and that goes to the issue of imports versus locally-produced seafood.

MARCOS HANKE:

Christina is on the phone, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: Good, because I ran out of things to say. Christina, can you hear us? If not, we can move ahead with the presentation, and she can do that in August.

ALIDA ORTIZ:

Marcos, what do you want me to do?

MARCOS HANKE: Let’s go to the next presenter, and we’ll see if we can come back to Christina’s presentation.

ALIDA ORTIZ:

Okay.

LIAJAY RIVERA: ALIDA ORTIZ:

Yes.

Liajay, if you can put back my presentation.

Just a moment, please.

Thank you so much.

CHRISTINA OLAN:

I am on my phone, but I don’t know what happened.

ALIDA ORTIZ: Christina, why don’t we go then with the liaison reports, or are you ready to continue your presentation?

MIGUEL ROLON: Alida, hold on a second, because we are mixing a lot of things. Let’s go with the liaison reports, and Christina can do the presentation at the August meeting. It will be part of the record anyway.

ALIDA ORTIZ: Okay.

Christina, we are going to stop the presentation, and we’ll go to the liaisons. On the liaisons, we have Wilson Santiago from Puerto Rico, Nikita Charles from St. Croix, and Nicole Greaux from St. Thomas/St. John. The function of these liaisons is to keep the local communities in each one of the islands connected with the council and connected with outreach and education, so that we have them giving us ideas and suggestions and requests of what we need to do for the community, and so that’s why -- At the last council meeting, it was requested that the liaisons make a report at each one of the meetings, and so this is their reports. Wilson.

CFMC LIAISON OFFICERS REPORTS PUERTO RICO WILSON SANTIAGO: Good morning to all of the council members and to everyone connected at this meeting. My name is Wilson Santiago, and I am the Puerto Rico liaison officer.

For the Puerto Rico 167

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

liaison participation in 2021, this year, we successfully presented the virtual educational program for fishers, and we named it PEPCO, and we have support from Christina Olan, with new publications and the CFMC social media, regarding closures, DNER administrative orders, and fisheries education for Puerto Rico fishers.

We had to create a What’s App broadcast messaging, and, right now, I have like 161 fisher contacts, to send them announcements and meeting dates and educational materials regarding fisheries, and we are sending that like twice a week, this message.

We have support for fishers with issues and information of the DNER and CFMC in the state and federal management, and we have given fisheries educational materials for the fishers at the fishing docks, and we prepare an envelope with a lot of educational materials, given by The Nature Conservancy, the Sea Grant program, and the CFMC. In the pandemic, we started using a lot more the social media and created What’s App broadcast messaging, and we have accomplished more participation at the CFMC DAP and O&E AP meetings of commercial and recreational fishers.

For the educational program for commercial fishers in Puerto Rico, and we named it PEPCO, we started giving it on February 17 until March 17, every Wednesday, and we have five sessions every Wednesday, and we have given the program virtual, five sessions with different topics and presenters, and a total of eighty-two people registered for the program, and a total of forty-five people completed the five sessions, and, therefore, they received a participation certificate and a lot of educational materials from the CFMC, Sea Grant, and The Nature Conservancy.

In the virtual program, we bring new presenters to give specific topics regarding the fisheries in Puerto Rico, such as the HMS permit, and I want to thank --.

She is a contractor of NOAA Fisheries, and the commercial statistics report, I give special thanks to Daniel Matos from the DNER. Invasive species, regarding the lionfish, special thanks to Jeanette Ramos of the Sea Grant Program. Coral disease and whitening, special thanks to Miguel Figuerola, and I saw him connected. Thank you, Miguel.

Another topic we brought to the program is the importance of sharks to the coral ecosystem, and that is special thanks to Juan Valdez and Ori --, and they are from the program of marine at the University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez. The ecosystem-based fishery management plan, thanks to Alida Ortiz.

It was a very special program, and it was a good program, and we brought them like an hour or two hours in each session.

168

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

CFMC social media and What’s App broadcast messaging was very crucial to the outreach for the PEPCO participants, and so I want to thank the CFMC social media and everybody that shared the publication to gather all the participants in the PEPCO program, and, to all the forty-five participants that completed the five sessions, we will send them a certificate and the educational material, and that was to everyone that completed the five sessions of the program.

Right here, I am showing you all the educational material that we are sending to the forty-five participants. If you see over there, all those boxes in my house, and maybe this week I am going to start sending them, but all this material we gathered from the CFMC, the Sea Grant Program, and they gave us a lot of educational materials for the fishers. The Nature Conservancy is helping us to send the boxes to all the participants.

In Puerto Rico fisheries, we have, again, issues with the DNER license and permit procedures, but, right now, thanks to the Secretary of the DNER, and, in January of this year, he made a new administrative order that permits all the fishers that have the new license and the renewal and the permits, so they can -- They extended the deadline until June 30. The misinformation of the new fishers about the fishing closures, statistics report, licenses and permits for state and federal waters in Puerto Rico.

The law enforcement to watch the closures and illegal commercial fishing in state and federal waters, and there are those three fishers issues in Puerto Rico.

The next steps for me for the liaison in Puerto Rico is we are keep on supporting fisheries management and social media, and we are going to continue to educate more commercial and recreational fishers regarding fisheries management matters, and we are continuing to cooperate with the recreational fishers educational program.

We are participating in the O&E AP, DAP, and other meetings regarding fisheries management, and we’re going to continue to deliver the educational materials to commercial and recreational fishers.

If there any questions, but I just want to say thanks to the CFMC, the DNER, the Sea Grant program, The Nature Conservancy, and Raimundo Espinoza too, from Conservacion ConCiencia, and he has helped us a lot in the program and in the present program, and so let’s hope this pandemic stops and we start giving them a new presence, via the PEPCO program, and we can make meetings inperson with the fishers, because the difference from in-person and virtual is very different. The dynamic with the fishers is better 169

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-person.

If you have any questions, or any suggestions.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Wilson. the next liaison.

The next presenter,

ST. CROIX NICOLE ANGELI: Good morning. This is Nicole Angeli from the USVI. Nikita Charles asked me to reach out to all of you, and she wants to thank everyone for the opportunity to have served as the St. Croix liaison for nearly the past year, working on our Reef Responsible initiative, restaurant trainings, attending multiple meetings of the CFMC, and she’s recently accepted a full-time position with the Department of Health for the territory, and so she has less time to commit to being the CFMC liaison.

She is still working with us, on a voluntary basis, to conduct our restaurant trainings, with Reef Responsible, and she also continues to serve as the Golden Hook Fishing Club secretary, and so she communicates with the sportfishing industry all of the information that we provide, and so we thank Nikita for her great work over the past year and some months, and we look forward to onboarding a new person, which we would announce at the next meeting, and so thank you so much.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you very much.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Nicole, are you on?

The next presenter.

ALIDA ORTIZ: I don’t know whether she is present.

St. Thomas/St. John. I don’t see her on the list.

That will be

MARCOS HANKE: Alida, can you give a short overview of what she has been doing? Does she report to you? For us to move on.

ALIDA ORTIZ: Well, she has not reported very much. The only thing we are doing in St. Thomas/St. John at this moment, from outreach and education, is what I presented already on the MPA product, and that has -- I told you where we are and showed you the materials, and that’s where we are. I don’t know if anyone else from the St. Thomas/St. John can give us information.

MIGUEL ROLON: Alida, we will wait until August for her to give her presentation. Let’s move on.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN NICOLE ANGELI: For the St. Thomas/St. John district, Nicole Greaux 170

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 thought that she was working on a presentation, and so I’m sorry if she hadn’t sent it, because I could have presented it for her, but she’s been working to visit the different fish markets weekly, to communicate information to the fishers, to assist them with paperwork and other processes that are going on in the department, and Nicole and I meet with all the liaisons from St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John.

We have a monthly meeting, and then Nicole Greaux and Nikita were also participating in weekly meetings with the entire DFW staff on Wednesday mornings, so that they could receive all of the information and report back to the fishing communities, and she’s been doing a wonderful job. We actually just got off of a Reef Responsible meeting, and so she may have been having some trouble connecting from that, and so she’s also doing an excellent job.

Thank you so much.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for the clarification.

Let’s try to squeeze Christina, for her to finalize the presentation. Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: No, Marcos. We already did that, and Nicole can give a presentation at the August meeting, and Christina will do the same. She has problems with her audio.

MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

No problem.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Just move on.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much.

In terms of the O&E AP presentation made by Alida, for the council members, the proposed initiatives, is there any comments, or do we have a full endorsement for the ideas that she presented?

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, we will meet with Alida and Sea Grant on the issue of providing more materials for schools and what have you. This is an ongoing project, as long as we have the funding, and Alida and I will be coordinating that information and prepare the materials that she needs, and, as long as she has energy and the willingness to do this, we will endorse all these initiatives.

MARCOS HANKE: It was just to restate, because all of those initiatives were, at a previous meeting, endorsed by the council, and I just wanted to hear the voice of the council members again on the same matter, but I agree with you that this was already discussed. Let’s move on. The next presentation is the Nassau Grouper Critical Habitat.

JENNIFER LEE:

Hi, everyone.

This is Jennifer Lee with NOAA 171

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

Fisheries and Protected Resources.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, we do.

Can everyone hear me okay?

Thank you very much.

NASSAU GROUPER CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION JENNIFER LEE: Okay. Great. Nassau grouper critical habitat, you probably know that, back in June of 2016, we published a final rule that implements our determination to list the Nassau grouper as threatened under the ESA. The ESA requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated at the time of listing.

When a species is listed, we’re required to determine whether there are areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, and then, once critical habitat is designated, other federal agencies consult with NOAA Fisheries to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or undertake are not likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat, and so, in this case, in the final rule to list the species, we concluded that critical habitat was not yet determinable, which had the effect of extending, by one year, the statutory deadline for designating critical habitat.

Although we gathered information, through the status review and the public comment period on the habitats occupied by the species, we didn’t have enough information at the time to determine what the physical and biological features within those habitats facilitated the species life history and strategy and, thus, what was essential to the conservation of Nassau grouper and may require special management considerations, and so we decided, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we would publish a proposed designation of critical habitat in a separate rule.

Where we are now is NOAA Fisheries did enter a settlement agreement, back on December 22 of 2020, stipulating that we must submit a proposed determination concerning the designation of critical habitat for Nassau grouper to the Federal Register by December 30, 2022, and that, if we determine proposed critical habitat at that time, we must submit, for publication in the Federal Register, a proposed critical habitat rule on that same date, and then we would have a year to make a final rule.

To determine the potential critical habitat areas, where we are now is SERO is presently reviewing available data on Nassau grouper, included the information that was completed that supported the ESA listing, the proposed and final listing rules, and then recent biological surveys and reports and peer-reviewed literature, and so, really, we’re working with our Science Center 172

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 the NCOS to ensure that we’re using the best available information, and this includes making sure we have all the information on the presence of the species in U.S. waters.

Potential critical habitat areas include the east coast of Florida, areas around Puerto Rico, and areas around the U.S. Virgin Islands, which is why we’re giving you this update, but, at this time, I really don’t have any more detailed information to share with you about potential areas, and so we’ll just keep you posted.

If you want more information, you can reach out to me after, or Dr. Tonya Bolden is the point of contact on this developing critical habitat rule, and, of course, the council will have an opportunity to provide comments, if critical habitat is proposed, and so a comment period will automatically be included, if a rule is published, and so that just gives you a little bit of an update on where we are.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much for your report. Any questions?

I have space for two questions. Hearing none, thank you very much for your presentation. The next presentation is the Queen Conch Status Review Update.

QUEEN CONCH STATUS REVIEW UPDATE JENNIFER LEE: Thank you, and that’s me too. On this one, I don’t have to go into a bunch of the background, because the last update you had on queen conch was at your June 2020 meeting, and Jocelyn gave you a brief presentation reviewing the background.

We do have an ongoing status review, and I just didn’t know if -Our status review team for queen conch is comprised of seven experts in queen conch biology and endangered species management.

Where that team is, is they have developed a comprehensive status review that assimilates over 500 references, and the draft document is being prepped by the team now for independent peer review in the coming months.

Once the status review is complete, NOAA Fisheries will then need time to review the report and prepare a final determination, or a determination and a proposed rule, if warranted, and there will be an opportunity for public comment.

As a reminder, the status review won’t be released until NOAA Fisheries has determined whether listing as threatened or endangered is warranted.

Our best -- I shouldn’t say our best guess, but we anticipate making our determination sometime between late this year and May of next year, is the rough timing, and so we’ll keep you in the 173

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

loop, of course, and, as I said already, as with any proposal, there will be an opportunity to comment, if there’s a proposed rule, and, from there, the agency would then have the one year to make a final determination, if there was a proposed rule.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Jennifer. Any questions? We have space for two questions.

Hearing none, thank you very much for the update and for the presentation, Jennifer.

JENNIFER LEE:

You’re welcome.

MARCOS HANKE: The next presenter is the Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program.

PUERTO RICO CORAL REEF MONITORING PROGRAM AND VISUALIZATION IN MARINE BIODIVERSITY OBSERVATION NETWORK MIGUEL FIGUEROLA: Good morning, everybody.

My name is Miguel Figuerola-Hernandez, and I’m a contractor, as a coral reef specialist, for the Puerto Rico Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, and for CARICOOS as well.

I’m working on supporting their database management needs and expanding the Puerto Rico data access and information access of the Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program and supporting the development of integration of biological datasets to the MBON data portal, which is a network of projects and people working to integrate biological datasets to organizations around the planet, and I am happy to be supporting this task here in the Caribbean.

I will be showing, briefly, the background of what datasets are available from the Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program, or PRCRMP, and then how to access that data and the visualization tool that has been developed with MBON. The PRCRMP gathers several datasets, in terms of the benthic and sensile composition, and they estimate abundance, based on cover percent and number of colonies for corals and major benthic groups.

Dr. Stacy Williams is the benthic lead in this monitoring program, and she’s been also annotating sponges and algae to the species level, so that you can get species richness in more than just corals in the monitoring stations, and there is also estimations on the topographic complexity of the reefs and fish and marine invertebrate assemblages are characterized as well, in terms of individuals per thirty meters squared for five replicated transects of ten-by-three meter belt transects and a subset of fish species that are commercially and ecologically important, such as key herbivores and the snappers and groupers and bigger predators.

174

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

They are also characterizing an extended version of that thirtyby-three-meter transect, so we get the -- Recently, we are getting individuals by sixty-meter squares, and, previously, they would do an active search census for thirty minutes to estimate the abundance of key species.

For those subset of commercially-important species, we also get estimations on their sizes, and so we have been able to estimate their biomass and derive a dataset on fish biomass for those subsets.

We have developed as well a metadata spreadsheet that has all the information regarding coordinates and some geographical attributes and information on the sampling effort in each of the stations in the PRCRMP, and I really want to emphasize, and this is really important, but, if you’re interested in getting information from this data, because the frequency of this across the stations has been variable, and you can get precisely how many years, how many visits, and there are available data for every station. Looking at this, the habitat classification database, you can get that and select your data subset of interest.

We have developed supporting documentation for users of this data, and there are documents with all the field methods and data definitions, and these are archived in NOAA’s National Center for Environmental Information, and there is the links for these documents in this presentation, which I have shared with the CFMC, so it can be distributed.

There are several publications that can give you more information on some of the principal findings of the PRCRMP, and it’s beginning in 1999, and there is a list of them here, and some of them are in the peer-reviewed literature, and others have been research theses from students in the Department of Marine Sciences of the University of Puerto Rico, and there are links for those publications here, too.

There are annual reports that will summarize as well key findings, every cycle of monitoring, and they are all listed in the DNER coral program website, which the link is right here as well, and these reports are good for exploring any major changes that occur year to year as they go to the stations, and also get descriptions of the physical conditions in each site.

The database, since 2019, we have been compiling all of this data collected into a single database, which contains all the datasets that I previously mentioned, and that is archived in NOAA’s 175

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

National Center for Environmental Information, and, more recently, it was translated, so that it could be archived in information systems. From there, the data can be digested into the MBON data visualization tools, which I am going to show really quick.

If you go to the MBON data portal, there is the address right there, and you can go to the data catalog and just type in here “PRCRMP”, and you will find several -- You will find two layers, one for the rugosity measurements and another layer for the occurrence and coverage, which includes all the abundance estimations and biomass for benthic and fish assemblages.

When you click on these layers, you will get a description of this dataset and what measurements are available there, and you can also get the metadata URL right there, and it will take you back to the NOAA NCRI archive, so you can get the data format from there, and, also, down in this page, you can find the source link of this data in MBON, which is the database translated.

Once you -- If you want to visualize these data layers, you just click there, and you add them to the map, and, here in the upper tab, you find the icon that says “map”, and then you can upload any layer which is within the MBON data catalog, and you can change base maps, and you will get an automatic range of values here in the color to start visualizing.

Some other features, which are really cool, is one of the base layers is the NOAA nautical charts, and so you can explore the distribution of these stations across the Puerto Rican insular shelf. You get several filters, here in the right panel, to select the different measurements or variables that are being collected by this monitoring program, different species groupings, and you can select by common name, and there’s also an advanced filter down there that you can do your browser data, according to the taxonomic classifications of species of interest.

In each station, if you hover over the points -- If you, for example, go to stations around Desecheo, and you hover over the point, depending on what species grouping you will selecting, you will see a pop-up that will list the dominant species for that measurement that you are selecting.

You can also click on the stations, and there will be a histogram graph that will show you the time series for that particular measurement selected, and you can also filter by a temporal scale, and you see, down there, the time bar, and so there are several features here, and there are more things to do with this tool, like create data views and to compare datasets and whatnot, but 176

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 is just a brief summary of a product that is available, and we’ve been doing outreach efforts, and so we want to make all stakeholders aware that you can explore what benthic and fish data is available and visualize it with this tool.

Some of the ongoing work right now is we’re working with the USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources and the University of the Virgin Islands to integrate the territorial coral reef monitoring program of the Virgin Islands into the MBON data portal, and there is a lot of very important benthic and fish information there too, from long-term monitoring since the early 2000s, and we also got mesophotic reef characterization data from the Caribbean Fishery Management Council that we’re currently translating, with the help of Rich Appeldoorn and Manuel Nieves from the University of Puerto Rico, which are helping in this translation process.

Finally, also, we’re working with fish assemblages of natural and artificial reefs in the Puerto Rico dataset, which includes data on the seasonality of these fish assemblages, and it was a masters’ thesis project from Manuel Nieves and the University of Puerto Rico, and all these datasets -- What we want to do is basically develop a Caribbean hub within MBON, so that we can have access and visual and multiple biological datasets available in the region.

Thanks to the collaborators, and this process of making data and information publicly available is not trivial, and it takes a lot of communication and collaboration between different parties with different resources, and so we’ve been lucky to align priorities between these different partners and work towards a goal. More partners are jumping onboard, and so we’re really happy to see this expand in the near future.

If there is any questions and follow-up, you can contact me through this email, and now Reni is going to go over what the data has told us in the recent monitoring years.

JORGE GARCIA-SAIS: My name is Jorge Garcia, and everybody knows me by Reni Garcia. I have been acting as a principal investigator of the Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program since 1998. We have had several years without any monitoring surveys, but, since 1999, we have carried on about seventeen or eighteen monitoring surveys, to date.

Today, what I am going to be presenting here is more or less -It’s not a comprehensive analysis of the results of the program, or even of the recent surveys, but it’s just for you to get an idea of what kind of information is listed with these annual surveys and throughout the monitoring program, and this 177

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

information is probably going to be of more and more importance for fisheries management, as the Caribbean Fishery Management Council is moving towards ecosystem-based management strategies or approaches.

The program, what I am trying to present here, is some overview of the sampling design methodology, the oceanic background to the 2018 and 2019 reef monitoring surveys, and so the status of the reef stations, in terms of coral cover, which is what we use as an indicator of ecosystem health, and the species composition and patterns of benthic community structure.

Also, monitor the temporal variations in reef structure by the main sessile benthic categories and for all the monitoring surveys contained into an assessment of the status of the fishery, in terms of its density, the taxonomic composition, and the fish community structure.

In terms of the sampling design, the program includes forty-two reef stations that are surveyed in two-year monitoring cycles, and that is twenty-one stations per sampling event. The locations of reef stations have been arranged to provide for a depth, distance from shore, and geographically stratified sampling design.

Sessile and benthic characterizations are based on five replicate ten-meter-long permanent transects, or reef stations, and the placement of these transects are not random. They are placed in sections of optimal coral growth, and what we want to see is the change from year to year and over temporal scales, and so it’s not a random approach, at all.

Transect surveys are surveyed by continuous intercept techniques, which provide a great deal of information, as you gather approximately 964 data points, or transects.

Quantitative fish and invertebrate characterization are based on the same five replicate set of transects on a ten-by-three belt, and they include determinations of density and species richness centered on the benthic transects for benthic assessment.

These transects of ten-by-three are expanded to twenty meters, for quantitative characterizations and size distributions of large commercially-important fishes and reef herbivores, including doctorfish, parrotfish, and then also it includes lobster and queen conch and some of the larger sea urchins.

The surveys include high-resolution digital photography for each reef station, and we use both a parametric and non-parametric comparative and multivariate and statistical approaches for data analysis.

Here is the arrangement of the forty-two different reef stations, many of which include three depths, Desecheo, Rincon, Mayaguez, 178

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

Cabo Rojo, La Parguera, Guanica, Guayanilla, Ponce, and also in the east coast. We try always to arrange, for a given site or area, to have three depths, so we can use the three depths as a part of the stratified design, and sometimes, most times, these three depths also include considerations of inshore and offshore patterns, or gradients, which is one of the most important water quality gradients that we have on our island, at least on the shelf.

Since this presentation was mostly to present the variations, or the status, from the previous survey to the next one, it’s mostly -- The results are more -- They reflect more the impact of the hurricanes on the benthic and fish community structure of these reefs, and so we know we have these huge hurricane events in September of 2017, and some of the impacts associated with the hurricane towards the benthic and fish communities include abrasion, scouring, breakage, and displacement of reef biota, including corals.

Then the advective and turbulent conditions were displaying pelagic, small pelagic, fishes.

Nutrient enrichment associated with the massive river loadings and upwelling. The increased water turbidity associated with that suspended sediment and localized salinity dilution and temperature reductions in amplified river plumes. The survey ended in 2019, before the 2019 winter coral bleaching event was started, and so what I’m going to present are the results that were evident before this coral bleaching event.

These are the huge wave, significant wave, heights associated with the hurricane. This is the one associated with Winter Storm Riley in March of 2018, and it also affected the result of this study, and there were also twenty-foot waves.

In terms of the 2018 and 2019, which comprise the latest cycle for which we have data, and now we are working on 2021, this is the kind of data we get on a typical annual survey, or a cycle, monitoring cycle, and here are the forty-two reefs, and the mean percent substrate cover is on the Y-axis, as an indicator of coral reef health, and so that being typical of all coral reef monitoring programs, and these are the reef stations, and here are the species of corals for each reef, the percentage composition of each of the species.

For this set of reefs, we have the Orbicella species complex representing, on the average, 38 percent of the total coral cover, for all the reefs, and the Acropora species, mostly palmata, is 16.7 percent of all coral cover. The mean percent coral cover on these reef arrays is a mean of 22.5 percent.

179

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

Because of the recent relevance in coral diseases, we are now incorporating coral prevalence, coral disease prevalence, for all the reefs, reef stations, and so, for the previous year, for this previous cycle, we examined a total number of 2,322 colonies, with a mean disease prevalence of 5.3 percent. In this previous cycle, Siderastrea siderea was the main species affected by coral disease, with 39.8 percent of the total colonies affected were from Siderastrea siderea, with Orbicella faveolata/franksi also pretty high, with 22.3 percent. This is a photo of the disease affecting Siderastrea siderea.

For benthic algae, which is the main component in terms of reef substrate cover for all the reefs, we have the main components not actually by species, but by groups of algae, with turf algae and peyssonnelid algae, and it’s the red algae recently invading our reefs. We have fleshy algae, the lobophora, the crusting algae, and then the coralline algae, and then even other algae.

Based on the main benthic categories across the entire forty-two stations for the 2018/2019 monitoring cycle, this is the average of them all.

We apply -- Aside from the quantitative annual analysis of variation, we include analysis of community structure, and so this is the distance -- This is a similarity matrix based on the benthic variables.

These are factors in the sampling design, such as depth, to separate and to identify these patterns of different -- Of similarities between stations.

We used the species as the multivariable set to essentially explain, or quantify, what is the relevance of these variables in terms of explaining the similarity, or dissimilarities, between reef stations. As you can see, for example, in this one, the Acropora palmata, or the Acropora species, are more common in these shallow reefs.

Here, also, among other coral species, there appears to be a pattern of being more abundant in the five-meter stations. The Orbicella, in contrast, appears to more prevalent in stations that are deeper.

However, using other factors, other factors would explain the distribution and the similarity among the community structure of these stations, and we use here the geographic location, and this is the different coasts, and we see that, here, there’s a pattern of reefs that are all from the east coast that do not actually follow too much different variations associated with depth.

When we look at the variables that are causing the similarities, 180

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 similarities between these reefs, and the dissimilarity between these and other reefs in the sampling program, we see that these are the stations that are highly impacted by crustose coralline algae, which, right now, represents a threat to the quality of our coral reef resources. This is a photo of ramicrusta invading our reefs.

This is one of the reef stations, in Vieques, I believe.

The other type of information that we produce every year is the differences between the previous survey and the most recent survey, and so here is the variations in percent coral cover, on the positive and on the negative. The gray bars represent differences that are not statistically significant, and, in this case, for example, we see that most of the differences were associated with reefs in shallow areas, at five meters, or twenty meters, and these are all the reef that appear to be more heavily hit by the hurricane, and so shallow areas were much more vulnerable to hurricane effects, and, in Desecheo, for some reason, the reefs over in Desecheo were hit pretty strongly, particularly this one at twenty meters.

Actually, one of the most important aspects of this message, of this slide, is that this program has been able to detect differences above 20 percent, which is very good compared to all of the different methodological approaches that are used to detect change in coral reef monitoring programs.

Another aspect of the components of the reef that we monitor that suffer mostly from the hurricane effects were the gorgonians, were the soft corals, and we have all these significant differences on the negative side for gorgonians with the current reefs. It’s an overall change of almost 15 percent.

This is the differences in algae, and these are actually percent change, and so these look like very big, but they are very small components of the overall component of the benthic structure of the reefs, whereas these increments are very much related to species that are much more abundant, or the groups that are much more abundant, in the reefs, and so it was an overall increase of two important algal components, both in the fleshy and in the lobophora, between monitoring cycles.

In terms of the fish, we see pretty much the same approach, in looking at the overall comparison of density, mean density, for the reefs. In this case, we have a fish that is extremely dominant, which is the Coryphopterus personatus, the masked goby. This is the fish, and this one over here is a real photo from our reefs, and this fish is a planktivore.

It’s small planktivorous goby 181

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 hovers in schools below reef ledges.

Here, you have a much better view of it. Many monitoring programs do not deal with this small species, because they’re kind of problematic, or they’re limited by their sampling approaches to count them, and I decided to include them, in part because we have billions of them, and, as the aquarium market gets to be more popular in Puerto Rico, or everywhere in the world, these fishes are being sold at almost twenty-six dollars each, and so, in some ways, it’s important.

In my opinion, it’s not important because of the cost, or because of its value, in the open market, but because it probably represents that it’s a keystone species in transferring plankton, plankton energy, towards higher levels of the food chain in most of these reefs, perhaps influencing the recruitment of commercially-important species that are piscivorous, top predators, or along the web of these top predators.

These are the arrangement of species for reefs, and we see that there is some different patterns in the community structure of these fish, and we apply the same kind of an approach as a multivariate approach to analyze the differences in community structure between the reefs. Here, we see a clear difference of this between this and other reefs in the station set of reefs, and this was -- Essentially, those that were very highly dominated by Coryphopterus personatus, which is a zooplanktivore.

Aside from the species considerations, we gathered these -- We clustered these species assemblages into main functional groups, such as herbivores, zooplanktivores, small and medium and large carnivores, spongivores, and scavengers, which you’re basically talking about lobster.

We can start to discern patterns based on these functional groups, and we can see that, for example, that herbivores are much more common, or tend to be more common, on shallower reefs, closer to shore, and so zooplanktivores show exactly the opposite trend, being much more abundant, or more prominent, on the deeper reefs that we monitor.

Likewise for the mid and large carnivores.

There is a lot of variability, but they tend to be like that and give us some inference of where are the -- What the community structure is made of in the different reefs by depth.

This is spongivores and corallivores. They tend to be more abundant also on the deeper reefs, and essentially I am presenting here the distribution of lobster, and lobster usually come up whenever you least them expect 182

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

them, and so we haven’t seen any pattern in depth related to lobsters.

Here we see the same thing, the same approach, with the benthic, the differences in density between one survey and the other, and here we see the change is very small, the overall change is very small, and some differences, both negative and positive, associated between surveys.

The difference that we have seen is a part of the whole correlation between coral -- Between the fish density changes and the changes in density of the dominant fish, which is Coryphopterus personatus, and it’s a driver of density variations in our program.

Here is the same analysis for fish species richness, and there is very little difference, significant difference, overall between one survey to the other, and it means that most of these differences are mostly related with the density of a single species, but not of the overall -- We have not noted an overall change in the community structure of the reef, and so we have density variations in one species, but not necessarily reflecting on the community structure right away, but with potential implications for long-term and mid-term impacts if these dominant fishes do not recuperate.

Looking at the changes between surveys of the large carnivores, and so we have included here the yellowtail snapper and the graysby and coney and the snapper groupers, and these are the lionfish, and these are the differences, between here and here, but I want to highlight these two findings for red hind and increasing the red hind between surveys and a decrease, a drastic decrease, in the lionfish between surveys, because these are trends that we have seen from several years here, and these same observations we have seen in the mesophotic monitoring program that we run for the Caribbean Council. Those appear to be consistent throughout the shelf.

We also do the same with the main reef herbivores, and these are the larger ones, the doctorfishes and the parrotfishes, and we haven’t seen the differences to be significant during this cycle, and that is probably associated with the hurricane effects removing most of the smaller fish that recruit into the reef, and so I believe that that is the same factor that is affecting the density variations of masked goby in the reef, and perhaps of many other small reef fishes that cannot hold on to their habitats in the reef when the extremely strong surge and wave action associated with hurricanes impact these reef communities.

183

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 believe this is it. The next one is for questions, if any, and I don’t know if you have time for that, but I am available for questions, not only regarding this specific presentation, but for any aspects associated with the Coral Reef Monitoring Program.

Thank you very much.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Reni. We are very late on time, and the presentation is amazing, and let’s make one question to Reni, and then we will move along. Hearing none, you can interact with Reni using the chat, and that will give you the opportunity to learn a little more and to answer your questions. The next presentation is USVI Compatible Regulations and Carlos Farchette.

USVI COMPATIBLE REGULATIONS WITH FEDERAL WATERS CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos. I would remind everyone who is presenting now to try to be very, very effective with the timing of your presentation. Go ahead, Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. Well, right now, we have no updates on the compatible regs discussion.

We did, however, form a subcommittee of our local fisheries advisory panel, or our advisory committee on St. Croix, to look at both federal and local laws.

However, about maybe six months ago, we were given a high-priority task by Director Angeli to work on a proposed fishing, commercial fishing, license program recommendations for the Commissioner.

Since we have an eleven-member committee that really are volunteers, and we started like meeting every two weeks. However, it got a little burdensome, and so we started meeting monthly, and we finally, pretty close to six months later, were able to vote on eleven recommendations to forward to Director Angeli for the Commissioner.

I am hoping that, maybe in the monthly meeting for May, for the FAC, we will be able to put compatible regulations on the agenda, but, first, I will have to meet with Director Angeli over the phone, before the May meeting, to see if it’s possible to have that on the agenda, and that’s what I have.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Carlos. The next presentation is the Recreational Fishing License Program for the USVI. RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENSE PROGRAM FOR THE USVI NICOLE ANGELI:

We just wanted to give an update and let everyone 184

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 the community know that we are currently drafting rules and regulations to have submitted for public review and comment, and our fishing advisory committees have reviewed those, and are sending comments back to us on the recreational licensure program, and we’ll be providing more updates as we have them, and especially as we have concrete dates for public review and comment. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Nicole. We have a presentation for the electronic data reporting from the DNR Puerto Rico, and I think it’s going to be presented by Daniel Matos, I believe.

PUERTO RICO ELECTRONIC DATA REPORTING DAMARIS DELGADO: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. will be presenting our report.

MARCOS HANKE:

Daniel Matos

Go ahead, Daniel.

DANIEL MATOS: Hello, everyone, and good morning. Thank you. This talk is about the Puerto Rico electronic trip ticket and how it’s going for the last year, our achievements, and the challenges we have.

I want to acknowledge The Nature Conservancy, NOAA Fisheries, and the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources for the help and support in this project, and also to Shellcatch, a company who developed the electronic reporting, or the electronic trip ticket system.

Some history facts.

First, the Shellcatch e-reporting project started the design in early 2017, but Hurricane Maria delayed the project several, several months. Finally, in April of 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Honorable Rafael Machargo, DNER Secretary, approved the official use of e-reporting by commercial fishers, and so, right now, we have a complete year using the e-reporting, or the electronic trip ticket system. I have to mention that, since 2017 and today, the platform, the ereporting, has been updated twenty-three times, and so we have learned a lot in this way.

Achievements in the first year, our first achievement is the 749 fishers have been registered in the e-reporting application. This is approximately 62 percent of the total fishers, if we assume we have approximately 1,200 commercial fishers, and these fishers reported 6,259 fishing trips.

6,259 fishing trips have been reported.

Also, the 749 fishers reported, or registered, 512 fishing vessels.

The most important thing is that fish and 185

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

shellfish have been reported 332,333 pounds, a lot of threes, and so it’s a good achievement, and we are very happy for that.

Another achievement in the first year is how the fishing trips have been reported by gear.

Scuba divers have reported 4,363 fishing trips, and the next fishing gear most reported was fish and lobster traps, 2,052 fishing trips, followed by the bottom line, or the deepwater snapper fishery, and that’s 1,135 fishing trips. Then the handline reported 1,089 fishing trips.

Let me tell you about the top five species reported in pounds during these first years in the electronic trip ticket system.

The spiny lobster reported 85,003 pounds, followed by the silk snapper at 40,172, and then the queen conch at 31,525 pounds. The dolphinfish was number four in the electronic trip ticket system, with 29,547 pounds reported, and the fifth position is the queen snapper, with 19,025 pounds reported. These five species account, approximately, for 65 percent of the total weight reported in the e-reporting.

Let’s talk about the challenges. The first challenge, and this is not a personal finance problem, but it’s very similar, is to find sources of money to continue this project. We need $59,000 a year to run e-reporting and keep enhancing the best assistance and service to fishers, and so we need to identify some sources of money to continue with this important project. This is our first challenge.

Our second challenge is we need to attract more users to the ereporting, because we have 749 fishers, but we continue to use the paper, or traditional trip ticket system, and the paper -- The fishers reported, for the last year, 795,000 pounds, and, also, they reported 15,355 fishing trips, and so we have one-third of the reports came in the electronic trip ticket system, but, in the traditional paper trip ticket system, we had two-thirds, or 66 percent.

Our last challenge, and it was said, yesterday and today, a lot of the challenges, in many of the sub-committees of the Caribbean Council, is to continue to educate and motivate the fishers to provide better data from their reports to us, and this is the challenge we have, and we have to support Wilson Santiago’s efforts in education to the commercial fishers, and we have to support Sea Grant and other agencies who are working to continue to educate and to receive better data. Finally, we are responsible to do the best management possible to the fisheries resources.

We are in the beginning of the long trip with the electronic trip 186

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

ticket program, and let’s enjoy the landscape. We will have fun, and we will learn a lot, and so we are enjoying this trip. I don’t know if we have time for some questions.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos?

DANIEL MATOS:

Do we have time for questions, or are we finished?

LIAJAY RIVERA:

We do have questions in the chat.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Kevin McCarthy has a question.

KEVIN MCCARTHY: Thank you.

Thanks, Daniel.

That was a great presentation.

I know we’ve talked about this in the past, but remind me. These data currently -- Once they’re entered, they’re not going into APEX, right, and so, because of that, I would add a fourth challenge to your list, which is to get these data in the same database as where all the historic data and the current paper forms are going, so that we’ve got a single repository for the data, and so that’s a fourth challenge that you and I can discuss, and whoever else needs to be in on that conversation about how we might move forward on that, but that’s -- I guess that’s just my comment, and we’ll need to start those discussions.

I also think that this is a great opportunity. As you move forward with more fishers reporting this way, you can start to think about how you might want to tailor each of those reporting, the reporting forms that they’re doing electronically, and you might have different questions from a trap fisher than you would from a diver, for example, and so that’s some other things we can talk about.

We’ve got some experience dealing with electronic logbooks in the Gulf and the South Atlantic, and so we should continue our conversations that are always productive, and so thanks very much.

Great presentation.

DANIEL MATOS: Thank you. Thank you very much, Kevin, and, yes, we are working to transfer all the data to NOAA, and so hopefully we will complete this challenge very, very soon. Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON:

I have Tony Blanchard.

TONY BLANCHARD: Good afternoon, Daniel. Good presentation, and I’m on the same line with Kevin McCarthy, but what I am in full support, where I think the council should support this electronic monitoring, this electronic program, but what I don’t want to see is that the council gives money and we don’t get back anything to see to the end result, and I’m not saying that that’s not the case 187

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 your program, but I’m going to draw a reference to the recreational program in the Virgin Islands that was headed by the former director.

That program was well supported, but the council -- We really liked the direction it was going in, and it was positive and everything, and we even had a website set up that you take a picture and the information goes to that website, and, all of a sudden, it was dropped, and nothing came out of that, and -- (Part of Mr. Blanchard’s comment is not audible on the recording.)

At the end of the day, I don’t think that the council should give, in my opinion, money without getting something out of it at the end result. In some cases, we give money, and I think we just give money, and then we don’t see what comes out of the money that we gave. In other words, there is nothing in our hands to look at, but I’m not saying that that is the case with you, and I’m just bringing this point to the council, that I think we need to have some -- (Part of Mr. Blanchard’s comment is not audible on the recording.) When you take this money, that we get you.

DANIEL MATOS: I’m so sorry, but I lost a good part of your question, and I have problems with the internet here.

MIGUEL ROLON: No, the problem is -- Tony also has problems with the audio, and a couple of other people, also. They have problems with the electricity going back and forth.

We have now Maria Lopez, and she wants to address a question to you, Daniel. Maria.

MARIA LOPEZ: Sorry if I missed my turn earlier, and I must have lost audio as well. Daniel, thank you for your presentation, and thank you also for always being available to answer all of our questions and assist us.

I have a question about if you have seen, or are you aware, of any duplication in the data, in the way that the data is interpreted, for example if you have fishers that are submitting both in a paper form and electronically, and how is that addressed?

My second question is, given the current data lag that we have right now for landings, how do you think this would help to reduce that data lag and what else we can do to move this forward. Thank you.

DANIEL MATOS: You’re very welcome. I am always available to help all my colleagues. It’s such fun for me. Your first question is do we have duplication. At the moment, we don’t see that, because when we train the commercial fishers, we mention that they have a lot of benefits to do the electronic trip ticket, the e-reporting, and so they do that and they don’t have to write a lot of things.

188

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, in this part of the trip ticket, they have to write their name and their license number in every single trip ticket.

If they have twelve fishing trips this month, twelve times they have to write their names and their license and everything like that, and so now they just have to write that once, and so they log that in, and they are not doing twice the job, and so we don’t see, at the moment, any duplication.

If we have it, we assume it’s small, and, when we put everything together, we will be able to see that happen, but, right now, we don’t see any duplication.

Your second question -- I forget it. Sorry. What was your second question?

MARIA LOPEZ: I was asking about the data lag that we currently have with their landings and if you think that this is like the right path, obviously, to minimize that and what else we can do to make this happen, if this is the way to go.

DANIEL MATOS: Good news. Right now, we are -- We do not have any delay.

Right now, we are entering -- The trip tickets that we received last week are entered this week, and so we made a big jump, and we are very up-to-date now, and we enter the data. The official data, we enter that daily and send it to NOAA Fisheries.

What we need to do is to transfer the data from the e-reporting to the NOAA data form as soon as possible, but I have asked for help for that for the last six months, and I’m still waiting for a move from the Miami Lab, and so hopefully, very soon, we will have everything together.

MIGUEL ROLON: Daniel, you have a question from Andy, followed by Richard, and Kevin McCarthy. Andy.

MR. STRELCHECK: Daniel, thanks for the presentation, and I certainly sympathize with you, in terms of getting fishers involved in the program and just the challenges with reporting and validation, and so it certainly looks like you’re doing a lot of great work.

My question really is -- We heard yesterday from Todd Gedamke about work underway, obviously, with catch validation, and I’m wondering if there’s opportunities to partner with him, given the kind of ongoing work, to help get the word out about your electronic reporting program and just to have fishermen more knowledgeable about the requirements for that program, and so I just wanted to offer that as a suggestion, and maybe you’re already working with him.

DANIEL MATOS:

We would be glad to help and to collaborate with 189

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 project too, and so just send me an email, and I will be glad to help.

MARCOS HANKE: Is there anybody else in the queue, Miguel? my audio for a little while.

I lost

MIGUEL ROLON: We already said we have Richard and then Kevin McCarthy, and so it’s Rich Appeldoorn’s turn.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: Daniel, it’s very nice progress that you’re making on this, and it really sounds good.

This is sort of a follow-up in a different form of question that Maria made, and that is you have almost a third of your landings coming in with this e-reporting system, and how much does that translate into a reduced workload for you and your staff?

DANIEL MATOS: Well, right now, my staff, especially the port samplers, they have to read every single entry for the commercial fishers, and they read it carefully, really for more information, of do we have errors, and so every single data entry in the ereporting the port samplers are responsible to read and edit and then they have to approve the entry.

After they approve that entry, the information moves to the database, and so, also, we are updating the paper forms, because one-third of the data is coming through the electronic trip ticket system, and so that is more time to going out and collecting biostatistical data, and so we are moving to collect more biostatistical data and have more time for that and other stuff.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Daniel.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Kevin McCarthy.

Who is the next one, Miguel?

KEVIN MCCARTHY: Thank you. Hi, Daniel. I just wanted to circle back to Maria’s question as well, and just for the general group, because I know you already know all of this, and so the Science Center and Daniel and his staff have been working together for a long time, pre-dating me, but one of the things that we do is to fund a position in Daniel’s lab that is a data entry position, and so that did a lot to catch up, and they’ve been caught up for a while now, but to catch up on the backlog of data entry. Years ago, there was a lag, and so the data entry side I don’t think is the big lag in data availability.

It’s a drain on personnel, having to key punch in those data, and so it’s great that this e-log program is moving forward, and relieving some of that burden, but the other -- The lag right now 190

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

is in the correction factor availability, so that it can be applied to the reported landings and come up with the estimate of the total landings, and so I think I mentioned yesterday that we’ll be working with Daniel and his staff this year to try and automate that process.

There’s a couple of steps in it, and we think that some of those steps -- We can get the correction factors available a lot more rapidly, because it will be a lower burden on the staff if we’ve got it automated in the background, and, once the data are entered, we can let the computers do all the work and spit those correction factors out in a much more timely way, and so that was my comment, just that there are initiatives underway to get the data lag issue under control. Thanks.

DANIEL MATOS: Thanks a lot, Kevin, for all the support from Miami Center to this project. Thank you very much.

KEVIN MCCARTHY: to help.

Well, what helps you helps us, and so we’re happy

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Kevin.

Is there anybody else in the queue, or we are ready for lunchtime?

MIGUEL ROLON: You are ready for lunch, but you have a presentation pending, and so probably we should -- You can have lunch now, and then, first thing after lunch, you can have the presentation pending from the recreational fishing license program from the U.S. Virgin Islands, if they have things they have to present, because already Carlos covered what they were going to do, but I don’t know whether Nicole Angeli would like to add something else.

Maybe we can break for lunch and come back and ask the same question again. When do you want us back, Mr. Chairman, at 1:00?

MARCOS HANKE: Let’s come back at 1:00. I’m sorry with my audio.

1:00, we are back on the meeting. Thank you.

(Whereupon, the meeting recessed for lunch on April 28, 2021.)

- - APRIL 28, 2021 WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION - - The Caribbean Fishery Management Council reconvened via webinar on 191

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

Wednesday afternoon, April 28, 2021, and was called to order at 1:00 o’clock p.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke.

MARCOS HANKE: We are going to give five minutes for Christina in the beginning of the afternoon session for her to finish the presentation that is very important for the council. Go ahead, Christina.

SOCIAL NETWORK REPORT CHRISTINA OLAN: Good afternoon. Thank you for letting me present.

I appreciate it. As I mentioned before, there are numbers of the statistics of our social media pages. If you have questions, just let me know, and I will not go in-depth today to the statistics.

The content that we usually publish on our social media pages is related to seasonal closures. Meetings and activities, pictures and videos, collaborations that we have among agencies and other organizations, and NGOs as well, announcing new publications and educational materials and the CFMC monthly bulletin. Also, we do Facebook Lives, and, with this meeting, we have started to broadcast the meeting through YouTube and also sharing that broadcast to Facebook and Twitter.

We have a lot of collaborations between our organizations and the council, and we have been doing Facebook Lives with AmandOceano, and, also, we have been producing content with GCFI, and I have to say thank you to Fadilah Ali, who is the person who worked with me creating that content, and also to Puerto Rico Sea Grant.

Also, we published Martes de Manati, which is a series to create awareness or continue letting people know about manatees and predation of manatees, and we also had a meeting with AmandOceano and Mi Playa Limpia and Little Women, Big Sharks, to start developing content among the organizations and the council. also, I have to say thank you to JJ Fishing Adventures, and he is a little kid, and his mom and dad have a social media pages, and he pitches in content, and he loves the content that we produce, and he shares the content, and so thank you very much to JJ Fishing, and, also, of course, fishing organizations, commercial and recreational, as well.

I am showing there examples of what we published on our social media pages.

Also, I want to thank Marcos Hanke and Vanessa and Nelson for their ideas, and this is an example of how their ideas came together, and Marcos sent me this picture. With this picture, we published a post inviting people to identify the species, and, later in the day, we showed them the differences in the characteristics of the 192

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

species, and the idea is to engage more people and get their comments and also to continue making awareness of seasonal closures, regulations, and other facts related to ecological information of the species.

Also, we have been collaborating with MREP, the Marine Resource Education Program, and we have been sharing information to our pages to let others know that MREP continues, and they are going -- When it will be possible, they are going to do more workshops in-person.

Last year, because of COVID-19, we published a contact list of the fish markets and fishing villages and fishers that were doing delivery and carryout, and so we decided to update that list and publish it again, and this is the list for Puerto Rico, and Nicole Greaux in the USVI is helping me with the list of St. Thomas/St. John, and also Carlos Farchette.

They already sent me the information, and we are going to publish the information to our social media pages, and the idea is to do a public service to fish markets, fishing villages, and fishers as well.

During the last five months, we have been publishing the monthly bulletin, where we highlight information of species, and we also invite people to watch our videos, and we highlight a fisher of the month, from Puerto Rico and also from the USVI, and we also provide information about the closed seasons, and that is an example of one of the bulletins that we have been publishing.

Here are some of the fishers that we highlighted in our bulletins.

In March, for example, we highlighted Tina, and she is from Puerto Real, and, also, this month, we highlighted Julian Magras, and, in February, we highlighted Tom Daley. Thank you to Jeanette Ramos and Carlos Farchette and Ruth Gomez that helped me with the interviews and pictures of the fishers.

New videos, we have new videos on our YouTube channel, and we have the Nassau Grouper Against the Clock and Fisher to Fisher Advice on Spawning Aggregations, and, also, we have the most recent one that is Cocinando con Ita y Ta. Cocinando con Ita y Ta is a series of videos that promotes consumption of a diversity of species. We have already published one on lionfish.

There is Jeanette and Iza, and I have to say thank you to Jeanette and Iza, and also to the whole team that are working on the videos.

You will continue watching them through the following months, and, again, thank you, thank you, thank you, because creating content, and also engaging people to our social media pages, will not be possible without fishers, agencies, followers, scientists, CFMC 193

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

staff, council members, liaisons, O&E AP members, fish and seafood consumers, teachers and students, NGOs, sea lovers, and thank you to Alida and Miguel and Diana and Natalia that are the team for the content that we have been producing, and, if you have any questions or comments, please let me know. The next slide is if you have questions or ideas, and so thanks again for the opportunity of presenting.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much for a great presentation, Christina. Thank you, and, if you want to interact with Christina, you can follow-up through the chat with her. We’re going to move along with the agenda. The next presentation is the Enforcement Reports. We’re going to start with Puerto Rico.

ENFORCEMENT REPORTS PUERTO RICO DAMARIS DELGADO: The Rangers, this past month, they haven’t submitted cases to the Legal Affairs Office in Puerto Rico.

However, we learned, recently, that there is an area of opportunity to strengthen enforcement, partnering with our government, in this case, with Miguel Borges, because we heard that there seems to be a behavior of some fishers to capture protected snappers around the Rincon area, and then Miguel can’t help us with enforcement, because of the regulations, as they are written.

If the fishers say, or if the fishers do not say, that their captures were within the federal waters, he can’t intervene, because that’s the way the law and the regulation is presented, and so we were wondering if there is an opportunity to amend the regulations, in order for Borges to be able to help us out, even though, if we don’t get the information directly from the fishers as to whether they fished that protected species within the federal waters or within the state waters, and so this is a call to NOAA to check if there is a possibility for him to help us, when he may be able to intervene.

MARCOS HANKE:

Did you finish, Damaris?

DAMARIS DELGADO: Yes, that’s pretty much what I wanted to share, in terms of enforcement.

MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

Any questions from the group?

DAMARIS DELGADO: Also, the Rangers have been continuing their patrolling surveillance around the coast, and they have been doing their trips, as typically they do.

194

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.

Maria Lopez has a question to you.

MARIA LOPEZ: Hi, Damaris. If you want, we can talk more about your request, to see if you can give us more specifics, to help you out, to see if this is something that our office can help you with.

DAMARIS DELGADO: That would be great. Thank you very much, Maria.

I appreciate it.

MARCOS HANKE:

Nelson.

NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The only way I see that we can address the issue about the closure with the deepwater snapper fishery is establish compatible regulations, and I think there is no other way to get into that with the federal officers. I talk a lot with Miguel, and he knows my concerns about that.

DAMARIS DELGADO: Maybe it would be good to have a conversation with you also, Nelson, and talk a little bit more about that and what we can present to the DNER Secretary.

NELSON CRESPO: me.

Definitely.

Any time you need me, you can call

DAMARIS DELGADO: Thank you for your offering and your support, your continued support, Nelson. I appreciate it.

MARCOS HANKE: I don’t see any other questions.

Damaris. We’re going to go to the USVI DPNR.

Thank you,

USVI DPNR NICOLE ANGELI: Good afternoon. We have a few announcements. Two new officers have been hired and are in training on St. Croix, and one new officer has been hired and is training for the St. Thomas/St. John District.

All of our enforcement officers are still currently working with VI PD, and so any fisheries, boating, other enforcement issues that you have, they need to be reported either directly to the Division of Environmental Enforcement or to VI PD, so that an officer may assist, and so there are no specific fisheries updates for this meeting.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

The next report is U.S. Coast Guard.

U.S. COAST GUARD ROBERT COPELAND:

Good afternoon, everyone.

195

This is Lieutenant

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

Robert Copeland with the U.S. Coast Guard, located in Miami. Just one thing to pass, and one of our training centers on the east coast came down recently and did training for all of our boarding officers, specifically for living marine resources training.

Other than that, I have nothing specifically LMR related to pass at this meeting. Pending any questions, that concludes my brief.

Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. Any questions for the Coast Guard? Hearing none, NOAA Fisheries.

NOAA OLE MANNY ANTONARAS: Good afternoon.

Thank you, Marcos.

This is Manny Antonaras. (Part of Mr. Antonaras’s comment is not audible on the recording.)

MARCOS HANKE:

The audio is broken.

Let’s start over.

MANNY ANTONARAS: (Part of Mr. Antonaras’s comment is not audible on the recording.)

MARCOS HANKE:

Can you start over, please?

MANNY ANTONARAS: Sure.

This is Manny Antonaras, Assistant Director for NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement, Southeast Division, and I wanted to run through some enforcement highlights since our last meeting in December and also update the council with some recent personnel changes.

I will start off with the USVI, and we were very happy to report that Alex Torero has reported to his assignment in St. Thomas, as the OLE officer that will be covering the USVI. Alex arrived in early March, and he has started his field training. To date, we’ve had several officers that have worked, have detailed, out to to the USVI, and part of that included Puerto Rico, for a training course, including Supervisory Enforcement Officer Pat O’Shaughnessy and some other officers that we’ve had in the division to help with field training and go over the AOR that Alex will be working and meeting with several or USVI departments or agencies. During one of these meetings, we also had a productive meeting with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the USVI. As part of this travel, the officers conducted a number of patrols, joint patrols, with the U.S. Coast Guard, on two of their thirtythree-foot patrol vessels, and they will continue working with those folks in the future.

196

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

Officer Torero also attended the Coast Guard Regional Fisheries Training, and it was a Caribbean course in San Juan, to help accelerate his learning of the species and AOR. During the month of March, Miguel Borges, Special Agent in Puerto Rico, conducted three underway patrols on the west coast of Puerto Rico, with CBP Air and Marine, and they were targeted, for these patrols, enforcement of the Bajo de Sico closure. During these patrols, or during one of these patrols, a vessel was boarded, approximately twelve nautical miles west of Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico, and found in possession of thirty-two conch in the closed area, and a $1,550 summary settlement was issued to that particular operator.

A second boarding resulted in -- This one was in the area of Rincon, and, this particular boarding, the agents documented yellowfin tuna onboard the vessel without a valid HMS permit, and that one resulted in a $500 summary settlement to the operator, and then Miguel also reviewed and processed a U.S.-Coast-Guardinitiated case involving an individual that was fishing in Bajo de Sico during a closure, and the vessel was also anchored in the area, and that one resulted in an $825 summary settlement.

Going back to some of the work that our folks did in the USVI in early April, OLE officers participated in thirteen separate patrols, and those patrols included nine shoreside patrols and four that were underway. Three of them were aboard Coast Guard small boats, and these were in the vicinity of Hind Bank, and one was a patrol with Coast Guard, CBP Air and Marine in the vicinity, and that was also in Hind Bank, and so south St. Thomas.

These particular operations, all the vessels boarded were found to be in compliance, although our officers took the opportunity to conduct outreach and education with the fishers.

Just to conclude, over a year ago, we committed to an increased OLE presence in the USVI and Puerto Rico, and, as you can see from the activities that I have just shared, you can see that our two folks in Puerto Rico and the USVI are very active, and I anticipate that they will continue to do the great work they’re doing with outreach and education and monitoring and patrols and investigations, and we look forward to future pulse operations in collaboration with our USVI and Puerto Rico partners and the U.S. Coast Guard. That concludes the OLE brief. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much.

I want to mention to the council members that, on the training that either the Coast Guard and the NOAA Fisheries just referred to, the training for the 197

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

agents, I was able to attend and support them, representing our fishing community with fish ID and taking some samples and some things to share with the people on the training, and we have been doing this for many, many years, and I’m glad that either agencies are open to engage the community. Thank you very much.

The next item on the agenda is Other Business, and I have here an update about red hind, the update timing for red hind spawning, and it’s Michelle Scharer. Are you available to speak about it?

OTHER BUSINESS UPDATE TO THE TIMING FOR RED HIND SPAWNING AGGREGATIONS IN PUERTO RICO MICHELLE SCHARER: Thank you. I appreciate the time to bring to you a little more information regarding the timing of red hind spawning aggregations off the west coast of Puerto Rico. My name is Michelle Scharer. I’ve been researching some of these areas off the west coast with spawning aggregations for over fifteen years, and, basically, this is my statement.

The establishment of three seasonal marine protected areas, known as Abrir la Sierra, Bajo de Sico, and Tourmaline, as well as the closed season in the EEZ off of western Puerto Rico for the red hind, were based on pioneering research conducted at the Puerto Rico Fisheries Research Laboratory since the 1990s by researchers like Colin, Shapiro, Garcia Moliner, McGehee, Roman, Sadovy, Rosario, Figuerola, Torrez-Ruiz, et cetera.

Since then, the assessments that have been made by Figuerola and Torrez and Marshak and Appeldoorn did not reflect significant changes in the red hind stocks off western Puerto Rico years after these closures, and they concluded that the stock was still undergoing growth and recruit overfishing, as had been previously stated by Sadovy.

Recent research that we have directed towards fish spawning aggregations specifically on the western Puerto Rico platform provide information to potentially update the protection of the spawning stock of some groupers, but, here, mainly, I refer to red hind, and so one of the assumptions inherent in the expectation of a closed area, or closed season, is that the reproductive events are contained within the extent of the closure and are sufficient to rebuild stocks and seek a sustainable fishery.

When the fish spawning aggregation is completely contained within the closed season, the spawners are all protected. However, there is evidence that red hind remain aggregated, and potentially 198

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

vulnerable to fishing, at the fish aggregation sites off of western Puerto Rico after February 28 on at least three of the past ten years.

Apparent shifts in the timing of red hind spawning aggregations in this area may indicate that a proportion of the spawning stock is significantly vulnerable to fishing once the season opens, if they are still aggregated, and so, under this scenario, the reproductive output of red hind would be reduced if fish that haven’t yet spawned are legally caught. In addition, overfishing of FSAs is known to affect the age at sexual maturity and change the sex ratio of a protogynous species like red hind, which could create a possible sperm limitation for red hind in subsequent years’ aggregations.

Preliminary results of research in the U.S. Caribbean evidence younger and smaller fish, lower fecundity, and skewed sex ratios for the red hind off of Puerto Rico compared to the St. Thomas red hind MCD. This is still in preparation. Changes in the phenology, and the phenology is basically the timing of these reproductive acts, has also been observed in Bermuda, although, over there, it’s earlier than expected, suggesting the changes in temperature regimes may be producing shifts in the timing and duration of these aggregations.

Previous requests to the council to review the red hind closed season and requests for emergency rules to extend the date of the end of the closed season in the MPAs and the EEZ off of western Puerto Rico on years when there was a prediction of an extended FSA were based on the precautionary principle, recognizing the vulnerability of red hind spawning stocks to directed fishing after March 1, and a similar trend has also been documented for Nassau grouper at Bajo de Sico, due to aggregations extending into April of some years.

A technical manuscript that supports these observations for red hind will provide an opportunity to peer review the latest sciencebased information that could be incorporated into the Puerto Rico island-based FMPs. Projects that supported the monitoring of multi-species FSAs in the sites in the U.S. Caribbean for red hind have ended, although we are happy to announce that we were granted Section 6 funding for Nassau grouper, in collaboration with the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, expected to start in 2022.

Now, the red hind monitoring of the fish spawning aggregations will require some other sources of funding, if it is of the interest of the council to continue standardized long-term 199

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

monitoring in the EEZ that could help better predict how groupers are responding to shifts in temperature regimes and how management actions could be adapted to rebuild the red hind spawning stocks.

There’s a little map there for you to see, but that’s basically the end of my presentation.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Michelle. Council members, anybody on the meeting, any questions for Michelle? Go ahead, Andy.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Not really a question, but, I mean, certainly I appreciate the information and presentation, and it’s my understanding that this might have been briefly discussed at the December meeting, and my suggestion is that this information be brought forward and considered by the SSC for further consideration and that we get SSC recommendations then provided to the council.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I think it’s appropriate, your recommendation, and I want to hear from Richard Appeldoorn, who is looking for a turn to speak.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: I just want to reiterate a point that Michelle had brought up in her previous presentation to the council. While there were three instances in the last ten years where the aggregations were significantly into the month of March, in the coming ten years, including this year, by the way, there will be seven events where the aggregations are predicted to extend into March, and so this is more imperative that we act sooner, rather than later.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Any other comments or questions? I have -As the Chairman, I would like to see this being discussed on the SSC, and to have the technical advice from the SSC, to better inform the council members and to keep discussing this on the channels that we should discuss. Do the council members have any comments to what I just said? Go ahead, Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I agree with what you just said, Marcos. need to task the SSC to do this, I’m fine with that.

If we

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you.

Any other comments from the council members? Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: We just took note, and we will put it in the next agenda for the SSC, and so Graciela and I will talk to Richard as to when that will happen, and Dr. Scharer is mentioning, actually for quite some time now, that it’s something in need of action, in need of immediate action, but her letter also has a point about the need for continuing this project, and she already received 200

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

money for Section 6, but, anyway, Graciela and I will talk to Dr. Richard Appeldoorn, and then to Michelle, and we will report back to you at the August or the December meeting, hopefully in August.

If we have time, we can have a virtual meeting of the SSC to address this issue, among others, during the summertime.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel.

Other Business? Miguel.

Do we have any other persons in

MIGUEL ROLON: We don’t have anybody for other business, but maybe public comment.

MARCOS HANKE: We are at the public comment period.

Is there anybody from the public that would like to participate?

MIGUEL ROLON: One question I received from two fishers was regarding the monies from Irma and Maria and the CARES Act and the others, and they thought that we could do something about it, and I just informed the two fishers that the council does not deal, in any way or form, with those funding, but maybe, at this time, the local government representatives can give us some light as to where the money is, or the status of that.

We received some information from the Virgin Islands that the first round of money was also distributed from Irma and Maria, and I don’t know the status of the others. I have a question also for the Department of Agriculture, and they were talking about the extra funding that was supposed to be allocated among tribes and aquaculture and headboats and commercial fisheries, given that Puerto Rico has headboats and commercial fishers, and it’s a question, and so we have here Damaris for a turn, followed by Julian for a turn to speak. Mr. Chairman.

MARCOS HANKE:

I have Damaris.

Go ahead.

DAMARIS DELGADO: With respect to the fisheries disaster proposal and the direct aid for the fishers, most of the money that was allocated for that has been distributed in checks to the fishers that qualified, and so we are missing only around seven fishers, and maybe one or two additional persons that we are double-checking their information, but we are missing very few, and most checks were already issued by the Department of the Treasury, and they were handed in-person to the fishers in different activities, and so most of that was already accomplished.

There is a process of reconsideration that was presented to the people that didn’t qualify for the funds. We sent letters to the fishers that did not qualify, explaining the reason why they didn’t 201

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

qualify, and those reasons were they weren’t official fishers, without a license by the time of the hurricanes in 2017, or they didn’t comply with the statistics, the fishery statistics, or they did not submit the application on time, and we extended that period of time like two times, and the final deadline was August 14, at the time that we were receiving the applications of the fishers, and so that’s pretty much the information on the fishery disaster direct aid.

We are working, hand-in-hand, with the Department of Agriculture with regard to the improvements that are going to be directed to the infrastructure of the fishers, and this means the fishing villages, the piers and ramps, that are being evaluated, and we have been going into the field to evaluate the infrastructure with the Department of Agriculture again this year, since there was a change in administration of the Department of Agriculture, and a new round of visits to the fishing villages was started, and we will probably finish those visits by June.

However, we have been compiling a lot of information regarding the needs. In the past, we consulted fishers regarding the most needed areas for the improvements, and it’s important to know that we have to make sure that we do not do any double-dipping with regard to the claims to FEMA, and so that is why we have been in close coordination and communication with the State Department of Agriculture, to make sure that we maximize the use of the funds, either by the FEMA claims or by the use of the fishery disaster funds that were provided to DNER. With regard to new funds of the CARES Act, I was informed by the Director of the Fishing Division Program with the Department of Agriculture, that NOAA has awarded, or is in the process of awarding, new funds to help out the fishers, or the fishing communities sector, and he mentioned to me that new money would be around $2 million. They are placing, already, the process to take the new applications or information from the fishers, and he already asked me to provide new information on the fishers, the fisher status, in order for them to provide this new money that is being available for the fishers, and so I don’t know if anybody has a specific question regarding the funding.

MIGUEL ROLON: Damaris, one question is the monies that were distributed, that you just mentioned, that is the $400,000 plus $1.27 million, or only the $400,000?

DAMARIS DELGADO: As I understood your question, the direct aid that I was talking about was the $400,000, and that money is pretty much -- It was distributed to the qualified fishers, and, as I 202

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

said, there are some pending people, a few of them, and this is new money that NOAA has identified to help fishers, and this is going to be economic help. This will be in the form of checks, I believe, and it’s not going to be through equipment or anything like that, and it’s going to be a support in money for the fishers.

I don’t know if I answered your question.

MIGUEL ROLON: No, and that’s okay, and just that it was reported to the council, after the hurricanes, that the DPNR was requesting $1.7 million extra, and the previous Secretary went to Washington and talked to Chris Oliver, but, anyway, I believe that you answered the question that I have from two fishers here very well.

DAMARIS DELGADO: The thing is that, since this money is only for fishers, this help is being analyzed through the Department of Agriculture, and new money, any additional help, just for fishers, everything is being channeled through the Department of Agriculture.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Thank you very much, Damaris.

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Yes.

You’re welcome.

MARCOS HANKE: Damaris, I have a question about the charter business, and I have many partners that are requesting information and the status of the monies that includes the charters, and what is the status of that?

DAMARIS DELGADO: I know we analyzed the charters, the charter applications, by the time that we were requesting the applications, and I believe some of them got some help, but some of them not, and we didn’t receive many applications from charters, but we had a classification for charters for the distribution of the money, and we considered the charters as a sector that qualified, that was qualifying, for the money.

MARCOS HANKE: The question that I need to tell the people from the industry is what was the elements to consider the charter granted for this money? What did they need to have? They had to have a license from the DNER, or what are the requisites?

DAMARIS DELGADO: The permit that they receive from DNER. Since charters are not fishers, commercial fishers, they don’t have the same category as the rest of the commercial fishers, and they don’t get the license as a fisher, but they have a permit, and so, in that sense, they needed to provide that, but I can touch base with the Secretary of Education, because this unit -- The Secretary of Education was the one that processed all the applications and 203

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

reviewed if they qualified or not, and I information on the charters and let you know.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. group? Go ahead, Vanessa.

could

check

more

Any other questions from the

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Damaris, I just want to know if there’s going to be any other evaluation for those that submitted the application, but at least many here in Puerto Real have not received any communication, and most of them made the application and submitted by email. Is there any way that they can communicate to someone to check it out, and is there going to be any process to check twice those applications?

DAMARIS DELGADO: Yes, and I recommend -- We talked about it, and I appreciate you letting me know about this situation, and I didn’t have an idea until recently, but my suggestion would be that you write a letter -- Not a letter, but an email to the email to -That email is constantly being checked. The emails that we receive through that address, email address, are constantly being forwarded to the right persons, and you can copy me as well, and let me know which are the fishers that have not received any communication, written or oral, about the aid, and we’ll check.

We’ll check what is happening.

I know that we had several problems with the addresses of fishers, letters that we sent out returned back to us, and, with some fishers, they returned twice, and so there were some problems with the addresses of the fishers, and I would like to make sure that that didn’t happen to these fishers, but I believe we might be still in the process of resubmitting some of these letters and letting them know about the qualification for the aid, but I hope that’s not the case of the fishers in Puerto Real.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Damaris. One more question to Damaris, and we have other people in the queue for public comment, and we have Lourdes. Go ahead.

PUBLIC COMMENT LOURDES LASTRA DIAZ: Thank you for the time. I am here on behalf of Todd Gedamke, and I know he gave a presentation yesterday, and, just as a reminder, we prepared a questionnaire for any fisherman that works with traps in Puerto Rico. If you can fill it out and give us your opinions on our design and the way we are working with the traps, so we can make the best model to represent the whole island.

204

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 put a little bit of a questionnaire, and he will send it to the mailing list tomorrow morning, and anyone who has any commentary on it, please -- You can contact him or contact me with any questions or any advice on how to do the best trap design for Puerto Rico.

MARCOS HANKE:

What is your email, Lourdes?

LOURDES LASTRA DIAZ: loulastra@gmail.com. I will write it on the chat, so you can all have it, and you are more than welcome to contact me with any questions.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, you have Nicole Angeli waiting for an update, following Damaris, and then Julian also to talk.

MARCOS HANKE: participation.

Okay.

Thank you, Lourdes.

Go ahead, Nicole Angeli.

Thank you for your

NICOLE ANGELI: Thank you. The hurricane disaster relief funds, as of last week, $3.1 million have been distributed to 300 individuals, and so about ninety individuals are waiting on additional money, and that’s due to their paperwork being processed, although about a quarter of that should have been released this week from finance.

Our CARES Act program, the first installment of the CARES Act program required a spend plan from NOAA, and that was just submitted this month, after review by our territorial fisheries advisory committees, and so we’re hoping to have that approval soon, so that we can start the administration of the program, and the second installment of that CARES Act money also recently opened up on grants.gov, and so we’re preparing the application and the supporting documentation for that procurement process, and so, if there are any specific questions, especially for fishers in the USVI, on Thursdays and Fridays, our hurricane disaster assistance person, is available at the Charles Turnbull Library, and there is someone available in the Mars Hill Office on St. Croix. You can also email us for any specific information about your specific application, and so thank you so much, everyone, for working with us and for the continued oversight.

MARCOS HANKE: queue?

Thank you very much.

MIGUEL ROLON:

You have Julian.

MARCOS HANKE:

Julian.

205

Is there anybody else 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

JULIAN MAGRAS: Good afternoon, everyone. I just wanted to chime in a little bit on the Irma and Maria disaster relief money. We still have several fishers, some of them still awaiting the base pay, and we have helpers still awaiting the base pay, but it’s been a work in progress, and I must say that, and I’m representing as the Chairman of the St. Thomas Fishermen’s Association, and I have been working very closely with fishers, and I’ve been working very closely with Mr. Isaac and Ms. Anderson, and, also, the finance department calls me on a weekly basis, to give me an update on checks that are being cut. I find the process to be a little slow, but we are moving forward, and, also, tied to that, -- (Part of Mr. Magras’s comment is not audible on the recording.

MARCOS HANKE:

We cannot hear you very well, Julian.

JULIAN MAGRAS: Which is all part of the -- I guess we have a bad connection again.

MIGUEL ROLON:

What was the last part, Julian?

JULIAN MAGRAS: The last part was we’re still awaiting our safety equipment, and we’re still awaiting progress on our artificial reefs, but we are moving forward, and I will continue to work very closely with my fishers and with the representatives for the grant process. That’s my update. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Julian.

Miguel, do you have anybody else that requests through the chat?

MIGUEL ROLON:

No, Mr. Chairman.

There is nobody else.

MARCOS HANKE: Okay.

The next part of the agenda then, after public comment, is the next date for the council meeting. Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: Well, the question is do we have anybody else for public comment, aside from Lourdes? I guess not. Yes, the next council meeting will be August 11 and 12, but, before that, remember we mentioned to have a special meeting on July 21, where we are going to hear from Dr. Michelle Duval as to the final touches for the five-year implementation plan.

For the next meeting, taking into consideration the suggestion by council members and fishers and so forth, we will do our best to spread the items in the agenda and provide more time for discussion, and so the next meeting in August, the 11th and 12th, may have either a less number of items in the agenda, or we can add an extra day, just to make sure that everybody will have a chance to discuss the items in the agenda.

206

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

We will have a council meeting on July 21, and another one the 11th and 12th of August, and, if nothing in between, our last one for 2021 will be in December of this year, and hopefully that meeting will be in person, but we have to follow the news and everything for the guidelines on COVID, and so we have the 7th and 8th in December, and the meeting will be in San Juan, hopefully in person.

August 11th and 12th for the summer meeting, and then, as I mentioned, we will have a special meeting on July 21.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. Thank you very much. I took note of all the dates, and I hope everybody did so. Thank you very much today to everybody that participated, the first day and the second day of the meeting, and thank you for your support today with my really bad internet connection, and that’s why I didn’t have my video on, because I couldn’t hear anybody otherwise, and I will see you soon, and keep in contact with the council, and we are ready to adjourn, and the last words to Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: No last words, but I want to take this opportunity to thank Christina and Liajay. They have been heroes behind the whole thing, because, without them working together, we would not have been able to get through this meeting. We had a lot of audio problems with the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico and everything, but they were able to cope with the whole thing, and so, for that, we want to acknowledge them, and we are very grateful for their work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. I really share what you just said, and we are ready to adjourn the meeting.

Thank you very much to everybody, and I will see you next time.

(Whereupon, the meeting adjourned on April 28, 2021.)

- - -

207

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .............................................. 1 Table of Motions ............................................... 2 Call to Order and Roll Call .................................... 3 Adoption of Agenda ............................................. 3 Consideration of 173rd Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions . 5 Executive Director’s Report .................................... 5 Five-Year Strategic Plan Presentation .......................... 8 Update on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan Stakeholder Engagement Workshops ..................................................... 35 SSC Report .................................................... 41 Closed Seasons for Certain Species ............................ 54 Draft Tech Memo on Managing with ACLs for Data-Limited Stocks . 78 Enforcement Issues with Nassau Grouper and Other Fish Species in St. Thomas/St. John, USVI ..................................... 88 DAP Chairs Report on Buoy Gear Federal Regulations ............ 94 Other Business ............................................... 102 Capt. Silva’s Letter on Deepwater Snapper Grouper Fishery 102 EBFM Update .............................................. 110 Spiny Lobster Discussion ................................. 118 Discussion of Forage Species ............................. 120 Public Comment Period ........................................ 122 Next Council Meeting ......................................... 123 Adjournment .................................................. 125 - - -

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

TABLE OF MOTIONS PAGE 31: Motion that the CFMC accepts and endorses the five-year strategic draft plan as modified and presented by Dr. Michelle Duval and to follow the process to present this to the general public for any comment or suggestions. The final draft document will be presented to the CFMC at the December 2021 meeting for final action. The motion carried on page 34.

PAGE 72: Motion that the CFMC direct staff to prepare an options paper to modify the seasonal closures for fishing for or possession of red hind in federal waters west of 67 degrees, 10 minutes West longitude and for the Tourmaline and Abrir la Sierra Bank red hind spawning aggregation areas. The motion carried on page 78.

- - -

2

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 174TH REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Webinar July 21, 2021 The Caribbean Fishery Management Council convened via webinar on Wednesday morning, July 21, 2021, and was called to order at 9:00 o’clock a.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL MARCOS HANKE: Good morning, everyone. It’s 9:00 a.m. on July 21.

My name is Marcos Hanke, and I’m the CFMC Chairman. We are going to start the meeting, and we’re going to start with the call to order. Miguel, is there anybody on the staff that will name who is -MIGUEL ROLON:

Christina will give the record of people present.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Christina.

CHRISTINA OLAN: I am opening the list of participants. Miguel Rolon, Graciela Garcia-Moliner, Liajay Rivera, Marcos Hanke, Christina Olan, Alida Ortiz, Andy Strelcheck, Angie de los Irizarry, Carlos Farchette, Clay Porch, Diana Martino, Edward Schuster, Guillermo Cordero, Julian Magras, Helena Antoun, Jocelyn D’Ambrosio, Kevin McCarthy, Maria Lopez, Matt Wailea, Michelle Duval, Nelson Crespo, Nicole Angeli, Rich Appeldoorn, Sarah Stephenson, Sennai Habtes, Stacy Williams, Wilson Santiago, Yaritza Rodriguez, and Yasmin Velez.

MARCOS HANKE: CHRISTINA OLAN:

That is all, Christina, for now?

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Thank you. If I didn’t mention the date, I’m going to make sure, and it’s July 21, 2021. It’s 9:03 a.m.

The next item on the agenda is the roll call that we just did, and now Adoption of the Agenda. Is there any comment on the agenda adoption? Go ahead, Miguel.

ADOPTION OF AGENDA MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, Graciela has a couple of items that she would like to add to Other Business.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Graciela.

3

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: Good morning.

To add to the agenda, under Other Business probably, but that’s at the pleasure of the council, but the follow-up on the ecosystem-based fishery management plans, the fishery ecosystem plan, and so we have Sennai Habtes to have a short presentation for a follow-up on what you had decided at the last meeting.

We have -- I don’t know if we’re going to discuss anything else on the ACLs, and so I’m waiting to see if that would be added to the agenda under Other Business, and those are the two things that I have for my list.

MARCOS HANKE: For Other Business, and any comment from the council members? Hearing none, let’s go to Adoption of the Agenda.

NELSON CRESPO: Mr. Chair, if you give me the opportunity, I want to bring to the attention, in Other Business, about the reduction of forage species in the western coast of Puerto Rico and the impact that that is causing to the coastal fishermen.

MARCOS HANKE:

Okay, and your name is Nelson?

NELSON CRESPO:

Nelson Crespo.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON: Nelson, for the record, could you state what is the other business?

NELSON CRESPO: I want to bring to your attention, briefly, in Other Business, about the health and decline of forage species and the negative impact that this situation is causing to the local fishing in the west of Puerto Rico.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Thank you.

NELSON CRESPO:

Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE:

We took note of that.

Anybody else?

ANDY STRELCHECK: Good morning. I want to add, to Other Business, a brief discussion of the spiny lobster accountability measure.

MARCOS HANKE: We have included that. Thank you, Andy. Anybody else from the council have any comment or anything else to add to Other Business? Thank you very much. We have the follow-up on the EBFM, the ACL pending, if it’s not discussed during the agenda 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

items, if there’s a little space for that, and then forage species

by Nelson Crespo, and spiny lobster requested by Andy Strelcheck.

MIGUEL ROLON:

We need a motion to adopt the agenda.

MARCOS HANKE:

Motion to adopt the agenda, can anybody help there?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

Motion to adopt the agenda as read.

Is there a second?

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Second.

CONSIDERATION OF 173RD COUNCIL MEETING VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Vanessa. Is there any opposition or any comment? Hearing none, the agenda is adopted. Now Consideration of the 173rd Council Meeting Verbatim Transcription. Any comment?

We need a motion to accept that.

NICOLE ANGELI:

Motion to accept it as written.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Nicole.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Is there a second?

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos.

Second by Carlos Farchette.

Any comment or anybody in opposition? Hearing none, the motion carries. Now the Executive Director’s Report. Miguel.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, regarding the budget matters, we are okay until the end of the year. As we speak, there are a couple of meetings going on regarding the budget for the first quarter of the Department of Commerce, and they are going to start on October 1 and December 1, and, also, they are discussing the budget situation for 2022. There is no effect, at this time, on council operations, and so we are okay.

The council continues also working with the WECAFC working groups, in coordination with the Office of Seafood Inspection and International Fishery Affairs of NOAA Fisheries and the Office of Protected Resources of NOAA Fisheries Regional Office, Southeast Regional Office.

We are now in the pre-planning stages of the international working groups that are going to have the two meetings this year, and, 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

also, the meeting in March of the following year.

The council contribution is complemented by the funding this year from NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources and International Fisheries.

That will be used to cover meetings and the coordination of the queen conch spawning aggregation working group and the flyingfish working group, and we will also have a coordinator for a campaign, which is an international campaign, an outreach and education campaign to prepare and distribute documents and materials and radio bits, so that people can be aware, and we want to create more awareness of the fish aggregations throughout the Caribbean, especially Nassau grouper. As you know, it’s protected under the ESA, and the mutton snapper. As we said before, a plan has been prepared already, and it is being implemented by the other countries.

We believe that this is a success story by the U.S. working with the other countries and the WECAFC, which is, as you know, the FAO branch in the western Caribbean, to manage the fisheries, and it’s on a voluntary basis so far, but to manage the fisheries at the national, sub-regional, and regional levels within the Caribbean Sea. The other thing that we wanted to touch on is that the council has been talking about area-based management, and that includes -- As you know, area-based management is something that we are discussing now and that we have the Executive Order 14008 by President Biden that calls for 30 percent closure of -- Not closure, but 30 percent conservation areas to be established between here and the year 2030, and the councils created a sub-committee, and the subcommittee is meeting actually tomorrow, and we will present a report by the CCC meeting in October.

The idea is to look at all the area-based management, and areabased management includes national parks, and that includes closed areas, et cetera, and we would like to, number one, define the concepts, including conservation, for example. Conservation, for some people, means you close this area, and you don’t touch it, and you don’t look at it.

The conservation and management act, as you know, is sustainability of the fishery using management tools, and that includes areabased management, and that includes marine reserves, as the ones in the Caribbean, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that you exclude all fishers, commercial or recreational, for an area that you closed. We have to be mindful of the mandates of the Magnuson Act for this type of actions, and so that’s what the sub-committee is 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

looking at at this time.

In addition, we are going to have -- Locally, in the U.S. Caribbean, we are going to have, on February 9, 2022, a workshop on research, and that workshop will invite Dr. Diana -- As you know, she gave us a presentation of the work that she did for us, and other scientists and what the council has so far, in terms of marine reserves, and we, also, Dr. Alida Ortiz is going to present the component of outreach and education and what we have for marine reserves and what we propose to have for marine reserves, or areabased management. The educational component is very important.

At this meeting, we will invite all council members and the DAP chairs, and it will be virtual, or it will be hybrid, in-person or virtual, so that people that are interested to participate -- It will be a one-day meeting, and we hope that everybody will be able to participate and work on the discussion that we are going to have.

The morning of the meeting, we will get a presentation, and we also will have the point of view of fishers, and I would like to get, for example, the three chairs of the DAPs to provide to us a fisherman perspective, and that should be included in what we have for marine reserves, and, for example, we have marine reserves off of Puerto Rico, and we have marine reserves off of St. Thomas and St. Croix, and, in the case of St. Thomas and St. Croix, the fishers, especially Julian Magras and others, and Tony Blanchard, met with Alida and I and others, and we are beefing up the outreach and education materials that we have for that area, and it was an initiative from fishers. At this meeting, on February 9, we would like to hear the perspective of the local fishers on what a marine reserve is.

Internationally, there are some people who would like to have oceanic marine reserves. For people that don’t know what that is, there are a couple of videos on the internet about it, and, basically, what you’re doing is to create marine reserves that will ensure the spawning, feeding, et cetera, of oceanic species, such as tuna and billfish and everything, and the like.

This is being done in, proposed in, the Pacific and other areas, but not in the Caribbean so far, and there are some interested people, countries, looking at this possibility.

The COVID-19 control plan is still on in Puerto Rico, and so we have to follow the Governor’s indications for this plan, and that means that we have to be mindful for the December meeting, and the December meeting will be, again, a hybrid meeting. We will be in7

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

person and virtual.

Those people that come into Puerto Rico, you have to be abreast of the regulations at that time.

For example, if you are not vaccinated, or you don’t have a COVID-free certificate for no longer than seventy-two hours, you cannot enter Puerto Rico unless you are vaccinated. If you don’t have any of those two, you have to quarantine yourself for fourteen days at your own expense. We will have more information for you by November, but this is the situation as if now.

Therefore, the meeting in August will be also virtual.

The council staff also will be teleworking, and we established guidance for telework following the telework.gov of the federal government, and everybody will be required to have at least one day at the meeting present. If there’s not a meeting, the office will be open five days a week, as it is right now, but the staff will have the flexibility of prior authorization by the Executive Director to keep working remotely.

We have found that the staff is doing what they are supposed to do by working remotely, and it’s a success story, but we need to keep the office open at all times, and so that’s why it is telework, and that will be included in our handbook from now on.

The next meeting will be in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

The next council meeting will be December 7 and 8, and it will be at the Marriott Courtyard Hotel in Isla Verde, and you are all familiar with it, and we will get lunch, so you don’t have to venture out if you don’t want to, off the premises. That’s all I have so far, Mr. Chairman, unless you have any questions at this time.

MARCOS HANKE: Anybody from the council that would like to ask questions?

Does anybody from the council have a question or a comment to the Executive Director’s report? Hearing none, we will move along for the next presentation, which is the five-year strategic plan, and that’s going to be presented by Dr. Michelle Duval.

FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN PRESENTATION MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and council members. I am happy to be able to present to you today on the complete draft of the 2022 to 2024 strategic plan. Both a copy of this presentation as well as the complete document are posted on the council’s website, and I believe Diana emailed those to everybody as well.

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

I just want to start with, as usual, an overview of what I plan to cover today, and so I thought it might be useful, at this point, to just review the rationale for the strategic plan, and then we’ll do a quick review of the previous district advisory panel and council actions over the past couple of months, and then we’ll walk quickly through the vision, mission, and core values before getting into the goals and objectives, and then we’ll wrap up with questions and hopefully council approval for public input.

At this point in the process, I think it’s always good to review the rationale. In other words, why did we go down the path of developing a strategic plan, and so, really -- And what are the things that a strategic plan allows the council to do, and so, primarily, and I think most importantly, it allows the council to establish priorities and future direction, and so, as I’ve mentioned in the past, the council has spent a lot of time reorganizing the management framework, through the development of the island-based fishery management plans, and is also working on the development of the fishery ecosystem plan, which will kind of serve as a roadmap, or a guide, for how to incorporate social, economic, cultural, and ecological goals within this new management framework.

The strategic plan allows for the establishment of future priorities and direction for these efforts.

Another thing that a strategic plan does is it can allow the council to allocate resources, the limited resources that it has, in a way that will be most effective for achieving its goals, and it can also allow the council to plan for and respond to changing conditions, whether that’s changing conditions in a fishery or it’s changing conditions in the world around us, which seems to be happening a lot these days.

It also provides for transparency and accountability in decisionmaking, and so, as stakeholders are trying to understand why the council made Choice A versus Choice B, a strategic plan can help with that. It also allows for more effective communication and collaboration with both management partners and stakeholders, because people can see what the council’s priorities are. Then, finally, it allows the council to track progress of these priorities over time.

Just a quick review of previous actions, back at the end of March, the district advisory panels reviewed and approved the draft island-specific objectives and provided some initial feedback on potential strategies or approaches to meet those objectives, and then, at the end of April, at your last meeting, you all reviewed and selected draft vision, mission, and goal statements 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

approved and the island-specific objectives that were reviewed by the DAPs. Then the DAPs met again in June to take another look at the draft strategies, as well as make a few additional tweaks and edits to the island-specific objectives, and so our goal for today is for you all to review and approve a complete draft of the strategic plan for public input.

Just a quick reminder of how the plan is set up, and so we have a unified vision and mission, and there are four different goal themes, and three of those goal themes are organized according to island-specific objectives and associated strategies, and so these are the draft vision and mission statements that you all selected at your meeting at the end of April, and recall the vision statement is really the aspirational future state, and so this is what we would like U.S. Caribbean fisheries to look like in the future.

That is thriving and resilient island ecosystems, fisheries, and fishing communities that provide cultural, social, and economic benefits for all.

Then the mission is really the council’s reason for being, and its mandate under the Magnuson Act, and so that is the Caribbean Fishery Management Council conserves, restores, and manages fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The council is committed to advancing the collaborative stewardship of these fisheries and supporting island ecosystems through education, outreach, and stakeholder input.

If the vision is the aspirational future state, what we would like things to look like, and the mission reflects why the organization exists, then the core values really reflect what an organization stands for, and so these core values were based on all of the discussions and input from the district advisory panels and the council, as well as management partners and the public, throughout this entire process, and so they are stewardship of marine resources, collaboration with management partners and stakeholders, integrity, and so maintaining the highest professional standards of conduct in fisheries management, transparency in decision-making and ensuring clear communication, fairness in the treatment of all stakeholders, as well as in the making of decisions, and respect for the diversity and unique characteristics of island fishing communities and the needs of stakeholders.

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

We also have four goal themes within the strategic plan, and these represent the major areas of focus needed to achieve the council’s vision, and so the management theme is about how the council manages fishery resources to meet goals for island fisheries, as well as meeting requirements for sustainability.

The ecosystem and resource health theme is focused on how the council will implement the fishery ecosystem plan, as well as address habitat conservation and ecosystem impacts. The social, cultural, and economic issues theme is focused on how the council considers fishing community and stakeholder needs as well as incorporates social and economic information into its decisions, and then the communication and outreach theme is really focused on how the council communicates with fishers and other stakeholders, as well as how it engages and educates and obtains feedback from the public and stakeholders.

This led to the following draft goal statements that you all selected at your meeting in April. There’s management, which is advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

Ecosystem and resource health is promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources. Social, cultural, and economic issues ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

Communication and outreach is engage, education, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the council process.

Now we’re going to walk through the draft objectives, goal-areaby-goal-area, and, before we do that, I just want to mention a few things that I have mentioned in the past, which is that there is a lot of overlap in the island-specific objectives, and this has to do with the priority issues that were selected by the district advisory panels as well as objectives that are contained within each of the island-based fishery management plans, as well as input from the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel.

Because everyone has received a copy of the complete draft of the strategic plan, and that’s posted up on the website, I’m not going to walk through each of those strategies and draft objectives in detail, but I’m going to focus on some of the similarities and differences and just kind of highlight an example of the types of strategies that are included within each of the different island11

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

specific objectives.

We will go ahead and start with Objectives 1 through 4, which are the Puerto Rico draft management objectives.

Objective 1 is support the development of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

This includes strategies such as improving fishery-independent and fishery-dependent data, both on the commercial and recreational side.

Objective 2 is promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs, and so this includes strategies such as development and prioritization of a Puerto-Rico-specific list of research needs and collaborating with fishers and science partners in doing so.

Objective 3 is ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement, and so this includes the review of the enforceability of management measures and the consistency of those management measures, among other things, and then Objective 4 is collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management that considers diverse community interests.

This includes strategies such as development of clear management objectives, as well as things like consistency with local ecosystem productivity.

Moving on to St. Thomas/St. John, Objectives 5 through 9 are the draft management objectives for St. Thomas/St. John, and you will note that the first four of these are really pretty much exactly the same as the Puerto Rico management objectives, and so, again, the specificity really comes into play with the strategies within each of these objectives.

I will note that Objective 5 also includes the word “implementation”.

It’s to support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection programs.

For St. Thomas/St. John, this includes strategies such as improving the data collection needed to evaluate the impacts of species and area closures.

Objective 6 includes strategies such as involving fishers in the assessments of the effectiveness of species -- Of closed areas and assessment of species that are impacted by those closed areas, as well as things like development of educational materials to promote fisher understanding of science needs.

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

Objective 7 includes strategies such as cross-training of enforcement personnel and joint enforcement efforts. Objective 8 includes strategies such as developing consistent regulations, where appropriate, and aligning management with local ecosystem capacity. Then Objective 9 is consider the potential impacts of climate change on the efficacy of management measures.

This includes strategies such as evaluating existing fisheryindependent information to try to ascertain trends in that data that might be impacted by climate change, as well as soliciting fisher input on species and habitat distributions. Moving on to St. Croix, and this is Objectives -ANDY STRELCHECK: Michelle, sorry to interrupt, but I am curious, with Objective 9 -- That is specific to only St. Thomas/St. John?

MICHELLE DUVAL: Yes, and so, you know, Andy, that was, again, because of the prioritization of issues, and so this rose up as a major issue that was selected by the DAP. Now, with respect to prioritization, I will say that, if you look through the complete draft of the strategic plan, you will note that the other islandspecific objectives for both Puerto Rico, as well as for St. Croix, include strategies to look at the impacts of climate change in a variety of different areas.

ANDY STRELCHECK: I noticed that, and that’s why I wanted to make a note here, as you were going through the presentation, because it did seem a little bit unusual to just have a climate change objective for one island platform and not encompassing all of the island platforms.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Yes, and, again, that was due to the -- We went through a pretty extensive review and discussion of a suite of different issues under each of these different goal themes, and climate change was noted as one of the top-five priority issues for St. Thomas/St. John under that management theme.

Anything else?

ANDY STRELCHECK:

Thank you.

MICHELLE DUVAL: No problem. Just, again, going back to St. Croix, and so Objectives 10 through 13 are the draft management objectives for St. Croix, and, again, these are very similar to the ones for Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John, with the exception of a specific objective devoted to climate change, as Andy noted.

Objective 10 includes strategies such as modifications to licensing requirements to improve catch reporting. Objective 11 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

includes strategies such as support for joint gear selectivity studies and providing opportunities for fishers to contribute to filling data gaps.

Objective 12 includes strategies such as development of compliance guides for commercial and recreational fishermen, and Objective 13 includes strategies such as support for measures that reduce bycatch and ensuring that management measures consider the impacts of climate change and invasive species.

I will move on to the draft ecosystem and resource health goal, and, again, starting with the draft island-specific objectives for Puerto Rico.

Objective 14 is implement the fishery ecosystem plan as a roadmap for future council actions to maintain ecological relationships, roles, and services of Puerto Rico’s island ecosystem, and so this includes strategies to -- Objective 14 includes strategies such as evaluating the contributions of existing closed areas to ecosystem integrity and collaborating with fishers and science partners to improve ecosystem information.

Objective 15 is identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of Puerto Rico, and so this includes development of council habitat policies regarding things such as erosion and sedimentation and other forms of pollution.

Objective 16 is collaborate with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters on ecosystem structure and function, and I will note that this was a high-priority issue for Puerto Rico, and this was one of those things, similar to climate change for St. Thomas/St. John, that really rose to the top when the Puerto Rico DAP was having their discussion back in August of last year, and so this includes strategies such as evaluating the ability of management approaches to be responsive to ecosystem impacts from natural disasters and to incorporate those impacts into ecosystem status reports.

Objective 17 is collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships, and so this includes strategies such as outreach to the fishing community, as well as local agencies, on the impacts of both fishing and non-fishing-related activities.

Moving on to St. Thomas/St. John, Objectives 18 through 22 are the St. Thomas/St. John draft ecosystem and resource health objectives, and, again, there are several similarities and overlaps here with the objectives we just reviewed for Puerto Rico, 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

including Objective 18, Objective 19, and Objective 21.

Objectives 20 and 22 are a little bit different, but just to highlight a few of the strategies that are reflected here, and so, with respect to Objective 18, one of the strategies here is to consider ecosystem approaches that are responsive to climate change, and so, again, addressing climate change in a slightly different way, or in a different area.

Objective 19 includes strategies such as developing outreach materials related to habitat loss and accounting for ecological roles in essential fish habitat designations.

Objective 20 includes strategies such as identification of habitat enhancement opportunities, as well as funding from other federal agencies that might support habitat creation.

Objective 21 includes, again, outreach with enforcement personnel, similar to Puerto Rico, and outreach to permitting agencies, with respect to the impact of illegal fishing activities on ecosystem structure and function, and then Objective 22 is collaborate with science partners to identify and address ecological data and information gaps, and so this includes collaboration with partners to prioritize ecological data needs, as well as exploring datasets, to try to fill in some of those gaps.

Moving on to St. Croix, Objectives 23 through 27, and so, again, you will note that there are -- Several of these objectives are similar to those reflected in both St. Thomas/St. John as well as Puerto Rico, and that includes Objectives 23, 24, 25, and 26, and so there is that Objective 25 that is creation or rehabilitation of fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function.

Objective 27 is collaborate with management partners to ensure that ecosystem approaches are responsive to climate change, environmental changes, and natural disasters, and so, again, climate change being incorporated in a slightly different way by one district advisory panel compared to others.

Just a highlight under Objective 23, and this includes strategies such as, again, identifying and prioritizing ecological data needs, and Objective 24 also includes things like development of council habitat policies, as well as protection of juvenile habitats and supporting modified coastal zone regulations.

Objective 25 includes additional strategies, such as investigating the use of fish aggregating devices, where appropriate. Objective 26 also includes similar types of outreach to law enforcement, 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

fishing communities, as well as other agencies on the impacts of non-fishing, fishing, as well as development on ecosystem structure.

Then Objective 27 includes strategies such as collaborating with the broader Caribbean community to identify climate change -Impacts from climate change, as well as natural disasters.

Moving on to the draft social, cultural, and economic issues goal, it’s, again, just starting with Puerto Rico, and so there are four objectives here.

Objective 28 is to promote the collection of social and economic data that informs management decisions, and so this includes strategies such as engaging with multiple partners to identify and prioritize those social and economic data gaps.

Objective 29 is evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions and actions across user groups, and so, for example, documenting the social and economic impacts of the existing closed seasons and areas on all stakeholders and ensuring that management measures address cultural differences.

Objective 30 is promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities, and so this includes strategies such as support for a recruitment and training program for new and young fishers. Objective 31 is consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in Puerto Rico on economic opportunity and social wellbeing, and so this includes strategies such as documenting the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed fish sales.

Moving to St. Thomas/St. John, the four objectives, 32 through 35, here are exactly the same as those for Puerto Rico, and so I’m just going to highlight a couple of the strategies that are included here. Under Objective 32, this also includes strategies such as incorporating social and economic data needs into funding opportunities.

Objective 33 includes ensuring that management measures address fishing community differences. Objective 34 includes strategies such as support for infrastructure improvements, particularly landing and selling sites. Objective 35 includes strategies such as working with partners to determine how addressing enforcement needs might improve economic conditions, as well as trust among user groups.

Similarly, for St. Croix, these four island-specific objectives are identical to those for St. Thomas and St. John, and I will note that the St. Croix District Advisory Panel added Objective 38 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

during their June meeting, and so just some examples of the strategies incorporated here under Objective 36, and they’re similar to some of the other strategies for Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John, but also ensuring that any social or economic studies include collaboration with the Department of Planning and Natural Resources.

Objective 37 includes strategies such as providing -- Ensuring that management approaches provide equitable access for both commercial and recreational fishers.

Objective 38 includes strategies such as development of outreach materials regarding social media use for marketing of locally-caught fish, and Objective 39 includes strategies such as educating hoteliers and restauranteurs on the importance of purchasing fish from licensed commercial fishers.

Now I will move on to the communication and outreach goals, and so this one does not have any island-specific objectives or strategies. Recall that, during development, these were issues that were considered to be important jurisdiction-wide, equally across all of the council’s island platforms.

There are three objectives here. Objective 40 is use a variety of communication tools that consider the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of target audiences, in coordination with the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel, and so there’s a lot of strategies in here that focus on tools, such as continued use of the council’s social media platforms, identifying those stakeholder groups that might still need -- That might prefer traditional communication tools, such as paper or radio.

Then accounting for language-specific preferences, development of sector-specific communications, and things like that.

Objective 41 is promote participation of a variety of stakeholders in the council process, and so this includes strategies such as increasing the frequency of council communications, particularly in advance of a meeting, to try to promote that participation, expanding some of the virtual opportunities, not only for participation, but also for education. Use things such as online comment forms to provide additional means for stakeholders to participate in the process.

Expanding participation by experienced and young fishers, through outreach programs, and so these are just a smattering of the strategies included under that objective.

Then the final objective is about the education component, and so it is improve public and stakeholder understanding and awareness of fisheries management, current issues, and the council process, 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

and so this includes expansion of the council’s non-traditional stakeholder outreach, continued support for the Marine Resource Education Program, development of island-specific outreach and education materials, you know continuing to try to improve the clarity and simplicity of presentations to improve public understanding, expanding the roles of the fisheries liaisons.

Then coordinating territorial and council outreach, as needed, to ensure that there is a consistent message being displayed to the public. Again, those are just a few examples of the strategies contained under that particular objective.

With respect to next steps, the plan is to post the draft plan on the council’s website and allow for the public to have some time to review that and provide any comments via an online comment form.

The council would review that public feedback and provide approval of the final strategic plan. Then after that is development of an implementation plan for 2022, and so this would be presented at the December council meeting this year, and the implementation plan is really what includes the actions that the council will be engaged in over the upcoming year in pursuit of the strategic plan.

Miguel can speak a little bit more to this, but a sub-committee of the council will be prioritizing the actions needed to implement the objectives of the strategic plan, and the intent right now is that that sub-committee would meet a couple of times a year, in both June and December, and that we review progress and then identify actions for the following year’s implementation plan.

That is all I have for the presentation, and I am happy to take any questions. I do, before we get into questions, really want to extend my sincere gratitude and thanks to all members of the district advisory panels. They really had the heavy lift on this, and this plan would not be possible without their support, and especially to the DAP chairs for their leadership and reaching out to their membership, to make sure that everybody always knew when the meetings were happening and to encourage their participation, and so, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to take any questions.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Michelle. Thank you for a great job and presentation. I think this document reflects the great and hard work that you guys all performed.

I just wanted to make a comment about Andy’s question. I think we have, on every island, elements that are related to climate change, and climate change, for many people, is a new concept, and the relationship with other things, and the fishing community is learning about it and feeling the effects.

It’s not something 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

that has been with us for a long, long time, at least in a perceptible way, right, and I think Nelson Crespo wanted to add some comments to it. Nelson.

NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it’s appropriate to bring to Puerto Rico the issues of climate change, too. That is some of the issues that I wanted to discuss with the forage species, and I think it’s very important, the impact of the climate change that we have during these times on the negative reduction of these species, and I think we have to put it in our list.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thanks for that, Nelson, and so you would like to go ahead and sort of like add a specific objective, similar to what St. Thomas/St. John has of considering the potential impacts of climate change on the efficacy of management measures?

NELSON CRESPO: Yes, exactly, the impact of the climate change and everything related to the ecosystem and habitats and everything.

MICHELLE DUVAL: MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

Great.

Thanks, Nelson.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Nelson.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Michelle, thanks for the great presentation and really great job by the DAPs and everyone that contributed to, obviously, the work you’ve been doing. It’s a very comprehensive plan, as you’ve kind of walked through it, and there’s lots of objectives and lots of strategies. I am curious to kind of hear a little bit more from the standpoint of kind of the next steps, the FY22 kind of action plan, that would be developed, because the success, in my view, with so many of these strategic plans really does come down to how they’re implemented and, essentially, how we prioritize the large number of strategies that are identified.

MICHELLE DUVAL: That’s a great question, Andy, and I appreciate you asking the question. Other councils that have strategic plans, and I am thinking specifically about the Mid-Atlantic Council, as you have indicated, the implementation plan is really where the rubber meets the road, because no council can do everything at once, and not all strategies can be implemented by a council at one time.

Again, this is a five-year strategic plan, and so having that annual process of development of an implementation plan I think is key, and so I’m certainly not going to be around for the next five years, every year, to help with the development of an implementation plan, but that’s part of my charge here, is to work with council staff and work with the sub-group that Miguel would 19

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

like to set up to develop this prioritized list, and I think, in doing so, it’s really critically important to have those activities for the upcoming year aligned according to the objectives that they are meant to address.

They don’t necessarily have to be, I think, lined up under a specific strategy, but I think it’s really important for stakeholders and the public to understand the activities and how the activities relate to these objectives, which are important for the council to achieve its vision.

I will just note that -- I will just give an example of the process that occurs in the Mid-Atlantic region, and so, beginning in October, staff works to review the activities from the previous year, it looks at how those have aligned with the strategic plan, and it develops based on the progress of those activities, and, obviously not every activity that a council undertakes is a oneyear-type of activity, but the staff then develops a draft list of activities and priorities for the upcoming year.

The council reviews that, and then it has a second -- There is an opportunity for the public to provide some input on that, between October and December, and then, at its December meeting, the final implementation plan for the following year is approved.

I will say that there’s always a list of items that are kind of - It’s a little bit of a wish list, and like, if it ends up that we have a little bit more time, or some more resources, here’s a list of four or five things that we might decide to tackle, and so apologies for the lengthy response, Andy, but it’s an important question, and I wanted to be thorough in my response.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, I want to say something about the next steps, but I would like to call to your attention that Vanessa, Richard Appeldoorn, and Clay Porch would like a turn to speak, in that order.

MARCOS HANKE: ahead.

Thank you.

I have, on the list here, Vanessa.

Go

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really want to recognize all the great work that they have been doing with this strategic plan, especially because the objectives are very direct and easy to read, and, of course, Michelle, as you know, we’re here to work with you, and we’ll be able to make the collaborations with the fishermen, so they can participate in the public presentation of this, and, also, as always, we will ask if we can have a copy in Spanish, so that it’s more easy for them and to help them to 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

discuss this.

Thanks.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Vanessa, and, yes, I am working on a Spanish version as we speak, but I didn’t want to finalize it until after the council had the opportunity to review, and so thank you very much for the question, and absolutely the plan is for a copy in Spanish.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Vanessa.

Richard Appeldoorn.

Next in the queue is

RICHARD APPELDOORN: Thank you, Marcos. Let me first start off reiterating what’s been said about the work by the DAPs. It’s a really tremendous job by them. My question has to do with a little bit of say organization. This is a strategic plan for the council, yet, almost immediately, it breaks down into strategic plans that seem to reflect the island-based FMPs, and, when I am reading, or listening to, the objectives, they really are the same things, slightly tweaked, for all islands, and they really should just be the objectives of the council.

Where it changes, and this is significant, is the strategies that need to be followed in different islands, because that’s when you get into the different cultural administrative governance structures that exist there, and so I was wondering whether it might be better to have all your objectives stated as objectives stated by the council and not island-based, but the strategies would then break down to be island-based.

This is, again, just an organizational question, and I am not, certainly questioning the work and wisdom of the others, and, as I said, that’s a really good job that everyone has done. Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON: If I may, one of the reasons that we have that is -- Because you are right, and the objectives are all the same, but we wanted to reflect the participation of the island fishers, the island communities, in the work that they did and the work that they are going to pursue, because you’re right about the objectives and strategies. If I may, Mr. Chairman, before -- I will wait, and then, when you finish the list, I can add a little bit more to what Richard just said, but this is an important point.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel.

I just noticed that Tony Blanchard asked for a turn to speak, but the next one on the queue is Clay Porch and then Tony Blanchard. Clay.

MIGUEL ROLON:

You also have Julian, Marcos.

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

CLAY PORCH: Great. Thank you, first of all, Michelle, for this presentation. I think it was very well done, and I agree with all the comments before.

I kind of wanted to follow-up on Andy’s comment, and I agree that, if we don’t have an implementation plan associated with this, what will inevitably happen is that this basically gets put up on a shelf somewhere, and people kind of forget about it.

I think, as part of the implementation plan, it’s really key to development measurable targets that you can actually track and then have at least an annual process, if not a quarterly process, where you are actually evaluating those metrics, and those can be leading measures, looking at things that are telling you -- Are pointing towards the end result that you want, and so you look at the progress you’re making on certain things, or it could be a lagging measure, measuring the percent success that you have had in implementing that particular implementation strategy.

I think it’s just really, really key to do that, and I wonder if Michelle, or anyone on the council, has any advice on how that would be accomplished.

Related to that, various of us would be working with the council to implement some of those strategies and achieve those objectives.

The Southeast Fisheries Science Center actually now had a working strategic plan with an implementation strategy and measurable targets and all that, and so it would behoove us to work with the council to modify our own strategic plan and incorporate some initiatives that are common goals between the council and the Southeast Center, and so I will just leave that open to comment for you, Michelle, and maybe also Miguel and anyone else on the council. Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, if I may, to that point.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: That’s exactly why, in the last slide that Dr. Duval put on the screen, we have the sub-committee, and the way that I envision this is that the sub-committee -- If you look at the strategic plan and the objectives, you would need millions of dollars and thousands of people to work on it.

Therefore, we need to land on reality here, and I believe that this committee should have a sub-committee. For example, Graciela and Richard, as Chair of the SSC, can work with the Southeast Fisheries Science Center to harmonize our strategic plan 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

objectives with the ones that the Southeast Fisheries Science Center has, and then we can do it on a yearly or -- I mean, we need to plan the whole thing through the budget cycle for these four years from now.

We also need to be real about the things that we can do, and so the meeting in December is very important, because, at that meeting, we will decide how and when this group will meet to submit to the council the plan for the following years. In the summer, we need to check where are we, what have we done, what we said we would do in January or December.

The process is dynamic, and sorry, Mr. Chairman, and I just wanted to inject that, because what Clay Porch just said is exactly what we are discussing, and, if we can separate the group at the subcommittee -- I have, for example, Alida Ortiz, who will work with the outreach and education part of the objectives and the strategies.

That way, when the council meets, you will have a report from the group that is working on the strategy of let’s say science, with the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and the SSC. You will have a report from the outreach and education and so forth, and then it’s very important to have, in the committee, the three chairs of the DAPs, to look at the objectives and the strategies of each island area, and so we will concentrate on what is possible for the following year, what is possible for the next two or three years.

The core of this plan, and I agree 100 percent with Clay, because I hate to have this document put on a shelf and say we did it, great, and that’s it. No, and this is a very dynamic document, and it will spell out the action of the councils to implement the MSA and everything that we do in the following years, pinpointing the priorities and also assign monies to those priorities and actions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MARCOS HANKE: Blanchard.

Thank you very much.

Next in the queue is Tony

TONY BLANCHARD: Good morning.

Sorry for being late to the meeting, and I was having problems getting on. That was a good presentation, Michelle, but I have -- Not really a question, but a comment, or a comment and a question as to putting this information on the website and getting it out there to the community, and I think that’s a good idea, but I think we overemphasize that everybody does not get on the websites and look up information. Now, the question is this. Is this going to be brought in an in-person meeting before the public before any 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

measures are taken?

That’s a question.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thanks for the question, Tony.

I really appreciate that, and so especially the fact that not all members of the public have access to the internet, or may even think to go to the council’s website, and so I don’t know about an in-person meeting.

I think that that’s something that I will leave for Miguel to address, just given the state of the world as it is right now, but, in terms of ensuring that people have opportunity to provide comment on the draft plan, I don’t think it’s any problem to send out a hard copy, along with a hard copy of a comment form, to anyone who would like to provide comments on that, and I think, if there are suggestions for how to do that -I know that, in the past, Miguel and the staff have graciously made copies of presentations related to the strategic planning process and sent them out to the list of stakeholders that they have that they send out notifications to, and so I might be speaking beyond my authority here, but I do think that is one way, sending out hard copies to folks, along with a hard copy of a comment form, to make sure that they’re able to comment. I think I will leave -- I will let Miguel comment on having an in-person meeting to present this to the public before actions are taken.

MIGUEL ROLON: Between here and December, we are not going to have any in-person meetings. However, we can send the material, via regular mail, to anybody interested, and we have to engage, and we already did it, but just to reiterate for the record here, but we are engaging the liaison officers in each one of the island areas.

We have Nicole Greaux, Mavel Maldonado, and Wilson Santiago, and they will be in charge of also identifying those people who would like to receive this documentation on paper, and they will have let’s say twenty sets each, so they can distribute it as needed, and then word of mouth.

If you know somebody, or someone, who would like to have this on paper, and they do not have capacities or the willingness to go to the webpage, please let us know, and we will send them the documents.

The other thing that we can do is to send a three-by-five postcard to everybody that we have in our mailing list, and Iris can do that, and Diana, and then announce that we have this available, and, if you want a copy, please contact so and so, and we’ll send you a copy. That way, by December we will be able to have a report 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

on any comments that we might receive from today until probably November.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

Tony, a follow-up?

TONY BLANCHARD: I’m going to be honest with you, Miguel, and I think sometimes we don’t really understand the people that we’re dealing with, when it comes to outreach, because -- I’m going to be quite honest with you, and there are some surveys going around that recently we found out that the surveys were being backed by the Pew Foundation, and they are going under Lenfest.

Now, my question is this. You have surveys going out, and most people don’t look into these things, but, when it comes to like who is behind the surveys, how do you think that’s going to go with the fishers, number one?

Number two, the other part of it is, at this point in time, when any surveys goes out, it’s going to be a question, and I don’t care who it’s coming from, if it’s even coming from the President, and it’s going to be questioned, because of the atmosphere with the fishermen and the state in which the fishermen are being looked at and handled by the government, number one, as well as other user groups, meaning anybody who is willing to use this, and there is a negative stigma towards us, and I don’t know if we’ve got a target on our backs.

At the end of the day, when these guys hear “survey”, they’re going to take it and they’re going to put it in the garbage can, and so my take on having an in-person meeting, even if they could read and comprehend, because we have been accused of being illiterate, and even if they could read and comprehend the material on that document, some will not do so, and they just won’t grasp it.

There needs to be an explanation behind the documents in order for this to work. Now, we could push it off any other way and downplay it, but, if you’re going to ask my opinion as to how I think this should go, knowing the type of people that we are dealing with, I think it needs to be an in-person meeting with an explanation behind any questions that they might have concerning the presentation, because what we are doing for outreach is not working, and I will get into that later, when outreach and education comes up, but that’s just my take on it. I mean, at the end of the day, this is above my paygrade, and so, whatever everybody else decides to do, go ahead.

MIGUEL ROLON: Duly noted, Tony, and we will proceed with the process that we set, and we will take into consideration your 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

comments, and, as soon as we can do it, provided that COVID allows, we will have in-person meetings to explain this further.

Remember that this document is dynamic, and so it doesn’t mean that we decide between here and December will be locked in stone and that will be it. The document is dynamic, and so, when we have the mechanism, we can have in-person meetings, and we can have workshops and continue the work, so that everybody that has an interest will be able to participate effectively.

I hear what you’re saying, and we have to take it into consideration, and we have done it, Alida and I, and so, hopefully, if we are allowed, in 2022, to have more in-person meetings, we will take this into consideration and continue the conversation with the public, because the first thing that we need to do, once the plans are implemented, and I am talking about the island-based FMP and any other plan, and this is a strategic plan, and it’s not a fishery management plan, but it’s a plan, and we need to meet with the people of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and explain, very clearly, what this is all about.

Then we can get the feedback from those groups and individuals present and present it to the council in due time, and so it’s a good point, and we will take it, of course, into consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I believe you have Julian and a couple of others.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, and I have Julian Magras.

JULIAN MAGRAS: Good morning to all. Thank you very much. First off, I would like to start by saying a special thank you to Dr. Duval. You did an awesome job with pushing this plan through and working with our advisory panels, and a special thank you goes out to all my members for the St. Thomas/St. John District.

The way this plan was put together I thought was awesome, because, with Dr. Duval’s leading the group, it was a very easy process, and she was there to listen to what we had to say, and she took everything into consideration and worded it and made sure that we accepted the wording, and so a special thank you to everyone involved in this process.

I am looking forward to where this plan is going to be implemented, like everyone else out there, and we did so much work on this, and I am looking forward to see where we’re going to go with this, and, to just chime-in with Tony, and I know my counterparts think the same way, but, as soon as possible, once COVID can ease all of this, to get this to the public in-person would be very well accepted, I believe, but, as far as how social media works, not 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

everyone is there as yet, but, for right now, we understand the circumstances, that we cannot do that, and so I look forward to when we can, and so let’s continue the hard work and push forward this plan as it was created. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Julian. Is there anybody else in the queue, Miguel? I don’t see anybody.

MIGUEL ROLON: Helena wanted to ask a question before, but I don’t know whether she is still interested in that.

MARCOS HANKE:

Helena, go ahead.

HELENA ANTOUN: Thank you, and I was just curious, regarding the objectives that were being presented. In terms of the fishermen that you want to engage in collaborative research, I was just wondering if there are any plans to include funding for those fishermen, and that’s all.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thanks for the question, Helena, and so it’s -I think that remains to be seen, and so it’s really -- The objective is about using fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting these needs, and, once those needs are identified, to see if there are funding opportunities where those needs can be included as priorities, and so I am thinking about like cooperative research programs, which is unique to the Southeast.

Typically, those types of cooperative research programs include compensation for the fishers who are participating in the research, but I don’t personally have a specific funding source in mind or something like that. I think things like that will come into play with the development of the implementation plan, if that makes sense, really getting down into the weeds of the actions that would be necessary to get these things rolling.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, if I may.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: In the case of Helena’s question, for every proposed project that we have here -- For example, we are working now with the outreach and education that we would like to have a video regarding the mutton snapper. I talked to Carlos Farchette and others, and he talked to fishers, and we can incorporate the cost of let’s say a rented fisherman’s boat, because, if you have one or two days, they will not be able to go fishing, and so you need to compensate.

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

The other thing is that this implementation plan doesn’t mean that the council will pay for everything and that the council will do that, or the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and it’s just that we are able to identify the different needs and prioritize them, and then we can touch base with anybody interested in pursuing that as a project.

It could be an independent person, or it could be a fishermen’s association, or it could be anybody who is really interested and has the means to do it, and then we need to connect the people who are donors, the people with the money, with the people who are going to do the actions.

That is the beauty of having a plan like this, because we are able to -- Probably, at the end of 2021, the only thing that we will have is the plan itself and the committee appointed.

The work really starts in the first half, the first quarter, of 2022, when we are going to identify each one of the priorities.

Going back to the way that we did it, the way that the DAPs were incorporated, I expect the DAPs to also be included in any prioritization that we have, and so that’s why it’s important that we have this committee, and I’m sure that, when you talk to fishers, that they will say the same thing, that I will be willing to cooperate, but, also, I need to feed my family.

It’s not an easy question to address sometimes in the budget, but it’s an important one, and so that’s why we -- I am glad that Helena brought this up, because it’s the kind of thing that we need to convey to everybody that is going to be working for the next years, with the scientists and the fishers jointly working together.

MARCOS HANKE: We have Michelle Duval to respond to the comments and questions, and then we have Richard Appeldoorn. Michelle.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to circle back to a couple of the comments from Dr. Appeldoorn, as well as Dr. Porch, and so I guess, first, to Clay, with respect to the implementation plan and really the need for measurable targets for implementation, to ensure that the plan moves forward and ensuring that there’s a process that is timely with respect to how frequently the implementation plan is reviewed, I mean, I -- You’re preaching to the choir.

I agree with that, and I think keeping in mind what types of metrics we will use is key in the development of the implementation 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

plan, and I agree that, because there are -- Because NOAA Fisheries has regional strategic plans as well, that I think are combined, both between the Regional Office and the Science Center, making sure that some of the things that are identified in the council’s plan are also aligned with the priorities of NOAA Fisheries is going to be -- It’s going to be really critical to accomplishing those things.

I know that, in the Mid-Atlantic, up in the Northeast, when the Mid-Atlantic Council and New England Council review their priorities for the upcoming year, NOAA Fisheries -- The Regional Administrator and the Science Center Directors up there provide comment on those, and they are involved in that, and so I am happy to reach out to both you and Andy, offline, to get some further input on how to make that a productive and efficient process.

Just with respect to Dr. Appeldoorn’s comments on the organization of the plan, I agree, Rich, that absolutely there are a lot of similarities, and a lot of overlap, with respect to the islandspecific objectives, and I think, if you guys recall, back a couple of presentations ago, I presented the tables of the different priority issues that were considered by the council, as well as the district advisory panels, and I showed a chart of where those overlaps were.

I can pull that up and show it again, so that you can see how those overlaps played out, and I would also note that -- Again, there is two ways of doing this. We can have island-specific objectives, which I think allow for maybe a little bit more individualization of what the priorities are for each of the council’s districts, or, as you suggested, collapsing all of the objectives into just one set of objectives and breaking out strategies by island.

Either can be done, and it was suggested to me, when I first started in this process, that I think, given the way the islandbased fishery management plans were developed, where certainly there is a lot of overlap in the objectives and the goals that were developed for each one of those plans, but there are, you know, minor -- There are tweaks to those that reflect the individual needs and priorities of each of the districts.

I just wanted to have the opportunity to explain a little bit of where that came from, and I don’t necessarily think that one method of organization is better than another, and I think there are benefits to either one. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Michelle.

29

Richard.

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

RICHARD APPELDOORN: Thank you, and thank you for that answer, Michelle. I was going to speak back to the question of cooperative engagement of fishers with the research programs.

One of the places where the council can help is try to push the programs that are available to facilitate this collaboration, and I will speak to one example from a proposal that Michelle Scharer and I had put forward through the Cooperative Research Program.

Where it got shot down was we were going to pay the fishermen for the days that they were working on our project, which was days that they would not be fishing, and the critique was that, well, if this is a collaborative program, this should be what the fishers are putting into the program, and, therefore, they shouldn’t be charging for their time, and I thought that was, and Michelle thought, was completely wrong.

If this is really a feature of the collaborative research program, that’s going to stop a lot of potential collaboration, and so, to the degree that the council can lobby those programs to amend how they view that, that is one way to facilitate increasing the collaboration with the fishers.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, we are not allowed to use the word “lobby”, but I know what Richard is saying, and certainly Graciela and I will talk to Richard and see if we can provide information to the right people in the right places about the importance of engaging the fishery in these projects and compensating them for their time and effort.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. I share your comment and position that is expressed by Richard, and we really need to be effective in this matter. I don’t see anybody else in the queue. What do you need from the group? Do you need a motion to approve this language, what is proposed, or what is the next step, Michelle?

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what I’ve heard is that we would like to add an objective under the management goal for Puerto Rico that is similar to the objective for St. Thomas/St. John that considers the potential impacts of climate change on the efficacy of management measures, and so I can go ahead and do that, so that is part of the draft plan that would be available for review by the public. I think what I’m looking for today is approval of this draft plan for public input, as modified today, if the council is amenable to that.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes. I got it.

Do we have to do it through a motion, Miguel, or just ask the council on the record?

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

MIGUEL ROLON: In the case of this, adding this, we can just go ahead and add this line, because this is something that the DAP Puerto Rico -- We don’t have to go back to it, and so the council has the authority to include it. Then the other thing that we need is the motion to approve the document as presented by Dr. Duval and also to follow the next steps.

MARCOS HANKE: me on that?

I need a motion from council members.

Who can help

MIGUEL ROLON: Well, one thing that you can do, in order to -- If nobody opposes, then the line is added to the DAP Puerto Rico.

MARCOS HANKE: Is there any opposition to add the lines that were just expressed by Michelle Duval? Hearing none, this is the way it will be. Do we still need a motion, Miguel?

MIGUEL ROLON: Well, the motion now is to -- Now that you have heard her presentation, Dr. Duval’s presentation, we can go back to the last steps.

Michelle, can you put that on your screen again? We can have a motion to adopt the draft plan, as presented, and follow the process, as outlined by Dr. Michelle Duval.

MARCOS HANKE: I need help from the council members for the meeting to move along. Go ahead, anybody.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, I propose to have the language, and Liajay can write it on the screen, and she’s an expert on writing stuff on the screen now. Liajay, are you ready?

LIAJAY RIVERA:

Yes, I am.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay.

Liajay can share her screen, and I will propose the language, and then, please, council members, add, delete, and modify. The motion will be for the council to accept and endorse the CFMC -- The draft five-year strategic plan as presented by Dr. Michelle Duval on July 21, 2021.

MARCOS HANKE:

The word “draft” is not there.

MIGUEL ROLON: Let her finish.

And to follow the process to present this to the general public for any comments and suggestions. The final draft document will be presented to the CFMC at the December 2021 meeting for final action. Thank you, Liajay.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Liajay.

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

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, that is the proposed language, but whoever makes the motion can change it as he pleases or she pleases.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you to both for the support. Council members, any changes or to move the language, to move the meeting along?

Go ahead.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Motion presented as it is.

So moved.

Thank you.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Carlos.

Any opposition?

MIGUEL ROLON:

Before that, you need to have discussion, Marcos.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Andy.

ANDY STRELCHECK: The motion, as worded, doesn’t reflect the suggested change for the Puerto Rico objective, and so it seems like we would want to capture that in the motion.

MIGUEL ROLON: We can say as modified and presented by Dr. -- As modified and presented by -- Will that do that trick, Andy?

ANDY STRELCHECK: Yes, and I think Michelle certainly understands our intent, in terms of the medication, and so that will be good.

MIGUEL ROLON: Vanessa, do you accept the modification of the language by Mr. Strelcheck?

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Yes, I accept.

MIGUEL ROLON: If Carlos agrees, then discussion and to vote, Mr. Chairman.

you

can

continue

the

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I can agree with what Mr. Strelcheck was saying about the objective and the change for all three islands, but I didn’t hear anything from St. Croix, but I don’t think, as a council member, that I have any right to change our objectives, but I would like to include that for St. Croix.

MIGUEL ROLON: Carlos, the only thing that they are modifying is that they are to include climate change.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

That’s what I am referring to.

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

MIGUEL ROLON:

They don’t have it in St. Croix?

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

No.

MIGUEL ROLON: If the council agrees, then to modify will include the same as Puerto Rico for the St. Croix component of the strategic plan. Michelle, do you agree?

MICHELLE DUVAL: Whatever is the pleasure of the council, Miguel, and certainly I can add that same objective as a specific objective under the St. Croix section of the management goal for climate change, just noting that there are also other climate-changerelated strategies scattered throughout the remaining pieces of the plan as well, and so I will go ahead and add that for both Puerto Rico as well as for St. Croix.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, I believe it’s very clear, for the record, that the intent is to modify the strategic plan to include climate change concern recommendations in the three DAP subsections of the objectives and strategies.

MARCOS HANKE: Carlos Farchette, are you satisfied with the clarification and the adoption of your comments?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE: the language?

Yes.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion about Go ahead, Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: I agree with the language, except for the fact where it’s going to be a final draft in December, to be presented at the council for final action, because I don’t see this being effective as to getting out who it needs to get out to unless we have an in-person meeting, and that’s my opinion.

MIGUEL ROLON: The contract that we have with Dr. Duval ends on December 31, and we have taken this to the public in many different ways, and that’s okay, but we need to finish this. Mr. Chairman.

MARCOS HANKE: Tony, thank you for your position, but just be mindful of the implementation, and there will be further participation from the groups, and hopefully in-person.

Any further discussion about the motion and what is going to be voted on in a few minutes?

MIGUEL ROLON:

Let’s do a roll call vote by name.

MARCOS HANKE:

Miguel, just a moment, please.

33

Hearing no other

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

persons that want to make a comment during the discussion, Tony Blanchard, to vote.

TONY BLANCHARD:

No.

MARCOS HANKE:

Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

Damaris.

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE:

Virgin Islands.

NICOLE ANGELI:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE: Who is representing the Virgin Islands today? cannot recognize your voice.

NICOLE ANGELI:

I

Nicole Angeli

MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Thank you, Nicole. I was not sure who was on the meeting, and I’m sorry. Nicole Angeli.

MIGUEL ROLON: For the Virgin Islands, the person that can vote is Dr. Angeli or the Commissioner.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, I agree, and I just didn’t recognize the voice, and that’s all.

MIGUEL ROLON:

For the record, Dr. Angeli just voted.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Nicole Angeli just voted.

There is no abstentions.

ANDY STRELCHECK:

Marcos Hanke, yes.

I am a yes.

MARCOS HANKE: Andy, thank you. I just got lost here. Thank you, Andy, for your vote of yes. No abstentions. The motion carries.

MIGUEL ROLON: The motion carries, and you have to say six in favor and one against.

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

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:

One against, right?

MARCOS HANKE: One against, Tony Blanchard, and the rest of the council members voted for the vote, voted yes.

MIGUEL ROLON:

The motion carries.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

That’s all, Michelle, and thank you very much for your presentation and a great discussion. We are ready for the next item on the agenda, but I would like to propose the group for a five-minute break to stretch your legs and get coffee. Five minutes. Anybody in opposition of that?

MIGUEL ROLON:

You are the chairman.

MARCOS HANKE:

Hearing none, let’s come back in five minutes.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, everyone. We are back to the meeting at 10:42 a.m.

We are going to restart the meeting.

The next presentation is Update on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan, and Michelle Duval will be the presenter.

UPDATE ON THE FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT WORKSHOPS MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, this next presentation is just an update on the stakeholder engagement workshops in support of the development of the council’s fishery ecosystem plan, and so, similar to the last presentation, I would just like to give a little overview of what I plan to cover in the presentation.

First, I’ll just provide a little bit of information on the project background and purpose.

Then I will review the methods and outreach, and then, after that, we’ll walk through the conceptual models and finish up with next steps for this process.

I thought that I would just start with a little bit of background on fishery ecosystem plan best practices, and I know the council is probably familiar with this, but the schematic that you see up on the screen, on the right-hand side, is called the FEP loop, and this represents the best practices that were developed by the Lenfest Fishery Ecosystem Taskforce related to fishery ecosystem plan development, and that very first step is where are we now and assessing that.

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

In order to do that, this involves co-creation of a conceptual model amongst stakeholders, managers, and scientists to identify and inventory the components of a fishery ecosystem and how they interact.

I think one of the best practices that is really highlighted, and that I would like emphasize is this quote that you see on the screen, which is that stakeholder input is central to fishery system planning, and so broad stakeholder involvement is really necessary in order to identify tradeoffs that may not necessarily be apparent to decision-makers or to scientists.

Just a little bit more background on the current project, and so this is part of a larger coordinated effort to reach as many stakeholders as possible, in line with those best practices, and so the current project is a result of communication between the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Chair, and the council Executive Director regarding identification of a variety of stakeholder groups for FEP development, including local government, coastal businesses, local environmental nongovernmental organizations, scientists, and others.

The Pew Charitable Trusts offered to provide support for a subset of stakeholder engagement workshops, and so I was hired as a contractor to do workshop facilitation and develop outreach materials and write up the report, once the models were developed.

Pew staff provided logistical staff during the workshops, by running the Mental Modeler software that’s used to develop the conceptual models, as well as backup for the workshop recordings.

Also part of this effort, as the council is well aware, is the Lenfest Ocean Program awarded a grant to several members of the council’s ecosystem-based fishery management plan technical advisory panel, and a couple of those folks are also members of the council’s SSC, and so this group of folks are leading an effort in similar engagement workshops with the science community, experts, managers, and others.

I worked with the Lenfest PIs to ensure that we were all using the same type of methods with respect to these engagement workshops, and then, of course, outreach to the fishing community has been spearheaded by the council, through the district advisory panels, although the Lenfest PIs are also reaching out to fishers who may not have been involved through the DAP process.

The purpose of this project, overall, is, in keeping with those best practices, really to ensure that a variety of stakeholder 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

viewpoints are incorporated into the development of the council’s overall conceptual model and to engage a subset of stakeholder groups that are not frequently involved in the council’s work.

These are coastal businesses, such as dive shops, surf shops, hotels, guest houses, outdoor guides, as well as local environmental non-governmental organizations, or eNGOs, based in island district. The objective was to develop conceptual models for each stakeholder group in each district, and so how is this done?

The first thing I did was to develop a set of outreach materials, and so this included two-page information briefs in both Spanish and English, and one of these focused on fishery ecosystem plans, and so what they were, a little bit of information on the council’s fishery ecosystem plan, and the second one was about conceptual models and how these tools are used, and these were distributed to all stakeholders who accepted the invitation to participate.

Then, with respect to stakeholder contact, there was an extensive stakeholder list developed in coordination with the O&E AP chair, with support from Sea Grant staff, and so this targeted a broad range of coastal businesses and eNGOs, and separate workshops were conducted for each of these stakeholder groups in each district, and so you have two stakeholder groups, three districts, and so this was a total of six workshops.

A small group approach was used for each workshop, and this was done to really ensure that all attendees were able to participate, as well as to allow for a thorough discussion of ideas, and so the maximum target size was really eight to twelve participants for each workshop, and invitation were sent out to over forth eNGOs and over eighty coastal businesses, and these invitations were sent by email, roughly four weeks in advance of the workshop, and then follow-ups were made both by email as well as phone for nonrespondents, and then an agency with the connection information and outreach materials were sent to confirmed stakeholders.

Just to make sure that we maximized our participation, I sent a reminder email with the agenda and materials a couple of days prior to the workshop, and then all participants received reminder phone calls one day in advance, and so these workshops occurred in late April and then throughout May as well.

The workshops were all virtual, just due to the pandemic, and so these were two-hour facilitated workshops. All of the workshops were recorded, and all participants were informed that they were being recorded, and we did -- I did use evening workshops for the 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

businesses, and that was done to really maximize participation, understanding that small business owners are pretty much busy all during the day, and the only time they have to participate is really in the evening, and so I do also want to note that, for the Puerto Rico workshops, simultaneous translation was used, and all workshop materials, including the presentation, were provided in Spanish.

Each workshop started with a brief presentation, and so this was a little bit of review of the background information that all participants received regarding fishery ecosystem plans and conceptual models, and then I used a series of trigger questions and time for individual brainstorming to identify and develop the biological, social, and economic components of the different models, as well as to identify the relationships, or the linkages, between the different components.

Then, after the workshop, I sent a thank-you email to every participant, and everyone received a link to a Google document that contained a schematic of the conceptual model, and so I allowed two weeks for participants to provide any additional feedback or relationships or linkages between components, and so this was part of the effort to just validate the model.

I didn’t receive a whole lot of comments on any of the models, but the few comments that were received were incorporated into the conceptual models, and then I also reviewed the workshop recordings, just to ensure the accuracy of what was captured, to make sure that all components were captured accurately and all linkages among the components were captured accurately.

Now I will just quickly walk through the conceptual models, and I am going to start with the St. Croix environmental non-governmental community, and so I just want to spend -- All of these schematics of these conceptual models look roughly the same, and so I just want to spend a couple of minutes orienting everyone to those, and so you see that there are a couple of components with green circles around them and a couple of components with pink circles around them.

The components that have the green circles around them are two of the components that were most affected by other components, and so lots of relationships, or linkages, coming into those components, and so I am calling those receiver components.

Then the two components that you see the pink circles around were two of the components that affected the most other components, and so lots of linkages coming out of those components, and so I am referring to those as drivers.

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

In full disclosure, this is different than how drivers and receivers are referenced within the Mental Modeler software, but, for illustration purposes here, this is how I am referring to those.

The model developed by the St. Croix environmental nongovernmental community, two of the receiver components that were identified were water quality and coral, and then two of the driver components were anthropogenic influences and regulatory agencies.

Moving on to the St. Croix coastal business community, this model is a little bit busier, but I know you all have seen these types of models many times before, and so three of the receiver components identified by the St. Croix coastal business community were water quality, reef fish, and coral reefs. Then two of the driver components were actually restoration of nursery habitats for fishes and coral species protection.

Moving on St. Thomas/St. John, this was the model developed by the environmental non-governmental community in St. Thomas and St. John, and so two of those receiver components identified by this group were water quality and coral, while two of the driver components identified were land-based sources of pollution and runoff.

Then the St. Thomas/St. John coastal business community -- Again, this one is a little bit busier, but two of the receiver components identified here were coral reefs and sea turtles, whereas two of the driver components identified by this group were government agencies and lack of environmental education.

Moving on to Puerto Rico, the environmental non-governmental community, this is, again, a very complex, thorough model, and so two of the receiver components identified by this group were reef fish and water quality, whereas two of the driver components identified were climate change and public education.

Then, finally, the Puerto Rico coastal business community conceptual model, and so this -- Two of the receiver components identified in this model were reef fish and coral reefs, and then two of the driver components were lack of management and education.

I wanted to also just highlight, I think, some of the common themes among these two different types of receiver and driver components, and so, again, the receiver components were those that were affected by the most other components, and so there were three that were more common here, and these were water quality, coral or 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

coral reefs, and reef fish, and so water quality was identified by both of the St. Croix stakeholder groups, by the St. Thomas/St. John eNGO groups, as well as by the Puerto Rico environmental nongovernmental community, whereas coral and coral reefs also identified as receiver components by both St. Croix stakeholder groups, both St. Thomas/St. John stakeholder groups, and Puerto Rico coastal businesses.

Then reef fish was identified as a receiver component by both of the Puerto Rico stakeholder groups.

A similar, I guess, assessment of common themes from the conceptual models for the driver components, and so, again, these are components that affected the most other components, and these are primarily education, and then similar terms used -- Excuse me.

Certainly different terms used, but for similar concepts, are government, regulatory agencies, and management, and so education was identified as a driver by both Puerto Rico stakeholder groups as well as the St. Thomas/St. John businesses, and then this government/regulatory agencies/management component was identified by the Puerto Rico businesses, St. Thomas/St. John businesses, as well as the St. Croix NGOs. Really, the next steps -- Again, this is just meant to be an update.

The models have been completed, and the stakeholder workshops are done, and it’s really presentation of these conceptual models to the FEP technical advisory panel for incorporation into the overall council model, as well as some additional analysis and then completion of the project report.

Just a quick update for everybody, and so, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to take any questions that folks might have.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and we’re going to open for questions, and I just want to make a comment before that.

Great presentation, again, and I like very much the explanation of the receiver and the driver components, and that gives a visualization that we didn’t have before, and it’s basically simplifying everything, but, at the same time, having the detail, if it’s needed. Thank you very much, and I’m very impressed with the team of you, J.J. Motta, Graciela, Stacey Williams, and, for me, that’s assurance of quality and participative channels for this kind of work. Thank you very much, Michelle.

Now it’s open for questions.

Does anybody want to make a comment or a question?

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Yes, Marcos. Michelle, can you say more about the distribution of the stakeholders that participate in these workshops?

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thanks for the question, Vanessa. Do you mean like with respect to the coastal businesses? The two stakeholder 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

groups that were identified were coastal businesses, and so that included surf shops, and that included dive shops, and that included restaurants, and that included small hotels, and it included large hotels, and it included -- There was a very extensive list that was developed, as I mentioned in coordination with the O&E AP chair, as well as Sea Grant staff.

The invitations were sent out to an array of coastal businesses, spanning all of those different categories, and, with respect to the environmental non-governmental organizations, these were organizations that had their place right there on each of those island districts.

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Thank you, Michelle.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Vanessa, for the question. Anybody else?

Any other questions?

I guess that’s it. Do you need anything else from the council, Michelle, at this time, or we are okay?

MICHELLE DUVAL: No, Mr. Chairman. This was really just an update, to let you know that this work is -- The conceptual models have been done, and I will be passing those off to the EBFM Technical Advisory Panel, and the work has been completed, and so thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, again. We are ready for the next item on the agenda. Thank you to all the council members for their participation.

Next is the SSC Report with Dr. Richard Appeldoorn.

SSC REPORT RICHARD APPELDOORN: Thank you, Marcos. This is the report from the SSC. We met last week, on the 14th, and the issues we discussed were the new Caribbean Branch, and we had an overview of that from Kevin McCarthy, who is the Branch Chief, and I won’t say any more about that.

Also, we had an update on the National SSC Meeting, but the bulk of it was on our review of the data-poor tech memo, which you’ll also be getting a presentation on, and so this is putting something a little bit before that, and the red hind spawning dynamics and closed season issues by Michelle Scharer, which you will also be hearing later about. Finally, a presentation on the Puerto Rico electronic reporting program and the potential extensions into electronic monitoring.

Very briefly, the National SSC Meeting is actually called the Scientific Coordination Sub-Committee, and this is the seventh 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

meeting of that. It was supposed to have occurred a year ago, and it’s now been okayed to be rescheduled as an in-person meeting next year, 2022, in Alaska.

The overall theme of that is going to be ecosystem-based fisheries management, with three focal areas: incorporating ecosystem indicators into stock assessment, needs for managing interacting species, and assessing species with shifting distributions, primarily due to climate change.

I think our council, in particular, our SSC, will have a lot to say about the ecosystem indicators, based on the work that the TAP and Lenfest group are doing. All aspects of this meeting need to renegotiated, even who are going to be the keynote speakers, because schedules have all changed and everything, and we have a conference call next month to start rescheduling and renegotiating everything.

We do expect, however, that there will be travel support for three SSC members from each council to attend the meeting, and so that’s the information that’s available, at the moment, relative to that meeting.

The bulk of our time was spent looking at two things, and one of those was the tech memo on data-poor fisheries, and this is the official title of it, but I have underlined “flexibilities” and “data-limited stocks”, because this is a tech memo that addresses what to do with data-limited stocks, and it allows for new flexibilities in developing things that were not available to the councils or the SSCs before.

As I state here, it’s all about flexibilities for setting OFLs and ABCs and ACLs, and this is to be applied when catch data are lacking or are insufficient.

That means to say that we can use other things besides catch data to set reference points and target limits for individual stocks, and some examples of alternative reference points might be based on average length or maintaining a juvenile-adult ratio, maintaining a level of catch per unit effort, maintaining an average density. There’s a lot of things that could be used here, and so I don’t want to lock us into thinking about any one thing, and this is all new, and we’ll have to approach it with a broad mind.

One of the nice things about this is that we can use multiple indicators at one time for any given stock, and so, given just the list above, we might want to have that it has to be within a range 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

of catch per unit effort and have an average length of some magnitude.

These indicators could also be used in conjunction with numbers or weight-based reference points, as we currently have, and so we could actually enhance what we have.

The tech memo gives guidance on what they’re calling the (h)(2) flexibilities, as to qualification of when can you use these, and they give some examples, as I mentioned, of alternative approaches, such as ACLs being expressed in terms of rates, and that would be a catch per unit effort example, and what stocks would qualify for the application of (h)(2) flexibility, but lack data for a ratebased, and so there will still be things that you can do besides rates.

You’re going to get a presentation on this later, and so I won’t emphasize any of this, but we did look at these things and come up with a number of, I guess, statements, if you will.

The SSC endorses the (h)(2) flexibilities for assessing the overfishing status of data-limited stocks presented in the draft tech memo, given that all stocks within the U.S. Caribbean would benefit, a point that has been long recognized.

Nevertheless, while we see great promise with this enhanced flexibility, we anticipate that there will be operational difficulties to overcome in their application and expect a period of testing before such methods can be routinely applied.

In other words, this is something we have, in the Caribbean in particular, and the Western Pacific, have been advocating for well over a decade, and so it’s great to see that this is now coming to fruition, but, as with any method, its application is going to be something that has to be worked out and make sure that the science is good and that it’s justifiable, and so there’s a lot of work to be done, and it’s just not something we’re going to plug in and all of a sudden we’re fine. Potentially, once we do have something developed, it can be updated very quickly from year to year, but that is further down the road.

The SSC recognizes that there will be a substantial process involved in prioritizing which species should be addressed using this enhanced flexibility, due both because of the high number of species within the U.S. Caribbean that would benefit and the limitations within the Science Center, particularly the number of assessment staff, and so we have lots of species and stocks across the three islands that need to be addressed. We’re going to have to be strategic in how we do this, because, given the limitations 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

and the demands on particularly the Science Center staff, this is a process that’s going to go slowly.

An additional benefit is identified in that some standard fishery management tools, such as size limits, closed areas and seasons, et cetera, more directly relate to potential reference limits that may result from these more flexible approaches, and so, if we were using a length measure, for example, to set limits, then size limits would, obviously, be a measure that would directly relate to that, much more so than size limits relate to say a catch quota.

The SSC notes that the timing of this effort dovetails nicely with other efforts within the region to improve monitoring and assessment, including efforts to improve the quality, amount, and statistical validity of landings data. For example, the recent pilot study of the Puerto Rico commercial catch resulted in over 14,000 length estimates, which is a dataset that would be available, should length-based measures be one method that we want to pursue, other methods.

The formation of the Caribbean Branch within the Science Center and their more targeted efforts to increase and improve available data, the initiation of electronic monitoring of catches within Puerto Rico, and the initiation of integrated stock assessments through the SEDAR process, and we recognize that, while weight and number-based OFLs are the ideal, improvements in data collection and application of the (h)(2) flexibilities create a bridge, ultimately to achieve that goal.

We still have a goal out there that we would like to have, in terms of having the data to be able to apply the more rigorous models that we would do through a SEDAR process, but that will still take a long time to do that, despite all these really encouraging activities that are underway, but using the flexibilities buys us time, to where we can improve our assessment and management of species while we move to achieve that more rigorous goal.

The next thing we talked about was the red hind spawning dynamics and the relationship to closed seasons, and so the SSC heard and discussed a presentation by Dr. Scharer, who is also an SSC member.

As a co-investigator myself, I recused myself as Chair when this topic was discussed, and neither myself nor Dr. Scharer participated in the voting on the recommendations that follow.

As a recommendation, it’s to amend the Puerto Rico FMP to modify the seasonal closure for fishing or possession of red hind in federal waters west of the 67 degree, 10 minute West longitude and for the Tourmaline and Abrir la Sierra Bank red hind spawning 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

aggregations to December 15 to March 15. Currently, they are the beginning of December to the end of February.

The rationale for this was to reduce the impact on red hind spawning stocks at the west coast spawning aggregations on the last few days of their reproductive period, due to a shift in timing of the aggregation. A fish spawning aggregation does not form, and that is to say we have not recorded it to form, before December 15, but aggregations can remain after the March 1 opening that is currently in place, and so that’s the rationale for requesting a shift by fifteen days on either end.

Another recommendation is to support the implementation of continued long-term fish spawning aggregation monitoring to determine changes in the spawning stock/populations of red hind off of western Puerto Rico.

The rationale for this was that we should be measuring the benefits of management measures for red hind populations off the west coast of Puerto Rico, and so this is very similar to, I think, comments we’ve gotten from particularly the representatives in St. Thomas about the need for monitoring what’s going on and having that relayed back to the council as to the status of these measures.

The committee was particularly concerned about what the population size was of red hind off of Puerto Rico, and, again, Michelle will be presenting material later that hopefully will show this.

The SSC requests the council to ask the Science Center to evaluate the seasonal closure, currently February 1 to April 30, for red, black, tiger, yellowfin, and yellowedge groupers in federal waters in the U.S. Caribbean, as applicable, to ensure it coincides with the timing of spawning aggregations for these species.

Our rationale for this request is that closed seasons should coincide with the spawning seasons as much as possible.

Lastly, we heard a presentation by Alfredo Sfeir of ShellCatch on electronic reporting and electronic monitoring.

Electronic reporting has been implemented in Puerto Rico’s commercial fishery, and that implementation is increasing as time has gone on, but recall that there are more than 700 fishers who are reporting now using the electronic reporting program, and this was freeing up staff at the Commercial Fisheries Lab to utilize their time to better monitor the quality of that data, and so it’s yielding, as a result, more and better data.

A lot of the data still has to be reviewed by someone reading it, but it’s eliminating the need for manual data entry, and so that’s where the savings really come in, and so we thought this was a 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

very -- It’s a really very great activity that’s happening, and, as this expands, it hopefully can expand across islands and into the recreational fishery and that this will greatly enhance the amount of data and the quality of data that we’re getting, and this, of course, would be in conjunction with other activities that are happening.

They have now, as was reported to us, been able to link the Puerto Rico database that is resulting from this with the database maintained by NOAA Fisheries, and so that data can be made available to NOAA on a very, very timely basis, but note that this is currently all done under a contract between ShellCatch and the DNER of Puerto Rico.

We also were presented a preview of upcoming capabilities using electronic monitoring, and this is mostly in the form of boatbased video at the moment, which would be, eventually, in conjunction with artificial intelligence. That is to say that, using boat-based video, you could monitor -- I will make something up for a trap fishery, but how many traps were being set and hauled, what was being brought out of the traps, and you could even get the lengths of the fish as they are being taken out of the traps and whatnot, and so this is all possible, and he just kind of gave us a view of kind of how this would work.

They have other contracts with other countries and organizations where they are trying to develop that basis, and it seems promising. However, at the moment, they are reading all the videos manually, but they are working on developing artificial intelligence capabilities that would be able to identify fish and estimate the length, et cetera, all automatically.

This is an exciting capability that’s coming down the pike, and don’t expect it next year, but it’s being actively worked on, and so these kinds of capabilities are going to be available to us, and we need to think about should we apply them, how can we apply them, and there’s, obviously, going to be some issues with confidentiality that will have to be addressed, but it’s all very exciting, in terms of the technology that’s being developed.

Due to time constraints, and, at this point, it was already past six o’clock in the evening, and the SSC did not consider any recommendations relative to the electronic reporting and monitoring issues. We were just kind of very interested in the capabilities that are becoming available now, and we’ll just leave it at that, and I think that’s the last slide. Thank you. Any questions?

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

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Richard. you have questions? Carlos, go ahead.

Council members, do

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Richard, hi. Earlier in your presentation, I saw something that I am not familiar with. It is rate-based ACL, and I’m not sure what that is.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: Okay. Currently, all of our ACLs are based on weight and derived from catch data somehow, and so that’s a weight-based ACL. A rate-based ACL would be something where our target is not to maintain a certain level of catch, but to maintain a certain level of say catch per unit effort, and so maybe we can’t -- We don’t have a good handle on the total catch coming in for a species, but we do have some standardized measures of catch per unit effort for that species, and, therefore, you might want to say, okay, we want to maintain catch per unit effort at or below some level that we think will be sustainable, and so it’s no longer based on numbers of fish or weights of fish, but it’s based on a catch per unit effort, and so that’s a rate-based reference point.

MARCOS HANKE:

Any other questions?

ANDY STRELCHECK: Marcos, I wanted to thank Richard for the presentation, and I really like the SSC’s suggestion for doing some pilot study work.

One thing that is potentially on the horizon for the Caribbean, and a good thing, is that there is, in the President’s budget, some additional funding for territorial science, both in the U.S. Caribbean and the Western Pacific.

To me, it presents a huge opportunity for us to, I think, to improve some of the data collection, and so the pilot studies, in my view, and, Rich, I would be interested in your perspective, but, in order to kind of move to these flexible management measures, we really need to then ensure that we have sufficient data collection to support that kind of underlying management.

If the average length is the target, then we need to make sure that we’re collecting a sufficient number of samples to determine the average length for the fishery, and so I’m curious kind of your perspective in terms of the pilot studies and kind of where we’re at with data collection and what you would see as some of the improvements that would be needed to meet these flexibility standards.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: I’m not sure I can answer that in any kind of real detail, but I can give some examples. The SSC has not heard yet the presentation by Todd Gedamke on the pilot program that he has been overlooking in Puerto Rico, but there was a presentation 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

given at the council meeting, at the last meeting, and Todd is now back on the SSC, and he gave us a little bit of inkling of what has come from that, and also, again, what’s coming down the pike, in terms of automating things even more, and so that figure that I gave of 14,000 length measurements is something that came out of the pilot study.

If this was to be implemented fully, we would expect substantial enhancement of the number of length measurements that we being taken, and, if this can be automated, which is one of the goals that I know that Todd has, and he has people who are set up to try and develop artificial intelligence, and so something can just be passed under a video camera and moved on, and no one has to sit there and actually measure and then record the data, and it’s all being done through artificial intelligence.

This can both decrease the amount of time that a port sampler is intervening with any fisherman and increase the amount of data that is coming through that, because there would also be automatic species recognition with that, and so the fish is just passed under the camera, and it moves on.

If we reach that kind of level, we’re going to have length measurements galore for at least the species that are caught in abundance to give us hundreds to thousands of length measurements that we would really like to have, with really good data.

One could certainly work with less data, but then the uncertainties start rising substantially, but I think that the kind of information that we’re going to be able to get, using the port sampler approach, and we’ll add in the e-reporting that Puerto Rico is doing, and that will, I think, start feeding in a lot more data that will be applicable to these more flexible alternative reference point approaches.

It will really, at some point, come down to, okay, what are the key species that we want to look at, are we getting sufficient length information for them, or do we need to target some sampling for them, but, other than that, I think this is really promising, and then we’ll get down to those species which really are not amenable, and then we have to think about what are our data sources, but we have other data sources, such as the visual census surveys that NOAA Fisheries is doing in conjunction with the National Ocean Service, I think, and those also provide a lot of information on lengths and biomass that could be used for stock assessment purposes as well, and so there’s lots of different sources of data that are coming in, and so I think we’re going to have -48

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

Our data is probably going to increase faster than our ability to deal with it, in terms of the staff time that’s available, but, once we have a system set up, you can see where you could automate these data streams to have these reference points monitored on a very timely basis, once they’re set up.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you for the answer.

Next is Clay.

CLAY PORCH: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for that presentation, Rich. One, I’m very excited to see that the SSC is embracing some of these alternative techniques. I did want to mention, in terms of the artificial intelligence, the automated image analysis, we’ve actually, in several arenas, made great strides in that.

For instance, with our underwater video surveys, we have now gotten to the point where we can process the videos on the ship, just after they have been collected, and we’re still working out some of the details in regarding training the software to distinguish all the species, but, for the majority of high-profile species, the recognition percentage is really high, and, like I said, it’s really fast, because, right now, reading those images manually takes an extremely long period of time.

For us, it generally takes about six months to read all the underwater videos that we take, and then you’ve got to process all of that information. Once we get this automated image analysis in place, and, like I said, we’ve made great progress, I expect that we will get that time down to a month or so, and that would be really important, if we started using information like that to manage fisheries on a CPUE-type basis.

I also wanted to turn to maybe ask Rich this question, if the SSC had really talked about what management measures would look like, and it’s easy to say, for instance, that we would monitor catch per unit effort, but you have to then say, okay, how do we monitor catch per unit effort, and that would probably require electronic monitoring and this automated image analysis, so that that information can be processed quickly and without error, and then you have to think about what do you do, and okay, so, if the catch per unit effort drops below a certain threshold, then that would demand stopping fishing.

I am just wondering if they had much conversation about exactly what these measures would look like, and I recognize there is a lot of kinks to be worked out. Thank you.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: I will say this.

We recognized all the difficulties that you just mentioned, or potential difficulties, 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

and that’s why we have the statement that we recognize the difficulties of implementation, because, while this is allowing us a lot of flexibility, the implementation is not straightforward, and it will need to be worked out, and perhaps on a species-byspecies basis, if we need to do that.

We did not have any discussion about where to go at this point, and we were putting our discussion mostly in terms of what the documentation was presenting, which was added flexibilities, and we’re embracing those added flexibilities. They’re not going to be a panacea, but we do think they’re going to be very helpful.

You mentioned the one aspect about, okay, if catch per unit effort falls below some level, or goes too high, for example, what do you do, and that’s the same problems we have faced with our weightbased ACLs, and you’re going to have other issues as well, in terms of looking at length and how does recruitment affect your average length, and so there’s perhaps ways to look at that, in terms of catch per unit effort, and that’s why the ability to have multiple indicators might be the best way to view the application of these, because none is going to be perfect in their own right, but, if you can use multiple ones, they might give you a better sense of what’s happening in the fishery.

We discussed these issues in very general terms, realizing that the application of these is where the rubber meets the road, and that’s where we’re going to have to spend a lot of time working it out, and we’re going to be counting on the Center to strongly help us with that.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Richard.

I have a question to Clay, Richard, or maybe Andy. How do you three visualize this transition period, where we’re going to have a potential new method or a new way to do business, in terms of collecting science or collecting data, with the SEDAR process?

I think, from my point of view, I think it’s important to recognize that there is capacity building already in the area of pursuing those species that are on the schedule for SEDAR, and how is this going to be addressed in the future and not to be empty handed in the near future, just to follow-up with what we have on hand already, and that’s for any of you three. Thank you.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: I would just say, from the SSC’s point of view, we recognize that the SEDAR process and the types of models that we can look at that, even the data-poor ones, are where we want to work towards, and so these flexibilities that we’re getting now are kind of a bridge for what we can do in the meantime.

50

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 potential amount of data that can come through these automated processes that are coming online will allow a lot more data to be collected in a most statistically-rigorous way, and it will help, therefore, to reduce a lot of the variability, or at least be able to measure directly the variability, and, as a consequence, more species will be able to be bumped up into the Tier 1, 2, and 3 levels of the SEDAR process.

That is where we’re going, and I think we’re going to be seeing an improvement, a big improvement, as these technologies and studies come to their fruition, and so SEDAR, to me, is still going to be the way to go, and, again, another burden on the staff, Clay, but it’s the gold standard, and, in the meantime, if we can get something going with some of these flexibilities, so much the better.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Graciela, is there anybody requesting a turn to speak? Tony, go ahead.

TONY BLANCHARD: I have a question for Rich. Good presentation, and, now, I am a little concerned about the catch per unit effort and how it’s being looked at, because catch per unit effort goes up and it goes down, but, at the end of the day, or, for the lack of a better description, to the end of the year, everything balances out. Now, that’s one concern. The other concern is -MARCOS HANKE: Tony, I cannot hear you. I lost you. I am going to text him that we lost him, and I’m going to give him a turn to speak again.

Clay and Andy, did you want to make any comments about the question that I made earlier?

CLAY PORCH: Thank you. I agree with Rich that SEDAR is the way to go on this, and I would say that we’ve actually been looking at these alternative techniques for quite some time. In fact, I would say the Southeast Center was helping to lead the curve on this, and so none of those techniques that are in the NS 1 Guidelines are new to us.

We’re well prepared to execute them, and the main problem was having the data to do even most of those ideas, but, as Rich pointed out, we’re getting better and better at collecting information, but I think the real problem and challenge for the council is going to be, once you get this information, how are you going to actually implement it, and Tony was getting to one of them when you were talking about catch per unit effort, but, as Rich pointed out, if you were monitoring mean size, and the mean size falls below a certain level, what are you going to do?

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

It’s always easier to explain that you have exceeded a catch limit than it is to explain that you have exceeded an appropriate fishing mortality rate, and so there will be some challenges along the road, but, if you really don’t know catch, or have the ability to enforce catch, then it is appropriate to look at these other approaches. It doesn’t make them easy, but they may be the most viable alternatives, until we get, as Rich said, to those Tier 2 and Tier 1 stock assessments.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for this participation, Clay. One thing that I personally believe is the multiple factors, and not just a single one, and also having a baseline to compare to those on those catch per unit effort level, or anything that we’re going to use in the future, that we can compare to, right? This is a process that is going to keep building, and we are excited to have an opportunity to have a new tool in the toolbox to address our datapoor area. Let’s see if Tony Blanchard is back online to finish his thought.

TONY BLANCHARD: Was any of the chairs of the DAPs at that meeting, the SSC meeting?

RICHARD APPELDOORN:

No, not to my knowledge.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: meeting.

TONY BLANCHARD: Nelson?

Okay.

Nelson Crespo was there during the SSC Did they have any input to the meeting,

MARCOS HANKE: I was at the meeting, too. Off the top of my mind, I don’t remember input or anything that he participated, and maybe I am wrong, but he was available to participate anytime and to request his participation by the chairman of the SSC. He was available there.

TONY BLANCHARD: Because my take is I believe that the chair of St. Thomas especially, knowing Mr. Magras, would have some comments on what was going on through the meeting, some input to bring to the meeting, and so that was my concern, that the only DAP chair that was there was Puerto Rico.

Ed wasn’t there either, to my knowledge, and so that’s the point that I am trying to bring.

MARCOS HANKE: Tony, thank you for your point.

Actually, it’s appropriate for Mr. Julian Magras, if he wants to say anything about the presentation on this matter, to keep advancing this discussion forward.

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

JULIAN MAGRAS: The question that I had was -- Well, it was a comment. Number one, I never received the information about the SSC meeting, and so I was not there.

I was contacted the day after, to tell me that there was a meeting, and I found that very strange, that I didn’t know about the meeting. I called Ed, and Ed told me that he never got the login information.

I called Nelson, and Nelson told me that he was on, and so that’s the past now, but I heard all of what was on the agenda, and I found it very alarming that I wasn’t able to make a lot of comments on what was taking place.

I do have issues with the way that we are trying to move forward with this new data way, and there’s a lot of loops in there, and it’s creating a lot of issues. When Puerto Rico did their pilot study, it showed where they were off by thousands and thousands of pounds, and that can trigger accountability measures, and that can also trigger where fisheries completely shut down, and I think, before we move forward with any of these methods, that they need to be looked at a lot more carefully.

We have been asking for more port sampling, and we still go back to a project that the Virgin Islands did not want to participate in that we are trying to move forward that project again.

The best port sampling, and the best data that you can receive, is hands-on, and there are lot of people out there -- We need to go, but the answers to a lot of the other stuff that took place at that meeting -- I wasn’t there, and so I have to wait until the next meeting, and hopefully I will know about it, that I can make my comments on the record.

It’s just like the conceptual models, and here is that we are going off the creation of conceptual models created by Lenfest, who is guiding us, and, come to find out, Lenfest is funded by the Pew Foundation, and we have a serious problem with that, and so you have the whole Pew that is pretty much running the whole conceptual model stuff, and so I am going to leave it at that.

I hope that, at the August meeting, that I will have a presentation from the fishers of the St. Thomas/St. John District on our disappointment in how a lot of things are going on, and we need to get back on track, to where we are working together, instead of trying to get back to where we were in the past of working against each other. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for your comments, Julian.

Is there anybody else would like to make a comment about the presentation?

Otherwise, I have a question for the group.

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

RICHARD APPELDOORN: Marcos, I would just like to remind everyone that they are going to hear a presentation on the tech memo and on the red hind, and so hearing our comments before they have heard those presentations perhaps is somewhat putting the cart before the horse, but there will be a chance to hear those presentations and make comments.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, Richard, and we have also on the webpage of the council all those meetings announced, and this is how I connected, and it’s a public platform for everybody to access. I want to remind all the council members to always be connected to the best tool we have, which is our webpage. Are there any other questions to Richard?

Hearing none, I would like to ask Richard about the recommendation of the SSC, and I would like especially the representatives of Puerto Rico to express about the recommendation about moving the red hind closed season fifteen days towards March, but I think it’s appropriate, Richard, and this is my point on this, to do it after -- To come back to this after the presentation of Michelle Scharer a little later on in the agenda, and do you agree with that position, with that statement?

RICHARD APPELDOORN: Absolutely. I think that the council should hear the full arguments, and they would more fully understand the basis for our recommendations.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you.

Let’s do that then, and people, especially from Puerto Rico, Nelson and Damaris, that this addresses specifically our area, and it’s another example of why we did the island-based management approach, looking for that.

After, we’re going to come back to this discussion, to see what we’re going to do with the recommendation of the SSC, after Michelle Scharer’s presentation. Hearing nobody else asking for participation, we are finished with Richard’s presentation, and we are going to go now to Michelle Scharer’s presentation.

CLOSED SEASONS FOR CERTAIN SPECIES MICHELLE SCHARER: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Michelle Scharer. I have been doing research in the west coast of Puerto Rico for about twenty years now, thanks to Richard Appeldoorn and other collaborators that I have named here, like Tim Rowell, Carlos Zayas, Eric Appeldoorn, Ron Hill, Hector Ruiz, and Evan Tuohy.

We’ve been fortunate to work with all these organizations that I have listed here in different aspects.

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

Basically, today, I am hoping that this information will help us have a good discussion to inform MPA, or area-based, management in a more ecosystem-based approach, and, specifically, to address the potential for red hind fisheries to be improved by enhancing the reproduction in a critical part of their life cycle.

I brought in a little bit of history. We had a SEDAR in 2014, and, at that time, the red hind was the most abundant grouper caught in Puerto Rico, and it was about 2 percent of total landings, and I believe that’s now Grouper Unit 3, and this graph demonstrates the spatial distribution around Puerto Rico of where those landings come from.

Historically, we had about 100,000 pounds total being caught, and then, after 2005, we are around 40,000, or 50,000, but, in the light blue, you can see a lot of that comes from the west coast of Puerto Rico, and so, in the next slide, in the most recent time, and these are data that the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources put together for the most recent data available, we can see that a high proportion of all pounds landed of red hind is coming from the west coast, but there is a significant increase in what’s being landed from the east coast of Puerto Rico, but we don’t have any federal waters on the east coast, and so that’s why we’re focusing today on the west coast for red hind. The mean, like I said, of these past few years was around 47,000 pounds of red hind for the whole island of Puerto Rico.

Before we had a closed season for red hind in the island of Puerto Rico, and that was appropriately in 2004, when the DNER put out fisheries regulations, and, before, a lot of the landings of red hind were constrained to the month of January, February, and a little bit in March, and so this is historical data of the landings of this species, mainly during the time that they aggregate to spawn, and this was work done by Ojeda et al. and working with fishermen to get information specific about spawning aggregations.

Again, with the data that DNER provides, the most recent data are the years 2012 to 2007, and I tried to reconstruct these monthly landing patterns of the proportion of all the fish captured -Sorry. Of all the red hind reported, and we can also see that there is a decline now during December, January, and February, compared to the previous graph, because that’s a closed season, and we’re not supposed to be landing red hind, but there is another significant peak in August and September, except of course in 2017, when we were hit by the hurricane, Hurricane Maria.

This is a summary of many efforts that have been going on on the west coast of Puerto Rico, and I just wanted to show this map of 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

why we’re working off the west coast of Puerto Rico, specifically in the federal jurisdiction area, because everything that you see in green is basically Puerto Rico jurisdiction, and the recommendations that come out of this research are specific for that little chunk within that red circle.

Basically, these are areas where, again, fishermen reported that there were spawning aggregations for multiple species, and not only for red hind, but most of those areas are off that western shelf coast, and they are in federal waters, and so the research we’ve been doing includes different methods to try to assess the populations of red hind, but, more specifically, what’s going on when they aggregate to spawn.

We’ve done diver surveys at some of these aggregation sites for red hind, and there has also been work funded by the council to look at Nassau grouper with acoustic tags at Bajo de Sico, which is that little corner up in the left part of that map.

Thanks to an S-K-funded project, we were able to collect fish -Sorry. Red hind between Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, and St. Croix with the same methods, to look at size and age, their fecundity, their sex ratios, and what we’ve been doing consistently at one of these sites off the west coast, at Abrir la Sierra, is passive acoustic monitoring.

It’s also going on at other sites, but not as consistently as Abrir la Sierra, and, basically, we’re listening to the courtshipassociated sounds. We record the sounds that are produced by the fish, and we convert that into sound pressure levels, which basically gives us an indication of when the fish are present.

We collaborated with Laurent Cherubin from Harbor Branch, and we deployed gliders that also listened for the red hind throughout the west coast, and, more recently, we’re piloting a grouper sighting project with fishers off the west coast of Puerto Rico, so that, if they’re diving, and they see a Nassau grouper, they can provide us with the size and the coordinates and the habitats of these fish, and we can then monitor if that species is recovering off the west coast.

These are some preliminary results from the collection of red hind.

It’s important for everybody to understand that it’s really different when we’re looking at red hind, because they are a protogynous species, which just means that they change their sex as they grow. When red hind are small, they’re all females, and, at a certain size, which is approximately eleven inches long, then they transition to be males, and they have very complex social 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

structures, due to these types of aggregations.

We have been able to document that the males arrive first at the aggregation sites, and some of them migrate quite a ways, and then they have to set up and defend territories between males, and they have like a harem structure when they’re aggregated, and so one male can have lots of females in his little area, but the females move in and move out of the aggregation during different lunar cycles at the aggregation site.

We know that the female fecundity increases with size, and so bigger females will have more eggs, but they also need lots of males to fertilize those eggs when they spawn.

We have also observed that the males and the larger-sized females are remaining at the aggregation site longer, and then, after the whole aggregation is over, that’s when they go and migrate back to their home range, and so, on this graph, I plotted preliminary results of the number of females, which is the red bar, and males, which is the blue bar, at three sites that we sampled during 2016, and the sex ratios at the west fish spawning aggregation site was seventeen females to one male, whereas, in the fishing grounds of the same area off the west coast, when they’re not spawning, the sex ratio is four females to one male.

If we compare that to samples from the fishing grounds off the east coast of Puerto Rico, we can see, also, a two-to-one sex ratio, and it’s important to compare the west coast fish spawning aggregation ratio with results collected at the Red hind Bank and at Lang Bank, because these were collected during the same time, and we see the sex ratios are pretty different in the Red Hind Bank. They’re three-to-one, and, at the Lang Bank in St. Croix, they’re nine-to-one.

Why is this important?

Because, as I said previously, we need various males to be able to spawn with all these females and effectively fertilize those eggs, so that we have a complete life cycle and we have sufficient generations of red hind to repopulate our stock.

This graph is a summary of all the diver surveys that we have made at Abrir la Sierra over the years. Unfortunately, we don’t have the same effort every year to go there and do a lot of dives, to be able to assess how many fish are there, but some years we’ve had funding to do a more specific repeated sampling on one lunar cycle, or at least two, but, in other years, we can only get there once, and so we really haven’t seen a change in the density of the red hind of the aggregation site, but this may be an artifact of 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

not completely sampling every aggregation with the same factors, but it is with the same method at least.

This is the basis of the technology that we’re using for passive acoustic monitoring of grouper sounds. Some of you may remember the work by Carlos Sargus that was presented at the council describing the different sounds that red hind produce. We also have described the sounds of Nassau grouper, of yellowfin grouper, of black grouper, and, basically, these sounds are different between the different species, but they’re also different depending on the behavior that the fish are conducting when they are aggregated.

We have these two main sounds that red hind produce when they’re aggregated, and some are during setting up their territorial defense behaviors or courtship or, in the case of Nassau grouper, we have also seen competition between males for a mate associated with sound.

Peaks in sound production occur at sunset or at dawn, and so what we’ve done is we’re recording 24/7 during six months, but we extracted the 6:00 p.m. hour to calculate sound pressure levels, and this is all work that Eric Appeldoorn has been doing, and so the sound pressure levels is basically how loud it is within that frequency where we know the fish are producing sound, and, for the examples that I am going to present you, the 150 to 300 hertz frequency, it’s filtered, and so we don’t look at the other frequency bands, because we know the grouper are not making sounds in those other frequency bands, but, if you go to the next slide, I can show you better the difference between counting the sounds versus calculating the sound pressure levels.

This is one of the examples that I will be showing you, but, here, we have two datasets. The gray bars are counting how many actual sounds, individual sounds, were heard within that hour, and we summed that for the hour, but, for the sound pressure levels, that calculation of sound pressure level for each file is averaged over the hour, and so, every day, you can see how the sound pressure levels increase or decrease, and that coincides pretty well with the number of sounds that we are hearing the red hind produce.

All of these graphs that I am going to show you, they all have a red line, a red vertical line, and it’s been placed on March 1, because that’s the day that the closed seasons end, and, after that, it’s legal to catch red hind, but, in some cases, you will see that we can still detect the presence of the fish, because of the sounds they produce.

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

I am going to go pretty quickly through a time series, and I tried to show you, from the point of view of the red hind, what their aggregations look like. Every year, we have calculated these sound pressure levels for the -- I have just cut it down from December to March because this is the area of interest, because we don’t really hear them before or after making these peaks to show that they are aggregated, and the little circles on the top are the full moon, and so, if you go to the next slide, I am going to shift every time series, so that we you can see how they coincide on the red hind schedule, which is associated to the moons and not necessarily to the dates.

In 2011 and 2012, I think we were pretty okay that the closed season came after the red hind were no longer present. In 2013, we noticed that the fish were present after March 1 at this site, and we were not quite sure why that was happening, but we kept on looking at the same time series, to see if it happened again.

In 2014, we see presence of red hind after March 1 at the site.

In 2015, it was not apparent. The two main peaks of the red hind sound production were previous to March 1, but there was a little bit after that. Then, in 2016, we can see that there’s a peak there precisely on March 1, but, when these sound peaks are just one day, we have to go back and check the record and make sure what produced the sound, but it could be other interference, or it could be whales, or it could be boats. Sometimes, when there is a strong swell, or current, we’ll see those one-day peaks.

In 2017, this is the time series of the sound production levels for Abrir la Sierra, and it looks like we were okay in 2017. In 2018, we see presence of those high sound levels after March 1.

Then apparently it happened again in 2019. This is the record for 2020, and we see presence of red hind sounds after March 1. Then we also see here that there was presence of red hind straddling that date of March 1, and a little bit afterwards, according to the sound levels.

This is what the red hind calendar for spawning looks like, and so these two peaks, the strong two peaks, generally occur in January and February, but sometimes, due to the timing of the moon and the month, those peaks can also occur after March 1, and so the bars that I have put in here, that are either gray or green, are basically where March 1 is going to be on the red hind calendar for the following ten years, and only two of those that are in green, 2025 and 2028, can we predict that the red hind will be done with the aggregation before March 1. For all the other years, there is either going to be a coincidence with the end of the second peak on March 1 or there may be a third peak when fish will 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

be present after March 1.

This is based on predictions that were put forth for the Virgin Islands, and so a model that was worked out on the relationship between the full moon and the winter solstice, but, in our case, in the west of Puerto Rico, the red hind are a little bit more delayed on the moon, and so this is why it’s a little bit different from the case in the Virgin Islands, and maybe the east coast of Puerto Rico.

Here is a summary of the conclusions for what we’ve observed in the past and what we expect for the future, if the same patterns hold. For the few years in the past, we have four of all those years where we did not have a problem with March 1, but, the other 63 percent, we had either a peak after March 1 or the second peak occurred after March 1.

That’s why we’re recommending just to shift the dates, because, if the same pattern holds in the future, 80 percent of the time, we may fall short of protecting the end of the spawning aggregation.

Why this shift is occurring is still a mystery to us. There are many hypotheses that have been put forth by other researchers, and some have to do with low abundance of the aggregations. When there is not a lot of fish, the fish kind of wait and hang out, to see if more arrive, and that takes longer after the time they were supposed to spawn.

There is also a concept of hyperstability, where, at the aggregation site, you see the same density, but that aggregation is actually shrinking in space, and so, in total, you have less fish.

Then another possibility is that we have changes in the sea water temperature, or, actually, variations in the incidence and the strength and the direction of the currents, which we know are cues for spawning, when the fish are already aggregated, and we have seen research where they have studied shifts in the space used by fish when they are going to spawn, but we haven’t had a lot of research on shifts in the time that fish use to spawn, and so all of these things are future lines that we could look at to decipher what’s going on, but, basically, we want to recommend, to improve the grouper fishery in Puerto Rico, that these spawning aggregations complete their life cycle and that all those eggs are spawned into the water column, so that we have more red hind in future years.

What we discussed at the council was to shift this ninety-day closed season when the sacrifice of not fishing red hind may be 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

more useful, and so that would be starting 15 December to the 15th of March. It’s really important to monitor these aggregations, because they are very variable, and they may be shifting, and these things -- We have to be there to see them on time and not after it’s too late, and so, if we ensure the closed seasons provide protection at the most vulnerable time, that would help forward the management of those species, and we would also be able to document how effective these seasonal closures are at the MPA sites and also demonstrate the benefits of not fishing for those three months.

We also have data that suggests that the black grouper and the yellowfin grouper, perhaps the tiger grouper, and the Nassau grouper are using different times as historically, and so this is something that we also have some research on, but, in the case of Nassau grouper, although it is a prohibited species, the aggregation off the west coast of Puerto Rico is within a marine protected area, and the seasonal protection there ends on March 31, but we have seen activity in April, for the same reasons that I just discussed for red hind.

Even though they’re not supposed to be caught, if they’re aggregated, they’re vulnerable. If they’re brought up, they could suffer barotrauma, and we would like to avoid any of that, to recover the species.

Something that’s really important is that these closed seasons need to be enforced, both at-sea and on the land, throughout the supply chain, and, finally, a recommendation would be to educate the critical importance of conserving fish spawning aggregations, so that we have sustainable fisheries. That’s it, and I am happy to answer any questions.

MARCOS HANKE: Before the questions, I have -- Because of the timing, I will ask Michelle and Richard, because this is related to the SSC report too, if it’s not more productive to have the sequence of questions that I already have of Tony, Virginia Shervette, and Eddie in the queue to do after lunch and not to be rushing over this. What do the presenter and Richard think about that?

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, that’s your decision. We can wait until after lunch and then start with this outline of people asking for a question, and then you can add fifteen more minutes to the discussion in the afternoon, but this is an important component of the meeting today, and the council has to make a decision as to the next steps.

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

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, I agree, and I was trying to be the most open to the public, but we need to be quick on this and to make the best of our time. Let’s break for lunch and discuss this, and I have Tony, Virginia, and Eddie in the queue, with a little more time to think over the presentation and to discuss this better.

Let’s break for lunch and come back at 1:00. See you guys at 1:00.

(Whereupon, the meeting recessed for lunch on July 21, 2021.)

- - JULY 21, 2021 WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION - - The Caribbean Fishery Management Council reconvened via webinar on Wednesday afternoon, July 21, 2021, and was called to order at 1:00 o’clock p.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke.

MARCOS HANKE: Let’s start. Let’s reconvene. It’s 1:03 p.m. We have, in the queue, Tony Blanchard addressing the presentation of Michelle Scharer, and maybe issues that were also touched on by Richard Appeldoorn. Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: -MARCOS HANKE: try again?

I’ve just got to ask a couple of questions and to Tony, we are having problems to hear you.

Can you

TONY BLANCHARD: First, I want to know what the Puerto Rico representation thinks about -MIGUEL ROLON: --

I believe that what Tony wants to hear is Nelson’s

TONY BLANCHARD:

Can you hear me now?

MIGUEL ROLON:

We can hear you now, Tony.

MARCOS HANKE: again.

Tony, we cannot hear you very well.

TONY BLANCHARD:

Can you hear me?

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, go ahead.

62

Go ahead, Tony.

Go ahead,

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: What I would like to know is, the downward spike at the end of the season, of the closed season, do we have any idea what the amount of fish that the spike represents, number one, and are we even sure that they are still spawning at that point in time, or are they just moving around the bank?

The other thing is, if we are talking about closing because we are going on the idea of the full moon, the fish aggregates a certain amount of time during that period, and then we should only close on the full moon when it affects the seasonal closure as-is, and that’s my take.

MARCOS HANKE: Point well taken. the queue is Virginia.

Thank you very much.

Next in

VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: Michelle, first, that was an excellent presentation, and thank you so much for providing such a thorough explanation, especially from you all’s direct research. My point was just that we actually have extensive life history data from reproductive histology and age structure, both SEAMAP samples that were collected, have been collected, during the spawning season on the west coast and then some fishery-independent and dependent sampling efforts that my lab has done.

That would provide additional information that shows some different stuff than was in your presentation, and so, since I sat in on that SSC meeting, I know that that kind of information wasn’t included in your consideration, and I just wanted to throw out that those data do exist, and they might be utilized to better inform this discussion.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Virginia, for your input, and is there any way that you can not discuss the information, but to say what kind of information related to what?

VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: We have data from just reproductive histology, gonad histology, that show, for Buoy 4, where that aggregation was sampled that Michelle gave some ratio data, that, in 2018 at least, when the aggregation was spawning, there was a sex ratio of one male to seven females, not one to seventeen, for 2018, at least.

That’s just one example. Then we also have -- Over the years, we just have reproductive histology data showing the different locations where fish have been collected, females have been collected, that are spawning capable and then the extent of when those spawning capable females occur.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you very much for that clarification.

63

It

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

still is a higher ratio than the rest of Puerto Rico, but it’s very important feedback for the group. Thank you, Virginia. Thank you very much for your participation. If there is anything else, please let us know. Eddie.

EDWARD SCHUSTER: Good afternoon.

Edward Schuster, DAP Chair.

Excellent presentation, and I learned about the change from male to female. My question would be, and my curiosity, is actually to find out what triggers -- The males show up first, and so what triggers them to change to finding out whether -- Like, for example, if you’ve got a hundred males that show up first, what percentage of the males change? Does 25 percent or 50 percent of them change, because there’s females there, or does the ratio have to double to 300 females to a hundred males that show up?

The next thing is the fisher involvement, and maybe the fish has changed, and there is another spawning aggregation, and, along with any natural predators that show up, and I have seen this on either Blue Planet or one of those National Geographics, where the whale sharks come in. Have you seen those species around where the aggregation, or while the aggregation, is taking place? Those are the just the things on my question list here.

MARCOS HANKE: Michelle, very quick, do you want to answer to that?

MICHELLE SCHARER: Yes, I would be glad to.

Thank you, Eddie.

The sex change part of the red hind is that, when they’re all born, when they’re all small, they’re all females, and, at a certain time, after so many years, which varies, but it’s around when they’re eleven inches long, then they become males, but they can’t change back, and so, the first part of their life, they are females. There comes a time in their lives when they change to males, and, the rest of their life, they are males.

When the males arrive first at the aggregation, they’re not going to change any more, because those are already males, and so, after the females come in, some of those larger females are the ones that could become males in next year’s aggregation, and so it takes some time for the physiology to work, to make them change their ovaries to testes.

When I’m talking about sex ratio, it’s basically the males that were there that get inundated by a bunch of females. In one moon, the females leave. In the next moon, females come back, and those are the main spawning events that occur at night.

Regarding spawning aggregation sites changing, that is a possibility, and that’s why we try to make our surveys further 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

from the area we’re sampling, and so these are like nuclei, where there is a higher density of red hind during the spawning aggregation, but they are spread in less density as well, and so it is possible that they move around where they make these nuclei, and that’s why it’s so important to have standardized monitoring over time, but the space that we are listening to is the same space year after year, and, with our surveys, we have seen that the fish are there and that they’re distended, that they’re ready to spawn.

Regarding predators, we have seen a few hammerhead sharks during the time we’re doing the surveys, but not whale sharks, but there are other little fish that could eat the eggs once they’re released into the water column, and so you also have to think of egg predators, but those are great questions. Thank you.

EDWARD SCHUSTER: Just to add to this, Marcos, I know, in St. Croix, we did this for the conch. We had a closed season of three months, and then we expanded it two months, I think one month before and one month after, and the reason being is that fishers had come to our FAC and mentioned that they have seen the conch spawning before the closed season and after, but I know this affects Puerto Rico, and so I don’t to be too influential on their decision that they make, but that’s just my input on it. Thanks for the time.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you for your participation.

Richard.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: I want to follow up on Edward’s questions.

Where you see things like whale sharks, the big filter feeders coming in, are more the bigger groupers, and especially the snappers, where they will spawn in the water column much more en masse, therefore creating a high density of these particles for those filter feeders to target, whereas red hind are spawning pretty much just a little bit off the bottom, and, therefore, they’re not really launching stuff up into the water column as much, and it’s a more spread out process, because they are forming these territorial harems, as opposed to all getting together and trying to go up in several big, or one big, mass, like some of the snappers do.

I wanted to mention a few other things about the state of the aggregations in Puerto Rico, and it’s really difficult to get large sample sizes for this, and that’s why Virginia has been going back and getting more. The reason that we sampled at buoy four and not where we’ve done most of our work at Abrir la Sierra is that we felt that we would basically decimate Abrir la Sierra if we were to take the fish out of the aggregation that we were closely monitoring. That gives you sort of an idea of what we thought the 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

state of aggregation is.

One of the benefits for having that glider research done with Laurent Cherubin was that the glider could go all the way up and down the west coast, and even over to Bajo de Sico, listening for these sounds, and therefore mapping the distribution of those sounds, and pretty much what it showed was that the aggregations, or the locations of sounds, which we associate with aggregations, were only located in the areas basically that we were already familiar with, as far as the outer west coast was concerned.

There are other aggregation sites in Puerto Rican waters, for example, that were not looked at, because -- Such as over near the mouth of Mayaguez Bay, and so I don’t think we’re seeing an expansion of the range of the aggregations. However, what could happen, if densities are increasing, is that the densities at these outer portions of those aggregation areas would expand, and I think that’s probably what is happening over at the MCD. The last point I wanted to make is that, in addition to the sex ratios, we also have things like age distributions, and so a comment on both of these, and these were samples that were also processed by Virginia, and so maybe she can comment on that more, but, in the initial samples that were done comparing the west coast with the Hind Bank, and also Lang Bank, we found that the mean age of fish in Puerto Rico aggregations was five, and the maximum age was nine.

At the Hind Bank, the mean was eleven, and the maximum was twentytwo years old, and so a much older age distribution in that more protected area, and it’s not surprising.

In terms of sex ratios and sex change, those are -- Sex change is subject to a lot of things, and so it’s subject not only to the size, but it’s the size relative to the rest of the population, and so the time or size at which sex change will take place can vary substantially, based on studies with other species, depending on the size and age structure and health of the population.

That is also true with the size of the fish maturing, and therefore being present at an aggregation site, and so, if you have an older, larger, dominant population, smaller individuals that might otherwise be at the aggregation don’t go, because they haven’t matured yet, and so the age at maturation is also somewhat flexible.

For example, in the same comparison, the peak size mode of red hind at Buoy 4 off the west coast of Puerto Rico was only slightly 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

larger than the minimum size recorded at the Hind Bank, and so, again, these are all signs that are saying that, at least at that time, that population was being fairly stressed.

Now, Virginia’s data that she just mentioned comes from some years, I think, after the initial sample, and so maybe that indicates an improvement in the population, or, conversely, the problem we’ve found, and I think Michelle kind of touched on this, is that, if you don’t have a lot of samples, and I don’t mean individuals of fish, but I mean samples throughout the aggregation period, you’re unlikely to capture what the peak is, because the males are there first, and the females will arrive, but, frequently, the females are not really coming out until near sunset, and then they start really showing up, where you can start counting them.

If you are taking your fish before that time, as compared to that time, you might get different answers on what your sex ratio is, even though the population is exactly the same, but it’s just what are the fish behaviors relative to your ability to catch them, and so all of these problems make it difficult to monitor the health of a particular aggregation, which is why we need long time series and why it’s important to get out there frequently during the spawning period.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for all of those good points, Richard.

We have, as expected, a lot of interest. Nelson.

NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Michelle, excellent presentation. Based on your presentation and what I see in the field, in my area, I think that it’s pertinent, and it’s not going to cause major -- To move from December 1 to December 15 to March 15. On the check on the next ten years, most of the time, when we’re going to have the Holy Week, it’s going to be by the end of -- That’s when the fish, especially the red hind, have a big market.

Also, I know that species has to be protected, and I know that Abrir la Sierra is one of the best spawning areas, and we need to do something about it, because it’s not to cause a major socioeconomic impact, and I think we would consider to run the closed season a little bit.

I don’t know if that answers Tony’s question, because I can’t hear him well, but I want to hear Vanessa’s opinion, because I really know more of the south side of the island, and that species has a really high interest on the market, but only for the holy season.

When the holy season passes, the interest declines, and that doesn’t mean that the people stop catching it, but it means that 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

the interest to catch it and the sales lowers dramatically. That’s what I see every day, every year, in the field.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Nelson. That’s very important, Nelson, on the west coast of Puerto Rico. I have, in the queue, Damaris, Clay, and Vanessa. Damaris, go ahead.

DAMARIS DELGADO: I would like to propose a motion regarding this potential change in the dates, if that’s possible.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Vanessa first.

DAMARIS DELGADO: MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Damaris.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Clay.

Let’s listen to Clay and

CLAY PORCH: Thank you, Michelle, for this presentation, and I was just wondering if we could use these passive acoustic monitoring arrays in something close to real time, and the idea being that, once the signal is gone, indicating that the fish are no longer aggregated and spawning, then you could open up the fishery, and so, that way, you would do it exactly when the fish have stopped aggregating.

MARCOS HANKE:

Richard, do you want to answer?

RICHARD APPELDOORN: I read his comment, and so I had two things I could say, and then Michelle can chime in as well, and one is, yes, you could monitor it. All you would need is to have a relay up to the surface, and, using cell phones, you can listen to these things real time, or you can have some automated system counting, and we actually have algorithms that Laurent’s group has developed to try and do that.

The other way would be to have a glider cruising around, and what his glider does is it listens in real time for these recorded sounds, and so, technically, you could do it. You would have to make sure that stuff doesn’t get tampered with, but the other, and perhaps more important, point is that the data show that we can actually predict when they are going to aggregate very precisely, and, therefore, I don’t think you would need the real-time monitoring.

You can say, okay, this year, we expect it to go on to the 4th, and this year will be the 8th, or something like that, and be pretty close, because I think the timing of this is, in fact, quite rigorous relative to the moon.

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

What you would need would be a flexible mechanism that would allow you to turn on and turn off the closed season each year without having to go through some emergency measure type of process.

Michelle, did you want to add something to that?

MICHELLE SCHARER: I was just going to say we did do that with the glider, and it worked pretty well, but these aggregations are a little bit spread out, and they’re like along the shelf, and you have nuclei of fish that those are the ones we’re counting, and so there was a previous question by Mr. Blanchard about the number of fish, and if there were sufficient fish during that last peak, and the answer is we haven’t measured that consistently over the years, and so we can’t really answer that, and, if they’re done spawning -- Well, one issue we have with this species is that nobody has seen it spawning.

We have seen them still there with distended abdomens, which means they still have their eggs in them, and they haven’t been able to spawn yet in that March peak, but we really need to be there and monitor this more closely to be able to answer all these important questions that you all are bringing up.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Michelle. Basically, what you are saying is that we need a little more time on the water and support for that to happen. Next in the queue is Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Practically, as we know, and Nelson is always down here, and we already know that this change is real. Since 2017, we have seen not only the red hind, but also in another species that are in high demand, and, of course, we’re going to think that this is a good action.

We already know that there are going to be people that will not agree with this, especially, as Nelson says, that March 15 is very close to the holy week, and this species is very important for that sales, but I think that we need to also be responsible and be taking the action when we have to.

As Damaris says, I suggest that we accept this and make a motion and move on on this, because we already know that, in the west, we have a lot of commercial fishermen, practically more than the licensed fishermen that are in here, and, for each one with a license, we have one or two without a license. We have seen this during the last years, and we have seen this during the last closed season, that there are still fishermen, and there are still fish markets that are buying this during the closure, and so, as a point in here, and I want to be on the record, we need more enforcement 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

on land, also.

I will suggest that we take this action now, making the point also that the first one should be an orientation period for the fishermen, and we need to make a real effort to go down to the fish markets and take the action of explaining to the fishermen why is this season applied only in the west and why the importance, when it’s going to be applied, and where it’s going to applied.

Thanks.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Vanessa. That’s very important. Thank you very much. We have in the queue Miguel Rolon, and I would also like to, in the future, after the motion, to have the support of Jocelyn, to make sure that whatever is proposed on the motion is the most efficient way of proceeding with whatever the motion presents. Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. A couple of things. Number one, the motion that you are considering is whether you accept or not the recommendation of the SSC. MARCOS HANKE:

Correct.

MIGUEL ROLON: There are ways of doing that, and, right now, the only way that you can do that is by amending the island-based FMPs that have been approved in September of last year, and the same way that you are working on an island-based FMPs amendment at this time, and I discussed it with Jocelyn a little bit, and she provided the clear path of what we need to do.

The council also can ask for more information, because, just today, we found two sources of information that are a little bit different, or will add more to what Dr. Scharer is presenting, and that information comes from Virginia. In the queue here, in the chat here, I have some information from the local scientists also that have information that they can share with the council.

If you decide to move forward with this, then you need to consider a couple of things. Number one, you have to instruct the staff to work with the Regional Office to prepare an options paper, let’s say, to start discussing the -- To put everything together, the biology and the socioeconomic information that you need.

Enforcement is an issue, because most of the -- Well, all of the management measures, if you don’t have enforcement, is like just a paper regulation, and it doesn’t work. If you are going to have a change of the season, if you have a problem with enforcement now, and you think about moving that season up and down every year, 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

because you are looking at the temperature or whatever in the water, and so our recommendation is that, if you are going to move it, lock it into a specific time and area that is being proposed.

The other issue that they’re asking me is what happened to the rest of the closed season, because it’s announced from December 1 through the end of February, to include those years where February has 29 or 28 days, and, at this time, you can even -- Don’t even talk about it, and just concentrate on the area 67, 10 west of Puerto Rico to let’s say adopt the recommendation of the SSC at this time.

In summary, if you are going to adopt that recommendation, you need to amend the island-based FMPs, and it cannot be made via framework, because I asked, and a framework is when you give the authorization to the Secretary to use these parameters if something happens, for example, and he or she can modify the regulations in place, and we don’t have to amend the plan, because it’s already part of the management plan, and that’s why they call it a framework approach, but, in this case, we don’t have that.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, if you are going to adopt the recommendation of the SSC, which is moving the time that you close in those three areas that have been mentioned, or the area west of the coordinates that we mentioned, the longitude that we mentioned, then it has to be done through an island-based FMP amendment, and you need to start working on that recommendation, the appropriate recommendation, that includes biological information from all the sources that have been discussed today, the socioeconomic information, and then you have to take it to public hearings, of course, to the public. That’s all I have to say at this time. If you have any questions, Jocelyn is here. If you have any questions regarding it, this is the time.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I was -- I already expressed my interest to hear the input from Jocelyn to follow the best steps and which consideration we should have in this matter. Go ahead, Jocelyn.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you.

I agree with what Miguel just said, that you can decide if you want to move forward and accept the recommendation from the SSC to change the closure periods, and you could then form an IPT and begin work on an amendment, or, if there’s additional information that you want considered, you could direct staff to compile that additional information and come back to an additional meeting and discuss this again and decide if you want to move forward with an amendment.

I agree with Miguel that this would be an amendment to the island71

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

based FMPs and that we can’t do it by framework. We can start working on an amendment to the island-based FMPs right now, and that’s similar to what we’re doing with spiny lobster, for example, and we’re working on an amendment to the island-based FMPs, because those have been approved. We’re still in the process of creating the rules to implement them, but we’re in an okay position to amend those plans, if that’s the choice right now.

MARCOS HANKE:

Andy.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos, and I guess not commenting on Jocelyn’s statement, but more in terms of accepting the SSC recommendations, and so the SSC is being fairly explicit with regard to a December 15 through March 15 closure.

I think my preference would be along the lines of what Jocelyn was saying, to kind of explore options for changing the closure dates for red hind, and that could very well end up being December 15 to March 15, but there could be other considerations.

For example, Clay had mentioned, obviously, the real-time monitoring, but what immediately came to mind is, if we want to provide some flexibility, given the dates in which the closure may be needed, that we could look at different spawning closures on an annual basis and set it based on the moon phases, or you could provide NMFS, the Regional Administrator, some authority and flexibility to open or close the fishery based on certain conditions.

I think it would be best to kind of keep the recommendation, the motion, for action more generic, rather than just simply adopting the SSC recommendation, which is very specific.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you.

One comment is I have historical knowledge about this discussion, this one and a similar discussion in the past, and that is the fishermen tend to prefer a single date, or something that we have some continuity over the time, and it doesn’t change too much, to avoid confusion. I am sorry about my English there and the pronunciation, but I think the message is there, and I would like to hear the motion that Damaris has, because we don’t have too much time, and we need to move this along, to go through the next item on the agenda and discuss the motion. Go ahead, Damaris.

DAMARIS DELGADO: The motion would be the council moves to request staff to draft an amendment to the Puerto Rico FMP to modify the dates of the seasonal closure for fishing for or possession of red hind grouper in federal waters of Puerto Rico from the current 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

date and shift from December 15 to March 15, as requested by the SSC. MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. Damaris, for the screen, can we just copy the recommendation of the SSC, and you can look at it and see if it agrees with what you just said?

DAMARIS DELGADO: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes.

Liajay, can you copy-and-paste?

LIAJAY RIVERA: Can you send it through the email, because the chat is not able to do copy-and-paste, and if you could please do so through email.

MIGUEL ROLON: Liajay, wait.

Just copy-and-paste the recommendation of the SSC. As we are doing this, remember that this will -- It’s giving instruction to the staff to prepare the document for further action, to see if this motion can be accepted as-is.

What Andy Strelcheck is saying is that there are other options that have to be included also in the document.

Although the goal could be the 15th of December to March 15, there might be -- After the information gathered by the staff, the appropriate staff, there might be other options that could be presented in the options paper, and that’s why they call it that, and the council can look at it and choose the best one for the fishery and the socioeconomics of the area.

LIAJAY RIVERA:

Miguel, I have just pasted the SSC recommendation.

MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you. Damaris, can you read it and see if you agree with what you are trying to state?

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Yes, that’s fine.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay, and so, if that’s the motion, Mr. Chairman, we need a second and discussion.

DAMARIS DELGADO: I sent it by email to you, Miguel, and Graciela and Christina and Marcos, but that’s fine.

MIGUEL ROLON: The point is the language that we have on the screen, Damaris.

DAMARIS DELGADO: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes.

You agree with that one, and so we need a second.

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

DAMARIS DELGADO: MIGUEL ROLON:

Thank you, Damaris.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes, I agree.

Second.

Now we need the discussion.

MARCOS HANKE: On the discussion, I would like to hear from the rest of the group, especially Andy, if there is any language to be added, recommendation language, to be added to address his point earlier.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Marcos, thanks. My recommendation would be to amend the motion, as written, to say something along the lines of direct staff to develop an options paper to modify the seasonal closure for fishing and possession of red hind during the red hind spawning aggregation timeframe and then leave it at that, and don’t specify dates or anything like that. We’ll have staff bring back options for consideration by the council at our next meeting, or the December meeting.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay.

A point of order.

That’s a substitute motion, and so if -- That’s a substitute motion, and so the -ANDY STRELCHECK:

Well, I --

MIGUEL ROLON: Wait.

If the proponent of the motion and the seconder agree, then we can withdraw this language and then allow Andy to dictate to Liajay the new language, but they have to first agree on the change of the motion.

MARCOS HANKE: the motion?

Damaris and Vanessa, do you agree on the change of

DAMARIS DELGADO: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes, I agree.

Vanessa, the seconder?

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Yes.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay, and so, Liajay, please erase what we have now. Get rid of the whole thing, and then wait for Andy to dictate the new language. Can you do that, Andy, please, slowly?

ANDY STRELCHECK:

Can you bring the previous language back up?

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

LIAJAY RIVERA:

Sorry?

ANDY STRELCHECK: Can you go back and just bring the previous language -- Because I can use the previous language, if you can go back.

LIAJAY RIVERA:

Okay.

ANDY STRELCHECK: My recommendation is direct staff to develop an options paper to modify -- Then I guess just restore the struckout “areas: at the end, but delete the dates, and so remove the dates, but leave “spawning aggregation areas”.

MIGUEL ROLON: In this case, Mr. Chairman, Andy can then make the motion as written, and then you need a second for the discussion.

MARCOS HANKE: That’s the language, Andy. with the language to request for a second?

MIGUEL ROLON: Wait, wait, wait. that your motion, Andy?

ANDY STRELCHECK:

Are you comfortable

Andy has to make the motion.

Yes, that’s my motion.

Is

Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Okay.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, that was my question, and is there a second?

DAMARIS DELGADO: MIGUEL ROLON:

Now we need a second.

Second.

No.

Thank you, Damaris.

Any opposition?

Discussion, Marcos.

MARCOS HANKE: We are going for discussion. I think we have -- I was checking here in the chat, and we have Tony Blanchard.

TONY BLANCHARD: I think we’re moving too far ahead. we need a -- What Virginia said was -- Marcos.

MARCOS HANKE: TONY BLANCHARD: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes.

I don’t think

Go ahead.

I think we’re moving -Tony, we cannot hear anything that you’re saying.

TONY BLANCHARD: -- too fast. I think what she said was not taken into consideration. Can you hear me?

MIGUEL ROLON:

You are back, yes.

75

Go ahead.

Quick.

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: I think that should -- We are moving too fast forward, instead of taking into consideration the information from Virginia that was not looked at at the SSC meeting.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. This motion is not to implement the measures as recommended by the SSC. The motion is to prepare an options paper, and the options paper includes all that information that has been talked about today, and so Virginia’s paper and the information from the Puerto Rico Fishery Laboratory, and that also will be included, as well as any other socioeconomic information that we may have, because, right now, the only thing that we have is the opinion of some fishers around the table that moving this will not affect their fisheries, but there might be fishermen that come to the table and say, no way, Jose, and that is when I fish, and 10 percent or 20 percent, or whatever percent, that I fish for comes from those two weeks.

What Mr. Strelcheck is suggesting here is, according to the process, is to prepare that options paper, and the options paper will have all of this. Remember that the options paper also has possible other alternatives, because, for every action that you have, you need at least three alternatives, or two more alternatives, and so you have three alternatives for the council to consider.

An alternative could be the floating season, like has been proposed today, and it could be also a change of those dates, from December 16 to March 16, something like that, just as an example, and so the council has to be aware of the process. If you approve this today, you are not approving the measure itself.

What you are approving is to have that options paper, and the staff will look at it, and you have an IPT that has to be named at the Regional Office, and then it will be an options paper that considers a modification or amendment to the island-based FMP, applicable island-based FMP, and, in this case, it will be the Puerto Rico island-based FMP to establish this new seasonal closure.

Be mindful that Mr. Strelcheck deleted the period of December 15 to March 15, because that’s deterministic, and so, if you approve this, Mr. Chairman, and Tony and all the others, you are nothing but preparing an options paper that will include all the information that you need to take care of a final -- Not a final decision, but make a decision that you will take to the public for consideration.

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

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Miguel.

Maria and then Vanessa.

MARIA LOPEZ: Good afternoon.

This is Maria Lopez with NOAA Fisheries, and I just wanted to speak from the side of the NMFS staff.

We will work with the council staff to put together an options paper that, as Miguel said, that evaluates not only the dates, but also the cumulative effects of -- Not the effects, necessarily, but analyzing the other closures that are overlapping, and the other areas as well, and we can also, if the council is interested, form an IPT to take a look at this. We will request also the researchers to send us the information that they have, so that we can incorporate it and utilize that, so that the council can make the best informed decisions. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: To that point, Maria, when you are saying the analysis, it will be based on the SSC recommendations, and this will be for Puerto Rico, correct?

MARIA LOPEZ: Yes, and so it will be based on this motion that the council just put forward, and so the idea for this motion was to keep it general, and so we can look at different options that we could present to the council in December.

MARCOS HANKE:

We have Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, practically, my comment is that, for the suggestion of the SSC, and the people that can attend that meeting, I think that they already have the information that they need, and, from us, the ones that are here, that are from the west and fish every day in this area, they know that this change is real, and I think that it’s better if we take an action, and it’s better if we present everything at the same time and not continue back and forth and changing things or waiting until December, and we already know that this change is real, and I think that those dates are the best ones, if you have to move something. Thanks.

MIGUEL ROLON: Vanessa, a point of order, again. You cannot do that, because you have to follow the process that we have, and, although we would like to have immediate action whenever the council says something, this is the only way that we can do it, by amending the plan.

Fishermen, if they also believe this is good, they voluntarily can do it, but, at this -- You also have to be mindful of the regulations in place. If I am a fisherman, and I fish, in 2022, between March 15, and there is no regulation in place, I am free, and that’s what I am going to do, and so the process calls for 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

this process that you have here, and this is the quickest way that you can do it and the most appropriate.

Whatever we do here, remember that a management plan has to be implemented, and so we are not talking about 2022. We are talking about the season of 2023, if something goes smoothly and fast.

Any further discussion?

MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Thank you.

Any further discussion from anybody else that wants to add to this? Hearing none, is there any person against the motion? Any abstentions? Hearing none, the motion carries.

Thank you for a good participation, and I think the record is clear, and thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is the draft tech memo on managing with ACLs. MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, can you recognize Dr. Macpherson?

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I was waiting for Marian Macpherson to be ready with the presentation.

Welcome to the meeting.

The Caribbean Management Council floor is yours.

DRAFT TECH MEMO ON MANAGING WITH ACLs FOR DATA-LIMITED STOCKS MARIAN MACPHERSON: Thank you.

Thank you for having me.

Hi, everybody. I am Marian Macpherson, and I work in the NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Headquarters Office, and I am here today to talk with you about this draft technical memo that we have produced, and I will note that you’ve got my name on the screen there, but there are several technical experts that have helped produce this document that are around to chime in and help answer questions.

Jason Cope is here, and Patrick Lynch is here, and Skyler Sagarese is here, and I think also Kate Siegfried, and so welcome to them, and I would invite them to join in as we go.

As an overview, why are we doing this, and what is this about, obviously, ACLS have worked well in a lot of situations, yet we’ve also faced challenges, and it’s been twelve years since we first implemented the MSRA requirements, and this is a good time to look back and see what’s working and what we could be doing better.

In 2016, NMFS revised the National Standard 1 Guidelines pertaining to ACLs, and there is a particular paragraph that we’ll be focusing on. NMFS convened a technical working group consisting primarily of folks from S&T and all of the science centers, with a few policy people onboard, to provide guidance on these new guidelines, and Sub-Group 3 of that technical group is focusing on this particular 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

topic, which is managing with ACLs in the data-poor fisheries.

We’ve had some progress in the last twelve years for what methods we have available for doing data-limited assessments, and, also, these regulatory changes, and so I have included the title of the draft tech memo on this slide for you, because I want to emphasize this guidance, draft guidance, is very limited. It’s very narrow in its focus, and it’s looking at this one particular paragraph in the National Standard 1 Guidelines that talks about flexibilities for data-limited stocks.

The status of this paper is it’s very much a draft.

We’re anticipating additional changes after we hear feedback from councils, and perhaps more internal reviews. We presented this draft to the CCC at its May meeting, and NMFS has now requested comments from you guys by October 1, and so we’re doing these discussions with councils and SSC, as you invite us, and I’m happy to be here today to talk about what this memo is.

This is the general overview slide, and there are basically three main topics that are in this draft tech memo. We talk about the legal context, and we talk about the science and the assessment methods, and then we talk about management and what that means, what our interpretations mean.

Just briefly, what’s in the Magnuson Act itself, what’s in the law, the statute, we must comply with. What’s in NMFS’ guidance can be -- In some cases, we have more flexibility in our interpretation, and so I will note, as a foundation for this discussion, when it comes to ACLs, the Magnuson Act does not define ACL. The Magnuson Act does not define catch.

Where we get this concept of an ACL being expressed as an amount of fish, as a weight or a number of fish, comes from NMFS’ interpretation in our National Standard 1 guidance, and we still believe that’s the best way to do it, when you can, and that’s what we’re shooting for. The guidelines call that the standard approach. The standard approach means you’re expressing your ACL in terms of the weight, or number, of fish. We’ll talk more about that later, but that’s the legal context.

Data-limited assessment methods, this paper, as I said, there’s been a lot of progress, in the last twelve years, of what we can do.

This paper talks about two categories of data-limited assessment methods. There are some, depending on what data you can put into the model, that will get you the information you need to manage with an ACL that follows the standard approach, an ACL that’s a weight of fish, or an amount of fish.

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

There are other data-limited assessment methods that are giving us good information that could provide a science-based approach to do annual management and monitoring to a limit, or a level, that is not expressed in terms of an amount of fish, and so that’s what we’ve explored, in terms of could we do an ACL that’s expressed as a rate, and so I will talk about that a little bit as we go through this paper.

Then the management section of the paper is where we sort of pull these concepts together, and, okay, when does this paragraph apply, and when is (h)(2) -- When can we use it? When can we have the flexibility to recommend an alternative ACL? The paper talks about that, and then it explores what might it look like and what could be an alternative ACL, and so we talk about what could it be if you had rate data.

Then, finally, there is this category of stocks that maybe they qualify for alternatives, but they don’t even have rate data, and what do we do with them, and so we’ve got considerations for that category as well, and that is basically what I will be talking through, is these three main concepts.

As I just mentioned, the requirements in the Magnuson Act are that the FMP specifies the annual catch limit. The annual catch limit has to prevent overfishing, and the FMP has to include accountability measures, and that’s Magnuson.

NMFS’ interpretation in the guidelines, the standard approach to complying with Magnuson is to express your ACL as an amount of fish, and then we have this flexibility in Paragraph (h)(2) that says a council may recommend an alternative that standard approach, in certain situations, but the alternative still has to comply with the Magnuson Act, and so we still have to have an ACL that prevents overfishing and includes accountability measures, even if it’s not expressed as an amount of fish, and this alternative must be included in the FMP. To emphasize how this is going to be relevant for us, this is straight out of that section of the CFR, and this is what (h)(2) says for data-limited stocks, and there are limited circumstances that don’t fit a standard approach, and those circumstances include, among other things, stocks for which the data are not available, either to set the reference point or to manage to the reference point. We can’t set it reliably, or we can’t monitor and enforce it, and then a council may propose an alternative.

It’s all going to get down to the data, what do you have, and that’s going to be the test, is what do you and what can you do with your data?

80

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 made this progress in our assessment methods, as I have said, over the last twelve hears, advances in our stock assessment methods, and we have new tools that let us do more with the data that we have, identifying manageable metrics, and we have also increased our understanding of the uncertainties.

Moving on to the next slide, I’m just going to touch on this, and we have detailed questions, and I’m going to ask Jason to jump in with this later, but this is the overview of the two categories of assessment methods that I was talking about, and so the brown -Starting at the top, the brown boxes are going to pertain to what data are available, start with what you have, and then, basically, if you have the biomass information to plug into your models, you can travel down the left-hand side of your screen, and these brown circles are just questions about what you can use.

Then it takes you down to what assessment methods are going to be available in the little blue boxes, and, if you’re using the ones that are on the left, and I hope I didn’t say right, and, if I said right, I used the wrong word, and I’m sorry. It’s the lefthand side of the screen. If you have the biomass information, you travel down the left-hand side of the screen, and that can produce your ACL. It can support identification of an ACL that is expressed the standard way as an amount of fish.

Some of these new methods that I have been discussing, those are the ones on the right, and sorry for the confusion. If you don’t have the biomass information, but you can still measure other things, and I have heard you guys talk about length and CPUE, you can get science-based advice that you can use to manage and monitor annually with limits and accountability, but just not expressed in terms of amount of fish. If you’re finding yourself going down this right-hand side of the slide, this is when you might be thinking about the flexibilities in (h)(2), what methods you’re going to use, and then how they’re going to feed into your management, in terms of the flexibility.

Before I leave this slide, I do want to highlight, going down the left-hand side, when you get to the very bottom, that little box at the bottom-middle, that says catch estimator approaches, and we’re going to talk more about those in a minute, but that’s basically, if you have limited data about removals, and that’s all you have, that may be your best scientific information available, and you may need to use it, but huge caveats about uncertainties with those approaches, and, now that we have all of these alternative methods and flexibilities -- If you have any other information to feed into a model, other than these catch estimator 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

methods, and we’re going to have recommendations for that in our draft technical memo.

I do want to point out, and I heard you guys talking about this earlier, and I want to emphasize that this oversimplifies things a little bit, just because, in data-poor situations, you think you have information on lengths, but is it really usable to do what you want to do with it, and I am hearing you talk about that, and you know this already, but I want you to know that we realize that this is an oversimplification, and you’re going to have to ask these hard questions and explore and vet these issues of what really can you use, but this is the concept, and so just laying that out there.

The draft tech memo, following the discussion of -- It discusses the methods, the assessment methods, that will get you to information for the standard ACL, and then it’s got recommendations. When you’re using those methods, they’re still data-limited, and I’m not going to read these to you, and I think you’ve got a copy of the draft tech memo that’s been posted, and you can also read this slide, but the concept here is, even when you’re using those methods, be aware of uncertainty, be clear about your uncertainties, use precautionary buffers, and then I want to highlight, here at the bottom, the discussion of using the catch estimator methods.

We do recognize that this might be the best available that you have, and, if it is, you’ve got to do the best you can with what you have, but, if you’re using that method, this memo encourages you to look around and see if there’s anything new that has come down in the past twelve years that would be better and consider those, consider flexibilities under (h)(2), and, if you’re still stuck using the catch estimator method, try to make a plan to transition to a different approach.

We were just talking about the methods that will get you to your standard ACL, and these are the other methods that I was mentioning that you don’t have the biomass data, but they can still provide the science-based approach. Length-based and indicator methods, and just to note about these that they are limited. They can’t define removal targets, in terms of the amount of fish, and so they don’t fit under our standard ACL guidance, but they do provide these science-based metrics and reference points, and they can support compliance with Magnuson, but just in a way alternative to that standard approach, and, again, it’s very fact-specific, but this is the concept.

Here is the big question.

When do you use (h)(2)?

82

When can you

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

consider using (h)(2), the alternative method, and so the key is the data. The key is you start with what you have. If you lack the data to effectively specify or manage with an ACL expressed in the standard format, that’s when you want to consider using this flexibility in (h)(2).

This little flow chart sort of encapsulates the whole premise of the tech memo in one handy spot that we wanted to sort of lead you here with some of the background information to get you here, but it starts with what you can measure, and that’s what we keep going back to, and, similarly to the methods flow chart we looked at a few minutes ago, if you have the biomass data, and those are the two questions here, is it a complete time series of removals and basic life history or these other options to get you what you need on the biomass side, and then you can proceed down the left-hand side of this chart and start heading in the direction of the standard ACL. There’s a second question that has to be asked, and that is, number one -- The first question we asked got us to the answer of can we specify an ACL, in terms of an amount of fish, but remember the language in (h)(2) says that you can’t specify or manage to it, and so the second question has to be, okay, you can specify it, but are you able to monitor and enforce that standard ACL, and if, again, the answer is yes, you proceed on down that left-hand side of the page and you use the weights/numbers-based ACL. If you get a no to either one of those first two questions, then you get into the big box there in the middle of, okay, you’re in (h)(2) now, and you should start thinking about alternatives. Just because you’re in (h)(2), it doesn’t automatically mean the ratebased alternative is right for you. That’s an alternative that our team came up with, and we’ve discussed it and described it, but, just because you’re in (h)(2), it doesn’t mean you have to use rate, or that you’re able to use rate.

There is a second question, before you get into proposing a ratebased ACL, and that’s do you have information on the fishing mortality rate or a proxy for F at FMSY that you can use to get to these reference points that you’re going to need to manage with the rate-based reference points. If you do have that information, you’re going to want to consider trying out this rate-based ACL, and, again, there are lots of questions, lots of things to be vetted and considered, but that’s sort of the thought process.

There are going to be some stocks where your answer is no, where we don’t feel confident with our standard ACL, and we don’t have rate data, and so what do you do with these stocks, and that’s a 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

tricky question, and we’ll get into that. There’s not much to say about it, but you still must comply with the Magnuson Act, and you must do something.

It might be that catch scalars are all you have, but, at this point, you’re going to want to consider a transition plan.

Is there some sort of cost-effective data collection project that you could do that could start moving you in the direction of managing and monitoring more effectively, and so that’s just the overview of everything, and then the paper sort of provides that all written down in more complete sentences.

Now I’m going to talk a little bit about how would this work, how would this concept of a rate-based ACL look, and so, using those assessment methods that we talked about that went down the righthand side of our slide, whatever data you have to put into the data, if it’s fixed data or the CPUE data, but it’s going to give you your F, your fishing mortality rate, and your MFMT, maximum fishing mortality threshold, which is one of the ways we have of measuring overfishing, and so rate can give us the information we need to make sure that we’re not overfishing.

Following the format for the standard ACL in the NS 1 Guidelines, you could take that F and MFMT and then apply buffers, as we currently do, through the SSC for scientific uncertainty and then through the council for management uncertainty, to derive an ABC and then the ACL. It would just remain expressed in terms of your fishing mortality rate instead of a weight or a number of fish, and that’s what you would start managing around.

I put in a slide -- After hearing your discussion this morning, I think you all are way ahead of me on managing with indicators, but our paper does mention that this is definitely within the realm of the concept of rate-based management, would be using the indicators, and so, if you have length data, then perhaps the SSC can correlate specific lengths to specific rate targets or thresholds, so that you could use that length data, and so here’s just sort of a hypothetical of what those lengths might look like.

Then you could either tie your management to that or continue running the assessment method to compare your F to MFMT. I heard you guys talking about management options, like what do you do, and I want to point out that we -- A lot of the questions for the council here, a lot of questions to be considered, and we’re aware of those, and those are going to be on the table, but the types of tools that you could use for managing to a rate are the same kind of tools you can use for managing to an amount. You have size limits, you have time/area closures, you have gear 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

modifications.

I saw, from the SSC this morning, that, in way, these management tools directly relate, or more directly relate, to these rate-type methods than calculating back to an amount of fish, and so some of these have logical linkages, but that question of CPUE is changing, and how rapidly do we respond, how rapidly do we react, that’s going to depend on how you set it up and how the council designs its accountability measures.

The FMP would need to describe how you’re going to do your monitoring, and a couple of things that we explored in the paper, two options that you might want to -- One, run your model annually, just continue collecting your data throughout the year and then run the model once a year for your accountability measure mechanism, or I heard you guys talking a lot about real-time monitoring, and that’s also an option, and that’s certainly something that the council would want to explore, but, whatever it would be, you would tie an accountability measure of some sort to your ACL. Here is just the overview, again, of what we talked about of those stocks that do qualify for alternatives, but they don’t have the rate data, and what do you do with those, and they must still comply with Magnuson, doing the best they can with what they have, the best scientific information available.

For these stocks, consider whether you could start collecting data that would support a movement towards the rate-based ACL and, consistent with what I heard this morning, continue to move us forward towards our ultimate goal, which is to get all of these stocks towards the use of the standard ACL approach of using the ACL expressed as an amount of fish.

That is the quick overview of what is in that paper, and I am happy to talk questions, and I am probably going to call on Jason to jump in and help me, or anybody else, with technical stuff, but that is the show.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for a great presentation, Marian. Council members, do you have any questions?

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, not a question, but to clarify, because some people are asking, okay, now this is it, and what now, and, well, the thing is that what we have heard today is it provides more flexibility, especially in data-poor areas like the one we have here, and so the councils can work in the establishment of ACLs, following these guidelines in a better, let’s say, manner.

Also, if we do this, we comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and, 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

of course, we have to always wait for the SSC recommendations.

We did something similar, or the SSC did similar, when we identified the different species that we have here, the data components that we have, and then we have -- Remember the tiers, and so the presentation today not only validates what we have done, and we can modify it a little bit, but we will be in compliance to study those ACLs in a way that we follow the Magnuson-Stevens Act and we follow the guidelines established by the National Marine Fisheries Service, in this case NOAA Fisheries. That’s where we are.

Anyway, the question from the councils are open now. If you don’t have any questions, that’s fine, and we’ll move forward, but I would like to hear from Dr. Richard Appeldoorn and other technical people around the table whether they have any questions that can be addressed today, of course from the council members.

MARCOS HANKE: Is there any other member of the technical group that would like to jump in?

ANDY STRELCHECK: Marcos, I will jump in. Marian, it’s good to see you, and it’s good to hear your voice. It’s been a while.

You might have said this, and apologies if I missed it, and it’s very much a draft plan right now that is going through review.

What is the timing for finalizing the plan at this point, or the policy?

MARIAN MACPHERSON: That’s a good question. I think it kind of depends on what kind of feedback we get, and someone just also asked for a reiteration of that we have requested comments from the councils by October 1, and then I think there will probably be some more discussion at the next CCC meeting, and then, depending on what the comments look like, what sorts of revisions need to be made, will affect the timing of the next steps, but we’re hoping to keep moving it along, if it’s something that’s going to be beneficial for people.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Then a follow-on, and I know that, at one point, we were talking with you and others about a pilot-style project, and I think you heard that conversation this morning, or suggestion from the SSC, and I’m curious if there is any pilots ongoing at this point in other regions or any kind of efforts along that front, beyond some of the initial discussions we’ve had.

MARIAN MACPHERSON: Thanks, Andy, for bringing that up. Sam Rauch encouraged us to kind of do an, I don’t know, but micro-rollout of this and reach out to the Southeast, and also the Western Pacific, 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

about whether there would be interest in doing a pilot project and trying this out.

We have talked with the Western Pacific, and also with your region, and we don’t have a pilot project in the works yet, but I think there are a couple of things that are of interest and might be developing soon.

MARCOS HANKE:

That is good news.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: MARCOS HANKE:

Anybody else?

Marcos, if I could just make a comment?

Richard, go ahead.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: I just wanted to make two points. One, the presentation that the council just had is almost exactly the same as what was presented to the SSC, although we had it presented by Jason, who is a little bit more technically savvy in some of these areas, and so I think that provides the context for which we were making our endorsements for, and there’s nothing really specific there. It’s a process, and we’re endorsing the process. Secondly, I would like Marian for explaining rate-based methods better than I did.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Richard.

Clay.

CLAY PORCH: Thank you, Marian. I just wanted to comment that, yes, we did have that conversation, and, in fact, the Southeast has been applying a variety of data-limited tools for a while, but most of them haven’t been used in management yet, and so we’re definitely primed to come up with a pilot example.

In fact, we’re going to look at some with this upcoming queen triggerfish assessment, and, really, any of the assessments in the Caribbean are data-limited, and so it’s more a matter of, instead of just trying to translate the approach that we find best supported by the data into catch advice, we can use it more directly in terms of managing fishing mortality rate or some related indicator.

Like, if you used a length-based approach, there’s an implied fishing mortality rate, as Marian pointed out in one of the figures, and so we would find the average size of the catch that you would expect with the target level of fishing mortality, and then you would just monitor the average size.

There is lots of things we can do like that, and they’re not all as directly intuitive as just monitoring catch, but, if you don’t 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

have a good way to monitor catch, these are better than doing nothing or pretending that you know what the catch is.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Clay. I am looking here in the chat, and I don’t see anybody else. Thank you for a great presentation.

This is the last opportunity for the council members.

Hearing none, we will go for the next presentation.

MARIAN MACPHERSON:

Thank you.

ENFORCEMENT ISSUES WITH NASSAU GROUPER AND OTHER FISH SPECIES IN ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN, USVI MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, the next thing in the agenda is the enforcement issues with Nassau grouper and other fish species in St. Thomas/St. John.

I don’t see a presentation, but, just to give an introduction to the topic, we received a phone call at the office, to me specifically, indicating that there were some issues with the Nassau grouper in the area of St. Thomas/St. John.

I talked to a couple of people, and I talked to Julian, and he’s here, and he can explain, and the situation is this. The person that called me claims that there are fishers going out, and they fish Nassau grouper and fillet the fish at-sea and then they are sold on land as other groupers or any other thing but Nassau grouper.

This fisher is really upset, because he and his friends are following the law to the dot, and they believe in the process that we have to allow the Nassau grouper to recuperate, but, at the same time, they are demoralized by these people coming in, and nobody is intervening with them, and they are selling the fish.

We talked to Miguel Borges and others, and they told us that, presently, they cannot intervene, because they only have authority in the EEZ and not in the local area of jurisdiction of the U.S. Virgin Islands, and so the issue is, okay, that’s the situation, and that is happening, and what can we do?

Do we need a memorandum of understanding for enforcement, so that federal and local government authorities can join in efforts to stop this from happening? What can we do? Of course, all the process has to do with the present laws and regulations that we have, and so, Julian, if you’re around, can you explain a little bit more, if you know, about this issue and what is happening in St. Thomas/St. John? Marcos, Julian has his hand up.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, and you already gave the opportunity to him.

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

Go ahead, Julian.

JULIAN MAGRAS: Well, when I received the email about what was going on, right away, I jumped on, and I had some dialogue back and forth, and one of our biggest concerns that I don’t understand is, if you have a compatible regulation, in both federal and local waters, and an individual is caught by a federal officer, why can’t they deal with the issue, because it’s a compatible regulation?

As it pertains to the Nassau grouper, that is closed all around, forever, and so what is happening is fishers are complaining about the illegal activity by other fishers, both commercial and recreational, because we don’t have any local enforcement that are out there enforcing and checking the different markets and to see what’s going on at the dockside when the boats are coming in, and nothing is being done.

Even to myself, I have warned several people that we are in the closed season, and they need to follow the law, but I think something needs to be done that, if a federal officer catches someone on the shoreline with an offense that is both federal and local, that they can address it, because then compatibility would never work. We talk about doing stuff that is compatible, but the federal officers can’t comply, or they can’t do their job unless the individual is caught in federal waters, and that is a major problem, and can we address that?

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Julian. I will just check, and I think Miguel Borges is on the line, and the question, Miguel, is what can be done or what can be done to fix -- If there is any loophole or coordination with the state waters, and go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL BORGES: Well, thank you, Julian, also, for your comments.

When we received that, I contacted the council, and then I contacted our enforcement officer who is over there in St. Thomas.

The main problem that we have is that, even if the regulations are compatible, that doesn’t mean that we have jurisdiction in state waters. Those are two different topics.

The regulations might be the same, compatible, but that doesn’t mean that we can enforce those regulations in state waters, and so that is an issue that always happens, and I have it here in Puerto Rico as well, and in the Virgin Islands, and it’s a challenge for us to get jurisdiction sometimes.

We have, for example, jurisdiction in the tunas, from the shore all the way to federal waters, but all the other species depend on a case-by-case basis, and the specific anonymous call -- We, for 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

the most part, do not have jurisdiction on that issue. I wish we had, and I spoke to General Counsel, to see if we could -- If we had jurisdiction, but it’s very limited in the specific issue that was brought in that call. That’s all, Marcos.

MIGUEL ROLON:

So how can we fix it?

MARCOS HANKE: A specific question, from my side, is a letter of understanding, or cooperation, between the state and with you guys doesn’t fix it, and is there a way to go?

MIGUEL BORGES: I believe that it has to be -- Our jurisdiction has to come from -- Directly from a CFR or federal regulation and not directly from the state. There is a process, in some cases, where the state could be preempted, and they give some jurisdiction to the federal agencies, but that is a process, a long process, that has to be done, and it’s not as easy as, okay, here you go, and here’s a letter of understanding between federal agencies and the local government and we automatically have jurisdiction.

I wish we did, but we would have to ask General Counsel to see any other alternatives that we have to acquire jurisdiction if the state wants us to intervene more. As far as I know, it needs to be a federal regulation for us to have jurisdiction, and so -MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, if I may.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead.

MIGUEL ROLON: I don’t understand this.

The Nassau grouper is protected under the Endangered Species Act, and it’s a federal offense.

You pursue the people because they are free to run billfish all the way to the shoreline, and so why in the hell can we not do the same thing with the Nassau grouper?

MIGUEL BORGES: Miguel, that’s a good point, and I share your frustration as well, but even -- That’s a good point that you brought, because I discussed the billfish issue, and it’s the same thing, and I do not have jurisdiction in state waters for the majority of cases of billfish, if it’s caught in state waters. I need to prove that it was caught in federal waters.

MIGUEL ROLON: No, no, no, no. The fishery management plan for billfish goes all the way to the shoreline. It’s the only species that goes all the way to the shoreline, and I -- Also, for the record, Miguel Borges is doing an excellent job here, but what he is telling us is that he needs some regulation that he can abide to, in this case.

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

My suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is that we write a letter to the appropriate authorities, in this case Andy Strelcheck, and they can sort this out and come up with the possible solution, because I agree with Miguel that a simple cooperative agreement won’t do anything unless we have a mandate, in this case a mandate to enforce the law all the way to the shoreline.

My recommendation, in this case, is that we are not going to do anything by continuing discussing this here, but allow the staff to prepare a letter for the signature of the Chair, and we can send it to the Regional Administrator of NOAA Fisheries, to see if they can then tell us what actions can we take, or what action the action agency can take, to finish this.

Also, in the case of Puerto Rico, the Rangers are deputized by the federal government to engage with the federal regulations that are -- The people that are in violation of federal regulations, and so we need to look at that, and Miguel is right that we need to also knock on the door of the legal advisors and make sure that we have the elements and the tools to close this gap, to be able to then enforce the law to protect the Nassau grouper.

Right now, internationally, we are telling other countries what to do with the Nassau grouper, and then we are here in the Caribbean, and we cannot do it, and, to me, it’s more than frustrating. I have other words, but we are on the record here, and so, if we all agree, Mr. Chairman, we can do this, but I would like to hear from council members and other any persons that have something to say at this time, but I believe that, first, we will be presenting communication, official communication, to the Regional Office inquiring about what can we do in terms of alleviating this problem, because it’s really something that is affecting the fishers in the St. Thomas/St. John area especially.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Miguel.

Jocelyn.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you.

I would want to speak with my colleagues in the GC Enforcement Section, but I did want to just speak briefly on this issue. Right now, as Miguel had said, there is not jurisdiction in the state waters, and so the federal law preventing any harvest or possession of the Nassau grouper would be from federal waters, and so, if they encounter someone in state waters, they don’t know if it’s breaking the federal law.

There is not jurisdiction to enforce the state law, as of right now. In terms of whether that would be possible, I don’t know if it’s possible to work with the states, at least to refer any 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

violations or to come up with any joint enforcement agreements, and I’m not sure about that, and so I would have to check in with others, but that’s something that we could look into.

I did want to speak to the Endangered Species Act issue though.

Nassau grouper is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and, basically, that means that the National Marine Fisheries Service would have to put into place regulations that makes it unlawful to take, which would include like possessing it, to take the species, and so, right now, that is not necessarily a violation, unless there is some other provision that is put into place, and so that’s why the Endangered Species Act doesn’t, right now, provide a hook for certain federal actions.

There is limits on the amount of species that can be taken, and so, if it was taken in the federal fishery, we are monitoring that, and there are take limits, but, again, that would be that we kind of want to know what happened, as part of the federal fishing activities, and, here, we’re talking about something in state waters. We can continue to think about if there is any potential option for what could be done in those state waters, but, right now, as Miguel Borges said, there is just a jurisdictional issue.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Jocelyn. With the idea that Miguel just mentioned before the council, does anybody from the council have any opposition to make this letter, to follow-up on this request, this issue, by the St. Thomas and St. John fishermen?

Hearing none -MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, also, we need to touch base with the Commissioner of the U.S. Virgin Islands, to check on the applicable regulations regarding this issue, because, if we, let’s say, have an issue with the jurisdiction, but, if it’s adopted, and I don’t know if it has already been adopted, but, if it’s adopted as a state law violation, messing with the Nassau grouper, then you have compatible regulations, actual compatible regulations, and so the issue of jurisdiction is a little bit -- It’s still there, but at least there will be no excuse for enforcement agents to go into local waters and enforce the law.

The local government will enforce the law in the three miles of the U.S. Virgin Islands, and, of course, Miguel Borges will continue doing what he is doing in the EEZ. The letter will be -- I will draft the letter and send it to Jocelyn for making sure that I am not stepping on the wrong toes or saying the wrong words, and then, once we clear that, we will send it to Marcos for review and approval, and we will send the letter then to -- One to the Virgin Islands administration -- One 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

to Andy Strelcheck and other one to the Commissioner of the Virgin Islands, the Department of Planning and Natural Resources.

By December, maybe we will have some information to discuss this further.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. you for waiting.

I have Nicole Angeli.

Thank

NICOLE ANGELI: Thank you so much. Thank you for the discussion.

One of the things that the department would very much support would be allowing federal NOAA officers to prosecute individuals if the species were landed and they believe they were caught in territorial or federal waters, and so we look forward to information from NOAA legal about a way forward, so that we can increase our capacity for law enforcement, especially in times of disasters and pandemics, when most of our enforcement staff has actually been called to our Virgin Islands Police Department to execute activities relating to the pandemic, and so, in these cases, any sort of cooperation or increased support from the federal government would be very welcome.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for your points. I have Damaris wrote in the chat about the same issue, that she has a similar situation in Puerto Rico, and to please include a similar situation in Puerto Rico, and she would like to be included in this letter, also.

MIGUEL ROLON: We will not say in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, but we will say U.S. Caribbean, so we can take care of Damaris’ concern.

It will be a letter addressing the U.S. Caribbean local waters.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Anybody else from the group, so that we can move along?

Hearing none, thank you all for a great discussion.

MIGUEL BORGES: Marcos, I just wanted to make sure that, for the record, that -- Thank you, Jocelyn, for your comments, and Miguel Rolon, and I also concur with your idea of a letter, of the idea of requesting a letter, for NOAA to hear this issue, and it’s in everybody’s benefit to sort out our jurisdiction in state and federal waters, and so I agree with that letter, and, in my heart, I do hope and wish that it was easier, the jurisdiction issue, so that we would have jurisdiction in those ESA cases, even in state waters, and so that’s all. Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON:

From Miguel to Miguel, thank you very much.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Miguel.

93

The next item on the agenda is

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 DAP Chairs Report.

We’re going to start with St. Thomas.

DAP CHAIRS REPORT ON BUOY GEAR REGULATIONS MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, before we start, I promised the three chairs that I was going to do a little bit of an introduction. Remember that, in the previous council meetings, we are addressing this issue of the number of hooks for buoy sets that are used for deepwater snappers.

Julian, Nelson, Eddie Schuster, and I had a talk, and I prepared, based on communication with Maria Lopez, and, in this case, what we did was to share a letter that was presented by her to look at certain topics of interest in this discussion for council action, and so we met, and we have some talking points, and then the idea is for the three chairs to convey to the council what they have found, in terms of the present status of the fishery in each area using this type of gear, the buoys.

The first one is Eddie Schuster, followed by Julian Magras and then Nelson Crespo. Eddie, are you available?

EDWARD SCHUSTER: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes, Miguel.

Do you want me to go ahead, first?

Yes, please.

EDWARD SCHUSTER: Okay.

Good afternoon, council members and everybody present. We had this discussion, and I will just read out what I have here. There were about twelve commercial fishers and about one to two recreational fishers that both fish in local and federal waters, but this gear is not used year-round. This gear is used only when the weather permits, and it’s also used within the lunar cycle with fair conditions.

This gear is used in a depth range from 400 feet to 1,200 feet, and the species that are targeted go anywhere from the blackfin snapper, silk, black snapper, the queen, the quaker, which would be the cardinal snapper, and some occasional catches of different species of grouper, along with incidental catches of sharks. Also, if the current -- While fishing in deep water for the queen snapper, you may catch incidental like oilfish and other species that I am not really too familiar with.

The number of hooks varies from eighteen hooks all the way to twenty-five hooks, and along with a weight at the bottom, and there is some other trade secrets that the fishers have asked not for me to be too verbal on, too vocal, and one is also with a light that attracts the fish to the bait.

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

The number of the buoys that are used, it varies. This is a fish that travels at the bottom, with the current, and so what the current is at the top is not necessarily what’s at the bottom, and so the fishers might start with one buoy, all the way up to four buoys, but it’s times that they go, and the fish are there, and they are eating, and you only have time to drop one of the buoys.

The reason being is that, if the bite is hot, what happens is the fish try to get away while they are hooked, and that thrashing around causes the sharks to come, and then the fisher loses the bait. The fishing days are usually anywhere from eight hours to twelve hours, and it’s not a fish that actually stays in the freezer, and these fish actually are sold before they are caught, and so, as a fisher catches a fish, if he’s not too tired, most of the fish goes that same day, or, by the next day, it’s gone.

There is one other thing. That is what it is, and it’s a selfregulated fishery, and I don’t -- It’s very expensive to get into it, one, and it’s something that somebody has to have the experience, or fishing with somebody that has that years of experience, in order to go into it.

The reason being is that you could lose all your gear in one set, depending on the current, and so you have to know where to set the lines and have the experience to know if the current is going inland, to the shallow, because there are deep shelf drop-offs on St. Croix, and especially -- You would have to set really deep, and you fish from the deep coming with that, and so you don’t want to set too much gear at the same time, and so you will have to start off from there, and then there is times that the current goes the opposite way, and you have to set it at 400 and then it goes out to the deep, and so it varies. It’s a fishery all due to experience, and that really summarizes what I have written down.

Are there any questions?

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Eddie. The next presenter, and we will make questions to all of you later, if the group desires, is Julian.

JULIAN MAGRAS: Good afternoon, everyone. Julian Magras here, for the record, DAP Chair, St. Thomas/St. John.

This fishery is a very, very small fishery here in St. Thomas/St. John. Right now, presently, there are two to four guys that presently do this type of fishing, and one of the main reasons for us having such a small amount of guys doing this type of fishing is due to the fact that the distance that they have to go to the drop, where they are fishing, is pretty far, and so it’s a weather-driven fishery, like most of our fisheries, and so maybe ten miles to the south, but 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

twenty-something miles to the north, and so there are a couple of young guys that presently are doing this type of fishing.

They are using electric reels, and they use up to ten hooks, and then we have a couple of the older guys, and some of them use traps, and that’s the Ledee brothers, who was doing that for a while, and some of the Berry guys, but they took a beating last year, with the currents and everything, and so they have backed away from that this year, and we have two other older guys that is using the buoy gear.

They don’t go out that often now, and so it’s when the weather is really calm that they would go out, and they would explore -- They would do it for a couple of days, and then that’s it, and so they don’t do it again, and so it’s a fishery that is out there that has great potential, and I wouldn’t broadcast that there is a lot of potential for it, because we wouldn’t want outsiders to come in and start to harvest tons of the fish, even though they don’t have to land it here, and they can land it elsewhere, because, if they land it here, it’s required for them to have a commercial fishing license.

We also have the weekend warriors that also fish in this fishery, and so, when the weather is calm, they will go out and catch some of the fish, but they keep it for themselves. There is a great, great market for it. If anyone catches that fish, it’s gone. It hits the ice while the guys are out, but, once they hit the shoreline, it’s gone. It’s sold immediately.

I would like to see that maybe there could be a permitting system for the federal waters, a license for federal waters for this fishery, to try to control it for some younger fishers who are coming up or anyone who might have interest in it, that we could try to protect it, so that it’s not overharvested, and it’s a virgin fishery right now.

MARCOS HANKE: Julian, I have a question, a clarifying question.

You were talking about the fishery, and not necessarily specifically the buoy gear, and can you add anything about the buoys?

JULIAN MAGRAS: The buoy gear, that’s what I was saying. The buoy gear is two to four fishermen that are presenting doing it, just a couple of days out of the year, and so I know of two here in St. Thomas/St. John.

We have a lot of fishers that come from St. Croix, when the weather is good, and fish on the shelf of St. Thomas, but I don’t include them, because they don’t land here.

They land in St. Croix, and so, presently, in St. Thomas, I know 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

of two guys that do the buoy gear, and, if they do it four or five times for the year, they’re doing it a lot.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you for clarifying that.

JULIAN MAGRAS: It’s very, very small, and so I think that’s what I would have to say about that.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you very much.

That’s very helpful.

Nelson.

NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The comments I’m going to make now are based on my experience as a commercial deepwater snapper -- Fishing for deepwater snapper for more than forty years and conversation with DAP members, Edwin Font and other fishermen from the west of Puerto Rico.

I know there are some deepwater snapper fishermen here. If I miss something, if you allow them to -- If I miss something, I request them to remind me, because I know I have a lot of experience, but there is always something that we miss.

This type of fishing is not easy at all, and, in a lot of the cases, experience makes the difference between a good or a bad trip. I am going to go over the talking points regarding the gear in federal waters. All of us agree that the use of this gear has to be in local and federal waters, as has always been used. This is the most safe and effective gear so far to develop the fishing for deepwater snapper 1 and 2 and deepwater groupers that we know to this moment.

Regarding the duration of our trips, normally, we go between three to four days per week in good conditions, depending on the moon phase and the weather and current conditions. For example, you can have a flat day, but, if the currents are hard, the possibility of a bad fishing day increases. In reality, we only can be able to fish around 100 to 120 days per year, or a little more in some years. That’s what we call the natural closure for this fishery.

The duration of the fishing trips is between ten to twelve hours per day from when we leave onshore and come back, and I have to clarify that the gear is used only around a maximum time of between five to six hours per day, or less, and the rest of the time is used to move from one point to another.

Let me explain this to you, a better understanding about this fishery. Based on our experience, if we reach one area, and the ocean currents are strong, or not suitable to develop the fishing in the area, we have to move to another point that allows us to 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

fish. I must clarify that, until the currents are acceptable, and if they are not the ones which the fish eats, it’s very little or nothing, what you are going to catch, and the same happens with the moon phase. If you don’t know where to go on each moon phase, it’s the possibility to make a good catch lowers down a lot.

Regarding the information of targeted species and incidental species, the targeted species are, of course, Snapper Unit 1 and 2 and Deepwater Grouper, but, in my opinion, until we know the groupers are there, the deepwater groupers, they are more a bycatch than a target. Between the incidental species harvested, I would classify them in two groups, that have some commercial value and those that do not.

For example, the glasseye snapper, and I don’t know the English name, and the black cartucho, they are with the snappers.

The small sharks, the spiny and the other one, because they have a limited value, most of them are returned alive to the sea, and let me make a quick aside and tell you that they are really abundant, and it would be good to take into consideration for marketing.

The meat is good quality, and I think it would be a good alternative, in order to reduce the fishing pressure for other fisheries. They are a species that currently have no commercial value and are returned to the sea. They are rarely caught, and perhaps that is why they are not traded.

Regarding the number of hooks, it varies, from each fisher, between twenty to forty hooks.

What we have found is that twenty-five hooks is the perfect number to develop this fishery, due to some reasons. Based on our experience, between twenty-five and thirty hooks, the catch are more or less the same, and there is no reason to use more than twenty-five hooks. With twenty-five hooks, you can easily handle the gear in the boat, but I have to clarify also that, with twenty-five hooks, you save bait, and you save money on gear, when you’re going to make it, but we have to clarify that twenty-five hooks do not guarantee twenty-five fish.

When the fish bite and get hooked, they shake it, trying to escape, and, generally, the bait on the upper and lower hook comes off.

From the other side, using less than twenty-five hooks, we find out that the catch decrease. Because the bait increases, and more hooks means more bait, and there is no guarantee that you are going to catch more fish, and, because fishing equipment has risen dramatically, and it does not make sense to use more gear than is necessary, with the current -- With more hooks, the current moves the gear faster and doesn’t let the fish bite.

With the number of the set lines, that varies from the preference 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

of each fisherman. Generally, we use within one to four set lines, and the number of hooks are the same, twenty-five. If the bite is low, we use four set lines, in order to find the fish, and we are just searching around the water.

When the fish start biting, immediately, we start reducing the number of lines, depending on how hot is the bite. When the bite is really hot, we don’t use more than two, in order to pull the line out faster and prevent the sharks from attacking the gear, and the fish comes off from the hook. If you leave the set lines in the water with fish for a long time, there is a risk to lose the gear, due to the shark encounter increase.

If the currents are strong, we only use one or two set lines, to start to slow down. Sometimes we only stay in the boat drifting, just checking the GPS, and we wait for the current to slow down.

Information on how landings with this gear type are reported, we pull this gear -- We report it to the DNER reporting or the regular paper fishing trip ticket, and most of the fishermen have their own logbooks for personal use.

Also, in my opinion, the DNER has been more than generous in allowing sixty days to report any catch. I think that, with the tools we have right now, more than thirty days is more than enough, without excuses, to provide the data, in order to remain proactive for the good of the fishers and the commercial fishermen. Again, I emphasize that we have to open the door and give the opportunity to the legal deepwater snapper fishermen to join us and start reporting their catches.

I guarantee you, without a doubt, that there are more poachers for deepwater snapper than the ones that have the permit, at this moment, and we have to have a real idea for how healthy is our resource, and so I request this council to pay attention to this and explore a way to help to bring those guys to the table, and, as I said, it’s really important for me and for the health of the fishery. That’s all I’ve got, and, if you have some questions, I will be more than happy to answer them.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Nelson. Does anybody have questions for the chairman of the DAPs? Maria.

MARIA LOPEZ: Good afternoon. This is Maria Lopez, for the record.

I want to say thank you to the DAP chairs for providing this really good information that will benefit the description of the fisheries that we are including in the amendment to the island-based FMP to modify the definition of buoy gear.

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

I do have one question that Nelson mentioned at the end, and it’s about how the landings with this fishery are reported, and I didn’t hear that from the U.S. Virgin Island DAP Chairs, and I know that they said that there are not many fishers that are using this gear, but, if they have that information about how these landings with this particular gear are entered into their catch report forms, that would be very helpful. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Is there anybody else that would like to make a question or a comment? Hearing none, Maria, do you have all the information or any other questions, before we close?

MARIA LOPEZ: I made the question about how the information is entered in the logbooks, and, if the DAP chairs have that information, they can send me an email, or communicate with me later, and that would be great. Thanks.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. We are ready then to wrap up this presentation and questions and go to the next item on the agenda. Go ahead, Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I heard that there are recreational users of this gear. Is that going to be allowed in this FMP thing that they’re trying to do?

MARCOS HANKE:

Maria.

MARIA LOPEZ: A buoy gear, in the Caribbean, is the gear that is only an allowable gear for commercial, commercial fishing.

In federal waters, it’s not an allowed gear, how it is defined in our regulations, and so this action is only going to be modifying the definition of the buoy gear as it applies to commercial fishers.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay, and so I guess recreational fishers won’t be able to harvest that species, I guess.

MARCOS HANKE: Carlos, remember that we are talking about the buoy gear itself, and that is different than fishing with an electric reel on the side of the boat or a handline on the side of the boat to catch the same species. Correct me if I’m wrong, Maria.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARIA LOPEZ:

Gotcha.

That is correct.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Okay.

I’ve got you.

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

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Also, to Maria’s question as to what is recorded on the CCR, I mean, Director Angeli should be able to answer whether or not that gear is in that catch report, if they’ve got to report it as such gear being used, and I’m not sure. I have never seen it.

MARCOS HANKE:

Nicole.

NICOLE ANGELI: That is not currently on, but we can revise our CCRs, in collaboration with NOAA annually. The last time that was done was 2019, and so it’s probably time for us to take a look at the CCRs. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: there now?

I didn’t understand that.

Did she say it is

MARCOS HANKE: She just said that it’s not there, and it was a little low, the volume, and it is not there, but that they are willing to revise, and it was revised last time in 2019, and it’s a work in process.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Got it.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:

Mr. Chair, if I may.

Go ahead, Graciela.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: We’ve been talking about gears here and there, but I think what is really needed is that we need to review and redescribe all the fishing gears that are being used, not only for the commercial, but also for the recreational sector, and, really, the first review that was done for Puerto Rico was in 1988 and 1989, and there is really not a one-to-one correspondence of the fishing gear that is being used to what is being reported, and this happens for many of the other gears, the nets and the other lines, et cetera.

It should be put in as a priority to complete a full description of all the fishing gears being used to-date and to make that into these catch reports, so that, when we go to analyze the data, we’re speaking the same language, because, otherwise, we’ll keep running into these problems, and so just be advised that we haven’t done a review since the 1980s, or the early 1990s, and that really needs to be put in the list of priorities for the council and for the 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

local governments.

Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Graciela. On the same lines, I want to add that, Maria, I don’t know if it’s possible, and there is no limitation on this, but if there was a list of questions that could be circulated to the fishermen on a voluntary basis for them to provide information about the gear characterization, or description, that they have, and that will be something that will help to speed up this process and have better information. Just let us know if there is any possibility to do that.

MIGUEL ROLON: If the local governments can do it, that’s fine.

If we are going to make a survey, like the federal government, that’s something else. It takes about nine months just to start a survey, and that’s why we asked the chairs to talk to the people there, but, as I told Graciela, the description of the other gear is something else, and we can do it later, but we wanted to -- I asked Graciela to introduce the topic for the record, but the most important part now is to move forward with the buoy gear issue, but Graciela and I were discussing this a little bit, and we are a little bit worried, and what do you call a recreational fisher carrying three buoys? That is interesting.

OTHER BUSINESS CAPTAIN SILVA’S LETTER ON DEEPWATER SNAPPER GROUPER FISHERY MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel.

Let’s pass to the Other Business, and we don’t want to run too late on this. Thank you very much for all the participation. Other Business, we’re going to start with the letter sent by Captain Silva and his group about the deepwater snapper grouper fishery.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, the letter is in our briefing book, in Spanish, and the English translation was done by Diana.

I believe that Mr. Silva was going to address this, and I don’t know whether he’s here.

MARCOS HANKE:

Roberto Silva, are you still with us?

ROBERTO SILVA: (Mr. Roberto Silva’s presentation was in Spanish and was not transcribed.)

DAMARIS DELGADO: I heard what Roberto Silva is saying, and I agree totally with him and with the comments that have been presented in the chat. We met with Roberto Silva weeks ago, as he said, and with some other representatives, and we heard his worries about this fishery, and we all agreed with him, with his arguments, and we prepared a draft administrative order to address his concern, 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

the concern expressed to us, and that draft administrative order has been submitted to the Legal Affairs Office, and I believe that the fishing board, advisory board, is also evaluating the administrative order.

We shared it with the board, and we are waiting for their comments regarding the administrative order. We believe that order will properly address the concerns of the fishers and will make justice to many fishers, and I personally agree that there should be a way to open it, to open the fishery, to many other people, and so that’s the status that I wanted to share with you at this point.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. A couple of things. Number one, there is not a limited entry system in place in the federal government for this fishery, and we do have an ACL. In the case of the local government of Puerto Rico, they have a proxy of a limited entry, with that executive order, and I believe that the two issues to discuss here is, number one, if Puerto Rico is inclined to go with Robert Silva and the other fishers’ suggestion, which is to open it for three to five years, full reporting by fishers, electronically or otherwise, and then assess, with the fishers, the status of the fishery, on a yearly basis, I believe, and then probably, at that time, come with a better number for the ACLs and whatever numbers we need to establish for the management of the fishery.

So two questions. If the local government Puerto Rico, let’s say, has the fishery open to all, they can do it within the area of jurisdiction, starting at nine nautical miles, but then the issue of the ACL is what the federal government has to be mindful of.

In this case, if that fishery in the EEZ surpasses the ACL, then you have the kick-in of the applicable measures.

If the fish is caught monthly within the area of jurisdiction of Puerto Rico, meaning within the nine nautical miles, the question is then how much of that will you account to the ACL, and so Graciela and I have the answer to that, and so, for the record, the first question is, if Puerto Rico opens this, what will be the effect, and probably Jocelyn can address it, but what will be the effect, if any, on the ACLs and the applicable regulations?

MARCOS HANKE:

Jocelyn.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: I was having a little bit of technical difficulty there. Would you be able to repeat the question?

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

MIGUEL ROLON: In the case of Roberto Silva representing the fishers in Puerto Rico, they’re asking for opening the fishery within the area of jurisdiction of Puerto Rico for three to five years, and the fishery is not closed at this time, in the case of the federal government, but they would like to open that, and they collect the information using an electronic system, or any other appropriate system, and then, at the end of that term, they will be reviewing, with the scientists, the data collected every year to assess the status of the stocks of those species.

The question is what impact will that have in the regulations applicable in the EEZ? How can we monitor then the fishery caught in the EEZ that will be tallied up against the ACL established for those species?

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Okay. So, in terms of ACL monitoring, we do look at all landings of whatever species has an ACL, and then the accountability measure process sets forth how those landings will be done, and we use like a three-year average and compare it to the ACL, and then, if that’s been exceeded, then that’s triggered, and then there is action taken to try to prevent ACL exceedances, but I’m wondering -- Is the question about how do we do the monitoring, how do we get the information?

Right now, in terms of that, I think maybe there’s others on the call that are more familiar with that, but I know we have like various logbook programs, and so I’m not 100 percent sure that I am following, but, just in terms of federal management, it does account for all landings of the managed stock, because we want to make sure that we’re managing the stock to prevent overfishing, while allowing for that optimum yield.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, if I may, the whole thing is this. The numbers that the Southeast Fisheries Science Center collects are provided by the local government of Puerto Rico fishery statistics program. Those numbers include everything from the shoreline to the edge of the EEZ, because, at this time, they are not discriminated to one fishery area versus the other.

Therefore, if you open the fishery to everybody, and that number surpasses the ACL established, then you have an accountability measure that will kick in. Let’s say that you have a hundred fish for the ACL, a hundred pounds, for queen snapper, and now you only catch eighty pounds, but, if you open it, and you catch 200, then you have accountability measures, where you have a closure of the season, et cetera, et cetera. That is the question that we have here.

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

If the fishery is all done in the area of jurisdiction of Puerto Rico, still the landings are counted against the ACL established by law at this time, and so those are the issues that we have to take into consideration with this. This isn’t just a matter of opening the fishery to everybody and his brother, but it’s just what are you going to do with the ACL. In order to move from the number that you started for an ACL for any particular species, you have to convince the SSC that the best available information provided by the Center merits the revision of that ACL one way or the other, status quo or up or down, of that ACL. That is where we need to look at regarding this proposal.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Following up on that, that’s very helpful, Miguel, and I agree with what you’re saying.

If there is more fishing pressure in the state waters, then that could affect the amount of landings that are expected, and we would want to maybe look at if we have the right reference points and what the stock can sustain, but, based on what we have in the law now, those ACLs and those overfishing limits, all landings would be monitored, and you would have the accountability when those measures are exceeded, and the length of the closure period, for example, if there is an accountability measure, trying to prevent an ACL exceedance, we would look at landings, if we have a sense that they’re occurring in state waters versus federal waters, and so the federal closure might need to be longer, if there would still be landings in state waters.

It’s possible too, if there’s a lot of landings in state waters, that you wouldn’t be able to prevent an ACL exceedance with any length of federal closure, but I just don’t have a sense of how much fishing would occur in areas where there isn’t now and how that would play out, but those are considerations.

MARCOS HANKE: Jocelyn, I have a question about it. In the past, we have talked also about the issue of data improvement and, once you have a data improvement, quality or quantity, there was some freedom that that can cause, in terms of starting to adjust to the reality, and that can be also the case, depending on the way this is implemented, and I have Andy in the queue after you, Jocelyn.

Go ahead.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure, and so our accountability measures, right now, say things like -- We’re sort of looking for the trigger of has the ACL been exceeded, and then there is the response, and what do we do to prevent an ACL exceedance, and so, on that trigger question, we kind of ask, well, do we think the ACL has actually been exceeded or is it just that monitoring has improved or 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

reporting has improved, and so we kind of base the measures on baseline landings, with a certain understanding of reporting.

If that reporting has improved, but we don’t think the underlying landings have actually gone up, it might look like there is an ACL exceedance, but we might decide that, actually, that’s just a reflection of better reporting, and so, in that way, the Regional Administrator has the ability to say, well, we don’t think that this really has been triggered and that there’s a need for a corrective action, and so the Science Center is involved in kind of helping make that determination.

This might be a different issue, where we’re sort of -- There would be different entrants, potentially, or additional fishing pressure, and so we’re getting reports of that fishing pressure and just taking that into account in the normal process, but we also just -- If there’s additional landings and things like that, we might want to see what the stock can sustain, and so you might want to evaluate some of the reference points that you have and to see that we have the proper management MARCOS HANKE:

Andy.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos.

I won’t repeat what Jocelyn said, and I think she’s captured it well, and well as Miguel, in terms of implications of potentially allowing additional fishing effort and harvest and what that would do, in terms of triggering accountability measures and exceedance of the annual catch limit.

What I did want to comment on is, in reading the letter, it seems like there is kind of two purposes.

One is, obviously, to reconcile some of the qualification criteria that were used initially to allow entry into the fishery or prohibit entry into the fishery, but then the other aspect of this is kind of the improvements in data collection that would then potentially lead to an adjustment to the catch limit, and I guess I would just want a word of caution here, in that, just because landings are increasing, it doesn’t necessarily mean that that translates into a higher catch limit.

We did base, obviously, the catch limits previously on average landings history over some period of time, but we need to ensure that, obviously, the landings that are being harvested are sustainable, and there are a number of efforts with this fishery ongoing, including an exempted fishing permit collaborating with fishermen to collect additional data that the Science Center is working on.

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

That all has to be factored into, obviously, any kind of future decisions with changes to the catch limit beyond just potentially increases in landings associated with greater participation.

MARCOS HANKE: On that same point, I would like to make this question to Andy, because it’s a follow-up on his comments. If this is well designed, and there is biological parameters and information, as was discussed for data poor in the past, on the presentation made for the -- On the tech memo that we just had a little while ago, and, if this is supported by the best technicians and people with the knowledge, don’t you see an opportunity here to pursue this willingness of the industry to help and to get information?

ANDY STRELCHECK: Yes, and, I mean, obviously, any time that industry is willing to assist with data collection and enhancing the information we have to manage a fishery, that is a win for everyone, and, in terms of kind of the data-limited approaches, I guess my comment would be that that’s something that we certainly can pursue.

Obviously, we haven’t made any changes to management at this point, and we’ve just heard a few presentations over the course of the last few hours, and so, if that is a direction that the Caribbean Council heads, then certainly work in this area, and in particular this fishery, potentially through some sort of pilot study and coordination with the Center and other entities, could benefit, obviously, kind of future management and shift in management potentially away from the biomass-based, or abundance-based, catch limits to some other data-poor methods.

MARCOS HANKE: queue?

Thank you very much.

Is there anybody else in the

MIGUEL ROLON:

Roberto Silva wants to say something, Marcos.

MARCOS HANKE:

Roberto, go ahead.

ROBERTO SILVA: (Roberto Silva’s comments were in Spanish and we not transcribed.)

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Robert. We have three other people in the queue, and let’s start to move the meeting along, and I think this is a great discussion, and I want to add to the record that I have been talking to some commercial fishermen about the deepwater snapper, and they are aware of this process that has to be taken, that there is some scars at the beginning of the process, and they have to be patient about it, and this is just what Roberto 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

mentioned, and they are willing to participate and to make it better. Basically, that’s the synthesis of what I understand by talking to them. Jose Chara, go ahead.

JOSE CHARA: My name is Jose Chara, and I live in Rincon, on the west side of Puerto Rico, and we’ve got some concerns about what Damaris was talking about, about the new OA that is coming out for flexible -- The issues with permits given, or the process to request that permit for the State Department, and what are we going to do with the fishermen that -- For example, myself, I have requested a permit last October, and I haven’t heard nothing. They just said that I don’t got the experience.

What I am going to do, until this new OA gets signed, and what other fishermen are going to do -- You’re going to lose a lot of data, or we’re going to lose a lot of data, valuable data, and I always go the right way and do the things the right way, and a I know a lot of guys doing the same stuff, and I know a lot of guys too doing it the wrong way and fishing without a license, and we still are like losing that data each and every day that the weather allows us to go out, and this is going to affect us as a social member of the community, and in an economic way too, and I would like to have some light on it, and I don’t want to see dark in the tunnel. I just want to see a little boat, because they always say that you’re going to get it, and you’re going to get it. Maybe now with the old OA, but with the new OA, and so when this new OA is going to help.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for your participation.

Sennai, and then we will wrap up.

Nelson, and then

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, you need to allow Damaris to answer Mr. Chara. It was a question to her.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Damaris.

Very brief, please.

DAMARIS DELGADO: I think that I have explained the status, and I think that Mr. Chara understood. We are waiting, at least myself, and I am waiting for the feedback, the official feedback, and we are looking forward to finishing up this process and sign the administrative order.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Damaris.

Nelson.

NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to say thank you, Roberto, to get into this and to taking care too, and that’s what I have been saying for a long time. When this special permit was established, it was to resolve one problem that was in numbers, 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

and it’s not in the fishery.

I think we have a great opportunity right now to step up to the plate and work together with the fishermen and bring better data, and I know that we have space to bring more guys, more fishermen, to this fishery that I am pretty confident that is healthy, and they can make a living from it, and we can -- Like I always say, we cannot be losing this important data, because we never are going to know how healthy this fishery is if we’re still falling asleep in this, and so please try to do something, and, Roberto, you’ve got my support. Anytime you need me, you can find me, and you know how to find me, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Nelson.

Sennai, to wrap up?

SENNAI HABTES: Good afternoon. Thanks, Mr. Chair. If I could, I will just request permission to share my screen, with a quick PowerPoint, and I will try and move through it rather quickly and just get to the points that need the council’s attention. This is a quick update on what we’re working on for the EBFM. The purpose of it was to give more time -MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, we haven’t finished yet that presentation.

Sennai is on the FEP. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, but I thought it was a question to the point we were discussing about the presentation of Roberto Silva. Just hold on for a second, please.

SENNAI HABTES:

Okay.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, to summarize, there are two things.

Puerto Rico can do whatever they want to do, because they can open the fishery to everybody and his brother if they want, and they can provide the information. If they follow, to the letter, the request presented by Mr. Silva, what they are saying is to start fishing for three to five years, and reporting every catch for the deepwater snapper commercial fisheries, in an effort to provide better data, in terms of the landings, and the objective is to provide biological information, et cetera, et cetera, and so that’s one thing that they could do.

Then have new and better scientific data, in order to reevaluate the ACLs for the species, and so, in this case, the council doesn’t have to do anything, and the local government can go ahead, and, as Damaris explained, they are waiting for the fishery board, advisory board of the Department of Natural Resources, to evaluate this and to recommend to the council, to the Secretary of DNER, 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

what is the next steps.

In terms of the action that can be taken by the council at this time, it’s just to wait, because then, when you have the information, you will be able to look at the ACL, and, as Roberto said, you can then reassess the status of that fishery and see if the ACL should be reviewed and evaluated somehow, using the process that we have in the federal government.

That way, we are -- In this case, we are abreast of the issue, and we can wait for the local government to decide what are they going to do, and they can report back to us at the December meeting, to Damaris or anybody else from the department, and then we can take it from there, but one word of caution here is, when you go back to the fishers, and you tell them that, if you provide this information, then we are going to move the ACL, and that ACL doesn’t move an inch, they are going to kill Roberto or somebody.

We are going to be very careful what we are going to say upfront and how we are going to present this to the fishers, and so we cannot promise that the ACL is going to be moved in any way. What we can do is what Roberto said in his letter, to have new and better scientific data in order to reevaluate the ACLs, and that is as far as we can go, in terms of what the council and NOAA Fisheries can do.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Roberto, for stepping up to the plate and to bring this to the council. This is the end of the conversation, and keep writing the right letters and touching the right channels to move any of the ideas to promote sustainable fishing in our area, and that would be welcome on this council, to have a clear and transparent discussion.

Thank you.

The next presentation, Sennai.

EBFM TAP UPDATE SENNAI HABTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said, the purpose of this is give an update on the EBFM TAP as well as to provide some time for comments from the council, as, during the last meeting, it was requested to have a little bit more time for discussion regarding some of the issues that were brought up for the EBFM TAP, in terms of the goals, as well as the timeline, moving forward. I will move through some of the background quickly, to get to the information on those things.

First off, a little bit of background as to the purpose of why the EBFM TAP was developed, and I won’t read these out. I have provided this to the council, and so, if you want more information on that, 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

you can always feel free to look at the report, once it’s posted, and read more on it.

Basically, NOAA NMFS has supported implementation of an EBFM, or ecosystem-based fisheries management, to inform and enable better decisions, and that has led to using the EBFM Roadmap developed by NOAA to create fishery ecosystem plans at the council level among the different regions and territories in the U.S. The EBFM TAP was developed on October 23, 2019, and it included some of the pertinent information as to the purpose and justification for the EBFM TAP, and it’s to assist in the development, collection, evaluation, and peer review of statistical, biological, economic, social, and other scientific information relevant to the council’s development of the FEP and amendments.

It’s composed of individuals engaged in ecosystem research who are knowledgeable, and then -GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Sennai, I hate to interrupt, but you are showing a whiteboard instead of the presentation.

Sorry about that. Check to see in your view options and the share screen.

SENNAI HABTES:

How about now?

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:

Perfect.

Thank you.

SENNAI HABTES: All right. Apologies. I’m not sure why that’s the case. The EBFM TAP provides expert scientific and technical advice to the council on the development of and on the preparation of fishery ecosystem plans and on the effectiveness of such a plan, once in operation.

Again, the purpose of the TAP is to aid the council in this information and identifying the scientific resources available, and so that is the purpose of the TAP, and we are to support the council with our information and making recommendations in the development of the FEP. We are here to provide ongoing scientific advice on EBFM management for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for habitat status, social and economic impacts of management measures, and ecosystem-based impacts on the sustainability of fishing practices. All of these were developed under the charter for the TAP that was created by the council.

What we’re doing is trying to draft a FEP, or a fishery ecosystem plan, and I posted what we have under current guidelines for us to follow to draft it out. The process that we are following is based 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

on the Lenfest FEP loop, which is also identified in the EBFM roadmap by NOAA, and I won’t go into too much detail on that, because Michelle has talked about it, but, really, what we are asking for the council to look at today is the draft goals and objectives, so that we can move forward, as an EBFM TAP, with drafting the FEP under the goals and objectives that we are proposing to the council.

The overarching goal of the 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 that depend on them.

The corollary goal is to provide the framework that promotes the following sub-goals or objectives, to increase human community resilience within the context of changing ecosystems, promote ecosystem resilience within the context -- I apologize. That’s double, and so define present ecosystem status and functionality, understand dynamics of fisheries and ecosystem services, describe key ecosystem linkages, identify research priorities, identify additional ecosystem-essential species in need of conservation and management, understand the risk to the fishery ecosystem and tradeoffs from different management strategies, to improve the data and information needed to support marine ecosystem management, to prevent overfishing and/or ecosystem overfishing, to achieve optimum yield, to incorporate ecosystem considerations into stock assessments, to bring ecosystem considerations into the decision-making process, and to promote adaptive management policies, by reviewing MSA and National SSC and the CCC. These were the ones developed under the EBFM TAP, and this is what we’re proposing to the council for review and to allow us to move forward.

I just wanted to take about two minutes to discuss what’s ongoing with the FEP development process, and these are the conceptual model stakeholder workshops that Michelle was discussing.

The purpose of these are for us to reach out to stakeholders to get their input and understand their needs in drafting the FEP. I completely understand what Julian and Tony were saying, and we will listen to any recommendations that you have for better creating outreach with the fishermen.

The way we had set this up, given the limited resources of the TAP, was that the conceptual model workshops were split among the different groups. The SSC and the DAPs were conducted by the CFMC, 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

and with help from NOAA staff, and the coastal businesses and environmental NGOs were done by Melivora Consulting. Those have all been completed. What’s underway are conceptual model workshops with the scientific community and with fishermen that are being done with ISER Caribe.

I have provided the timeline of the next activity, and it is very similar to what I presented at the last meeting. However, we have changed the wording on some of the activities and the timeline objectives, based on some of the comments that we had received from the Chairman to reflect the need for the council’s informed decision on these processes.

With that, I will just kind of move to the main point of this, which was to suggest that the council approves, or motions to approve, the draft goals and objectives, as presented, and, with that, I will leave it for discussion or questions or comments. If you are not interested in sending this up for a motion, we would appreciate comments on the goals and objectives, so that I can present those comments to the rest of the EBFM TAP to discuss and make recommendations to present for a motion for approval. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. I have a question to Jocelyn, just to make sure. Because it was not -- It’s in Other Business, this discussion, and is it appropriate to make a motion and vote on it, or do we have to wait for the next meeting, Jocelyn?

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thanks, Marcos.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act says that the actions that the council is going to take like for final action, that those need to be specifically in the notice, so that the public has an opportunity to attend the meeting and ask questions, and so it would need to be in the agenda that was part of the notice, but I think usually that’s more referring to taking final action on an amendment or the FMP. That being said, it’s sort of like maybe a little bit more of a gray area.

If you wanted to specifically notice that you were speaking about this, so that the public has an opportunity to weigh-in and see this more specifically, then you could defer it to another meeting.

SENNAI HABTES: If I may, Jocelyn and Mr. Chair, we had proposed this on the agenda at the last meeting, and this was a continuation of that discussion, but it just didn’t make it onto the agenda.

MARCOS HANKE: I understand, but I just want the process to run very sharp and clear, and that’s why the question, and we have 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

Tony Blanchard requesting a turn to speak.

TONY BLANCHARD: recording.)

(Mr. Blanchard’s comment is not audible on the

CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

He needs to start over.

Tony, can you start over?

TONY BLANCHARD: I have a question for Jocelyn, whether it’s a conflict of interest that Mr. Habtes is the Chief of Fisheries for DFW, which is a regulatory agency. When he became chair of the TAP, he was working for UVI, which is another regulatory agency, and it’s just a legal question that I have.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure, and so you’re asking if there’s a conflict for Sennai to serve as the role as the chair of the TAP, or to be on the TAP? TONY BLANCHARD: DFW.

Yes, and as him being the Chief of Fisheries for

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure, and I had emailed a little bit with Miguel about this, and I think that Sennai was appointed when he serving in his personal capacity, and so I think what’s important is just to be clear about which role that he is now serving in, and so, if he’s serving still in that personal role, or if he is intending to serve in this role as affiliated with his new position within the government of the Virgin Islands.

I think that’s just sort of a question that he needs to be clear about, in which role he is participating, and, with that clarity, I think we can move forward.

I also think the council could consider what individuals it wants to have on this committee, and, obviously, Sennai brings various expertise, and that’s why he was appointed.

He still has that expertise, and so I think, like I suggested, having a charter document that just makes clear who is on -- The number of person that are on this board and what capacities they serve, and I think we would just be more clear, but I don’t necessarily see a conflict of interest, but it’s just a question of being clear, given his change in position, how is he serving in this capacity, and then the council has the ability to discuss who serves on these boards and what the council is comfortable with, which experts it wants to have on these panels, and so that’s something that the council could discuss as well.

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

TONY BLANCHARD:

Okay.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Jocelyn. Thank you, Tony. We have, in the queue, Vanessa Ramirez. In the chat, she is requesting a copy of this presentation to be sent to her and to all the council members, and Graciela is saying that that will happen. Anybody else who would like to comment or make a question?

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:

Mr. Chair, if I may?

Go ahead, Graciela.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: What you had on the screen for moving forward with the FEP, the goals and objectives that you have talked about for the last year or so, and I don’t think that everything is written in stone, and so this is a draft FEP that can be changed, but the idea is to have already the information from the council members on what direction they want us to take.

Then we would have to make priorities, in terms of everything that is in the FEP, and so having your guidance, in terms of what the goals and objectives are, it’s really one step forward to getting us in that direction. There are many efforts taking place at the same time, and one thing that is clear is that, once we have established goals and objectives, as I said, they are part of the draft FEP, and so this is not the final time that you will see it.

It’s providing that guidance that staff needs, and the TAP needs, in order to move forward and make priorities along the way.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for the point of clarification. Is there any other council member who would like to jump in and make a comment? I don’t see anybody else here, and I just want to comment that, even though I read, and I feel that I am well informed about what Sennai presented, I think it’s pertinent to circulate the email requested by Vanessa Ramirez, for every council member to have enough time to read this and to have an opinion about it, and for the next meeting, or any other process, if there is a quicker process besides waiting for the next meeting, and, Miguel or Jocelyn, if you can help us out, to find a quicker way, or do we have to wait until August?

MIGUEL ROLON:

What are you talking about?

MARCOS HANKE:

To have the input, or the approval, of this draft.

MIGUEL ROLON:

For the TAP?

MARCOS HANKE:

From the council.

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

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, can you explain to me, because I am seeing two things in the chat, and I don’t know the specifics of what you are referring to.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Sennai, can you put back the last slide, the one with the motion, please? Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON:

You have to do that, but in August.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: So we will amend the agenda for the August meeting to include the EBFM TAP request for the approval of the goals and objectives.

MIGUEL ROLON: In order to amend the agenda, you have to send a note to Diana, so she can send it to Vicki. If we don’t have time for that, we can put it in Other Business, but with the understanding to everybody that they have to come ready to make this decision. If Jocelyn agrees, then that’s what we need to do.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure, and so, as I said before, the MagnusonStevens Act wants the agenda to be clear about matters that are pertinent to all actions, and so, when Graciela was describing this, that these are just draft goals, I think, if we were approving the plan, we certainly would need that to be in the agenda, but, if we’re just trying to give them direction, then this looks like reasonable goals to move forward, and the council will have an opportunity to see this again, and it might be appropriate to vote on this at this meeting, but, if you’re more comfortable more specifically noticing it in the next meeting notice in the Federal Register, so that it’s very clear to the public the decisions the council is going to be making, then we could do that as well.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, if I may, from what Jocelyn is saying, there is no legal issue with having the motion now, because it suggests what you are doing, and you are not finalizing anything, but remember that this still continues to be a draft until the process is finished, and so what the council would be doing here is just to modify those goals and objectives, as per the recommendation from the TAP. MARCOS HANKE:

I have a turn to speak from Andy.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos. Maybe a question for Miguel, and I think we might be saying something similar here, and so I’m not sure that we even need to make a motion on this at this point, given that it’s a draft, and I hear there is at least maybe some 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

concerns, or people want some additional time to take a look at this.

I am certainly perfectly comfortable with the EBFM TAP moving forward to use these goals and objectives, with maybe some recognition from the council that we might have some additional input as this draft continues to be developed and finalized, but I am not seeing anything in the goals, sub-goals, and objectives that is of major concern to me, and maybe some refinements could be made along the way, but, to me, I think the TAP is certainly good to proceed, if that’s the preference of the council as a whole.

MARCOS HANKE: I share your opinion, Andy, but I just want the council members, or you, to make a motion and to follow-up on the recommendation of Jocelyn.

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, what he is saying is you don’t need a motion. Just recognize this language that you have here, and just tell the TAP to continue working on the document with these, and he’s saying that you still have a chance to modify it somehow.

There is nothing here that is contrary to what you have been discussing for the last five years, and it’s just that they are putting in context the real actions that you can take, the goals and objectives, and so you can go ahead and just take note that you’ve had this report and instruct the TAP to continue working, using these goals and objectives, as Andy is suggesting.

MARCOS HANKE: As the Chairman, I am hearing everything that everybody said, and, based on what I read about the document, this is the path that I recommend the council to follow, and I didn’t hear any opposition, meaningful opposition, to the comment, to what he said, and just keep the process going.

That is my recommendation to the group.

MIGUEL ROLON: As the Chairman, just -- It’s not a recommendation, but just instruct the staff to pursue this, and the TAP will continue.

MARCOS HANKE:

This is what I am trying to say, in English.

MIGUEL ROLON: language.

Just let the TAP continue the work, using this

MARCOS HANKE: Just keep doing the great job you are doing and continue the work as it is, and we’re going to participate a little further in the process, if there is any need for any council 117

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

member.

Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, I have to go to the hospital to attend an emergency of a friend of mine.

Graciela will take care to finish the meeting. Thank you very much.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. I hope everything goes well.

The next item on the agenda is participation requested by -- I think I have an ACL, Graciela, and can you clarify what it means for the Other Business?

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: That is really in relation to what Mr. Strelcheck was going to talk about in the spiny lobster.

SPINY LOBSTER DISCUSSION ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Graciela and Marcos. I just wanted to let the council know that the accountability measure for spiny lobster in Puerto Rico has been triggered, and so the catch limit is monitored and compared to the average of 2017 through 2019 landings.

Based on that average time series, landings exceeded the catch limit. Right now, we are evaluating that exceedance, in light of, obviously, that timeframe, but also what occurred in 2020 and any trends in 2021, but likely we will need to implement a closure of spiny lobster in federal waters that would be announced in the coming weeks, in terms of a timeframe. I don’t have any specifics on dates, other than to remind the council that the accountability measure would result in a closure that would back up from September 30, and so the closure would be sometime between now and then end on September 30, if it’s sufficient to constrain harvest to the catch limit.

More information will be coming, and we will certainly do Fishery Bulletins, and we will certainly allow fishermen the opportunity and time to remove gear from the water, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up that the accountability measure had been triggered.

MARCOS HANKE: A question. Accountability measure, just to clarify to everybody, applies to the whole U.S. EEZ? ANDY STRELCHECK: MARCOS HANKE:

That is correct.

Any comments or any questions?

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

That’s for Puerto Rico only, right?

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

ANDY STRELCHECK: Correct. It’s just for Puerto Rico only. We have yet to implement the island-based FMPs and make the changes.

MARCOS HANKE: I’m sorry, but now I am a little confused, and that was why my question, because the island-based was not implemented yet, and this applies to the U.S. Caribbean waters of St. Thomas and St. John and Puerto Rico and everybody, or is it just around Puerto Rico?

ANDY STRELCHECK: It’s specific to Puerto Rico. apply in federal waters off of Puerto Rico.

The closure will

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. That’s what I really need to be very clear on the record for everybody to understand. Thank you. Any comments?

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:

Mr. Chair, if I may?

Go ahead.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: One of the requests that we have ongoing with the Puerto Rico government is to actually acquire the data from the e-reporting that has been available for 2020 and 2021, for the monthly setup, and there are issues still with the crossover from the e-reporting to the NOAA Science Center database, but the request is to specifically look at the trends from that amount of harvest that has not been accounted for from the dataset that we already have on the commercial catch.

We are in ongoing conversations between the Science Center and the DNER regarding the passing of the data from the e-reporting in DNER to the actual database of NOAA, and so the request has been made, and the non-disclosure things that we have to sign have been signed, but the actual transfer of the data needs to be worked out between the DNER and the Science Center, and that is already being worked on.

Kevin McCarthy sent the information regarding confidentiality of the data, and so that is working, but, in the process that it will take to get that data passed over to the Science Center, the request still stands to get aggregated data from the e-reporting of the DNER, specifically for lobster, that could help -- I am not saying that it will definitely help in the resulting accountability measure that’s been triggered, but that it could help in providing us information on the trends, the monthly trends, of the 2020 and 2021.

On behalf of the acquiring the best available information that is 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

out there, the council would like to request that data, so that we can use it in looking at these trends for 2020 and 2021. Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: A comment, a follow-up, on Graciela.

This is a request to the DNER, and Damaris is on the meeting, but this an opportunity, a unique opportunity, to start to show what electronic data reporting can do to the fishing community, and this data, and this cooperation and coordination, to make this data available, is beneficial for the resource and for the fishing community, and for sure everybody will be very glad and thankful for you to followup on this and for this data to be available, because, at the end of the road, this will put us in a better position to make a decision, and I please request Damaris to follow-up internally on the DNER to expedite this process. Thank you.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Marcos, just one other thing to add, real quick, and so I appreciate Graciela’s comments, and I do want to thank Puerto Rico. We, the Regional Office and the Science Center, have been receiving some of this additional data for both 2020 and 2021, for both electronic reporting as well as standard data collection, and so that has been shared with us, and it has been, obviously, part of the information that we’re looking at in determining the potential closure for spiny lobster, and so I just wanted to make the council aware of that.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I agree with you, and I am just waving the flag of priority, because I see an opportunity here for an overall benefit of coordinating the efforts, and this is my request at this time. The next item on Other Business is Forage Species by Nelson Crespo.

DISCUSSION OF FORAGE SPECIES NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to be really quick. Before Hurricane Irma and Maria, the decline was beginning to be noticed in a small scale, but it has worsened it significantly.

Coastal net and bait fishermen have approached me regarding this issue, and they are really concerned about. With the decrease of forage fish and the increase of predators, such as tarpon, they have been noting to the point that they compare it to an epidemic with individuals that easily can reach sixty pounds and over. The abundance of sardines and other small species that attract fish to shore has decreased considerably.

Other

species,

coastal

species, 120

like

blue

runners,

jacks,

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

goldeneye, herring -- They avoid being with them for a long time, and that’s all the species that the local people eat.

When we tried to fish, they got trapped on the fishing gear, breaking them, and all the other catch gets lost.

Around twenty years ago, before the catch of tarpon was prohibited, this species was used on a smaller scale by small businesses, to make local dishes, and, also, its scales were used to make handicrafts.

That at least created a balance between them and other species, and they could interact together. However, I want to clarify that I am not asking the local government to reopen the catch for tarpon.

In my opinion, other factors, for example climate change, runoff, coastal erosion, and pollution of our coast, among others, have also contributed to the decline of forage fish, and the high amount of tarpon along the coast are one of the consequences of this. As part of the change, they also have to feed, and, with our healthy stock of forage fish, their presence increased along the coast.

For these reasons, I ask this council to help to identify and correct the causes of the decline in forage fishes, which are important to the coastal fishing and the benefits of our habitats and marine ecosystems, as fast as possible, before this situation gets worse.

I cannot fail to mention the coastal fishes that are limited to fish, due to the number of tarpon that you can sometimes see going up and down between the waves and the sands, and so I really appreciate the help that this council can give to this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you.

Adding to the discussion, which I already spoke to Nelson, we agree and we disagree on a few things, but I want to mention too about forage species, and that is there is some hotspot sargassum accumulation around the island, and I’m addressing the east coast, many of them which create a permanent anoxic and unhealthy waters, with low oxygen and low pH., that, the way I see it, it’s like a station during the spawning season, and I think we are not measuring or considering these events.

Since the sargassum has started for our area, the forage species that gather, the little tunny on the lighthouse of Fajardo, is not there anymore, and the small anchovies and the small sardines that create that activity doesn’t get to the shore anymore, if they do, they die immediately or get consumed by the fishes that are there that can support the low oxygen.

121

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 need to study, and we need to know more about the base of the food chain.

Otherwise, we are not doing ecosystem-based management. The focus is to support a study on that, and this is something that I really wanted to say to this group. Anybody else?

Go ahead, Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: For years, I have been talking about developing a forage fish management plan, and maybe it’s time to start discussions, but I also do see Nelson’s point, when it comes to tarpon. I know we have Sandy Point on St. Croix, where, during the nesting season for leatherbacks, there were about 2,000 nests laid on that beach, and, when those hatchlings come out, the tarpon were just having a field day, but that’s something that -- They are protected here, because it’s for a charter business, a catchand-release business, but there are other issues, like Marcos said, with the sargassum, and all of that needs to be looked at.

MARCOS HANKE: thank you very much. I really don’t want to go in the line of arguing in favor or against any idea, because we are basing this discussion on speculation and appreciation, and what I want this council to promote is to request attention and funds to study and to get information to make the best decisions possible, and, on this process, I am available to support any initiative. Thank you. Thank you, Nelson, for your presentation.

NELSON CRESPO:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MARCOS HANKE: There is no other public comment that we -- I mean Other Business that we predicted to be here, and we are passing now to public comment. Is there anybody from the public that would like five minutes to present or to speak about any other issue or comment on the presentations made before?

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Mr. Chair, you have Joel from the Fishers Association Aguadania.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Joel.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

JOEL --:

(The comment was in Spanish and was not transcribed.)

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. That’s why we need to make a study and support the study, to really know what is going on and which level of pressure and dynamics is really happening out there, more than just isolated important observations. Anybody else?

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Yes, Marcos.

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

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: A small comment. I agree with Marcos about the situation that we need to make more recommendations to address some studies about the tarpon. We have to remember that, for the last year, practically all the restaurants and everything were closed, and so the tarpon have to move on from the coast to more deep, and I know that, in the west, we have a lot of them, and that they can affect and impact the protected areas in the Tourmaline and Abrir la Sierra. Thanks.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Vanessa.

NICOLE GREAUX:

I appreciate all of that, and thank you so much.

MARCOS HANKE:

No comments, Nicole?

NICOLE GREAUX: Angeli?

We have Nicole Greaux.

Are you referring to Nicole Greaux or Nicole

MARCOS HANKE:

Greaux.

NICOLE GREAUX:

Okay.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Nicole can type it up in the chat, and we can read it for the record. Marcos, I don’t see anyone else with a raised hand or comments in the chat.

MARCOS HANKE: Graciela, let’s announce the next council meeting.

In the meantime, Nicole can connect.

NEXT COUNCIL MEETING GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Okay. We have the next council meeting will be August 11, and it will still be a virtual meeting, and it’s a one-day meeting only. Then, for the December meeting, it will be the 7th and 8th of December, and there is already a contract with the Marriott Courtyard, but, most likely, it will be a hybrid meeting, depending on what the protocol for the public is at that time. Marcos, that’s all I have in my notes.

MARCOS HANKE:

Nicole was able to connect?

NICOLE GREAUX: Marcos, this was a question to Tony Blanchard and Julian Magras in regard to the ISLA Caribe. As Tony mentioned, they were here in St. Thomas, talking to the fishers that were in Frenchtown, because that was the most prevalent names given to 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

them, and my question to them is when the program starts in the study, if they would be willing to talk to whomever it is that is going to be doing this, just to let them know what they are going to be expecting or what the reasoning behind the reluctance is, once they start off going to talk to the fishers.

MARCOS HANKE: Well, yes, for sure, they can answer to you, but I think it will be way more effective if you guys call each other and coordinate those questions, to create a channel of communication. If Julian or Tony want to respond or to comment, before we adjourn.

STACY WILLIAMS: comment?

MARCOS HANKE:

Mr. Chairman, this Stacy Williams.

May I make a

Yes.

STACY WILLIAMS: Hi. Yes, we are planning -- We are now in the process of contacting all the fishers and fishers leaders in Puerto Rico, and we will be recontacting the liaisons and fisher leaders in the USVI, and so I can write my email in the chat, for any comments or questions, and anyone can email me, and I can respond to any of their questions, and so, yes, we are actually in the process of writing up the letters and sending them out, hopefully at the end of this week, for the conceptual models with the fishers.

MARCOS HANKE: I understand, and I just promote those direct channels of communication, so not to get lost on the way. Thank you very much.

Seeing nobody else in the queue for public comments, we are ready to adjourn the meeting.

It’s 4:29 p.m.

Thank you for your patience and for a productive meeting, and we will see you in August.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

You need a motion to adjourn, Mr. Chair.

We need a motion to adjourn.

ANDY STRELCHECK:

Motion to adjourn.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Andy Strelcheck made a motion to adjourn, and it’s seconded by Carlos Farchette. Is there any opposition? Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, guys. Thank you to everybody.

Thank you very much for the comments and for the participation.

124

1 2 3

(Whereupon, the meeting adjourned on July 21, 2021.)

- - -

125

Draft Tech Memo: Data Limited Stocks Caribbean Fishery Management Council Meeting Marian Macpherson July 21, 2021

Background • Data Limited Stocks: Challenges and Progress 2009- 2016 • 2016 NS 1 Guideline Revisions, NMFS convened NS 1 Technical Working Group with Subgroup 3 focusing on data-limited ACLs • Draft Tech Memo: “Managing with ACLs for data-limited stocks in federal fishery management plans - Review and recommendations for implementing 50 CFR 600.310(h)(2) flexibilities for data limited stocks” • Dates: NMFS discussed with the CCC in May 2021; comments requested by Oct. 1, 2021

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

Overview of Draft Tech Memo • Legal context of MSA and NS1 Guidelines • Statutory Requirements • NMFS guidance: Standard approach; flexibilities

• Data-limited Assessment Methods • Methods that support Standard ACLs • Recommendations and Considerations • Other methods that support MSA compliance

• Management: Guidance on use of (h)(2) flexibilities for data-limited stocks • Qualification: When flexibilities may be available • Potential alternative: ACL expressed in terms of rate • Stocks that qualify for (h)(2) but lack data for Rate-based ACL U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 3

Legal context Statutory Requirements • FMP mechanism to specify “annual catch limit” • That prevents overfishing • Include Accountability Measures (AMs)

NS1 Guidelines • Standard Approach to ACLs; expressed as amounts of fish (weight or number) • (h)(2) Flexibilities (50 CFR 600.310(h)(2)) • Council may recommend alternative approach • Must comply with MSA • Must be in FMP U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 4

Flexibility to use “Alternative Approaches”: NS 1 Guidelines (h)(2) • “limited circumstances that may not fit the standard approaches to specification of reference points” • “include, among other things, …stocks for which data are not available either to set reference points… or to manage to reference points” (pursuant to standard approach) ,

• “Councils may propose alternative approaches for satisfying requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act” U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 5

Data-Limited Assessment Methods: Progress Advances in stock assessment methods for datalimited stocks are giving us new tools that: -more effectively use the data that are available -identify manageable metrics -increase understanding of uncertainties

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

Data-Limited Assessment Methods

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 7

Recommendations For methods that support weight/numbers-based ACLs Identify data gaps; recommend research priorities.

Seek to improve data, including reconstructing removal histories.

Explore the uncertainty in inputs.

Be explicit about the uncertainty buffer between OFL and ABC; ensure that control rule buffers between OFL and ABC increase as scientific uncertainty increases.

• If inputs are weakly justified, consider using other data limited methods.

• Regarding catch-estimator methods: • • • •

• Recognizing that, in some cases, “average catch” and “catch scalar,” may be BSIA, if other data-limited methods can be used, they should be.

• If data are not available to use other methods, then: • Consider whether an alternative ACL under (h)(2) may be appropriate.

• Use appropriate buffers.

• Plan to transition to another approach.

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

Information Other data-limited methods Length-based, and indicator-based methods: • limited in ability to define removal targets in terms of amount of fish • do provide science-based metrics and reference points • can support compliance with MSA

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 9

Management: Qualification to apply (h)(2) for data-limited stocks

*For stocks that lack data needed to effectively specify, or manage with, ACL expressed as amount of fish*

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 10

Overview Start with what you can measure

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 11

Potential Alternative: ACL expressed as rate

• Stock Assessment provides F and MFMT • ABC and ACL can be derived using buffers just as under the standard approach for ACLs, but expressed in terms of F rather than weight or number

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

Managing with Indicators: Example If there are length data, consider whether SSC can correlate indicators to these rates, and management controls can be designed to maintain stock within indicator range.

Hypothetically, this could look like: • Mean length indicator of 9.4 inches corresponding to FOFL (obtained via length-based assessment) • Mean length indicator of 10 inches corresponding to FABC (selected

by SSC) • Mean length indicator of 10.2 inches corresponding to FACL (selected by Council) • Management options: size limits, time/area closures, gear modifications U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 13

Monitoring and Accountability Measures • FMP must describe how monitoring would ensure compliance with MSA • Potential Options: annually run the data-limited model to compare F to FACL; or monitor the indicator (e.g., lengths) • Must include accountability measures

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 14

Stocks that Qualify for (h)(2) but lack rate data • Must comply with MSA using best scientific information available • Consider whether a data-collection program to support movement towards rate-based ACL would be appropriate • Goal: progress towards use of Standard ACL approach

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

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

Please submit additional comments by COB: 10/01/2021 To: Marian.Macpherson@noaa.gov and Stephanie.Hunt@noaa.gov

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

Example: Establishing FACL • MFMT = FMSY proxy = F30%SPR • MFMT = FOFL • FOFL x buffer (scientific uncertainty) = FABC • FABC x buffer (management uncertainty) = FACL U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 17

Wrap Up Legal context of MSA and NS1 Guidelines • Statutory Requirements • NMFS guidance: Standard approach; flexibilities

Improvements in Data-limited assessment methods • Methods that support Standard ACLs • Recommendations and Considerations • Other methods that support MSA compliance

Alternative Approaches to ACLs for Data-limited Stocks • Qualifying to use (h)(2) data-limited flexibilities • Potential Rate-Based Alternative ACL; how it would work • Data-limited, (h)(2)-qualified, but lack rate data U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 18

Fishery Ecosystem Plan Stakeholder Engagement Workshops Update

Mellivora Consulting - July 21, 2021

Overview Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Stakeholder Engagement Workshops

• Project background and purpose • Methods and outreach • Conceptual models • Next steps

2

Background FEP best practices

Figure 3.1

THE FEP LOOP The main recommendation of the Task Force report is that FEPs be used to create a structured process for establishing goals and translating them into action. The report proposes the “FEP Loop” process.

• “Where are we now?”

• Co-creation of a

1. WHERE ARE WE NOW? • Develop a conceptual model • Select and calculate indicators • Inventory threats

conceptual model (stakeholders, managers, scientists).

5. DID WE MAKE IT?

2. WHERE ARE WE GOING?

• Compare monitoring data with predictions

• Articulate a strategic vision • Develop strategic objectives • Analyze risks to meeting strategic objectives • Prioritize strategic objectives • Develop operational objectives

LEARN AND ADJUST

• “Stakeholder input is

central to shery system planning.”

• Broad stakeholder

involvement is necessary to identify tradeo s.

ff

3. HOW WILL WE GET THERE? • Develop performance measures • Identify potential management strategies • Evaluate consequences of alternative management actions • Select management strategy

Credit: Lenfest Fishery Ecosystem Task Force (2016)

3 fi

4. IMPLEMENT THE PLAN • Work plan • Resources • Outputs • Timeline

23

Background Current project • Current project is the result of communication between the Pew

Charitable Trusts (PCT), Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP) Chair, and CFMC Executive Director regarding identi cation of stakeholder groups for FEP development.

• PCT o ered to support stakeholder engagement workshops: ‣ Mellivora Consulting (contractor): workshop facilitation, outreach, report. ‣ PCT sta : Mental Modeler operation, workshop note-taking.

• Lenfest grantees: JJ Cruz-Motta (SSC, EBFM TAP), Tarsila Seara (SSC, EBFM TAP), Stacey Williams (EBFM TAP) leading e ort to engage science community, experts, managers, etc.

• Outreach to shing community: Council (through DAPs), Lenfest grantees

ff

fi

ff

ff

fi

4

Purpose • Ensure that a variety of stakeholder viewpoints are incorporated into the development of the Council’s overall conceptual model.

• Engage a subset of stakeholder groups that are not frequently involved in the Council’s work.

‣ Coastal businesses: dive shops, surf shops, sailing charters, outdoor guides, restaurants, hotels, guest houses, etc.

‣ Local environmental nongovernmental organizations (eNGOs) based in each island district.

• Develop conceptual models for each stakeholder group in each district (PR, STT/STJ, STX).

5

Methods Outreach materials • Two-page information briefs

• Spanish and English versions

‣ Fishery Ecosystem Plans ‣ Conceptual Models

• Distributed to all

stakeholders who accepted invitation

6

Methods Stakeholder contact • Stakeholder list developed in coordination with OEAP Chair and support from Sea Grant sta .

‣ Separate workshops for each stakeholder group in each district (2 groups x 3 districts = 6 workshops)

‣ Target size 8-12 participants for each workshop ‣ Invited over 40 eNGOs and over 80 coastal businesses

• Email invitation ~4 weeks in advance of workshop ‣ Follow-up email and phone calls for non-respondents ‣ Agenda and outreach materials sent to con rmed stakeholders

• Reminder email with agenda/materials 2 days prior to workshop, reminder phone calls one day in advance

• Workshop dates: 4/22, 4/26, 5/6, 5/10, 5/25, 5/27 fi

ff

7

Methods Workshops • Virtual 2-hour facilitated

Photo: Jorge Sabater

What is an ecosystem?

workshops (recorded)

• Evening workshops for

• Ecosystem = a community or group of living things that interact with one another

What is a fishery?

• Fishery = fish + people • Fishery ecosystem = linkages between a fishery and its components

What is a fishery ecosystem plan?

• Fishery ecosystem plan = comprehensive management system based on the connections between human and biological components of fisheries

businesses

• Simultaneous translation

for PR, Spanish materials

• Brief presentation

Example: What are the components of a forest ecosystem?

‣ Background information ‣ Trigger questions and individual brainstorming

Photo: Michelle Duval

‣ Identi cation of biological, social, and economic components

What do you think are the components of the marine fishery ecosystem in St. Croix?

‣ Identi cation of relationships fi

fi

8

• Components: Things that can increase or decrease in quality or quantity • Social, biological, economic, cultural, physical • Individual brainstorming: Think of 3-5 components • There are no wrong answers!

Methods Workshop follow-up • Thank you email with link to Google document containing conceptual model

• Allowed 2 weeks for participants to provide feedback on

additional relationships/linkages between components (model validation)

• Incorporation of additional participant feedback • Review of workshop recordings to ensure accuracy

9

Conceptual Models

10

St. Croix Environmental Nongovernmental Community

PINK = driver component GREEN = receiver component 11

St. Croix Coastal Business Community

PINK = driver component GREEN = receiver component 12

St. Thomas/St. John Environmental Nongovernmental Community

PINK = driver component GREEN = receiver component 13

St. Thomas/St. John Coastal Business Community

PINK = driver component GREEN = receiver component 14

Puerto Rico Environmental Nongovernmental Community

PINK = driver component GREEN = receiver component 15

Puerto Rico Coastal Business Community

PINK = driver component GREEN = receiver component 16

Conceptual Models Common Themes • Components that were a ected by the most other components ‣ Water Quality: STX eNGOs, STX Businesses, STT/STJ eNGOs, PR eNGOs

‣ Coral/Coral Reefs: STX eNGOs, STX Businesses, STT/STJ eNGOs, STT/STJ Businesses, PR Businesses

‣ Reef Fish: PR eNGOs, PR Businesses

RECEIVER Component

ff

17

Conceptual Models Common Themes • Components that a ected the most other components ‣ Education: PR Businesses, PR eNGOs, STT/STJ Businesses ‣ Government/Regulatory Agencies/Management: PR Businesses, STT/ STJ Businesses, STX NGOs

DRIVER Component

ff

18

Next Steps • Presentation of conceptual models to FEP Technical Advisory Panel for incorporation into overall Council model.

• Additional analysis and completion of project report.

Questions? michelle@mellivoraconsulting.com

19

CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Draft 2022-2024 Strategic Plan July 2021

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 VISION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 MISSION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 CORE VALUES ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 GOAL STATEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 MANAGEMENT ..............................................................................................................................................................................5 ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH .................................................................................................................................................5 SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES .........................................................................................................................................5 COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH ...................................................................................................................................................5 MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH ...........................................................................................................................10 SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES ..................................................................................................................14 COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH .............................................................................................................................17

Page 2

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

ACRONYMS CFMC CRFM DAP DPNR DRNA EBFM EEZ EFH FAD FEP IBFMP MREP MSA NOAA NPS OEAP OLE PEPCO SEFSC SERO SSC USCG USFWS USVI WECAFC

Caribbean Fishery Management Council Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism District Advisory Panel Department of Planning and Natural Resources (U.S. Virgin Islands) Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (Puerto Rico) Ecosystem Based Fishery Management Exclusive Economic Zone Essential Fish Habitat Fish Aggregating Device Fishery Ecosystem Plan Island-Based Fishery Management Plan Marine Resource Education Program Magnuson Stevens Act National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Park Service Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Office of Law Enforcement Programa de Educación para Pescadores Comerciales (Educational Program for Commercial Fishers) Southeast Fisheries Science Center Southeast Regional Office Scientific and Statistical Committee U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Virgin Islands Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission

Page 3

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

INTRODUCTION The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Caribbean Council, or CFMC) is responsible for the conservation and management of fishery resources within the federal jurisdiction of the U.S. Caribbean, which includes Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Caribbean Council is one of eight regional councils established in 1976 by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, later renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).

In addition to the councils, the MSA also created the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), an area that extends from the seaward boundary of coastal states and territories out to 200 nautical miles. The MSA established sovereign authority over most fishery resources in the EEZ, a responsibility that is shared between the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and the regional councils. The Caribbean Council recommends management measures for fishery resources within its jurisdiction through the development of fishery management plans, which must be reviewed and approved by the Secretary of Commerce before being implemented by NOAA Fisheries. All Council recommendations are developed in an open, public process and must be consistent with the ten national standards contained in the MSA. The Caribbean Council is comprised of seven voting members. This includes four public voting members appointed by the Secretary with knowledge of commercial fishing, recreational fishing, or conservation of marine resources of the U.S. Caribbean. The remaining three voting members include the principal officials with marine fishery management responsibility for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (or their designees), and the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Administrator. The Council also has three non-voting members representing the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Secretary of State.

Development of measures to maintain healthy fishery resources that meet the needs of fishers and the general public is an inclusive process. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviews biological, statistical, social, and economic information and provides expert technical advice to ensure that Council decisions are based the best scientific information available. Additionally, the Council has advisory panels to assist it in establishing fishery management goals and objectives, as well as outreach and education approaches, and to provide input on cultural values and economic needs of island fishing communities. Each advisory panel contains a balanced representation of fishery and stakeholder interests and serves an important communication role for those affected by the Council’s decisions.

The Caribbean Council recently evaluated its management framework and is transitioning from a species-specific approach to one that is focused on the unique characteristics of the fishery resources and fishing communities of each of its three island districts (Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St.John, St. Croix). This new framework is detailed in the Council’s recently approved Island-Based Fishery Management Plans (IBFMPs). Additionally, the Council is developing a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) that will guide implementation of its new management framework using an ecosystem-based approach. This strategic plan establishes goals and objectives for these critically important efforts and serves as a roadmap for future activities that will promote effective implementation, as well as transparency and accountability for the Council’s stakeholders.

Page 4

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

VISION Thriving and resilient island ecosystems, fisheries, and fishing communities that provide cultural, social, and economic benefits for all.

MISSION The Caribbean Fishery Management Council conserves, restores and manages fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Act. The Council is committed to advancing the collaborative stewardship of these fisheries and supporting island ecosystems through education, outreach, and stakeholder input.

CORE VALUES • • • • • •

Stewardship Collaboration Integrity Transparency Fairness Respect

GOAL STATEMENTS MANAGEMENT Advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources.

SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process.

Page 5

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

MANAGEMENT Goal: Advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

PUERTO RICO Objective 1: Support the development of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

• Improve fishery-independent data through partnerships.

• Prioritize data collection for species subject to seasonal and area closures.

• Expand education and outreach on commercial electronic reporting technology.

• Continue participation in re-initiation of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) in Puerto Rico.

• Support Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) and Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (DRNA) improvements to commercial sampling.

• Support the SEFSC fishery-independent deep-water snapper-grouper survey.

• Support local government efforts to increase port sampling and port agents.

Objective 2: Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs.

• Develop and prioritize a list of Puerto Rico-specific research needs.

• Work with science and research partners and with fishers to prioritize stock assessments for species subject to seasonal and area closures.

• Collaborate with Sea Grant to ensure Puerto Rico-specific research needs are included in grant opportunities.

• Incorporate fisher observations into stock assessments.

• Develop a list of Puerto Rico science and data needs that could be addressed using commercial and recreational fisher involvement.

Objective 3: Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement.

• Review enforceability of existing Puerto Rico management measures.

• Work with Puerto Rico DRNA to foster regulatory consistency.

• Work with Puerto Rico DRNA, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and local marine enforcement agencies to support cross-training of personnel.

• Collaborate with management partners to develop commercial and recreational compliance guides for Puerto Rico.

Page 6

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 4: Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management that considers diverse community interests.

• Regularly review effectiveness of existing management measures (e.g., spawning areas and closures).

• Work with partners to develop clearly stated objectives for management actions.

• Address impacts of bycatch on ecosystem relationships.

• Participate in Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) queen conch workgroup.

• Evaluate new and existing management measures for consistency with local ecosystem productivity using Ecosystem Status Reports.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN Objective 5: Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

• Support NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) efforts to improve recreational reporting and establish an MRIP survey in St. Thomas/St. John.

• Support SEFSC efforts to work with DPNR to design and implement a multi-mode catch sampling program.

• Prioritize data collection for species subject to seasonal and area closures.

• Support USVI DPNR efforts to examine licensing modifications and improvements.

Objective 6: Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs.

• Collaborate with science partners and fishers to develop and prioritize a St. Thomas/St. John-specific list of research needs.

• Prioritize and involve fishers in urgently needed stock assessments for species subject to seasonal and area closures.

• Encourage collaborative studies on the effectiveness of Grammanik Bank and other closed areas.

• Work with the SEFSC to identify key species for which fishers could assist in obtaining biological samples.

• Support joint SEFSC, USVI DPNR, and National Park Service (NPS) efforts to improve information for datalimited stock assessments (e.g., gear selectivity studies in St. Thomas/St. John etc.).

• Develop educational materials to promote fisher understanding of science and information needs.

Objective 7: Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement.

• Coordinate with NOAA OLE, USVI DPNR and USCG to review enforceability of existing regulations.

• Support cross-training of enforcement personnel and joint enforcement efforts through memoranda of understanding.

• Identify enforcement gaps in existing St. Thomas/St. John regulations.

• Promote development of clear, understandable compliance guides for commercial and recreational stakeholders.

Page 7

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 8: Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management of fishery resources that considers diverse community interests.

• • • • •

Review and evaluate the effectiveness of existing seasonal and area closures as soon as possible.

Reduce bycatch and waste through gear modifications and seasonal restrictions.

Collaborate with USVI DPNR to develop consistent management measures where appropriate.

Ensure management measures accommodate St. Thomas/St. John local ecosystem productivity.

Participate in international forums such as WECAFC and the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) efforts to improve understanding and management of Caribbean-wide resources.

Objective 9: Consider the potential impacts of climate change on the efficacy of management measures.

• Use USVI (St. Thomas/St. John) Ecosystem Status Reports to inform development of management measures.

• Evaluate fishery-independent information for climate-related impacts and trends.

• Solicit fisher input regarding climate-related changes in species and habitats.

ST. CROIX Objective 10: Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

• Support NOAA Fisheries and USVI DPNR efforts to improve recreational reporting, port sampling, and review previous pilot efforts to establish an MRIP-certified survey in St. Croix as per the MRIP regional implementation plan.

• Support efforts by USVI DPNR to review and modify licensing requirements to improve catch reporting.

• Support SEFSC efforts to work with USVI DPNR to design and implement a multi-mode catch sampling program.

• Collaborate with USVI DPNR on education and outreach regarding accurate catch reporting.

• Prioritize data collection for species subject to seasonal and area closures.

• Support USVI DPNR efforts to examine licensing modifications and improvements.

Objective 11: Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting islandspecific science and information needs.

• Support joint SEFSC, USVI DPNR, and NPS gear selectivity studies in St. Croix.

• Identify opportunities for fishers to contribute to biological samples for parrotfish and other species.

• Support research by academic science partners to improve data-limited species assessments.

• Collaborate with science partners and fishers to develop and prioritize a St. Croix-specific list of research needs.

• Ensure that closed areas are correctly marked by buoys (e.g., Buck Island).

• Develop educational materials to promote fisher understanding of science and information needs.

Page 8

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 12: Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement.

• Coordinate with NOAA OLE, USVI DPNR, and the USCG to review consistency of existing regulations for federally managed species.

• Support cross-training of enforcement personnel.

• Identify enforcement gaps for existing St. Croix regulations.

• Review regulations for effectiveness and/or redundancy.

• Develop clear, understandable compliance guides for commercial and recreational fishers and other stakeholders.

• Ensure that educational materials are available for decision-makers (e.g., legislators) as needed.

Objective 13: Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management of fishery resources that balances commercial and recreational interests.

• Work with NOAA Fisheries and USVI DPNR to reduce bycatch through gear and seasonal modifications.

• Work with USVI DPNR and NOAA OLE to develop consistent regulations where appropriate.

• Ensure management measures accommodate St. Croix local ecosystem productivity.

• Involve both the St. Croix District Advisory Panel (DAP) and Fisheries Advisory Committee (FAC) in review and development of management measures to evaluate commercial and recreational community impacts.

• Ensure that management measures consider and/or address the potential impacts of climate change.

• Ensure that management approaches consider the impacts of invasive species.

• Explore underutilized species as a means to reduce pressure on currently fully utilized species.

• Support the development of interagency coordination for permitting of Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) deployment.

Page 9

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH Goal: Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources.

PUERTO RICO Objective 14: 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.

• Evaluate existing spawning season closures and closed areas (e.g., Bajo de Sico, Tourmaline Bank, Abrir la Sierra) to determine contributions to ecosystem integrity.

• Establish a schedule to regularly evaluate and monitor closed seasons and areas.

• Collaborate with science partners and stakeholders to improve local ecosystem information.

• Establish a process to incorporate ecosystem information and approaches into management measures specific to Puerto Rico.

• Identify enforcement concerns that may impact ecological relationships.

Objective 15: Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of Puerto Rico.

• Develop Council habitat policies that address impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) from coastal development, erosion and sedimentation, and other forms of pollution.

• Develop outreach materials on the impacts of habitat loss from non-fishing activities (e.g., erosion/sedimentation) and communicate and collaborate with agencies responsible for managing these activities.

• Support SEFSC mapping efforts and collaborate with science partners to identify Puerto Rico habitat mapping needs.

• Work with management partners to establish clear goals for five-year EFH reviews.

• Ensure that EFH designations account for ecological roles and relationships of species.

• Support projects that rehabilitate fishery habitats to offset habitat loss or damage.

• Collaborate with scientists and fishers to assess the impact of certain fishing gears on fishery habitats.

Objective 16: Collaborate with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters on ecosystem structure and function.

• Determine data needed to evaluate impacts of natural disasters on species and habitats.

• Incorporate effects of natural disasters into the development of Ecosystem Status Reports.

• Evaluate the flexibility of existing management approaches to respond to local ecosystem impacts from hurricanes and earthquakes.

• Establish a process to collect fisher observations on local impacts of natural disasters.

Page 10

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 17: Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships.

• Conduct outreach with NOAA OLE and Puerto Rico DRNA enforcement personnel regarding impacts of illegal fishing activities on fishery resources and habitats.

• Conduct outreach to Puerto Rico agencies on the impacts of non-fishing activities and development on ecosystem structure and function.

• Conduct outreach with the fishing community to communicate the impacts of illegal fishing on the health of the resource.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN Objective 18: 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.

• Collaborate with science partners and stakeholders to identify gaps and improve local biological and ecosystem information for St. Thomas/St. John.

• Evaluate existing spawning season closures and closed areas (e.g., Grammanik Bank, Hind Bank) to determine contributions to ecosystem integrity.

• Establish a process to incorporate ecosystem information and approaches into management measures for St. Thomas/St. John.

• Consider ecosystem approaches that are responsive to climate change.

Objective 19: Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of St. Thomas and St. John.

• Develop Council habitat policies that address impacts to EFH from coastal development, erosion/sedimentation, and other forms of pollution that impact St. Thomas/St. John habitats • Develop outreach materials on impacts of habitat loss from non-fishing impacts.

• Work with management partners to establish clear goals for 5-year EFH reviews.

• Ensure that EFH designations account for ecological roles and relationships of species.

• Utilize the Council's EFH comment authority to address federally permitted projects that may impact ecologically sensitive habitats.

Objective 20: Encourage efforts to create and rehabilitate fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function.

• Work with federal and territorial management partners and stakeholders to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement.

• Explore opportunities for funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA's Marine Debris Removal Program, and other federal agencies to use certain types of marine debris for habitat creation.

• Identify habitat restoration needs for NOAA's Office of Habitat Conservation grant programs.

Page 11

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 21: Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships.

• Conduct outreach with NOAA OLE and USVI DPNR enforcement personnel regarding impacts of illegal fishing activities on fishery resources and habitats.

• Conduct outreach to permitting agencies on impacts of non-fishing activities and development on ecosystem structure and function.

Objective 22: Collaborate with science partners to identify and address ecological data and information gaps.

• Explore existing datasets to fill information gaps.

• Communicate St. Thomas/St. John ecosystem information needs to academic partners.

• Collaborate with science partners to prioritize ecological data needs, consistent with NOAA's Caribbean Regional Ecosystem Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Implementation Plan.

ST. CROIX Objective 23: Implement the Fishery Ecosystem Plan as a roadmap for future Council actions to maintain the ecological relationships, roles, and services of St. Croix's island ecosystem.

• Collaborate with science partners and stakeholders (e.g., other nongovernmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy, Caribbean Oceanic Restoration & Education Foundation, commercial/recreational fishers) to identify gaps and prioritize ecological data needs to improve local biological and ecosystem information for St. Croix.

• Evaluate existing spawning season closures and closed areas (e.g., mutton snapper, Lang Bank) to determine contributions to ecosystem integrity.

• Establish a process to incorporate ecosystem information and approaches into management measures for St. Croix.

• Ensure that ecosystem-based management approaches are responsive to climate change.

• Explore use of underutilized and underdeveloped species and resources to reduce pressure and maintain ecological relationships.

Objective 24: Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of St. Croix.

• Develop Council habitat policies that address impacts to EFH from coastal development, erosion and sedimentation, and other forms of pollution that impact St. Croix habitats.

• Support modifications to territorial coastal zone regulations that reduce sedimentation and erosion.

• Work with management partners to establish clear goals for five-year EFH reviews.

• Ensure that EFH designations account for ecological roles and relationships of species.

• Use the Council's EFH comment authority to address federally permitted projects that may impact ecologically sensitive habitats.

• Ensure that juvenile habitats are sufficiently protected.

• Promote the regular review of marine managed areas (e.g., East End Marine Park).

• Promote a boating infrastructure plan.

• Promote single point moorings both inshore and offshore to protect EFH. Page 12

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 25: Encourage efforts to rehabilitate and/or create fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function.

• Work with federal and territorial management partners and others to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement and restoration.

• Explore opportunities to address the impacts of invasive species on St. Croix fishery habitats.

• Investigate the potential of FADs to mitigate habitat losses and deploy FADs where appropriate.

• Identify habitat restoration needs for NOAA's Office of Habitat Conservation grant programs.

Objective 26: Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships.

• Conduct outreach with NOAA OLE and USVI DPNR enforcement personnel regarding ecological impacts of illegal fishing activities.

• Conduct outreach to permitting agencies on potential impacts of non-fishing activities and development on ecosystem structure and function.

• Conduct outreach with the fishing community to communicate the impacts of illegal fishing on the health of the resource.

Objective 27: Collaborate with management partners to ensure that ecosystem approaches are responsive to climate change, environmental changes, and natural disasters.

• Evaluate flexibility of current management approaches to climate change impacts.

• Work with the broader Caribbean community to identify potential impacts to habitats and species distributions from climate change.

Page 13

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES Goal: Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

PUERTO RICO Objective 28: Promote the collection of social and economic data that informs management decisions.

• Engage science partners, fishers, consumers, wholesalers/distributors, and the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to identify and prioritize social and economic data gaps and research priorities for Puerto Rico.

• Work with Sea Grant to ensure social and economic research priorities are incorporated into funding opportunities.

• Use results from existing and completed studies (e.g., Hurricane Maria & COVD-19 assessments, Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN) project) to inform future decisions.

Objective 29: Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions and actions across user groups.

• Review and document the social and economic impacts of existing Puerto Rico closed seasons and spawning areas on commercial, for-hire, and recreational stakeholders.

• Ensure that management measures address cultural differences across Puerto Rico's fishing communities.

• Use online tools and social media to incorporate fisher and other stakeholder observations and experiences.

• Assess recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction across Puerto Rico communities.

• Consider the contributions of fishers with respect to stewardship of the resource and ecosystem in the development and evaluation of management decisions.

Objective 30: Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities.

• Support community efforts to improve fishing infrastructure across Puerto Rico.

• Support and promote development of a recruitment and training program for young fishers that encourages legal entry into the fishery.

• Consider management approaches that address recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction.

Objective 31: Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in Puerto Rico on economic opportunity and social well-being.

• Collaborate with science partners to document the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed sales of fish in Puerto Rico.

• Work with management partners to determine where additional enforcement could improve economic conditions and/or trust among user groups.

Page 14

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN Objective 32: Promote the collection of social and economic data that informs management decisions.

• Engage science partners and the SSC to identify and prioritize social and economic data gaps and research priorities for St. Thomas/St. John.

• Work with Sea Grant to ensure social and economic research priorities are incorporated into funding opportunities.

• Identify and use results from existing and completed socioeconomic impact studies (e.g., Hurricanes Irma/Maria, COVID assessments).

Objective 33: Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions and actions across user groups.

• Review and document the social and economic impacts of existing St. Thomas/St. John closed seasons and spawning areas on commercial, for-hire, and recreational stakeholders (e.g., Grammanik Bank).

• Ensure that management measures acknowledge and address differences across the fishing communities of St. Thomas/St. John.

Objective 34: Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities.

• Support community efforts to improve fishing infrastructure across STT and STJ, including landing and market sites.

• Develop education and outreach materials to support the use of social media and other virtual approaches to marketing locally caught species.

• Consider management approaches that address recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction.

Objective 35: Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in St. Thomas and St. John on economic opportunity and social well-being.

• Collaborate with science partners to document the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed sales of fish in St. Thomas/St. John.

• Work with management partners to determine where additional enforcement could improve economic conditions and/or trust among user groups.

ST. CROIX Objective 36: Promote the collection and dissemination of social and economic data to inform management decisions.

• Engage science partners (SEFSC, academic researchers, Sea Grant, etc.) and the SSC to identify and prioritize social and economic data gaps and research priorities for St. Croix.

• Work with Sea Grant to ensure social and economic research priorities are incorporated into funding opportunities.

Page 15

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • •

Identify and use results from existing and completed studies (e.g., Hurricanes Irma/Maria, COVID assessments).

Ensure that new or existing social and economic science studies collaborate and coordinate with USVI DPNR.

Objective 37: Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions and actions across user groups.

• Review and document the social and economic impacts of existing St. Croix closed seasons and spawning areas on commercial, for-hire, and recreational stakeholders (e.g., Lang Bank).

• Ensure that management approaches provide equitable access for commercial and recreational resource users.

• Work with stakeholders to Identify and address commercial and recreational user conflicts.

• Assess the social and economic impacts of the Buck Island Reef National Monument expansion on recreational and commercial fishers.

Objective 38: Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities.

• Support community efforts to improve fishing infrastructure across St. Croix, including landing and market sites.

• Develop education and outreach materials to support the use of social media and other virtual approaches to marketing locally caught species.

• Consider management approaches that address recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction.

Objective 39: Consider the impacts of non-regulation, enforcement, and illegal fishing in St. Croix on economic opportunity and social well-being.

• Collaborate with science partners to document the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed sales of fish in St. Croix.

• Work with management partners to determine where additional enforcement could improve economic conditions and/or trust among commercial and recreational user groups.

• Educate hoteliers and restauranteurs on the importance of purchasing fish from licensed commercial fishers.

Page 16

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH Goal: Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process.

Objective 40: Use a variety of communication tools that consider the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of target audiences in coordination with the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP).

• Continue use of the Council's social media platforms and explore online and app-based technologies (e.g., WhatsApp, email templates) to convey information and updates.

• Develop a catalogue of communities, markets, businesses, and individuals with preferences and need for traditional media tools.

• Maintain the content and organization of the Council's website to enhance its utility to a variety of users.

• Ensure that communication and outreach materials account for stakeholder language preferences.

• Coordinate with management partners, commercial and recreational fishing organizations and fishers, nongovernmental organizations, and coastal businesses to expand the scope of Council communications across new and existing audiences.

• Consider sector-specific and "boat-friendly" communication materials.

Objective 41: Promote participation of a variety of stakeholders in the Council process.

• Increase the frequency of Council communications in advance of meetings or events.

• Use a variety of traditional, online, and social media tools to advertise and remind stakeholders of Council meetings and events.

• Expand the use of webinars and conference lines to provide opportunities for remote access, participation, and education.

• Ensure that meetings and events are scheduled to encourage maximum participation.

• Consider development of issue-specific online comment forms to expand opportunities for public input.

• Conduct issue-specific workshops to promote collaborative development of management approaches.

• Develop a newsletter or summary to highlight Council meeting outcomes and anticipated actions.

• Expand and improve participation by experienced and young fishers in the Council process through the development and support of territorial outreach programs in the USVI. • Attract other stakeholders, in addition to fishers, into the Council process to improve decision-making for the benefit of fishery resources.

Objective 42: Improve public and stakeholder understanding and awareness of fisheries management, current issues, and the Council process.

• Expand existing non-traditional stakeholder outreach efforts (e.g., restaurants, small-scale grocery store owners, and farmers, etc.).

• Continue support of the Marine Resource Education Program (MREP) workshops throughout the U.S. Caribbean.

• Develop island-specific (Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, St. Croix) outreach approaches and materials for recreational and commercial fishers.

Page 17

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • • •

• • • • •

Expand the role of fisheries liaisons to improve both fisher and public understanding of fisheries issues and the Council process.

Coordinate with management and science partners to improve the clarity and simplicity of presentations to improve public understanding.

Partner with other outreach organizations (e.g., PEPCO, Sea Grant) and federal agencies (e.g., USCG, NPS, etc.) and commercial and recreational fishing, diving, and boating organizations to develop and distribute educational materials to fishers, other marine resource users (e.g., divers), and the general public.

Conduct in-person and/or virtual outreach meetings and workshops to improve fisher and public engagement in the Council process.

Explore partnerships with organizations to capture traditional ecological knowledge of U.S. Caribbean fishing communities.

Create an orientation program to inform the fishing community of the roles of the different management partners.

Develop a mechanism to coordinate development of Council and territorial outreach efforts to ensure consistent messaging on fishery issues and other topics as needed.

Support the expansion of the Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program in the USVI.

Page 18

Draft 2022-2024 Strategic Plan

l

Caribbean Fishery Management Counci July 21, 2021

Overview

• Rational • Previous DAP and Council action • Vision, Mission, Core Value • Goals and Objective • Questions and Council approval for public input

s

s

s

e

2

Strategic Plan Rationale A strategic plan allows the Council to…

• Establish priorities and future direction.

• Effectively allocate resources.

• Plan for and respond to changing conditions.

• Provide transparency and accountability in decisionmaking.

• Communicate and collaborate more effectively with management partners and stakeholders.

• Evaluate and track progress over time.

3

Previous Actions • DAPs (March 29-30): Review and approval of draft island-specific objectives, initial feedback on strategies.

• Council (April 27-28): Review and selection of draft Vision, Mission, and Goal statements, approval of islandspecific objectives reviewed by DAPs.

• DAPs (June 15-16): Final review and edits to islandspecific strategies.

• TODAY: Council review and approval of complete draft of Strategic Plan for public input.

4

Strategic Plan Structure Vision

Mission Goal Themes

Management ● Ecosystem and Resource Health ● Social, Cultural & Economic Issues ● Communication and Outreach*

PR Objective 1

STT/STJ Objective 1

PR Strategies

PR Objective 2

STT/STJ Strategies

STT/STJ Objective 2

PR Strategies

PR Objective 3

STX Objective 1 STX Strategies

STX Objective 2 STX Strategies

STT/STJ Strategies

STT/STJ Objective 3

PR Strategies

STX Objective 3

STT/STJ Strategies

*Communication and Outreach objectives apply to entire CFMC jurisdiction and are not island-specific 5

STX Strategies

Draft Vision Statement Thriving and resilient island ecosystems, fisheries, and fishing communities that provide cultural, social, and economic benefits for all.

Draft Mission Statement The Caribbean Fishery Management Council conserves, restores, and manages fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Act. The Council is committed to advancing the collaborative stewardship of these fisheries and supporting island ecosystems through education, outreach, and stakeholder input.

6

Draft Core Values • Stewardshi • Collaboratio • Integrit • Transparenc • Fairnes • Respect y

n

p

s

y

7

Goal Themes MANAGEMENT • How the Council manages fishery resources to meet goals for island fisheries.

• How the Council meets requirements for sustainability.

ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH • How the Council will implement the Fishery Ecosystem Plan.

• How the Council addresses habitat conservation and ecosystem impacts.

SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC ISSUES • How the Council considers fishing community and stakeholder needs.

• How the Council incorporates social and economic information into decisions.

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH • How the Council communicates with fishers and other stakeholders.

• How the Council engages, educates, and obtains feedback from fishers and other stakeholders.

8

Draft Goal Statements MANAGEMENT Advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources.

SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC ISSUES Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process.

9

Draft Management Goal Advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

10

PR Draft Management Objectives Objective 1. Support the development of accurate, timely, and costeffective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

Objective 2. Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs.

Objective 3. Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement.

Objective 4. Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management that considers diverse community interests.

11

STT-STJ Draft Management Objectives Objective 5. Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

Objective 6. Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs.

Objective 7. Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement.

Objective 8. Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management that considers diverse community interests.

Objective 9. Consider the potential impacts of climate change on the efficacy of management measures.

12

STX Draft Management Objectives Objective 10. Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

Objective 11. Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs.

Objective 12. Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement.

Objective 13. Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management that considers diverse community interests.

13

Draft Ecosystem and Resource Health Goal Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources.

14

PR Draft Ecosystem and Resource Health Objectives Objective 14. 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.

Objective 15. Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of Puerto Rico.

Objective 16. Collaborate with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters on ecosystem structure and function.

Objective 17. Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships.

15

STT-STJ Draft Ecosystem and Resource Health Objectives Objective 18. 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.

Objective 19. Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of St. Thomas and St. John.

Objective 20. Encourage efforts to create and rehabilitate fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function.

Objective 21. Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships.

Objective 22. Collaborate with science partners to identify and address ecological data and information gaps.

16

STX Draft Ecosystem and Resource Health Objectives Objective 23: 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.

Objective 24. Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of St. Croix.

Objective 25. Encourage efforts to rehabilitate and/or create fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function.

Objective 26. Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships.

Objective 27. Collaborate with management partners to ensure that ecosystem approaches are responsive to climate change, environmental changes, and natural disasters.

17

Draft Social, Cultural and Economic Issues Goal Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

18

PR Draft Social, Cultural and Economic Objectives Objective 28. Promote the collection of social and economic data that informs management decisions.

Objective 29. Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions/actions across user groups.

Objective 30. Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities.

Objective 31. Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in Puerto Rico on economic opportunity and social well-being.

19

STT-STJ Draft Social, Cultural and Economic Objectives Objective 32. Promote the collection of social and economic data that informs management decisions.

Objective 33. Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions/actions across user groups.

Objective 34. Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities.

Objective 35. Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in St. Thomas and St. John on economic opportunity and social wellbeing.

20

STX Draft Social, Cultural and Economic Objectives Objective 36. Promote the collection and dissemination of social and economic data that informs management decisions.

Objective 37. Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions/actions across user groups.

Objective 38. Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities.

Objective 39. Consider the impacts of non-regulation, enforcement and illegal fishing in St. Croix on economic opportunity and social well-being.

21

Draft Communication and Outreach Goal Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process.

22

Draft Communication and Outreach Objectives Objective 40. Use a variety of communication tools that consider the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of target audiences in coordination with the OEAP.

Objective 41. Promote participation of a variety of stakeholders in the Council process.

Objective 42. Improve public and stakeholder understanding and awareness of fisheries management, current issues, and the Council process.

23

Next Steps • Public input on draft (online comment form).

• Council review of public feedback and approval of final Strategic Plan.

• Implementation Plan for 2022 (presented in December 2021)

• Subcommittee of CFMC will prioritize actions needed to implement the objectives of the Strategic Plan. o Subcommittee will meet June and December each year o Review progress and identify actions for following year’s Implementation Plan.

24

Questions Michelle Duva michelle@mellivoraconsulting.com

?

l

25

May 18, 2021 From: Congreso de Pescadores de PR, Inc. To: Caribbean Fishery Management Council The “Congreso de Pescadores de PR,” CPPR, is a group of associations, fishing villages and independent commercial fishers from all around the island of Puerto Rico.

The CPPR members would like to convey the urge to find a solution to the problems that Puerto Rico Deep Water Snapper fishermen have been facing historically, a fishing resource of socioeconomy utmost importance for the fishers.

The problems began after the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources of Puerto Rico established a prohibition not allowing the recreational and sport fishers to use of electric reels.

In order to fish utilizing electric reels, some recreational fishers applied for commercial fishing licenses, but to justify a request for commercial license they provided unreal and false catch data.

We understand that the deep water snappers fishery is resource that is in good shape and has been kept this way.

This is a “hand or reel line” artisanal fishery, done in 20’ to 25’fishing vessels, to limit the fishing pressure it may cause. This fishery is very restricted due to weather conditions. Given the characteristics previously described, it is difficult to put at risk the deep-water snapper populations in our region. Throughout the history of this fishery only a small amount of fishers have the right gear and the knowledge to perform this method only.

Given the habitat characteristics in which they live, the depth and distribution in the Caribbean Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, we understand that this resource is an alternative for the future in times when we are experiencing global warming.

As member of the DAP and President of the Congreso de Pescadores de Puerto Rico, Inc., and the “Concilio del CDPDPR del Oeste”, leaded by Mr. Edwin Font (Pauco) we respectfully request that the Caribbean Fishery Management Council evaluate and share with other pertinent federal and state government agencies what we have previously exposed. We want to contribute to have a management system in which there is more participation, that is adequate and based in science.

Our initial proposal: to start fishing for 3 to 5 years duly registering landings (e.g., electronically). Also, to include all deep-water snapper commercial fishers in this effort where they can provide better and rightful landing statistics. The objective is to provide the biologists real number of total landings in an initial period of approximately 3 years. We would then have new and better scientific data in order to re-evaluate ACLs for this species.

We want to have a sustainable fishing resource, and also have the possibility to be part of this process of revising the ACLs with better and more adequate data. This collaborative effort with the commercial fishers is the best formula for the fisheries management. The socio-economy, fishing resources balance and the food sustainability in Puerto Rico is our north. We have contributed with the scientific community in the collection of data to be able to know the state of the deep water snapper fisheries resource and we believe the result of this effort reflect relevant and hopeful information.

We hope you take notice of our request to begin discussing and facilitating this important initiative.

Roberto Silva

Red Hind Spawning Aggregation timing: Update from western Puerto Rico Michelle Schärer Boquerón, Puerto Rico Collaborators R. Appeldoorn, T. Rowell, C. Zayas, E. Appeldoorn, R. Hill, H. Ruiz, E. Tuohy CCRI

Most abundant grouper caught in PR (Grouper Unit 3) 2% of total landings

Epinephelus guttatus - Red hind

High proportion of landings from west Puerto Rico (SEDAR 35, 2014)

7/21/21

CFMC 174, San Juan, Puerto Rico

2

Most abundant grouper caught in PR (Grouper Unit 3) 2% of reported landings

Epinephelus guttatus - Red hind

High proportion of landings from west Puerto Rico (SEDAR 35, 2014) Recent reported landings mean 47,328 lbs./yr, about half west coast (DNER, 2018)

75%

EAST

NORTH

SOUTH

WEST

2015

2016

Proportion

50%

25%

0% 2012

7/21/21

2013

2014

CFMC 174, San Juan, Puerto Rico

2017

3

Most abundant grouper caught in PR (Grouper Unit 3) 2% of reported landings

Epinephelus guttatus - Red hind

High proportion of landings from west Puerto Rico (SEDAR 35, 2014) Recent reported landings mean 47,328 lbs./yr, about half west coast (DNER, 2018) Catch trends of landings increased during the spawning season (Ojeda et al., 2007)

7/21/21

CFMC 174, San Juan, Puerto Rico

4

Epinephelus guttatus - Red hind

Most abundant grouper caught in PR (Grouper Unit 3) 2% of reported landings High proportion of landings from west Puerto Rico (SEDAR 35, 2014) Recent reported landings mean 47,328 lbs./yr, about half west coast (DNER, 2018) Catch trends of landings increased during the spawning season (Ojeda et al., 2007) Monthly proportion of recently reported landings (DNER, 2018) 25%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% JAN 7/21/21

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

CFMC 174, San Juan, Puerto Rico

OCT

NOV

DEC

5

Research of grouper spawning aggregations in western Puerto Rico EEZ west of longitude line 67 10’ Methods Diver surveys at FSA Acoustic tagging (Nassau grouper- BDS) Collection of red hind (PR, STT & STX) Size & Age Gonadosomatic Index & Fecundity Sex Ratios Passive acoustic monitoring (2010-2021) Courtship associated sounds Sound pressure levels Glider deployment Grouper sightings reporting pilot project

Green shaded areas are Puerto Rico jurisdictional waters 7/21/21

CFMC 174, San Juan, Puerto Rico

6

Red hind are a sex changing species ‘protogynous hermaphrodite’ where females are smaller than males

Biology and reproductive ecology of red hind 60

F

M

Females change to males at ~ 28 cm (~ 11 inches) fork length Complex social structure and reproductive behaviors (FSA)

Number

40

Males arrive first, defend territories, and are more vulnerable than females during 3 lunar cycles at FSA

20

Female fecundity increases with size, but sufficient males needed to fertilize eggs 0 West FSA

West

East

17 : 1

4:1

2:1

Preliminary results of sex ratio at FSA, west and east PR fishing areas (N=210)

Males and large females remain at FSA longer and then migrate back to their home range USVI sex ratios at FSA (Nemeth et al. in prep.)

STT, Red Hind Bank 3 : 1 STX, Lang Bank 9 : 1

7/21/21

CFMC 174, San Juan, Puerto Rico

7

Density of red hind during FSA at Buoy 6 (Abrir la Sierra) over the years

7/21/21

CFMC 174, San Juan, Puerto Rico

8

Passive acoustic monitoring of grouper sounds associated with known behaviors Red Hind 1

Sound types

Red Hind 2

During the FSA two main types of courtship associated sounds are produced by male red hind that are different in structure from Nassau Nassau CAS

Sounds occur during interactions between fish either territorial, courtship or competition for mates Most sound production occurs at sunset or dawn

Nassau Agonistic

Sound pressure levels of the 150 - 300 Hz frequency band include the sounds of red hind and Nassau grouper Recordings 6 months 24/7 but only 18:00 AST hour is used to cuantify mean SPL daily to produce time series

7/21/21

CFMC 174, San Juan, Puerto Rico

9

Passive acoustic monitoring SPL vs CAS time series

7/21/21

CFMC 174, San Juan, Puerto Rico

10

7/21/21

CFMC 174, San Juan, Puerto Rico

15

Year

L-0

L-1

L-2

L-3

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

1 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 -

1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1

0 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

FSA March 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

Year

L-0

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

L-1

L-2

* * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * *

L-3 * * * * *

FSA March 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1

Conclusion of red hind FSA in western Puerto Rico Few years with red hind present at FSA prior to December 15 63% of the past 11 years red hind were present at FSA after March 15 Red hind closed season during the next decade may fall short 80% of the years Shifts in FSA timing may be due to low abundances, hyperstability, temperature/current variations

7/21/21

CFMC 174, San Juan, Puerto Rico

16

Recommendations to improving the grouper fishery in Puerto Rico • Shift the 90-day closed season in US EEZ waters of western Puerto Rico to: 15 December to 15 March • Monitor fish spawning aggregations of grouper species Ensure closed seasons provide protection at vulnerable times Document effectiveness of seasonal closures at MPAs Demonstrate benefits of the 90-day no-fishing red hind sacrifice • Revise the closed seasons and MPAs for grouper that aggregate to spawn Black grouper Yellowfin grouper Tiger grouper Nassau grouper (avoid incidental capture mortality due to barotrauma) • Enforce closed seasons at sea and on land (throughout the supply chain) • Educate regarding the critical importance of FSA for sustainable fisheries

7/21/21

CFMC 174, San Juan, Puerto Rico

17

174th Caribbean Fishery Management Council Regular Meeting July 21, 2021 Virtual Meeting E C O S Y S T E M B A S E D T E C H N I C A L A DV I S O RY PA N E L ( E B F M TA P ) R E P O RT TO T H E C F M C

Sennai Habtes EBFM TAP Chair Bureau Chief, Fisheries VI DPNR – Division of Fish & Wildlife

• NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) strongly supports implementation of EcosystemBased Fisheries Management (EBFM) to better inform and enable better decisions regarding trade-offs among and between fisheries (commercial, recreational, and subsistence), aquaculture, protected species, biodiversity, and habitats.

NOAA/NMFS EBFM POLICY STATEMENT

• Recognizing the interconnectedness of these ecosystem components will help maintain resilient and productive ecosystems (including the human communities on which they depend), even as they respond to climate, habitat, ecological, and other environmental changes.

• Background: • “NOAA strives to adopt an ecosystem-based approach throughout its broad ocean and coastal stewardship, science, and service programs.”

• In 2018, NOAA published an Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management Policy that includes roadmaps for EBFM implementation around the country • Development of Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEP) at the council level

October 23, 2019: CFMC establishes EBFM Technical Advisory Panel December 10-11, 2019: EBFM TAP Members Appointed The EBFM TAP Charter - Elements

EBFM TAP History Background

• Council established the EBFM TAP to assist in the development, collection, evaluation, and peer review of such statistical, biological, economic, social, and other scientific information relevant to the Council’s development of the FEP and amendments.

• The EBFM TAP is composed of individuals engaged in ecosystem research or knowledgeable and interested in the conservation and management of the ecosystems of managed fisheries. The EBFM TAP shall reflect the expertise and interest from the standpoint of the scientific need for advice of the Council within the Council’s geographical area of concern.

• The EBFM TAP provides expert scientific and technical advice to the Council on the development of, on the preparation of fishery ecosystem plan, and on the effectiveness of such plan once in operation. The TAP aids the Council in identifying scientific resources available for the development of plans, in establishing the objectives of plans, in establishing criteria for judging plan effectiveness and in the review of plans

EBFM TAP History Background

The EBFM TAP Charter - Objectives • The EBFM TAP shall provide the Council ongoing scientific advice on ecosystembased fishery management for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for habitat status, social and economic impacts of management measures, and ecosystem-based impacts (stressors) on sustainability of fishing practices

DRAFT FEP Outline - Components • Goals & Objectives • Data Available • Data gaps

• Conceptual models • Ecosystem indicators • Ecosystem status • Ecosystem stressors • Policy guidelines • Description of ecosystem • Ecosystem transcends jurisdictional boundaries

Figure: The Lenfest FEP loop (Essington et al., 2016)

DRAFT FEP Outline – Potential Additions

• Risk assessment • Suggested council considerations during management decision making process • System of checks and balances

Figure: The Lenfest FEP loop (Essington et al., 2016)

• A corollary goal is to provide the framework that promotes the following sub-goals: • •

DRAFT GOALS & OBJECTIVES

FEP goals and Objectives: 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.

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Increase human community resilience within the context of changing ecosystems; Promote ecosystem resilience within the context of changing ecosystems; Define present ecosystem status/functionality; Understand dynamics of fisheries and ecosystem services; Describe key ecosystem linkages; Identify research priorities; Identify additional ecosystem-essential species in need of conservation and management; Understand the risks to the fishery ecosystem and tradeoffs from different management strategies; Improve the data and information needed to support marine ecosystem management; Prevent overfishing and/or ecosystem overfishing; Achieve optimum yield; Incorporate ecosystem considerations into stock assessments; Bring ecosystem considerations into the decision making process; Promote adaptive management policies (Revising MSA, National SSC, CCC).

• Strong need to incorporate stakeholders early and often • Stakeholder input is the backbone of the first part of the FEP • Conceptual models are used to inform the derivation of ecosystem indicators, risk assessment components, and potential management strategies

CONCEPTUAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT

• In addition to the individual models, a melded model will be created to highlight components that are emphasized by all stakeholders • Completed Conceptual Models: • SSC, DAPs (CFMC/NOAA) • Coastal Businesses, eNGOs (Melivora Consulting) • Underway: • Scientific Community & Fishermen (ISER Caribe)

NEXT STEPS

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

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 for April 2022 consideration by the SSC, that will be used to inform approaches that will be presented in the FEP. 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. In addition to inclusion in the FEP, these indicators will be presented to the SSC and the CFMC for consideration to include in EBFM management practices.

August 2022

NEXT STEPS

Activity

Expected Date of Completion

Develop strategic objectives, prioritize the objectives, and outline a vision for the use of the FEP for consideration in the CFMC processes.

December 2022

Develop operational objectives with concrete action items to be presented in the FEP, for consideration by the CFMC.

December 2022

Develop performance measures and draft a management strategy that can be used situationally during CFMC decision making, to be presented in the FEP, for consideration by the CFMC.

April 2023

Develop a feedback mechanism for adaptive management to be presented in the FEP, for consideration by the CFMC.

April 2023

Develop a draft FEP document

August 2023

Submit FEP for council approval

December 2023

FEP goals and Objectives:

DRAFT MOTION FOR THE COUNCIL The Council approves the draft goals and objectives for the Fishery Ecosystem Plan as outlined by the EBFM TAP and directs the EBFM TAP to use these goals and objectives to further the development of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan.

Motion by For: Against: Abstain: Outcome:

, Seconded by

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: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Increase human community resilience within the context of changing ecosystems; Promote ecosystem resilience within the context of changing ecosystems; Define present ecosystem status/functionality; Understand dynamics of fisheries and ecosystem services; Describe key ecosystem linkages; Identify research priorities; Identify additional ecosystem-essential species in need of conservation and management; Understand the risks to the fishery ecosystem and tradeoffs from different management strategies; Improve the data and information needed to support marine ecosystem management; Prevent overfishing and/or ecosystem overfishing; Achieve optimum yield; Incorporate ecosystem considerations into stock assessments; Bring ecosystem considerations into the decision making process; Promote adaptive management policies (Revising MSA, National SSC, CCC).

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

COM P LIM E NTA RY P RO JE CTS - OU TS IDE CF M C

LENFEST JJ WILLIAMS SEARA PROPOSAL

SEFSC KARNAUSKAS, Arnold PROPOSAL

GOALS

GOAL

To guide the development of a Fishery Identification of quantitative indicators, conduct Ecosystem Plan for the U.S. Caribbean by additional indicator synthesis work (multivariate defining management objectives and developing analyses, threshold detection analysis) to models that describe these marine ecosystems understand overall trends in the ecosystem, and and help identify threats and factors that begin to develop hypotheses and an influence change across the region. understanding of relationships between ecosystem components.

OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE 1) To develop both a conceptual and quantitative model that describes the Caribbean ecosystem within a fisheries context based on stakeholder perceptions and data collected, respectively; 2) To select and estimate indicators of the performance of the model under different conditions (threats, impacts, human activities, etc.); 3) For a final product, we will work with stakeholders by integrating results from both models to identify the main indicators and threats potentially affecting the fisheries systems.

Identify, acquire, compile, and conduct spatial and temporal analyses of pertinent data needed for development of an ecosystem status report for the U.S. Caribbean region

SSC Report to the Caribbean Fishery Management Council July 21, 2021

SSC Met July 14 Issues Discussed SEFSC Caribbean Branch National SSC update (SCS7) Data Poor Tech Memo Red Hind Spawning Dynamics and Closed Seasons PR Electronic Reporting/Monitoring

National SSC Scientific Coordination Subcommittee (SCS7) • Rescheduled for August 15-17, 2022 in Sitka, AK • Overall theme is Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) • Three main focal areas • Incorporating ecosystem indicators into stock assessment • Needs for managing interacting species • Assessing species with shifting distributions

• All aspects need to renegotiated – 1st Conf Call is August 2021 • Expect travel support for 3 SSC members from each Council

NS1 Technical Guidance Subgroup 3 Tech Memo: Managing with ACLs for data-limited stocks in federal fishery management plans - Review and recommendations for implementing 50 CFR 600.310(h)(2) flexibilities for data limited stocks

• All about flexibilities for setting OFLs/ABCs/ACLs • When catch data are lacking or insufficient • Examples of Alternative Reference Points • Average length, Juvenile/adult ratio, CPUE, Average density…..

• Can use multiple indicators at one time • Tech Memo gives guidance on use of (h)(2) flexibilities • Qualification: When flexibilities may be available • Potential alternative: ACL expressed in terms of rates, etc.

• Stocks that qualify for (h)(2) but lack data for Rate-based ACL

The SSC endorses the (h)(2) flexibilities for assessing the overfishing status of data-limited stocks presented in the Draft Tech Memo, given that all stocks within the US Caribbean would benefit, a point that has been long recognized.

Nevertheless, while we see great promise with this enhanced flexibility, we anticipate there will be operational difficulties to overcome in their application and expect a period of testing before such methods can be routinely applied.

The SSC recognizes that there will be a substantial process involved in prioritizing which species should be addressed first using this enhanced flexibility, due both because of the high number of species within the US Caribbean that would benefit and the limitations within the SEFSC, particularly the number of assessment staff.

An additional identified benefit is that some standard fishery management tools, such as size limits, closed areas/seasons, etc. more directly relate to potential OFL/ABC/ACL limits that may result from these more flexible approaches.

The SSC notes that the timing of this effort dovetails nicely other efforts within the region to improve monitoring and assessment, including efforts to improve the quality, amount and statistical validity of landings data (e.g., a recent pilot study of the PR commercial catch resulted in over 14,000 length estimates), the formation of the Caribbean Branch within the SEFSC and their more targeted efforts to increase and improve available data, the initiation of electronic monitoring of catches, and the initiation of integrated stock assessments through the SEDAR process. While weight and number-based OFLs are the ideal, improvements in data collection and application of (h)(2) flexibilities create the bridge ultimately to achieve that goal.

Red Hind Spawning Dynamics and Closed Seasons SSC heard and discussed the presentation by Dr. Scharer As co-investigator, Dr. Appeldoorn recused himself as chair for this topic Dr. Appeldoorn and Dr. Scharer did not participate in voting on recommendations

SSC Recommendation: Amend the PR FMP to modify the seasonal closures for fishing for or possession of red hind in federal waters west of 67o 10' W longitude and for the Tourmaline and Abrir la Sierra Bank red hind spawning aggregation areas to Dec 15 - March 15 each year.

Rationale: Reduce the impact on red hind spawning stock at the west coast spawning aggregations on the last few days of their reproductive period, due to a shift in the timing of the aggregation. An FSA does not form before December 15th, but FSAs can remain after March 1st .

SSC Recommendation: Support the implementation of continued, long-term FSA monitoring to determine changes in the spawning stock/populations of red hind off western PR Rationale: Measure the benefits of management measures for red hind populations off the west coast of Puerto Rico

The SSC requests the Council to ask SEFSC to evaluate the seasonal closure (from February 1st to April 30th) for red, black, tiger, yellowfin, and yellowedge grouper in federal waters in the U.S. Caribbean, as applicable, to ensure it coincides with the timing of the spawning aggregations for these species.

Rationale: Closed seasons should coincide with the spawning seasons as much as possible

Electronic Reporting and Monitoring SSC was given a presentation on the implementation of Puerto Rico’s Electronic Reporting Program by Alfredo Sfeir of Shellcatch Also presented was a preview of upcoming capabilities using electronic monitoring (boat-based video), eventually in conjunction with Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Due to time constraints the SSC did not consider any recommendations

Draft Tech Memo: Data Limited Stocks Caribbean Fishery Management Council Meeting Marian Macpherson July 21, 2021

Background • Data Limited Stocks: Challenges and Progress 2009- 2016 • 2016 NS 1 Guideline Revisions, NMFS convened NS 1 Technical Working Group with Subgroup 3 focusing on data-limited ACLs • Draft Tech Memo: “Managing with ACLs for data-limited stocks in federal fishery management plans - Review and recommendations for implementing 50 CFR 600.310(h)(2) flexibilities for data limited stocks” • Dates: NMFS discussed with the CCC in May 2021; comments requested by Oct. 1, 2021

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

Overview of Draft Tech Memo • Legal context of MSA and NS1 Guidelines • Statutory Requirements • NMFS guidance: Standard approach; flexibilities

• Data-limited Assessment Methods • Methods that support Standard ACLs • Recommendations and Considerations • Other methods that support MSA compliance

• Management: Guidance on use of (h)(2) flexibilities for data-limited stocks • Qualification: When flexibilities may be available • Potential alternative: ACL expressed in terms of rate • Stocks that qualify for (h)(2) but lack data for Rate-based ACL U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 3

Legal context Statutory Requirements • FMP mechanism to specify “annual catch limit” • That prevents overfishing • Include Accountability Measures (AMs)

NS1 Guidelines • Standard Approach to ACLs; expressed as amounts of fish (weight or number) • (h)(2) Flexibilities (50 CFR 600.310(h)(2)) • Council may recommend alternative approach • Must comply with MSA • Must be in FMP U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 4

Flexibility to use “Alternative Approaches”: NS 1 Guidelines (h)(2) • “limited circumstances that may not fit the standard approaches to specification of reference points” • “include, among other things, …stocks for which data are not available either to set reference points… or to manage to reference points” (pursuant to standard approach) ,

• “Councils may propose alternative approaches for satisfying requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act” U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 5

Data-Limited Assessment Methods: Progress Advances in stock assessment methods for datalimited stocks are giving us new tools that: -more effectively use the data that are available -identify manageable metrics -increase understanding of uncertainties

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

Data-Limited Assessment Methods

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 7

Recommendations For methods that support weight/numbers-based ACLs Identify data gaps; recommend research priorities.

Seek to improve data, including reconstructing removal histories.

Explore the uncertainty in inputs.

Be explicit about the uncertainty buffer between OFL and ABC; ensure that control rule buffers between OFL and ABC increase as scientific uncertainty increases.

• If inputs are weakly justified, consider using other data limited methods.

• Regarding catch-estimator methods: • • • •

• Recognizing that, in some cases, “average catch” and “catch scalar,” may be BSIA, if other data-limited methods can be used, they should be.

• If data are not available to use other methods, then: • Consider whether an alternative ACL under (h)(2) may be appropriate.

• Use appropriate buffers.

• Plan to transition to another approach.

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

Information Other data-limited methods Length-based, and indicator-based methods: • limited in ability to define removal targets in terms of amount of fish • do provide science-based metrics and reference points • can support compliance with MSA

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 9

Management: Qualification to apply (h)(2) for data-limited stocks

*For stocks that lack data needed to effectively specify, or manage with, ACL expressed as amount of fish*

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 10

Overview Start with what you can measure

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 11

Potential Alternative: ACL expressed as rate

• Stock Assessment provides F and MFMT • ABC and ACL can be derived using buffers just as under the standard approach for ACLs, but expressed in terms of F rather than weight or number

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

Managing with Indicators: Example If there are length data, consider whether SSC can correlate indicators to these rates, and management controls can be designed to maintain stock within indicator range.

Hypothetically, this could look like: • Mean length indicator of 9.4 inches corresponding to FOFL (obtained via length-based assessment) • Mean length indicator of 10 inches corresponding to FABC (selected

by SSC) • Mean length indicator of 10.2 inches corresponding to FACL (selected by Council) • Management options: size limits, time/area closures, gear modifications U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 13

Monitoring and Accountability Measures • FMP must describe how monitoring would ensure compliance with MSA • Potential Options: annually run the data-limited model to compare F to FACL; or monitor the indicator (e.g., lengths) • Must include accountability measures

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 14

Stocks that Qualify for (h)(2) but lack rate data • Must comply with MSA using best scientific information available • Consider whether a data-collection program to support movement towards rate-based ACL would be appropriate • Goal: progress towards use of Standard ACL approach

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

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

Please submit additional comments by COB: 10/01/2021 To: Marian.Macpherson@noaa.gov and Stephanie.Hunt@noaa.gov

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

Example: Establishing FACL • MFMT = FMSY proxy = F30%SPR • MFMT = FOFL • FOFL x buffer (scientific uncertainty) = FABC • FABC x buffer (management uncertainty) = FACL U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 17

Wrap Up Legal context of MSA and NS1 Guidelines • Statutory Requirements • NMFS guidance: Standard approach; flexibilities

Improvements in Data-limited assessment methods • Methods that support Standard ACLs • Recommendations and Considerations • Other methods that support MSA compliance

Alternative Approaches to ACLs for Data-limited Stocks • Qualifying to use (h)(2) data-limited flexibilities • Potential Rate-Based Alternative ACL; how it would work • Data-limited, (h)(2)-qualified, but lack rate data U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 18

Fishery Ecosystem Plan Stakeholder Engagement Workshops Update

Mellivora Consulting - July 21, 2021

Overview Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Stakeholder Engagement Workshops

• Project background and purpose • Methods and outreach • Conceptual models • Next steps

2

Background FEP best practices

Figure 3.1

THE FEP LOOP The main recommendation of the Task Force report is that FEPs be used to create a structured process for establishing goals and translating them into action. The report proposes the “FEP Loop” process.

• “Where are we now?”

• Co-creation of a

1. WHERE ARE WE NOW? • Develop a conceptual model • Select and calculate indicators • Inventory threats

conceptual model (stakeholders, managers, scientists).

5. DID WE MAKE IT?

2. WHERE ARE WE GOING?

• Compare monitoring data with predictions

• Articulate a strategic vision • Develop strategic objectives • Analyze risks to meeting strategic objectives • Prioritize strategic objectives • Develop operational objectives

LEARN AND ADJUST

• “Stakeholder input is

central to shery system planning.”

• Broad stakeholder

involvement is necessary to identify tradeo s.

ff

3. HOW WILL WE GET THERE? • Develop performance measures • Identify potential management strategies • Evaluate consequences of alternative management actions • Select management strategy

Credit: Lenfest Fishery Ecosystem Task Force (2016)

3 fi

4. IMPLEMENT THE PLAN • Work plan • Resources • Outputs • Timeline

23

Background Current project • Current project is the result of communication between the Pew

Charitable Trusts (PCT), Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP) Chair, and CFMC Executive Director regarding identi cation of stakeholder groups for FEP development.

• PCT o ered to support stakeholder engagement workshops: ‣ Mellivora Consulting (contractor): workshop facilitation, outreach, report. ‣ PCT sta : Mental Modeler operation, workshop note-taking.

• Lenfest grantees: JJ Cruz-Motta (SSC, EBFM TAP), Tarsila Seara (SSC, EBFM TAP), Stacey Williams (EBFM TAP) leading e ort to engage science community, experts, managers, etc.

• Outreach to shing community: Council (through DAPs), Lenfest grantees

ff

fi

ff

ff

fi

4

Purpose • Ensure that a variety of stakeholder viewpoints are incorporated into the development of the Council’s overall conceptual model.

• Engage a subset of stakeholder groups that are not frequently involved in the Council’s work.

‣ Coastal businesses: dive shops, surf shops, sailing charters, outdoor guides, restaurants, hotels, guest houses, etc.

‣ Local environmental nongovernmental organizations (eNGOs) based in each island district.

• Develop conceptual models for each stakeholder group in each district (PR, STT/STJ, STX).

5

Methods Outreach materials • Two-page information briefs

• Spanish and English versions

‣ Fishery Ecosystem Plans ‣ Conceptual Models

• Distributed to all

stakeholders who accepted invitation

6

Methods Stakeholder contact • Stakeholder list developed in coordination with OEAP Chair and support from Sea Grant sta .

‣ Separate workshops for each stakeholder group in each district (2 groups x 3 districts = 6 workshops)

‣ Target size 8-12 participants for each workshop ‣ Invited over 40 eNGOs and over 80 coastal businesses

• Email invitation ~4 weeks in advance of workshop ‣ Follow-up email and phone calls for non-respondents ‣ Agenda and outreach materials sent to con rmed stakeholders

• Reminder email with agenda/materials 2 days prior to workshop, reminder phone calls one day in advance

• Workshop dates: 4/22, 4/26, 5/6, 5/10, 5/25, 5/27 fi

ff

7

Methods Workshops • Virtual 2-hour facilitated

Photo: Jorge Sabater

What is an ecosystem?

workshops (recorded)

• Evening workshops for

• Ecosystem = a community or group of living things that interact with one another

What is a fishery?

• Fishery = fish + people • Fishery ecosystem = linkages between a fishery and its components

What is a fishery ecosystem plan?

• Fishery ecosystem plan = comprehensive management system based on the connections between human and biological components of fisheries

businesses

• Simultaneous translation

for PR, Spanish materials

• Brief presentation

Example: What are the components of a forest ecosystem?

‣ Background information ‣ Trigger questions and individual brainstorming

Photo: Michelle Duval

‣ Identi cation of biological, social, and economic components

What do you think are the components of the marine fishery ecosystem in St. Croix?

‣ Identi cation of relationships fi

fi

8

• Components: Things that can increase or decrease in quality or quantity • Social, biological, economic, cultural, physical • Individual brainstorming: Think of 3-5 components • There are no wrong answers!

Methods Workshop follow-up • Thank you email with link to Google document containing conceptual model

• Allowed 2 weeks for participants to provide feedback on

additional relationships/linkages between components (model validation)

• Incorporation of additional participant feedback • Review of workshop recordings to ensure accuracy

9

Conceptual Models

10

St. Croix Environmental Nongovernmental Community

PINK = driver component GREEN = receiver component 11

St. Croix Coastal Business Community

PINK = driver component GREEN = receiver component 12

St. Thomas/St. John Environmental Nongovernmental Community

PINK = driver component GREEN = receiver component 13

St. Thomas/St. John Coastal Business Community

PINK = driver component GREEN = receiver component 14

Puerto Rico Environmental Nongovernmental Community

PINK = driver component GREEN = receiver component 15

Puerto Rico Coastal Business Community

PINK = driver component GREEN = receiver component 16

Conceptual Models Common Themes • Components that were a ected by the most other components ‣ Water Quality: STX eNGOs, STX Businesses, STT/STJ eNGOs, PR eNGOs

‣ Coral/Coral Reefs: STX eNGOs, STX Businesses, STT/STJ eNGOs, STT/STJ Businesses, PR Businesses

‣ Reef Fish: PR eNGOs, PR Businesses

RECEIVER Component

ff

17

Conceptual Models Common Themes • Components that a ected the most other components ‣ Education: PR Businesses, PR eNGOs, STT/STJ Businesses ‣ Government/Regulatory Agencies/Management: PR Businesses, STT/ STJ Businesses, STX NGOs

DRIVER Component

ff

18

Next Steps • Presentation of conceptual models to FEP Technical Advisory Panel for incorporation into overall Council model.

• Additional analysis and completion of project report.

Questions? michelle@mellivoraconsulting.com

19

CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Draft 2022-2024 Strategic Plan July 2021

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 VISION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 MISSION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 CORE VALUES ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 GOAL STATEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 MANAGEMENT ..............................................................................................................................................................................5 ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH .................................................................................................................................................5 SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES .........................................................................................................................................5 COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH ...................................................................................................................................................5 MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH ...........................................................................................................................10 SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES ..................................................................................................................14 COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH .............................................................................................................................17

Page 2

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

ACRONYMS CFMC CRFM DAP DPNR DRNA EBFM EEZ EFH FAD FEP IBFMP MREP MSA NOAA NPS OEAP OLE PEPCO SEFSC SERO SSC USCG USFWS USVI WECAFC

Caribbean Fishery Management Council Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism District Advisory Panel Department of Planning and Natural Resources (U.S. Virgin Islands) Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (Puerto Rico) Ecosystem Based Fishery Management Exclusive Economic Zone Essential Fish Habitat Fish Aggregating Device Fishery Ecosystem Plan Island-Based Fishery Management Plan Marine Resource Education Program Magnuson Stevens Act National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Park Service Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Office of Law Enforcement Programa de Educación para Pescadores Comerciales (Educational Program for Commercial Fishers) Southeast Fisheries Science Center Southeast Regional Office Scientific and Statistical Committee U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Virgin Islands Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission

Page 3

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

INTRODUCTION The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Caribbean Council, or CFMC) is responsible for the conservation and management of fishery resources within the federal jurisdiction of the U.S. Caribbean, which includes Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Caribbean Council is one of eight regional councils established in 1976 by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, later renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).

In addition to the councils, the MSA also created the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), an area that extends from the seaward boundary of coastal states and territories out to 200 nautical miles. The MSA established sovereign authority over most fishery resources in the EEZ, a responsibility that is shared between the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and the regional councils. The Caribbean Council recommends management measures for fishery resources within its jurisdiction through the development of fishery management plans, which must be reviewed and approved by the Secretary of Commerce before being implemented by NOAA Fisheries. All Council recommendations are developed in an open, public process and must be consistent with the ten national standards contained in the MSA. The Caribbean Council is comprised of seven voting members. This includes four public voting members appointed by the Secretary with knowledge of commercial fishing, recreational fishing, or conservation of marine resources of the U.S. Caribbean. The remaining three voting members include the principal officials with marine fishery management responsibility for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (or their designees), and the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Administrator. The Council also has three non-voting members representing the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Secretary of State.

Development of measures to maintain healthy fishery resources that meet the needs of fishers and the general public is an inclusive process. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviews biological, statistical, social, and economic information and provides expert technical advice to ensure that Council decisions are based the best scientific information available. Additionally, the Council has advisory panels to assist it in establishing fishery management goals and objectives, as well as outreach and education approaches, and to provide input on cultural values and economic needs of island fishing communities. Each advisory panel contains a balanced representation of fishery and stakeholder interests and serves an important communication role for those affected by the Council’s decisions.

The Caribbean Council recently evaluated its management framework and is transitioning from a species-specific approach to one that is focused on the unique characteristics of the fishery resources and fishing communities of each of its three island districts (Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St.John, St. Croix). This new framework is detailed in the Council’s recently approved Island-Based Fishery Management Plans (IBFMPs). Additionally, the Council is developing a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) that will guide implementation of its new management framework using an ecosystem-based approach. This strategic plan establishes goals and objectives for these critically important efforts and serves as a roadmap for future activities that will promote effective implementation, as well as transparency and accountability for the Council’s stakeholders.

Page 4

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

VISION Thriving and resilient island ecosystems, fisheries, and fishing communities that provide cultural, social, and economic benefits for all.

MISSION The Caribbean Fishery Management Council conserves, restores and manages fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Act. The Council is committed to advancing the collaborative stewardship of these fisheries and supporting island ecosystems through education, outreach, and stakeholder input.

CORE VALUES • • • • • •

Stewardship Collaboration Integrity Transparency Fairness Respect

GOAL STATEMENTS MANAGEMENT Advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources.

SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process.

Page 5

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

MANAGEMENT Goal: Advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

PUERTO RICO Objective 1: Support the development of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

• Improve fishery-independent data through partnerships.

• Prioritize data collection for species subject to seasonal and area closures.

• Expand education and outreach on commercial electronic reporting technology.

• Continue participation in re-initiation of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) in Puerto Rico.

• Support Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) and Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (DRNA) improvements to commercial sampling.

• Support the SEFSC fishery-independent deep-water snapper-grouper survey.

• Support local government efforts to increase port sampling and port agents.

Objective 2: Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs.

• Develop and prioritize a list of Puerto Rico-specific research needs.

• Work with science and research partners and with fishers to prioritize stock assessments for species subject to seasonal and area closures.

• Collaborate with Sea Grant to ensure Puerto Rico-specific research needs are included in grant opportunities.

• Incorporate fisher observations into stock assessments.

• Develop a list of Puerto Rico science and data needs that could be addressed using commercial and recreational fisher involvement.

Objective 3: Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement.

• Review enforceability of existing Puerto Rico management measures.

• Work with Puerto Rico DRNA to foster regulatory consistency.

• Work with Puerto Rico DRNA, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and local marine enforcement agencies to support cross-training of personnel.

• Collaborate with management partners to develop commercial and recreational compliance guides for Puerto Rico.

Page 6

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 4: Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management that considers diverse community interests.

• Regularly review effectiveness of existing management measures (e.g., spawning areas and closures).

• Work with partners to develop clearly stated objectives for management actions.

• Address impacts of bycatch on ecosystem relationships.

• Participate in Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) queen conch workgroup.

• Evaluate new and existing management measures for consistency with local ecosystem productivity using Ecosystem Status Reports.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN Objective 5: Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

• Support NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) efforts to improve recreational reporting and establish an MRIP survey in St. Thomas/St. John.

• Support SEFSC efforts to work with DPNR to design and implement a multi-mode catch sampling program.

• Prioritize data collection for species subject to seasonal and area closures.

• Support USVI DPNR efforts to examine licensing modifications and improvements.

Objective 6: Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs.

• Collaborate with science partners and fishers to develop and prioritize a St. Thomas/St. John-specific list of research needs.

• Prioritize and involve fishers in urgently needed stock assessments for species subject to seasonal and area closures.

• Encourage collaborative studies on the effectiveness of Grammanik Bank and other closed areas.

• Work with the SEFSC to identify key species for which fishers could assist in obtaining biological samples.

• Support joint SEFSC, USVI DPNR, and National Park Service (NPS) efforts to improve information for datalimited stock assessments (e.g., gear selectivity studies in St. Thomas/St. John etc.).

• Develop educational materials to promote fisher understanding of science and information needs.

Objective 7: Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement.

• Coordinate with NOAA OLE, USVI DPNR and USCG to review enforceability of existing regulations.

• Support cross-training of enforcement personnel and joint enforcement efforts through memoranda of understanding.

• Identify enforcement gaps in existing St. Thomas/St. John regulations.

• Promote development of clear, understandable compliance guides for commercial and recreational stakeholders.

Page 7

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 8: Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management of fishery resources that considers diverse community interests.

• • • • •

Review and evaluate the effectiveness of existing seasonal and area closures as soon as possible.

Reduce bycatch and waste through gear modifications and seasonal restrictions.

Collaborate with USVI DPNR to develop consistent management measures where appropriate.

Ensure management measures accommodate St. Thomas/St. John local ecosystem productivity.

Participate in international forums such as WECAFC and the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) efforts to improve understanding and management of Caribbean-wide resources.

Objective 9: Consider the potential impacts of climate change on the efficacy of management measures.

• Use USVI (St. Thomas/St. John) Ecosystem Status Reports to inform development of management measures.

• Evaluate fishery-independent information for climate-related impacts and trends.

• Solicit fisher input regarding climate-related changes in species and habitats.

ST. CROIX Objective 10: Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

• Support NOAA Fisheries and USVI DPNR efforts to improve recreational reporting, port sampling, and review previous pilot efforts to establish an MRIP-certified survey in St. Croix as per the MRIP regional implementation plan.

• Support efforts by USVI DPNR to review and modify licensing requirements to improve catch reporting.

• Support SEFSC efforts to work with USVI DPNR to design and implement a multi-mode catch sampling program.

• Collaborate with USVI DPNR on education and outreach regarding accurate catch reporting.

• Prioritize data collection for species subject to seasonal and area closures.

• Support USVI DPNR efforts to examine licensing modifications and improvements.

Objective 11: Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting islandspecific science and information needs.

• Support joint SEFSC, USVI DPNR, and NPS gear selectivity studies in St. Croix.

• Identify opportunities for fishers to contribute to biological samples for parrotfish and other species.

• Support research by academic science partners to improve data-limited species assessments.

• Collaborate with science partners and fishers to develop and prioritize a St. Croix-specific list of research needs.

• Ensure that closed areas are correctly marked by buoys (e.g., Buck Island).

• Develop educational materials to promote fisher understanding of science and information needs.

Page 8

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 12: Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement.

• Coordinate with NOAA OLE, USVI DPNR, and the USCG to review consistency of existing regulations for federally managed species.

• Support cross-training of enforcement personnel.

• Identify enforcement gaps for existing St. Croix regulations.

• Review regulations for effectiveness and/or redundancy.

• Develop clear, understandable compliance guides for commercial and recreational fishers and other stakeholders.

• Ensure that educational materials are available for decision-makers (e.g., legislators) as needed.

Objective 13: Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management of fishery resources that balances commercial and recreational interests.

• Work with NOAA Fisheries and USVI DPNR to reduce bycatch through gear and seasonal modifications.

• Work with USVI DPNR and NOAA OLE to develop consistent regulations where appropriate.

• Ensure management measures accommodate St. Croix local ecosystem productivity.

• Involve both the St. Croix District Advisory Panel (DAP) and Fisheries Advisory Committee (FAC) in review and development of management measures to evaluate commercial and recreational community impacts.

• Ensure that management measures consider and/or address the potential impacts of climate change.

• Ensure that management approaches consider the impacts of invasive species.

• Explore underutilized species as a means to reduce pressure on currently fully utilized species.

• Support the development of interagency coordination for permitting of Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) deployment.

Page 9

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH Goal: Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources.

PUERTO RICO Objective 14: 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.

• Evaluate existing spawning season closures and closed areas (e.g., Bajo de Sico, Tourmaline Bank, Abrir la Sierra) to determine contributions to ecosystem integrity.

• Establish a schedule to regularly evaluate and monitor closed seasons and areas.

• Collaborate with science partners and stakeholders to improve local ecosystem information.

• Establish a process to incorporate ecosystem information and approaches into management measures specific to Puerto Rico.

• Identify enforcement concerns that may impact ecological relationships.

Objective 15: Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of Puerto Rico.

• Develop Council habitat policies that address impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) from coastal development, erosion and sedimentation, and other forms of pollution.

• Develop outreach materials on the impacts of habitat loss from non-fishing activities (e.g., erosion/sedimentation) and communicate and collaborate with agencies responsible for managing these activities.

• Support SEFSC mapping efforts and collaborate with science partners to identify Puerto Rico habitat mapping needs.

• Work with management partners to establish clear goals for five-year EFH reviews.

• Ensure that EFH designations account for ecological roles and relationships of species.

• Support projects that rehabilitate fishery habitats to offset habitat loss or damage.

• Collaborate with scientists and fishers to assess the impact of certain fishing gears on fishery habitats.

Objective 16: Collaborate with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters on ecosystem structure and function.

• Determine data needed to evaluate impacts of natural disasters on species and habitats.

• Incorporate effects of natural disasters into the development of Ecosystem Status Reports.

• Evaluate the flexibility of existing management approaches to respond to local ecosystem impacts from hurricanes and earthquakes.

• Establish a process to collect fisher observations on local impacts of natural disasters.

Page 10

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 17: Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships.

• Conduct outreach with NOAA OLE and Puerto Rico DRNA enforcement personnel regarding impacts of illegal fishing activities on fishery resources and habitats.

• Conduct outreach to Puerto Rico agencies on the impacts of non-fishing activities and development on ecosystem structure and function.

• Conduct outreach with the fishing community to communicate the impacts of illegal fishing on the health of the resource.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN Objective 18: 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.

• Collaborate with science partners and stakeholders to identify gaps and improve local biological and ecosystem information for St. Thomas/St. John.

• Evaluate existing spawning season closures and closed areas (e.g., Grammanik Bank, Hind Bank) to determine contributions to ecosystem integrity.

• Establish a process to incorporate ecosystem information and approaches into management measures for St. Thomas/St. John.

• Consider ecosystem approaches that are responsive to climate change.

Objective 19: Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of St. Thomas and St. John.

• Develop Council habitat policies that address impacts to EFH from coastal development, erosion/sedimentation, and other forms of pollution that impact St. Thomas/St. John habitats • Develop outreach materials on impacts of habitat loss from non-fishing impacts.

• Work with management partners to establish clear goals for 5-year EFH reviews.

• Ensure that EFH designations account for ecological roles and relationships of species.

• Utilize the Council's EFH comment authority to address federally permitted projects that may impact ecologically sensitive habitats.

Objective 20: Encourage efforts to create and rehabilitate fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function.

• Work with federal and territorial management partners and stakeholders to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement.

• Explore opportunities for funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA's Marine Debris Removal Program, and other federal agencies to use certain types of marine debris for habitat creation.

• Identify habitat restoration needs for NOAA's Office of Habitat Conservation grant programs.

Page 11

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 21: Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships.

• Conduct outreach with NOAA OLE and USVI DPNR enforcement personnel regarding impacts of illegal fishing activities on fishery resources and habitats.

• Conduct outreach to permitting agencies on impacts of non-fishing activities and development on ecosystem structure and function.

Objective 22: Collaborate with science partners to identify and address ecological data and information gaps.

• Explore existing datasets to fill information gaps.

• Communicate St. Thomas/St. John ecosystem information needs to academic partners.

• Collaborate with science partners to prioritize ecological data needs, consistent with NOAA's Caribbean Regional Ecosystem Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Implementation Plan.

ST. CROIX Objective 23: Implement the Fishery Ecosystem Plan as a roadmap for future Council actions to maintain the ecological relationships, roles, and services of St. Croix's island ecosystem.

• Collaborate with science partners and stakeholders (e.g., other nongovernmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy, Caribbean Oceanic Restoration & Education Foundation, commercial/recreational fishers) to identify gaps and prioritize ecological data needs to improve local biological and ecosystem information for St. Croix.

• Evaluate existing spawning season closures and closed areas (e.g., mutton snapper, Lang Bank) to determine contributions to ecosystem integrity.

• Establish a process to incorporate ecosystem information and approaches into management measures for St. Croix.

• Ensure that ecosystem-based management approaches are responsive to climate change.

• Explore use of underutilized and underdeveloped species and resources to reduce pressure and maintain ecological relationships.

Objective 24: Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of St. Croix.

• Develop Council habitat policies that address impacts to EFH from coastal development, erosion and sedimentation, and other forms of pollution that impact St. Croix habitats.

• Support modifications to territorial coastal zone regulations that reduce sedimentation and erosion.

• Work with management partners to establish clear goals for five-year EFH reviews.

• Ensure that EFH designations account for ecological roles and relationships of species.

• Use the Council's EFH comment authority to address federally permitted projects that may impact ecologically sensitive habitats.

• Ensure that juvenile habitats are sufficiently protected.

• Promote the regular review of marine managed areas (e.g., East End Marine Park).

• Promote a boating infrastructure plan.

• Promote single point moorings both inshore and offshore to protect EFH. Page 12

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 25: Encourage efforts to rehabilitate and/or create fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function.

• Work with federal and territorial management partners and others to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement and restoration.

• Explore opportunities to address the impacts of invasive species on St. Croix fishery habitats.

• Investigate the potential of FADs to mitigate habitat losses and deploy FADs where appropriate.

• Identify habitat restoration needs for NOAA's Office of Habitat Conservation grant programs.

Objective 26: Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships.

• Conduct outreach with NOAA OLE and USVI DPNR enforcement personnel regarding ecological impacts of illegal fishing activities.

• Conduct outreach to permitting agencies on potential impacts of non-fishing activities and development on ecosystem structure and function.

• Conduct outreach with the fishing community to communicate the impacts of illegal fishing on the health of the resource.

Objective 27: Collaborate with management partners to ensure that ecosystem approaches are responsive to climate change, environmental changes, and natural disasters.

• Evaluate flexibility of current management approaches to climate change impacts.

• Work with the broader Caribbean community to identify potential impacts to habitats and species distributions from climate change.

Page 13

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES Goal: Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

PUERTO RICO Objective 28: Promote the collection of social and economic data that informs management decisions.

• Engage science partners, fishers, consumers, wholesalers/distributors, and the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to identify and prioritize social and economic data gaps and research priorities for Puerto Rico.

• Work with Sea Grant to ensure social and economic research priorities are incorporated into funding opportunities.

• Use results from existing and completed studies (e.g., Hurricane Maria & COVD-19 assessments, Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN) project) to inform future decisions.

Objective 29: Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions and actions across user groups.

• Review and document the social and economic impacts of existing Puerto Rico closed seasons and spawning areas on commercial, for-hire, and recreational stakeholders.

• Ensure that management measures address cultural differences across Puerto Rico's fishing communities.

• Use online tools and social media to incorporate fisher and other stakeholder observations and experiences.

• Assess recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction across Puerto Rico communities.

• Consider the contributions of fishers with respect to stewardship of the resource and ecosystem in the development and evaluation of management decisions.

Objective 30: Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities.

• Support community efforts to improve fishing infrastructure across Puerto Rico.

• Support and promote development of a recruitment and training program for young fishers that encourages legal entry into the fishery.

• Consider management approaches that address recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction.

Objective 31: Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in Puerto Rico on economic opportunity and social well-being.

• Collaborate with science partners to document the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed sales of fish in Puerto Rico.

• Work with management partners to determine where additional enforcement could improve economic conditions and/or trust among user groups.

Page 14

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN Objective 32: Promote the collection of social and economic data that informs management decisions.

• Engage science partners and the SSC to identify and prioritize social and economic data gaps and research priorities for St. Thomas/St. John.

• Work with Sea Grant to ensure social and economic research priorities are incorporated into funding opportunities.

• Identify and use results from existing and completed socioeconomic impact studies (e.g., Hurricanes Irma/Maria, COVID assessments).

Objective 33: Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions and actions across user groups.

• Review and document the social and economic impacts of existing St. Thomas/St. John closed seasons and spawning areas on commercial, for-hire, and recreational stakeholders (e.g., Grammanik Bank).

• Ensure that management measures acknowledge and address differences across the fishing communities of St. Thomas/St. John.

Objective 34: Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities.

• Support community efforts to improve fishing infrastructure across STT and STJ, including landing and market sites.

• Develop education and outreach materials to support the use of social media and other virtual approaches to marketing locally caught species.

• Consider management approaches that address recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction.

Objective 35: Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in St. Thomas and St. John on economic opportunity and social well-being.

• Collaborate with science partners to document the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed sales of fish in St. Thomas/St. John.

• Work with management partners to determine where additional enforcement could improve economic conditions and/or trust among user groups.

ST. CROIX Objective 36: Promote the collection and dissemination of social and economic data to inform management decisions.

• Engage science partners (SEFSC, academic researchers, Sea Grant, etc.) and the SSC to identify and prioritize social and economic data gaps and research priorities for St. Croix.

• Work with Sea Grant to ensure social and economic research priorities are incorporated into funding opportunities.

Page 15

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • •

Identify and use results from existing and completed studies (e.g., Hurricanes Irma/Maria, COVID assessments).

Ensure that new or existing social and economic science studies collaborate and coordinate with USVI DPNR.

Objective 37: Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions and actions across user groups.

• Review and document the social and economic impacts of existing St. Croix closed seasons and spawning areas on commercial, for-hire, and recreational stakeholders (e.g., Lang Bank).

• Ensure that management approaches provide equitable access for commercial and recreational resource users.

• Work with stakeholders to Identify and address commercial and recreational user conflicts.

• Assess the social and economic impacts of the Buck Island Reef National Monument expansion on recreational and commercial fishers.

Objective 38: Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities.

• Support community efforts to improve fishing infrastructure across St. Croix, including landing and market sites.

• Develop education and outreach materials to support the use of social media and other virtual approaches to marketing locally caught species.

• Consider management approaches that address recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction.

Objective 39: Consider the impacts of non-regulation, enforcement, and illegal fishing in St. Croix on economic opportunity and social well-being.

• Collaborate with science partners to document the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed sales of fish in St. Croix.

• Work with management partners to determine where additional enforcement could improve economic conditions and/or trust among commercial and recreational user groups.

• Educate hoteliers and restauranteurs on the importance of purchasing fish from licensed commercial fishers.

Page 16

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH Goal: Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process.

Objective 40: Use a variety of communication tools that consider the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of target audiences in coordination with the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP).

• Continue use of the Council's social media platforms and explore online and app-based technologies (e.g., WhatsApp, email templates) to convey information and updates.

• Develop a catalogue of communities, markets, businesses, and individuals with preferences and need for traditional media tools.

• Maintain the content and organization of the Council's website to enhance its utility to a variety of users.

• Ensure that communication and outreach materials account for stakeholder language preferences.

• Coordinate with management partners, commercial and recreational fishing organizations and fishers, nongovernmental organizations, and coastal businesses to expand the scope of Council communications across new and existing audiences.

• Consider sector-specific and "boat-friendly" communication materials.

Objective 41: Promote participation of a variety of stakeholders in the Council process.

• Increase the frequency of Council communications in advance of meetings or events.

• Use a variety of traditional, online, and social media tools to advertise and remind stakeholders of Council meetings and events.

• Expand the use of webinars and conference lines to provide opportunities for remote access, participation, and education.

• Ensure that meetings and events are scheduled to encourage maximum participation.

• Consider development of issue-specific online comment forms to expand opportunities for public input.

• Conduct issue-specific workshops to promote collaborative development of management approaches.

• Develop a newsletter or summary to highlight Council meeting outcomes and anticipated actions.

• Expand and improve participation by experienced and young fishers in the Council process through the development and support of territorial outreach programs in the USVI. • Attract other stakeholders, in addition to fishers, into the Council process to improve decision-making for the benefit of fishery resources.

Objective 42: Improve public and stakeholder understanding and awareness of fisheries management, current issues, and the Council process.

• Expand existing non-traditional stakeholder outreach efforts (e.g., restaurants, small-scale grocery store owners, and farmers, etc.).

• Continue support of the Marine Resource Education Program (MREP) workshops throughout the U.S. Caribbean.

• Develop island-specific (Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, St. Croix) outreach approaches and materials for recreational and commercial fishers.

Page 17

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • • •

• • • • •

Expand the role of fisheries liaisons to improve both fisher and public understanding of fisheries issues and the Council process.

Coordinate with management and science partners to improve the clarity and simplicity of presentations to improve public understanding.

Partner with other outreach organizations (e.g., PEPCO, Sea Grant) and federal agencies (e.g., USCG, NPS, etc.) and commercial and recreational fishing, diving, and boating organizations to develop and distribute educational materials to fishers, other marine resource users (e.g., divers), and the general public.

Conduct in-person and/or virtual outreach meetings and workshops to improve fisher and public engagement in the Council process.

Explore partnerships with organizations to capture traditional ecological knowledge of U.S. Caribbean fishing communities.

Create an orientation program to inform the fishing community of the roles of the different management partners.

Develop a mechanism to coordinate development of Council and territorial outreach efforts to ensure consistent messaging on fishery issues and other topics as needed.

Support the expansion of the Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program in the USVI.

Page 18

Draft 2022-2024 Strategic Plan

l

Caribbean Fishery Management Counci July 21, 2021

Overview

• Rational • Previous DAP and Council action • Vision, Mission, Core Value • Goals and Objective • Questions and Council approval for public input

s

s

s

e

2

Strategic Plan Rationale A strategic plan allows the Council to…

• Establish priorities and future direction.

• Effectively allocate resources.

• Plan for and respond to changing conditions.

• Provide transparency and accountability in decisionmaking.

• Communicate and collaborate more effectively with management partners and stakeholders.

• Evaluate and track progress over time.

3

Previous Actions • DAPs (March 29-30): Review and approval of draft island-specific objectives, initial feedback on strategies.

• Council (April 27-28): Review and selection of draft Vision, Mission, and Goal statements, approval of islandspecific objectives reviewed by DAPs.

• DAPs (June 15-16): Final review and edits to islandspecific strategies.

• TODAY: Council review and approval of complete draft of Strategic Plan for public input.

4

Strategic Plan Structure Vision

Mission Goal Themes

Management ● Ecosystem and Resource Health ● Social, Cultural & Economic Issues ● Communication and Outreach*

PR Objective 1

STT/STJ Objective 1

PR Strategies

PR Objective 2

STT/STJ Strategies

STT/STJ Objective 2

PR Strategies

PR Objective 3

STX Objective 1 STX Strategies

STX Objective 2 STX Strategies

STT/STJ Strategies

STT/STJ Objective 3

PR Strategies

STX Objective 3

STT/STJ Strategies

*Communication and Outreach objectives apply to entire CFMC jurisdiction and are not island-specific 5

STX Strategies

Draft Vision Statement Thriving and resilient island ecosystems, fisheries, and fishing communities that provide cultural, social, and economic benefits for all.

Draft Mission Statement The Caribbean Fishery Management Council conserves, restores, and manages fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Act. The Council is committed to advancing the collaborative stewardship of these fisheries and supporting island ecosystems through education, outreach, and stakeholder input.

6

Draft Core Values • Stewardshi • Collaboratio • Integrit • Transparenc • Fairnes • Respect y

n

p

s

y

7

Goal Themes MANAGEMENT • How the Council manages fishery resources to meet goals for island fisheries.

• How the Council meets requirements for sustainability.

ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH • How the Council will implement the Fishery Ecosystem Plan.

• How the Council addresses habitat conservation and ecosystem impacts.

SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC ISSUES • How the Council considers fishing community and stakeholder needs.

• How the Council incorporates social and economic information into decisions.

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH • How the Council communicates with fishers and other stakeholders.

• How the Council engages, educates, and obtains feedback from fishers and other stakeholders.

8

Draft Goal Statements MANAGEMENT Advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources.

SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC ISSUES Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process.

9

Draft Management Goal Advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

10

PR Draft Management Objectives Objective 1. Support the development of accurate, timely, and costeffective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

Objective 2. Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs.

Objective 3. Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement.

Objective 4. Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management that considers diverse community interests.

11

STT-STJ Draft Management Objectives Objective 5. Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

Objective 6. Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs.

Objective 7. Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement.

Objective 8. Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management that considers diverse community interests.

Objective 9. Consider the potential impacts of climate change on the efficacy of management measures.

12

STX Draft Management Objectives Objective 10. Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

Objective 11. Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs.

Objective 12. Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement.

Objective 13. Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management that considers diverse community interests.

13

Draft Ecosystem and Resource Health Goal Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources.

14

PR Draft Ecosystem and Resource Health Objectives Objective 14. 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.

Objective 15. Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of Puerto Rico.

Objective 16. Collaborate with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters on ecosystem structure and function.

Objective 17. Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships.

15

STT-STJ Draft Ecosystem and Resource Health Objectives Objective 18. 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.

Objective 19. Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of St. Thomas and St. John.

Objective 20. Encourage efforts to create and rehabilitate fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function.

Objective 21. Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships.

Objective 22. Collaborate with science partners to identify and address ecological data and information gaps.

16

STX Draft Ecosystem and Resource Health Objectives Objective 23: 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.

Objective 24. Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of St. Croix.

Objective 25. Encourage efforts to rehabilitate and/or create fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function.

Objective 26. Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships.

Objective 27. Collaborate with management partners to ensure that ecosystem approaches are responsive to climate change, environmental changes, and natural disasters.

17

Draft Social, Cultural and Economic Issues Goal Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

18

PR Draft Social, Cultural and Economic Objectives Objective 28. Promote the collection of social and economic data that informs management decisions.

Objective 29. Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions/actions across user groups.

Objective 30. Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities.

Objective 31. Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in Puerto Rico on economic opportunity and social well-being.

19

STT-STJ Draft Social, Cultural and Economic Objectives Objective 32. Promote the collection of social and economic data that informs management decisions.

Objective 33. Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions/actions across user groups.

Objective 34. Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities.

Objective 35. Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in St. Thomas and St. John on economic opportunity and social wellbeing.

20

STX Draft Social, Cultural and Economic Objectives Objective 36. Promote the collection and dissemination of social and economic data that informs management decisions.

Objective 37. Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions/actions across user groups.

Objective 38. Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities.

Objective 39. Consider the impacts of non-regulation, enforcement and illegal fishing in St. Croix on economic opportunity and social well-being.

21

Draft Communication and Outreach Goal Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process.

22

Draft Communication and Outreach Objectives Objective 40. Use a variety of communication tools that consider the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of target audiences in coordination with the OEAP.

Objective 41. Promote participation of a variety of stakeholders in the Council process.

Objective 42. Improve public and stakeholder understanding and awareness of fisheries management, current issues, and the Council process.

23

Next Steps • Public input on draft (online comment form).

• Council review of public feedback and approval of final Strategic Plan.

• Implementation Plan for 2022 (presented in December 2021)

• Subcommittee of CFMC will prioritize actions needed to implement the objectives of the Strategic Plan. o Subcommittee will meet June and December each year o Review progress and identify actions for following year’s Implementation Plan.

24

Questions Michelle Duva michelle@mellivoraconsulting.com

?

l

25

May 18, 2021 From: Congreso de Pescadores de PR, Inc. To: Caribbean Fishery Management Council The “Congreso de Pescadores de PR,” CPPR, is a group of associations, fishing villages and independent commercial fishers from all around the island of Puerto Rico.

The CPPR members would like to convey the urge to find a solution to the problems that Puerto Rico Deep Water Snapper fishermen have been facing historically, a fishing resource of socioeconomy utmost importance for the fishers.

The problems began after the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources of Puerto Rico established a prohibition not allowing the recreational and sport fishers to use of electric reels.

In order to fish utilizing electric reels, some recreational fishers applied for commercial fishing licenses, but to justify a request for commercial license they provided unreal and false catch data.

We understand that the deep water snappers fishery is resource that is in good shape and has been kept this way.

This is a “hand or reel line” artisanal fishery, done in 20’ to 25’fishing vessels, to limit the fishing pressure it may cause. This fishery is very restricted due to weather conditions. Given the characteristics previously described, it is difficult to put at risk the deep-water snapper populations in our region. Throughout the history of this fishery only a small amount of fishers have the right gear and the knowledge to perform this method only.

Given the habitat characteristics in which they live, the depth and distribution in the Caribbean Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, we understand that this resource is an alternative for the future in times when we are experiencing global warming.

As member of the DAP and President of the Congreso de Pescadores de Puerto Rico, Inc., and the “Concilio del CDPDPR del Oeste”, leaded by Mr. Edwin Font (Pauco) we respectfully request that the Caribbean Fishery Management Council evaluate and share with other pertinent federal and state government agencies what we have previously exposed. We want to contribute to have a management system in which there is more participation, that is adequate and based in science.

Our initial proposal: to start fishing for 3 to 5 years duly registering landings (e.g., electronically). Also, to include all deep-water snapper commercial fishers in this effort where they can provide better and rightful landing statistics. The objective is to provide the biologists real number of total landings in an initial period of approximately 3 years. We would then have new and better scientific data in order to re-evaluate ACLs for this species.

We want to have a sustainable fishing resource, and also have the possibility to be part of this process of revising the ACLs with better and more adequate data. This collaborative effort with the commercial fishers is the best formula for the fisheries management. The socio-economy, fishing resources balance and the food sustainability in Puerto Rico is our north. We have contributed with the scientific community in the collection of data to be able to know the state of the deep water snapper fisheries resource and we believe the result of this effort reflect relevant and hopeful information.

We hope you take notice of our request to begin discussing and facilitating this important initiative.

Roberto Silva