Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices Hydroxy 4-(Methylthio) Butanoic acid (HMTBa), regardless of purity, particle size, grade, or physical form. Methionine has the chemical formula C5H11NO2S, liquid HMTBa has the chemical formula C5H10O3S, and dry HMTBa has the chemical formula (C5H9O3S)2Ca. Subject merchandise also includes methionine processed in a third country including, but not limited to, refining, converting from liquid to dry or dry to liquid form, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of this investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope methionine or dl-Hydroxy analogue of dlmethionine. The scope also includes methionine that is commingled (i.e., mixed or combined) with methionine from sources not subject to this investigation. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation. Excluded from this investigation is United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) grade methionine. In order to qualify for this exclusion, USP grade methionine must meet or exceed all of the chemical, purity, performance, and labeling requirements of the United States Pharmacopeia and the National Formulary for USP grade methionine. Methionine is currently classified under subheadings 2930.40.00.00 and 2930.90.46.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Methionine has the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry numbers 583–91–5, 4857–44–7, 59–51–8 and 922–50–9. While the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Appendix II
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648–XB258]
[RTID 0648–XB261]
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting
Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; public meeting.
I. Summary II. Background III. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination IV. Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances V. Discussion of the Issues: a. Comment 1: Whether To Grant a Constructed Export Price Offset b. Comment 2: Whether Certain Sales Are Outside the Normal Course of Trade c. Comment 3: Whether To Recalculate Indirect Selling Expenses (ISE) d. Comment 4: Whether To Apply Adverse Facts Available (AFA) on Certain U.S. Sales Fields VI. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2021–15753 Filed 7–22–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Management Council’s Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Committee and MSB Advisory Panel will hold a joint public meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on
Friday, August 6, 2021, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held
via webinar. Webinar connection, agenda items, and any additional information will be available at www.mafmc.org/council-events. Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674–2331; www.mafmc.org. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526–5255. purpose of the meeting is for the MSB Committee and MSB Advisory Panel to provide recommendations regarding Atlantic mackerel, potentially including: 2021/22 emergency action, future specifications, and/or rebuilding plan modifications and options. Special Accommodations The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Collins at the Council Office, (302) 526–5253, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: July 20, 2021. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2021–15714 Filed 7–22–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:49 Jul 22, 2021
Jkt 253001
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Caribbean Fishery
SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
List of Sections in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
38987
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Management Council (CFMC) will hold the 175th public meeting (virtual) to address the items contained in the tentative agenda included in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. DATES: The 175th CFMC public meeting (virtual) will be held on August 11, 2021, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The meeting will be at AST (U.S. Caribbean time, presently same as EST). ADDRESSES: You may join the 175th 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 at 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.
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
38988
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
following items included in the tentative agenda will be discussed: —Call to Order —New Members Oath —Roll Call —Election of Officers —Adoption of Agenda —Consideration of 174th Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions —Executive Director’s Report 10 a.m.–10:30 a.m. —SSC Report—Dr. Richard Appeldoorn —SEFSC Update 10:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. —Island Based Fishery Management Plans (IBFMPs) Status Update —Generic Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition: Potential Final Action to Submit to the Secretary of Commerce—Marı́a López-Mercer, SERO/NOAA Fisheries Comment Period —Final Action to Submit the Generic Framework Amendment to the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix Fishery Management Plans: Spiny Lobster Management Reference Points to the Secretary of Commerce— Sarah Stephenson, SERO/NOAA Fisheries Comment Period 12:30 p.m.–1:30 p.m. —Lunch 1:30 p.m.–2 p.m. —SEAMAP-Caribbean Gold Copy—J.J. Cruz Motta 2 p.m.–2:30 p.m.
Dated: July 20, 2021. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2021–15708 Filed 7–22–21; 8:45 am]
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
—Enforcement Issues: —Puerto Rico-DNER —USVI–DPNR —U.S. Coast Guard —NMFS/NOAA 3 p.m.–5 p.m.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
2:30 p.m.–3 p.m.
—Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) Update—Sarah Stephenson, SERO/ NOAA Fisheries —5-Minutes Public Comment Period —Other Business —Next Meeting 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
16:49 Jul 22, 2021
Special Accommodations
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
— Outreach and Education Report— Alida Ortiz
VerDate Sep<11>2014
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 meeting will begin on August 11, 2021, at 9 a.m. AST, and will end on August 11, 2021, at 5 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.
Jkt 253001
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; External Needs Assessment for NOAA Education Products and Programs AGENCY: National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of information collection, request for comment. SUMMARY: The Department of
Commerce, in accordance with the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public’s reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB. DATES: To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 21, 2021. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at Adrienne.thomas@noaa.gov. Please reference OMB Control Number 0648– 0784 in the subject line of your comments. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Bruce Moravchik, National Ocean Service (NOS), 1305 East West Hwy., Bldg. SSMC4, Silver Springs, MD 20910– 3278, (240) 533–0874, bruce.moravchik@noaa.gov or Shannon Ricles, NOS, Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, 100 Museum Dr., Newport News, VA 23602 (757) 591–7328, shannon.ricles@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This is a request for revision and extension of a currently approved information collection. The National Ocean Service (NOS) on behalf of the NOAA’s Education Council is revising and extending a voluntary multiquestion survey used to assess the needs of educators pertaining to the development of future NOAA multimedia products and programs. In developing multimedia materials that convey NOAA’s science, service, and stewardship, the Agency must ensure that these resources are of the highest quality and meet the needs of formal and informal educators across the United States. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to conduct surveys identifying the types of educational programs and products that are of the highest interest and greatest need by formal and informal educators. By surveying external educators to gather this information, budget expenditures will be used optimally to develop appropriate products and programs most desired by educators to support and enhance Ocean and Earth science,
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .............................................. 1 Table of Motions ............................................... 3 Call to Order and Roll Call .................................... 4 New Members Oath ............................................... 4 Moment of Silence in Memory of Carlos Ramos .................... 6 Election of Officers ........................................... 7 Adoption of Agenda ............................................. 9 Consideration of 174th Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions . 9 Executive Director’s Report .................................... 9 SSC Report .................................................... 13 SEFSC Update .................................................. 13 Island-Based Fishery Management Plans Status Update ........... 26 Generic Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition: Potential Final Action to Submit to the Secretary of Commerce ................................................... 33 Final Action to Submit the Generic Framework Amendment to the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix Fishery Management Plans: Spiny Lobster Reference Points to the Secretary of Commerce ................................................... 52 SEAMAP Caribbean Gold Copy .................................... 61 Outreach and Education Report ................................. 72 Nassau Grouper Discussion ..................................... 84 Spiny Lobster Discussion ..................................... 102 Exempted Fishing Permit Update ............................... 112 Other Business ............................................... 114 1
1 2 3 4 5 6
Next Meeting ................................................. 116 Adjournment .................................................. 118 - - -
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
TABLE OF MOTIONS PAGE 55: Motion to approve the Generic Framework Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification of Spiny Lobster Management Reference Points with the selected preferred alternatives and to submit the framework amendment to the Secretary of Commerce for implementation. The motion carried on page 57. PAGE 58: Motion that the council moves to allow staff to make editorial, non-substantive changes to the Spiny Lobster Generic Framework Amendment. Any changes will be reviewed by the Council Chair. The motion carried on page 59. PAGE 60: Motion to deem the codified text presented by the staff as necessary and appropriate for implementing the Spiny Lobster Generic Framework Amendment. The motion carried on page 60. PAGE 104: Motion that the council instructs the staff to examine alternative times when AMs could be applied to the spiny lobster under Puerto Rico’s FMP and report back to the council with the appropriate documentation. The motion carried on page 108. - - -
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
CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 175TH REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Webinar AUGUST 11, 2021 The Caribbean Fishery Management Council convened via webinar on Wednesday morning, August 11, 2021, and was called to order at 9:00 o’clock a.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL NEW MEMBERS OATH MARCOS HANKE: Good morning, everyone. It’s 9:09, and we are ready to start the meeting. This is the 175th CFMC Virtual Meeting, and today is August 11, 2021. The first part will be the oath for the new members, the appointed members, and we are going to pass first to opening the meeting, and who is going to -MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, the oath is done by the Regional Office, and Mr. Andy Strelcheck already sent the documents to Carlos Farchette and Vanessa Ramirez, and they have to read it for the record. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and let’s do that. I was a little confused with how it was going to be. Thank you. Let’s start with Vanessa. VANESSA RAMIREZ: Good morning. I, Vanessa Ramirez-Perez, as a duly appointed member of a regional fishery council established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, hereby promise to conserve and manage the living marine resources of the United States of America by carrying out the business of the council for the greatest overall benefit of the nation. I recognize my responsibility to serve as a knowledgeable and experienced trustee of the nation’s marine fisheries resources, being careful to balance competing private or regional interests and always aware and protective of the public interests in those resources. I commit myself to uphold the provisions, standards, and requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws and shall conduct myself at all times according to the rules of conduct prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce. This oath is freely given and without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Vanessa. 4
Carlos Farchette.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
CARLOS FARCHETTE: I am looking for my file. I guess I just can’t say ditto, but let me try and bring it up, and I will read it off, when I get a chance. I’m looking for the email with the letter in it. Give me a minute, and I will let you know when I have it, and I will read it off. MARCOS HANKE:
Okay.
MIGUEL ROLON: Carlos and Marcos, maybe we can go to the roll call while he looks for the document. MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Let’s do the roll call. going to be the one helping me, or Liajay? MIGUEL ROLON:
Christina, are you
Liajay is going to read it, for the record.
LIAJAY RIVERA: Okay. We’re starting the roll call with myself, Liajay Rivera, Christina Olan, Graciela Garcia-Moliner, Miguel Rolon, Luiz --, Andy Strelcheck, Alida Ortiz, Angie de los Irizarry, Carlos Farchette, Damaris Delgado, Diana Martino, Edward Schuster, Julian Magras, Jack McGovern, Jesus Rivera, Jocelyn D’Ambrosio, Jose Rivera, Katie McCarthy, Lauren Remsberg, Manny Antonaras, Marcos Hanke, Maria Lopez, Matt Walia, Maldonado, Michelle Scharer, Miguel Borges, Nelson Crespo, Nicole Angeli, Nicole Rio, Orian Tzadik, Rich Appeldoorn, Robert Copeland, Sarah Stephenson, Tony Blanchard, Vanessa Ramirez, Virginia Shervette, Wilson Santiago. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Liajay. Was anybody missed on that first roll call? Was there anybody else that just arrived? Seeing none, we will keep going. Carlos, do you have your document? CARLOS FARCHETTE: Yes, I’ve got it. I, Carlos Farchette, a duly appointed member of a regional fishery council established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, hereby promise to conserve and manage the living marine resources of the United States of America by carrying out the business of the council for the greatest overall benefit of the nation. I recognize my responsibility to serve as a knowledgeable and experienced trustee of the nation’s marine fisheries resources, being careful to balance competing private or regional interests and always aware and protective of the public interests in those resources. I commit myself to uphold the provisions, standards, and requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws and shall conduct myself at all times according to the rules of conduct prescribed by the 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
Secretary of Commerce. This oath is freely given and without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Carlos.
Andy Strelcheck, good morning.
ANDY STRELCHECK: Good morning, Marcos. I would just briefly make a comment, if I can speak, and then I will turn it back to you, and so I wanted to thank Carlos and Vanessa. They, obviously, read the oath of office for participation on the council and the fishery management process, and I want to thank them for their willingness and interest to continue serving on the council, and I look forward to their continued service and work as we tackle many challenging issues in the Caribbean, and so thank you for your service. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, two things. One, we would like to have a moment of silence before we adopt the agenda and do the election of officers, and, also, we would like to welcome Andy Strelcheck. He has been appointed as the Regional Administrator, starting on the 15th of this month, and Andy has been a friend of the Caribbean for many, many years, in many positions, and so I really -- I believe, personally, that they have elected the best person for the job, and so welcome, as now the Regional Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region. ANDY STRELCHECK:
Thank you, Miguel.
MIGUEL ROLON: Then the Election of Officers. Last week, I sent you an email about the record that you set last year, and you said that were going to rotate, now that the island-based FMPs have been approved in September of last year, and they will be implemented this year. In addition, a council member asked me to put in the record that he would like to consider the possibility of a three-year term for each officer. Then I sent a note to you, and I included the last say, any final say, in any of this is the council prerogative, and the staff doesn’t have anything to do with it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF CARLOS RAMOS MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Miguel. Let’s follow one minute of silence in remembering and respecting Carlos Ramos. (Whereupon, a moment of silence was held in memory of Carlos Ramos.) 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
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, everyone. We are going to pass now to Election of Officers. I will give a word to Miguel to follow-up on the process. Go ahead, Miguel. MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. The minute of silence of Carlos Ramos was after the Election of Officers, but that’s okay. Carlos Ramos, for those of you that don’t know him, he was our third fiscal officer, and he served for many years. He passed recently, a couple of days ago, and we are really grateful for his service to the council. He was always minding the budget and making sure that we used the money according to the applicable laws and regulations, the same way that Angie de los Irizarry is doing now, and so we wanted to convey this message, and I will send it to the family. He was a good friend, and he had spent a lot of years with the council, serving as the fiscal officer. He came when we were needing somebody to take the position for three months, and there were no guarantees that that person would stay in work, because our fiscal officer resigned, and we had three years to close, and he came and did the work, and, after he was elected as the fiscal officer, he continued the work for all these years. He resigned from the council because of diabetes, and he was legally blind, and still he was able to work with us for a while, until the doctor told him not to do it anymore, and, for that, we are really in debt to Carlos Ramos, from 1949 to 2021, and so we are dedicating this meeting in his loving memory. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. Election of Officers, I believe we are going to pass the chairmanship to the Coast Guard, like we usually do, and who is representing the Coast Guard at this time? DIANA MARTINO:
Robert Copeland.
LT. ROBERT COPELAND: Good morning, everyone. I am part of the Coast Guard here, and I don’t know if any other Coast Guard members are on, but I’m unaware of assuming any other roles and responsibilities at this time, and would you be able to further discuss that, please? ELECTION OF OFFICERS MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. It’s just to preside over the election of officers. You open the floor for any nominations, and you don’t need a second for the nominations, and then, if you have only one nomination, we proceed to vote. You call for the vote, and then, 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
for the Vice Chair, we do the same, the nomination for the Vice Chair, and no seconds are needed. We follow Roberts Rules, and then you open the floor for voting. Then, once the Chair is elected, you pass the meeting again to the Chair. At this time, you can open the meeting for nominations. LT. ROBERT COPELAND: Sorry, Marcos, and this has kind of caught me off guard, and I was not still not aware that I was supposed to be doing anything of the such, and are you asking me to be the Chair, or are you asking me to open up for nominations for someone else to assume the Chair? MIGUEL ROLON: You will be the chair of the meeting for the election of officers. The only thing you have to do is to open the floor for nominations. Once you have a nomination, if there is only one, then the council will vote on the nomination for Chair. The second will be the nomination for Vice Chair. If there is only one, then you open the floor for voting for the Vice Chair. If we have more than one, then the council will have to vote, and they will be tallied up. Usually, when we have more than one, the vote is on paper, but, here, we can’t do it by paper. LT. ROBERT COPELAND: Miguel, it sounds like you have a firm understanding of how this process is supposed to roll, and would I be able to listen in on how this is supposed to go? MIGUEL ROLON: Technically, I can just say it on your behalf, and so I will just do it. LT. ROBERT COPELAND:
Okay.
MIGUEL ROLON: On behalf of Robert Copeland, we open the floor for nominations for Chair. TONY BLANCHARD:
Marcos Hanke.
MIGUEL ROLON: Any other nominations? All those in favor, say aye. It’s unanimous. Do we have any opposition or abstentions? Marcos is the Chair of the council. Now we will open for Vice Chair. Any nominations? CARLOS FARCHETTE:
I am nominating Tony Blanchard.
MIGUEL ROLON: Any further nominations? Hearing none, all in favor, say aye. Welcome back, Mr. Chairman, Marcos Hanke, and Mr. Vice Chair, Tony Blanchard. Now Marcos will continue with the meeting. Thank you, Mr. Copeland. 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
LT. ROBERT COPELAND:
Thank you, Miguel.
I appreciate it.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for the Coast Guard to help us on this part of the meeting. Thank you, everyone, for the support, and we’re going to keep conducting to the best of our capacities and protect the resource and to balance all the discussion on this meeting. Thank you very much, again. We’re going to adopt the agenda now. Any comments on the agenda from the council members? We need a motion to adopt the agenda, please. ANDY STRELCHECK:
Motion to adopt the agenda.
MARCOS HANKE: I have a motion from Andy Strelcheck to adopt the agenda. Is there a second? VANESSA RAMIREZ:
Second.
CONSIDERATION OF 174TH COUNCIL MEETING VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION MARCOS HANKE: Second by Vanessa Ramirez to adopt the agenda. Any opposition? Hearing none, the agenda is adopted. Next is Consideration of the 174th Verbatim Transcription from the council, and is there any comment on it? Hearing none, I need a motion. VANESSA RAMIREZ:
Move for consideration.
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Vanessa, and thank you for the motion. Is there a second? NICOLE ANGELI: DAMARIS DELGADO:
Second. Second.
MARCOS HANKE: We had two persons speaking, and I just heard the name of Nicole Angeli to second the motion. Any opposition? Hearing none, the verbatim transcription for the 174th Council Meeting is approved. The next item on the agenda is the Executive Director’s Report. Thank you. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first thing is, as you know, on the 21st, we saw a presentation by Dr. Michelle Duval on the five-year plan, and now we are going to have a plan for people to comment, and we have -- On our webpage, we will have the documentation for people to comment and the draft five-year plan. 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
Once this is finished, by September 3 of this year, we will be able to then finalize the document, and Dr. Duval will present the final version at the December meeting, and, there, we will take some action on the recommendations, for example the sub-committees who are going to be dealing with the implantation for the fiveyear strategic plan, and the sub-committees will be one for science and another one for outreach and education and the other one for management. We will have more information at the December meeting, which, by the way, will be a hybrid meeting on the 7th and 8th of December at the Marriott Courtyard in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Already, Diana is polling who is going to be traveling to Puerto Rico and who is going to be working from home and participating virtually at our meeting. Now, with the Delta variant of the COVID-19, as you know, there is a question for the participation will be in December, and we were told that we have to wait until probably the fall to hear from NOAA any news about the procedure for allowing participation of employees to meetings outside of their home office. I believe, that at this stage, that they are in a Level 0, and a Level 0 is more precautious, and people that are not essential do not go to the office, but you are still teleworking, and so we are hoping that, by December, we will have a better atmosphere for the COVID-19. So far, only eight people have expressed that they will attend the meeting in person. Any of you who haven’t been able to contact Diana Martino, please do so and indicate whether you are going to participate at the meeting virtually or you are planning to travel to San Juan, because the hotel gave us a cutoff date, and we need to comply with that, in order to avoid penalties. The other thing that is happening is, as you know, we are collaborating with the NOAA Fisheries Seafood Inspection and International Fisheries and the Office of Protected Resources, and we are working with the WECAFC, the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission, on several projects, working groups, and we will continue to do so, and the active campaign is to promote PanCaribbean management of the species, especially Nassau grouper and the mutton snapper. At the December meeting, we will get you more information on the development of these meetings, these working groups. As you know, we announced that we are going to have a February 9, 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
2022 meeting to discuss marine reserves, and now it’s area-based management, and that’s the words that they use now, and the CCC, the group that encompasses the councils, all the councils, and National Marine Fisheries Service are going to meet in October, and part of the discussion will include the response to the Executive Order 14008 that calls for closure of 30 percent of the land and water by 2030 of the areas that we have under management, by different laws and regulations, for the protection of those areas. A report will be given at the meeting, and we will provide you the outcome of that report at the December meeting, but it will be discussed thoroughly at the February 9 meeting. At that meeting, we will have all the council members and DAP chairs, the same people that are here now, as participants discussing the U.S. Caribbean status on marine reserves across boundaries, from the shoreline to the edge of the EEZ. We also are going to continue the work by Dr. Aldana, and remember that she gave us a presentation not long ago about the microplastics that are incorporating into the food chain and reaching the consumers, and that could affect the future of the fisheries in the Caribbean, and so we are going to continue that work, and, right now, during the time of the pandemic, a lot of plastics have been accumulated, and there is a lot of concern about how this might affect the fisheries of the Caribbean, including, of course, the U.S. Caribbean, the Gulf, and the South Atlantic. That work probably will be conducted this year, and we will provide reports and updates as the project comes along. The budget situation that we have is okay, and we received the funding that were allocated to us for this year, and so we don’t have any problems with the monies at this time. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman, unless they have any questions. MARCOS HANKE: Any questions for the Executive Director? Go ahead, Carlos. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Miguel, I saw in the local news here yesterday, and I want to validate this, that Puerto Rico hotels are now mandating that any guests be vaccinated, or PCR tests are still valid? MIGUEL ROLON: The Governor is proposing that any commercial institution can request vaccination certificates from people attending meetings or participating or guests of the council, if you are going to stay at the hotel, and so, for the December meeting, anybody coming to Puerto Rico has to show the validation 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
of certificate of being vaccinated or a no-less-than-seventy-twohour certificate of COVID free, but the vaccination is probably going to be required by the hotel, and so that’s a good point. I forgot to mention that, but, as the Governor said, and this is the situation now, and he will inform the public -- He will update the public on the new developments. According to the news, the Delta is capable of breaking those people who are vaccinated by using Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson or Moderna. We encourage everybody to do it, and, as the council, we are going to require facemasks for everybody, and I don’t care if you’re vaccinated or not. Facemasks will be required. The other thing that the hotel told us to do is they are going to have space, and so we will have probably one person per table, rather than three, or two, but they will advise the council on these measures, and, as I said before, in the case of the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and the Regional Office, Dr. Paul Doremus told us that they will play it by ear, in order to allow NOAA Fisheries personnel to travel to meetings. The next meeting that we are going to have that will require National Marine Fisheries Service people to attend is the CCC meeting in October, and, right now, there are members of other councils that are indicating that they are not going to travel. In my case, probably I won’t travel, because I will take that risk, and so Tony and Marcos have to decide whether they are going to travel or not. If they are going to travel, then they have to make their reservations accordingly. Any other questions? MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Miguel.
We have Andy Strelcheck.
ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Miguel. A comment and then a question. With regard to council meetings, NOAA Fisheries has created a blanket travel approval waiver, and it’s considered mission essential activity, and so we can participate in council meetings, and so our intent would be to be at the December council meeting. One thing, I guess, or a question, is can you have that email resent with regarding participation at the council meeting? We’re finding that a number of the Caribbean Council emails are getting caught up in our spam filters, when they are emailed to us, and so we have not seen that, and we want to make sure that we meet your deadline, obviously, for informing decision about the council meeting. MIGUEL ROLON: Excellent. Diana will do that.
We will send it to everybody today. 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
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. Any other questions? Hearing none, the next item on the agenda is the first presentation, Island-Based Fishery Management Plans, a status update. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, the first thing on the agenda is the SSC Report and the SEFSC Update. You have Richard Appeldoorn and then followed by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center Update. RICHARD APPELDOORN: MARCOS HANKE:
Am I good to go?
Yes. SSC REPORT
RICHARD APPELDOORN: Okay. The SSC did not meet between the last council meeting and now, and so there is no update to report. MIGUEL ROLON: Update.
Then we have the Southeast Fisheries Science Center SEFSC UPDATE
KEVIN MCCARTHY: Good morning. I do have a presentation, and I can just share my screen, if that’s all right. MIGUEL ROLON:
Please go ahead.
KEVIN MCCARTHY: I would like to start by congratulating Marcos and Tony for their being elected to office on the council, and also congratulate Andy Strelcheck on his new job at the Regional Office, and so congratulations to all of you. I just have a fairly brief, or I hope it’s fairly brief, presentation to update you all on some of the work that we’re doing at the Science Center. I gave you a fairly lengthy presentation last year, and I think it was the August meeting last year, about a lot of the projects that we were doing in the region, and those mainly concern things like projects to look at landings and size composition, life history data, abundance data, gear selectivity data, ecosystem data, socioeconomic data, but, today, I’m going to talk about database development and automation, and this is an aspect of the work that we do that doesn’t get a lot of attention. It sort of goes on in the background, but it’s really critical. I mean, when you consider that you’ve got landings data and size composition data and all these other data endeavors and projects to collect those data, where are you going to put them? 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
Where are you going to store them, and how are you going to get access to them, and so that’s what this database development and automation is all about, and we’ve got several projects that we’re working on in the U.S. Virgin Islands. We’ve got a project with data entry and data extraction application upgrades, and I will talk about that in a moment. In Puerto Rico, there is the electronic reporting that I think most all of you are aware of, and what we want to develop there is a secure system of data flow and storage, and, in Puerto Rico also, there are the commercial landing correction factors. We want to develop some efficient methods to calculate those correction factors, reduce the burden on DNER staff, and it’s a real endeavor every year to develop those correction factors, and it can be really burdensome of the staff to try and get that done quickly, and so we’re going to try and have some assistance from the Science Center, to see if we can improve the efficiency and reduce the burden on the staff. In the Virgin Islands, this is a collaboration between the Division of Fish and Wildlife and Artech, and Artech is a developer that we’ve got contracted through the Science Center, and so they do a lot of database development and application software development, and then the Science Center, and so the three entities are working together on these projects. What we’re doing is upgrading the data entry system to accommodate changes to the catch forms, the commercial catch forms, that have changed over time, including changes in the species listed on the forms. As you go back in time, the forms have changed, of course, and, as DFW staff have been entering the data, they will notice things about the data entry system that we have in place that could be improved, or that could be made easier or more efficient, and so we’re trying to accommodate those changes that are brought to our attention by DFW staff. We have also spent some time working with our partners at DFW to develop some standard reports and so these are sort of hypothetical, and I don’t know that they’ve asked for this in particular, but, when I was putting together the presentation, I just came up with a couple of hypothetical examples. For example, if Fish and Wildlife was interested in monthly landings by species by island, and they wanted to have this on a regular basis, we would work with the developers to put together a report-out, basically, that is sort of automated to fulfill this 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
data request. They would go into the software, and select perhaps from a dropdown menu, or some sort of radio button or something, that I want this report, and it will give me these monthly landings by species and by island. You click the button, and you have it just download automatically for them, rather than going in and extracting the raw data and then spending some time collating the data by month and by species and by island. It just makes life a little easier for the staff if there’s a dataset that they want time after time after time, on some regular basis, and we’re developing those. Another example is perhaps they’re interested in the number of vessels and trips by month and island, and that’s something else that we could have the developers produce, and so it just becomes a button, or a flip of the switch, basically, to download those data, and so it makes life a little bit easier and saves staff time from these sort of repetitive tasks, if these are datasets that they’re interested on a regular basis. In Puerto Rico, the collaborators are a little bit different. We’ve got DNR, and ShellCatch, of course, you know is the contractors who developed the electronic logbook system. ACCSP, which is an acronym that you may not be familiar with, but ACCSP is the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program, and their role in this is to be the data warehouse for this electronic book data, and then the Science Center. There is a lot going on here, but, on the left, where you see stage details, these are sort of the steps that we have to go through to enable the data that ShellCatch has, those electronic logbook data that are uploaded to the ShellCatch server, and, in order to move it from ShellCatch to ACCSP, which is where the Science Center can access the data, we’ve got a bunch of steps we have to go through. There are a lot of terms up there that you may not be familiar with, and I don’t want to dive too much into the details of all of that, but you see this word “schema”, and a schema is really just the organization of the data within the database, and you can kind of think of it as a blueprint, and so what we have to make sure - It seems straightforward, and, okay, why can’t we just shift the data from ShellCatch to ACCSP and no problem, and how hard can this be, until you get into the details, and so you have to make sure that the ACCSP database is set up in a way that it can accept the ShellCatch data. For example, dates are always a problem. Is today’s date listed in the data as August 11, 2021, or is it 08/11/2021, or is it 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
11/08/2021, and so you have to just make sure that things line up, that the database on the one end is ready to accept the data that’s coming from ShellCatch. Then this API is application programming interface, and so this is just software that allows two applications to talk to each other, and so, for example, if you use the weather app on your phone, there’s an API involved in that process. You don’t see it, and it’s all going on in the background, but it’s critical for you to be able to run those applications. The main think that I want to point out here is we’ve got seven steps mapped out here, and four of them are done, and one is in progress, and this has all happened in June and July. I am not directly involved in this project, and so I haven’t gotten the latest update, but I suspect that this “in progress” has proceeded along pretty well, and may have actually moved to being done, and some of these last two steps, the pending, may either be in progress or is done, because I think, fairly soon, we should be able to get the data from ACCSP, and that’s the goal. Upon completion, the Science Center will have secure access to the Puerto Rico landings data for an analysis in stock assessments and responding to council requests and that sort of thing, and so it has come along really well. It was a really nice collaboration between DNER, ShellCatch, ACCSP, and the Science Center. The next, and last, thing that I want to talk about is the Puerto Rico correction factors. Again, it’s a collaboration between DNER and the Science Center. Artech, again, is the software developers that are contracted to the Science Center, and just a quick reminder, and I suspect you all are well aware of this, but, for those who aren’t, correction factors are used in Puerto Rico to estimate the total landings from the reported landings, and there is -- If there is underreporting, this is a way to expand the landings to have a better estimate of the total landings. This is all in the commercial sector, but, to get to those correction factors is a really burdensome task for DNER staff, and I don’t know that that’s always fully realized. We’re always in a hurry to get the data, but we don’t often recognize how much work goes into getting those correction factors, and it is necessary for ACL monitoring, and it’s necessary for stock assessments. Landings data, and accurate landings data, are just critical for those activities, and so there are a few steps to get those final correction factors. The first one is DNER staff go out and do some port sampling, and 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
this is port sampling specific to the correction factors. It’s not the port sampling that you see where they’re getting lengths of fish and that sort of thing. This is a different port sampling, and it goes on for short periods during the year, specifically to get at the correction factor issue. Once they get the data, they have to enter it into a database. Right now, that’s in an Excel file. They then enter the CCL reports, and so the logbook forms that the fishers submit, and those are also entered into that same Excel file. There is a process to match the survey data with the CCL reports, and that is how they get at underreporting and how much underreporting there might be, and then they calculate the correction factors. It’s a long process, and it takes -- It’s a big burden, and what we think we could do is either improve the efficiency or completely automate these final four steps. That port sampling is still going to require people going out in the field and looking at catches, but the entering the data -- We think we can improve that. We’re starting with calculating the correction factors, and we’re doing this by hand. We want to make sure that the numbers that the Science Center gets matches the numbers that Puerto Rico staff get. Once we do that, we’re going to work with Artech, with our developers, to modify an existing data entry system that will greatly improve, we think, the data entry part for the survey data, make life a little bit easier for the DNER staff. Because we already have CCL data in another database, we don’t need to -- We want to make sure that we’re not double-entering that. That’s time that we don’t need to spend, and so we think that we might be able to eliminate that step. When we then match the CCL reports, that will be automated, and so we’ll have a database with the survey data, a database with the CCL report, that we can merge. Now that we have the electronic logbook data, we’re basically merging three datasets, because we still have people reporting on the paper forms, and so those are being entered, and those data go to a server in Miami. The survey data will go to the same server in Miami, but in a different database, and then the electronic logbook is all off to ACCSP, and so that will all get merged. We’ll do that in a way that doesn’t require a lot of -- It will all be on the computer, and so we’ll automate it, and then we will -- Once we get all that done, we’ll automate the calculating the correction factors, and so we think that this automation and 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
improved efficiency and handling the data will reduce the amount of time that it takes to get to these correction factors and that, once we have the correction factors, we can then get to a better estimate of the landings, and that’s the goal. We want to reduce the burden on the DNER staff, and we want to reduce the time to calculate the correction factors, and we want to reduce that from months that it now takes, because it is burdensome, down to weeks, and we have weeks in here because the port sampling is still going to take time. The data entry will still take time, and all of these other steps will be automated, and so we won’t be adding to those few weeks of time that it takes to do the survey and to enter the data, and so we think it’s going to be a big plus for getting the correction factors a lot more quickly and to allow DNER staff to work on other projects, rather than spending a lot of time on these correction factors every year. Just to recap, we’ve done some upgrades to the Virgin Islands data entry and data reports applications. We’re moving pretty quickly on getting the electronic logbook data to ACCSP, and that will allow the Science Center direct access, in a safe and secure way, and then we’re automating the process for calculating the commercial landings correction factors. That’s all I’ve got for today. If there are any questions, I’m happy to take those. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Kevin. I have a question, just to start. On the last part, the correction factors, this will address the difference between let’s say trap fishermen, in general, the way they report, and the correction factor related to that versus deepwater snapper fishermen or something like that, just as an example? KEVIN MCCARTHY: Right, and so we’re not tackling that just yet. What we want to do -- This is simply the existing process that we’re going to automate, but I agree with you that, as we move forward, we need to start looking at the different sectors, because you’re right. The way different sectors of the fishery report could be very different, and so having a single correction factor, say for the east coast of Puerto Rico, might not be the best way to expand the landings, to get a more accurate understanding of the total landings. It could very well be that we need to do it by gear, or there could be -- We might need to do it by species, and there are a couple of different ways, but that will be a big project, and our first step is to automate what already exists. 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 will free up staff time, quite honestly, that can be used on other projects, and one of those projects could very well be let’s design a better survey, so that we have more accurate correction factors and we get the best estimate of the total landings that we could get, but, for now, we just want to automate it, because we’re going to want to have it automated anyway. No matter what the survey looks like in the future, we want this end of it, this whole correction factor calculation, to be automated, because it’s just -- We don’t want to spend -- Well, they’re not my staff, certainly, but I suspect that DNER staff don’t want to spend time doing something that could be automated, and so that’s what we’re getting at here, and so I hope that answers the question, Marcos. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, it answered the question, and I just want to put out there, and it’s something that probably we’re going to hear from you guys in the future, but I think it’s very important. Council members, any more questions? MIGUEL ROLON: questions.
Marcos, you have Richard Appeldoorn waiting for two
MARCOS HANKE:
Okay.
Richard.
RICHARD APPELDOORN: Thank you. Kevin, that’s really great news about the work you guys are doing, and so this is maybe an extension on that. We have, for example, in Puerto Rico, the work that Todd Gedamke’s group has been doing on really trying to get down to a statistical basis of port sampling done, and that seems, to me, that it would feed in much -- A lot of information that would be critical toward looking at these questions of what’s the best way to do conversion factors. The first question is are you looking ahead toward that work in guiding your approach to not so much automating, but the design of the port sampling, or can that approach that’s being used now just be substituted, if it was to be put in place on a permanent basis? That’s question one. KEVIN MCCARTHY: Great question. I mean, we specifically contract -The Science Center specifically contracted with MER Consultants, Todd’s company, to start to develop the -- To get the data and start developing those survey designs. That would be -I mean, it could -- The way I see it is it might eventually replace the current system. If we get a good survey design, we would, of course, have to consult with DNER, and how do they want to move 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
forward. I think, for a time, we would want to run both. Even if the decision was eventually to replace the current system with the correction factors, I think we would want to overlap for several years, say three years or five years or something like that, where we run both, so that we have a better understanding of how they differ. It’s going to take a few years. Even if we came up with a design tomorrow for a full port sampling, it would take a few years to really get that optimized. There is always going to be things that we can improve, but, in the meantime, we would want to run both. I think that would be a big change, and so that would probably be a negotiation above my paygrade between the Science Center and DNER, but we’re certainly looking towards that as a possible way to go in the future, that port sampling. That would not eliminate the reporting, the CCL reports. There is still -- Those are still useful for a lot of different kinds of analyses, but, for just getting at the landings, it’s possible that we head in that direction, but, again, that’s a negotiation between the DNER and the Science Center. RICHARD APPELDOORN: All right. Thanks, Kevin. The second question is a little bit further afield. We have the SEAMAP program that operates in Puerto Rico, and in the Gulf and South Atlantic, for that matter, and I know you’re dealing, right now, with the issues of the landings data, as the first priority, but is there going to be, looking down the road, an effort to make these kind of datasets compatible, so the Center has, eventually, immediate access to all these sorts of data? KEVIN MCCARTHY: I would love that. I would love to have access, ready access, to all the work that’s gone on over the years with SEAMAP-C. I think we’re going to hear a presentation, later today, about SEAMAP-C, and so I’m just starting to learn about that. I mean, I was aware of it, but I don’t know a lot of the details, and so I’m going to start sitting in on some of those SEAMAP-C meetings, just as an observer, and try and take in what all is being done, but, yes, I think SEAMAP-C is really important as a fishery-independent source of data, and that is another piece in the assessment puzzle. The landings are one, those kind of fishery-independent surveys, especially if they’re getting at things like abundance and size composition, and those are also very critical, and so having easy access to those data, and having a place for those data to live 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
that everybody who needs access, or would like access, to those data is going to an important project. I am not quite sure where that stands, and maybe I will learn more today, in the presentation, but I think there’s a huge role for SEAMAP-C to play, but we do have to solve the data warehousing question. RICHARD APPELDOORN: MARCOS HANKE:
Any other questions?
ANDY STRELCHECK: MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you very much, Kevin.
Marcos, I have a question.
Go ahead.
ANDY STRELCHECK: Kevin, great presentation, and I’m really excited to hear about all the improvements that are being made. You may have mentioned this, but, for my clarity -- My understanding is we are waiting, I guess, on annual landings for 2020 right now for Puerto Rico, and a large part of that is either because of reports still coming in or the correction factors. In your presentation, you mentioned speeding up the correction factors from months to weeks. In your view, do we get to a point where we could have landings data from the prior year ready and available sometime by the middle of the following year, going forward? KEVIN MCCARTHY: That is certainly a goal, absolutely. These correction factors, as soon as the sampling surveys are complete, and I think they’re done a couple of times during the year. As soon as those are done, those data can be entered, and this whole process can begin, and, because it will be much more automated, it should go quickly, and so it’s really these first two steps. The port sampling survey, of course, you have to have people out in the field, and that’s going to take some time, and then the data entry is also going to take some time, but those two are really the hands-on part. Now, data are entered -- Where I’ve got this crossed out, data are entered into another database with the CCL anyway, and that’s happening throughout the year, and so there is a -- The delays will be -- Well, not really delays, but the time that it takes to get this done is really dependent upon these first three steps. This third step here that is crossed out is also dependent upon any delays in reporting, and so, if you’ve got -- If you’re running 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
your survey in April, but you still have reports coming in two months later, which is common with logbooks, and, I mean, it’s common everywhere. It happens in the Gulf, and it happens in the South Atlantic, and it happens in the Caribbean. If you’ve got those delayed reportings, that -- You want to make sure that you’ve got -- Everybody is going to report has reported, because that directly affects the correction factor, and you don’t want to have a constantly shifting correction factor, and so you have to make some decision on when do we decide that everybody is going to report has reported, and that’s when you can calculate your correction factor. The trick is, if say the survey runs in April, and again in August or October, or something like that, you would -- I would imagine that, by the beginning of the year, January or February, every logbook report that’s going to come in has come in, and, as long as those are entered quickly, and they are in the U.S. Caribbean, and I think the data come in and are entered more quickly in the Caribbean than they are say in the Gulf, oftentimes. Once that happens, yes, we can run this, run the programs that will calculate the correction factors, and I think mid-year of the following year is an entirely reasonable thing to shoot for. Maybe a little bit earlier, but certainly by June, I would think that we could have this. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. follow-up questions? ANDY STRELCHECK:
No, I don’t.
Andy, do you have any other
Thanks, Kevin.
MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you.
MIGUEL ROLON:
Graciela has her hand up, Marcos.
MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Miguel.
Graciela.
GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Kevin, thank you for the presentation. I have two questions. One is regarding the accessibility of the archived data for everyday use, and two is if, in both the archived and the new setup for data reporting, if it will have both the reported and the corrected landings, because sometimes we like to look at the reported landings before we do any thinking about those correction factors. When would we have -- Not we, or, well, we the general public, when will we have access to the archived data that’s already available at the Science Center from the commercial landings? 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
KEVIN MCCARTHY: I remember this conversation we had, what, a week or so ago, and so there had been public access to the nonconfidential data, and that is no longer the case, and is that correct? GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:
Yes.
KEVIN MCCARTHY: Okay, and so I have to investigate why that feature disappeared. I am just making a note here. MARCOS HANKE:
Graciela, do you have any other questions?
GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: My question would be to have both. If we can get access to that feature of the archived datasets, to have both the reported and the corrected landings. KEVIN MCCARTHY: Right, and so we can -- What we can do is -- I will have to talk to the developers and to my old group in the statistics division, because they are really the folks that deal with this, and they will be the ones to address this issue, but I would think that we would make a variety of reports that are nonconfidential that could be more open to general access. For example, if you were interested in the number of trips, or the number of vessels, and not the vessels themselves, but just a count of them, as long as it’s non-confidential, the data can be accessed, but definitely the landings, as reported, and as expanded, are going to be of interest to people. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Exactly, so that we can have access to, for example, the amount of fish landed for a number of species over the many months of whatever year, so that this goes along with all the life history work that’s being conducted, and so everything is kind of moving on a chain, and that information would also give us an idea of the changes in the landings over time, so that we can concentrate on those species that will have enough landing information available for us to do something about it. Thank you very much, and I will keep this conversation updated. KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes, and I think I saw that Virginia is on this meeting, and I know that I owe her some non-confidential data as well, and so I haven’t forgotten about you, Virginia. MARCOS HANKE: KEVIN MCCARTHY:
Thank you, Kevin. If that’s it, thank you very much. 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
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Kevin. We have the next presentation, and the next presentation will be the presentation on -- It will be a status upon on the island-based fishery management plans. CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:
Marcos, this is a question for Kevin.
Okay.
Thank you, Carlos.
Go ahead.
CARLOS FARCHETTE: Kevin, I’m wondering, and is this a correction factor thing for everything, because I remember -- It’s been about ten years, and I thought that improving CCRs and all that was supposed to take care of that, and then the buffer for uncertainty and all that, and I’m not really sure why they’re still working on correction factors, to have correction factors. KEVIN MCCARTHY: Right, and so good question, Carlos. The correction factors are necessary until we get near-universal reporting, and so, if 97 percent of the fishing trips were reported on CCL, then the correction factors would likely not be necessary, and I just made up that number, and that may not be sufficient, but certainly, if you had near-universal reporting, but, if you’ve got 75 percent reporting, then you want to have those correction factors still, and I think that is the situation we’re in, and it varies across the island. We’ve got a correction factor for each of the four coasts, and they are not always the same number. In fact, they are almost never the same number, and so different regions of the island have greater or lesser reporting, based upon the survey, and so, if the DNER staff were to go out on one of their surveys, say this year, and they got a near-perfect match between the number of trips that they interviewed at a particular spot on a particular day, and then the logbook reports coming in match those for that spot on that day, then you don’t really need a correction factor, because it’s one. Everybody reported. Until you see that, and until you can demonstrate that with the surveys, we’re going to keep having a need for those correction factors, and so it’s really a reporting question and how complete the reporting is. CARLOS FARCHETTE:
Thanks.
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Kevin. Kevin, I have a -- It’s more an observation than a question, based on the life history, and I don’t want to forget that. I know that there is a good connection with personnel of the Fishery Lab, especially Noemi Pena, that have been creating capacity building and connections with the fishing 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
community to collect data over the years. My understanding is that they have experts that support her and data and information in there that needs support to be processed, and I please invite you to contact her and to coordinate those efforts, because I would hate to see starting any other project that is not needed and knowing that there is already some samples that could help to speed up the process on getting life history and other important data that they might already have, but not processed and put in the right form. That’s just an observation. KEVIN MCCARTHY: Marcos, that’s a great observation, and, in fact, we have been working with Noemi and her lab now for about -- Well, we started right before COVID, and then we couldn’t go and meet with her, and she couldn’t come up and meet with us, but we’ve been working with her lab. There’s a statistician out of the Science Center who has been working with her and looking at sample sizes and where the collection efforts should be to maximize the sampling effort. We have started sort of a working group, for lack of a better term, that several of the Science Center folks are involved with, and Noemi is involved with, and Virginia is involved with, and so everybody is starting to talk together now, and so we’re doing exactly what you’re suggesting, and I think it’s a great idea, and I think it’s going to be really helpful. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you.
MIGUEL ROLON:
Marcos, are you monitoring the hands of the people?
MARCOS HANKE: No, and I’m just going to the chat. anybody else that I’m missing?
Is there
MIGUEL ROLON: Not right now, but, anyway, the correction factor is the key for the statistics that we have, and, when we started the correction factor in Puerto Rico, the whole thing was because the University of Miami, who was the father of our statistical program, found out that the port agents were collecting about 20 percent of what a person that was assigned for fifteen days at the docks in Puerto Rico was collecting from the fishers. However, the tables that were sent with the information to the Southeast Fisheries Science Center did not have that correction factor. There are two things. Now, after Kevin’s presentation, an excellent one, by the way, we are working statistically at the correction factor, and we need to do that also across the U.S. Caribbean and not only for Puerto Rico, and so probably we need to 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
talk to -- Well, continue the talk with the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, the U.S. Virgin Islands authorities, and the people collecting the information of Puerto Rico. We need to close that gap between what the fishers report and the realities out there, and it’s more important now, especially with the ACLs, and you will see, during the discussion today, what is happening to the spiny lobster and other species that are under management, and so hopefully this correction factor issue will not be an issue in the future, and it will be supported with the best data available and the best scientific methodology. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. I don’t see anybody else, and I think it’s now time to pass to the next agenda on the agenda, the island-based fishery management plans. Thank you. ISLAND-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS (IBFMPs) STATUS UPDATE MARIA LOPEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Maria Lopez with the Southeast Regional Office, Caribbean Branch, and I just wanted to give you a quick update of where we are with respect to the proposed rule for the island-based fishery management plans that were approved by the Secretary of Commerce back in September. Right now, the proposed rule for the plans is under legal review. Our expectation is that we would be able to have that ready soon for publication in the -- We are aiming for the end of the month, or next month, but hopefully soon you will have that published, and we’ll be able to have that comment period available for you to comment, and so that’s the information that we have right now with respect to the island-based FMPs. Any questions? MARCOS HANKE: Are there questions? no questions for you.
Thank you, Maria.
There are
GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Mr. Chair, if I may, Maria, we had many questions the other day regarding the publication of the regulations for the island-based FMPs, and so the public has a period of time where they can comment. Usually, there is a significant comment that you receive, and what’s the process to deal with that? Does it have to come back to the council, or the Regional Office deals with the comments? MARIA LOPEZ: Graciela, thank you for the question. All of the comments that we receive on the proposed rule are going to be addressed by the agency, and you are going to be looking at the answers to those comments in the final rule. 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
In terms of what can be done, if there can be changes to anything based on that, I am going to defer that question to Jocelyn, if she’s available, and, Jocelyn, are you available? MIGUEL ROLON:
She is raising her hand.
MARIA LOPEZ:
Thank you.
Okay.
Go ahead.
JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you. We have sort of split the decision here, and so, as you know, the Secretary of Commerce approved the island-based FMPs, and that’s the authority that’s given to the Secretary of Commerce under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. You send over the FMPs, or any amendments, for approval, and the Secretary is limited in what they can do. They can approve or disapprove or partially approve, and so that decision has been made, and so the FMPs have been approved, but we are now at the stage of just trying to put in the regulations that would implement them. That means that we’re just trying to develop regulations that effectuate what the plan is. If there is any comments about any mechanisms undertaken in the FMPs, those have really already been approved, and we’re just trying to have regulations that would go to it, and so there’s not a chance here that any adverse comments would affect the Secretary’s decision to approve or not, because that has already occurred. In other instances, if there were negative comments, there couldn’t necessarily be changes that NMFS would be able to implement, but it would just affect whether NMFS approved or disapproved the plan, and then they could say, well, we’re disapproving because this negative comment raised questions about the council’s authority to implement something, and, therefore, we’re disapproving, if that were the case, and then they could send it back to the council to make changes, but, here, we already have that approval decision for the FMPs, and so the negative comments have a little bit of a different impact here. We’re just trying to look for comments on whether or not the regulations are clear, things of that nature, but, even in general, there’s very limited NMFS authority to do something different, because the Magnuson Act really just asks the agency to approve or disapprove what’s been done and then, were any changes needed to be made, it would go back to the council, but, again, we’re sort of in a position where we’ve got the thumbs-up for the overall process, and we’re trying to just develop regulations that implement it, and so there shouldn’t be anything that really affects the ability to move forward with the FMPs, but it’s just 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 way in which the regulations describe what’s put in place in the FMPs. I would expect comments that would be helpful to be about is it clear what we’re saying, is there a better way to phrase things, and, if there’s any questions about the management measures, NMFS would respond to those comments, and we could bring things back to the council to see if any changes would need to be made, but that would be a separate council process. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: question? MARCOS HANKE:
Mr.
Chair,
if
I
may,
a
follow-up
Go ahead, Graciela.
GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Jocelyn, the issue was raised regarding the sargassum, floating sargassum and the one that ends up on the beaches, and so we’ve been talking about these things, and, because it’s EFH for six of the species that are new to management, that’s where some of the comments might come in, because there was a workshop on sargassum the other day, and people were wondering what impact that would have, in terms of removing sargassum from the beach or removing floating sargassum before it gets to the beach, et cetera, and so that’s where the question is coming from and where most likely we would have some input into the regulations that will be forthcoming. Thank you. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: I can speak to that for a second, and so, in the island-based FMPs, I believe sargassum might be listed, as you said, as essential fish habitat for some of the species, and that identification of EFH has been in the FMP, and so that’s been approved, and so that is the EFH. EFH isn’t specified in the regulations, and so there wouldn’t be anything in this document that would specifically put into place regulations specifying sargassum as EFH, but, if the council is interested in understanding how to manage around this idea of sargassum as EFH, then it would be appropriate to have a discussion and figure out if there’s any other management tools that you would want to use with respect to sargassum, to protect the EFH or if there’s any other concerns with it, but, at this time, the regulations to implement the FMPs are sort of just effectuating those measures that need to be codified, that affect the public, and so it would be reorganizing the regulations to have the bag limits and the size limits and the catch limits and all of the different suite of management measures, and so that’s what this rule is going to be doing. 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
Earlier, last year, NOAA Fisheries published the notice of availability of the FMPs and received comments on whether or not they should approve those FMPs, and comments raised there will also be addressed in this rulemaking, but, in terms of next steps on sargassum, that would be best pursued through another council action. MARCOS HANKE:
Graciela, any more questions?
GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: very clear. MARCOS HANKE:
No, and thank you very much.
Thank you, Jocelyn.
That was
I think I have Carlos.
CARLOS FARCHETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a question for Maria, but, before that, Jocelyn, did you just say that sargassum is listed as an EFH? JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Yes, I believe it’s listed as EFH for some species, but I would have to check with Graciela and Maria and Sarah, just to confirm the scope of that. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. Thanks. That’s quite interesting. Maria, I’ve got a note here, and what about amendments to the IBFMPs? Is that after implementation that we would be looking at that, or is it afer approval, because then they’re already approved? MARIA LOPEZ: First, let me answer your question about the EFH. Sargassum has been identified as EFH for certain life stages for some of the pelagic species that are included as new for management under the island-based FMP, for example the wahoo, the dolphin, and for some life stages in tripletail, which is only managed in Puerto Rico. Regarding your questions, for the amendments, we are currently working on two amendments, and these amendments are going to be to the island-based FMPs, and those amendments -- We are working on those, and we’re doing everything, and, as you know, today, we’re going to be discussing the spiny lobster amendment for the management reference points, with the expectation that the council can vote to take final action for submission to the Secretary of Commerce. For the proposed rules for those amendments, they will have to happen after the island-based FMP regulations are in place, and so we’re expecting to have that early in 2022. Does that answer your question? But we can continue working in those amendments, as we 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
have been doing all this time. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. Yes, that answers my question, and I guess, in the future, any amendments that may come up, we’ll bring it up to the council, right? MARIA LOPEZ: Yes, and so any changes that you -- Any additions that the council would like to evaluate or make to the islandbased FMPs, they could be done -- Any suggested changes can be done in an amendment to those FMPs, if the council wants. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. Great. Thanks, because we’re kind of working hard with our local fisheries committee, and some ideas may come up, and so I just wanted to know what step I could take after that, but, also, let me ask you about the sargassum, and so it’s considered EFH while it’s drifting, but, once it reaches land, it’s no longer viable EFH, and is that being considered? MARIA LOPEZ: I am not exactly sure right now, because I don’t have it in front of me, what are the life stages that this applies to, but we’re talking about -- Like, for example, like I do know that, for wahoo, the sargassum is listed as an EFH for its larvae, and so this will be oceanic sargassum, and so it will be for some of the life stages. Maybe, with respect to the sargassum, maybe this is something that, now that you guys brought it up, if you have any other particular questions, we can definitely look it up and get to you some more concrete answers. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Sure. Thanks, because there are a lot of species that are in the larval stage under there, and not just wahoo, but that’s fine. That’s good, and we’ll keep in touch. MARIA LOPEZ:
Absolutely.
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. For sure we will have to follow-up on that, and it is my interest of doing so too, and, Carlos, thank you for the participation. We have Tony Blanchard and then Graciela. TONY BLANCHARD: Good morning. I have a question as to the sargassum and when it becomes non-fish habitat, because you remember, when it comes into the shallow waters, it becomes very destructive on the bottom and the ecosystem that is on the shoreline, and so where is the -- Let’s say where is the line from when it moves from essential fish habitat to non-essential fish habitat? That’s a question. 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
MARIA LOPEZ: Thank you, Tony. Let me look in the document, to see exactly what -- I am going to look at the island-based FMPs. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Mr. Chair, if I may. MARCOS HANKE:
Let me just answer a couple of question,
Go ahead, Graciela.
GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: The sargassum as EFH is different for the species that you have, because St. Croix has only dolphinfish and wahoo under new federal management, and St. Thomas is different, and Puerto Rico has more species that define EFH, and there are six species being part of the sargassum. As Maria said, it depends on the life history stage, and the EFH is defined for sargassum in general, and so one of the issues that we might have to look at, and this is one of the problems that we are trying to gather more information from the local gobs of sargassum, because it is different, what we would have here, because it also brings invasive species, et cetera, to the region. This is an issue that is ongoing right now, because of the amount of sargassum that is being beached. One of the things that we are trying to do is find out exactly what species are impacted by the amount of sargassum and the changes in the water quality that it creates when it comes into shallow water and onto the beach and the species that are being affected by the beaching of the sargassum. Tony, in terms of EFH, sargassum being essential fish habitat, in most case it’s while it’s floating. Once it comes to the beach, most of the organisms that are associated with those sargassum mats are in fact dead, and so, you know, it’s an evolving issue right now, and one that we are looking into, because of the interest specifically of the DNER and the problem with the amount of sargassum on the beaches, and it’s not only Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, but it’s all around the wider Caribbean. Sea Grant has been instrumental in looking into this matter, and that is happening as we speak, and so maybe we should put it in the agenda for the next council meeting, to bring the information that we have up-to-date on sargassum. MARCOS HANKE: Andy.
Go ahead, Jocelyn, and then we have Miguel and then
JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO:
Just to Graciela’s point, I just wanted to 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
let you all know that, just taking a step back as to what essential fish habitat is, and I think Graciela did a good job describing it, but just to read you the definition from the Magnuson Act, it’s the waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity, and so they’re really looking at it’s the habitat for the fish for these specific purposes, and so it’s really when the sargassum is in the water and providing that habitat for the species that really is what is being protected as the EFH, and I think Maria might have more specific information about how sargassum was listed for various life stages, but we’re interested in the sargassum and so when it’s functioning as that habitat, and so in the water and providing for those necessary functions. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Just a note, and, based on experience and some reading, triggerfish, blue runner, almaco, and other jack species that are present here, and some reef fishes, we see them related to the sargassum, which that’s exactly what Jocelyn just mentioned, and, for sure, we need to discuss this a little better and to have a better understanding of what we can do on the council. The next one in the queue is Miguel. MIGUEL ROLON: Sargassum is not as easy as you may think. There is a whole management plan by the South Atlantic that was done in 2002 for the pelagic sargassum, the oceanic sargassum. The problem is when can you declare sargassum garbage, versus continuing calling it EFH, as they approach the shoreline, and that’s the issue that the fishers and the public is wondering about, because, when you have EFH, you have laws and regulations to protect that EFH, and even the sargassum at the shoreline is a habitat for certain larvae and species of fish, and it complies with the laws and regulations, but I will stop here, and I would like to yield to what Andy has to say. ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Miguel. A lot of great points have been made. One, to first speak to Graciela’s comment, I think it would be helpful to have a conversation at our December meeting, and we can bring our habitat program to have that conversation specific about EFH requirements, and I think Protected Resources would also want to be involved, as sargassum, obviously, provides important habitat for many sea turtle species. There was comments made earlier with regard to kind of where is the delineation between essential fish habitat and not becoming essential fish habitat, and I am trying to get confirmation of this, but, for EFH of the species, and Marcos mentioned, and potentially others, that would be state and federal waters out to the boundary of the EEZ. 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
Once it comes ashore and is above the mean high-water line, I believe it’s no longer at least considered EFH, from our standpoint, and, obviously, the species wouldn’t be able to survive on land. I don’t know if there’s other state laws or regulations that apply, in terms of removal of that sargassum, but I think the easiest delineation is kind of the sargassum in the water versus onshore, with regard to defining it as EFH. MARCOS HANKE: I have still a hand up from Jocelyn. to add something, Jocelyn? JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO:
I apologize.
Did you want
I will take my hand down.
MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Hearing none, I just want to make another note and observation from the field, and that is that there is a great amount of different species of parrotfish and different species of snapper that live in the sargassum, are associated with the sargassum close to the shoreline, in some areas that the water is not affected by the composition of the sargassum, and I assure you that it’s a very important issue for us to discuss and to get ahold of. Thank you very much for the discussion. Let’s go to -- If there is no other questions, we have the Generic Amendment for the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix, Modification of the Buoy Gear. Maria. GENERIC AMENDMENT TO THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR PUERTO RICO, ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN, AND ST. CROIX: MODIFICATION TO THE BUOY GEAR DEFINITION: POTENTIAL FINAL ACTION TO SUBMIT TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE MARIA LOPEZ: Yes, that’s me. In this presentation today, I am going to give you an update of where we are with the development of the draft generic amendment to each of the fishery management plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix to address the modification of the buoy gear definition that we have discussed during past meetings. Just a quick recap, and the issue is that small-scale commercial fishermen harvesting deepwater snappers and groupers in Puerto Rico and in the U.S. Virgin Islands would like to use more than ten hooks in the buoy gear. Buoy gear, as defined in 50 CFR 622.2, which are the federal regulations, cannot contain more than ten hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. There are no specification of the number of hooks that can be used in state -- In Puerto Rico waters, and so, to be able to address 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
this issue -- As you all know, and as we have talked in the past, the use of any gear that is not listed as authorized for the fishery is prohibited, and a configuration of this buoy gear that has more than ten hooks between the buoy gear and the terminal end, which is what we have discussed that some fishers prefer to use, does not meet the legal definition and is not considered an authorized buoy gear. Basically, what this means is that this gear cannot be used by those that are fishing commercially for reef fish that is managed under the island-based FMPs, unless that gear type is added as an allowable gear type under the plans or that definition of the buoy gear is amended to include that gear type. In this amendment, the council is proposing to modify the definition of buoy gear that is included in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 to address the use of additional hooks that are preferred by some commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John that are harvesting deepwater snappers and groupers. This is the draft purpose and need that is included in the document, in the draft document, that is included in the briefing book. The version that is included in the briefing book is Version 2. Last time, during the April meeting, we presented to you Version 1, and I’m just making that clarification. We made some changes to the document, and we added the information that was provided by the DAP chairs during the past council meeting, and that provides a better description of the fisheries. Anyway, this is the draft purpose and need. I would just mention that the purpose is to modify the definition of that gear included in federal regulations to allow for a larger number of hooks when fishing commercially for deepwater snappers and groupers in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix FMPs. The need, which is the problem, is to ensure that commercial fishermen fishing for deepwater snappers and groupers in federal waters of Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix can use the buoy gear with more ten hooks, that is preferred by some fishermen, while eliminating some user conflicts. These are the alternatives that are included, proposed alternatives that are included, in the document, and I will provide more detail with each one of these alternatives in further slides, but, in the document that you previously saw, there were two alternatives. 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
The first alternative is the no action, and that is an alternative that is always included in these documents, and this is the baseline, which is basically that the definition of buoy gear that is specified in 50 CFR 622.2 would be retained, that there would be no changes to what we currently have in there. Then we have Alternative 2, which, at the last April meeting, you also chose as a preferred, and it’s modifying that definition as it applied to the commercial sector harvesting managed reef fish in the EEZ of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix, to allow up to twenty-five hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. Now, given that the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix fisheries are multispecies, we understand that fishermen may harvest other species while targeting deepwater reef fish with buoy gear, and usually have incidental catch, and this could include council-managed pelagic species as well as non-managed species. This Alternative 2 then can be a little problematic for commercial fishermen who, on that same trip, are harvesting deepwater reef fish, but they are also harvesting, with that gear, council-managed pelagics or non-managed species, because this means that they would not be able to retain any species other than those council-managed reef fish that were harvested with buoy gear if the buoy gear contains more than ten hooks per line. This Alternative 2 would make enforcement of this regulation somewhat difficult if there are interventions with buoy gear that have more than ten hooks if there are managed reef fish and other species, and, obviously, this is something that we haven’t -- We haven’t considered before, but, to avoid those unfortunate complications and those unintended consequences or restrictions to those fishermen that are harvesting multiple species on that trip, the IPT, which is the interdisciplinary planning team, is proposing a new alternative for council consideration, and that’s Alternative 3, and that will be new. What this Alternative 3 does is to modify that definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the U.S. Caribbean EEZ to allow the use of up to twenty-five hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end, and I will explain a little bit more about this in the next slides, what the U.S. Caribbean EEZ means. Just very briefly, Alternative 1, no action, one of the specific requirements under this definition is that buoy gear that is being used in federal waters cannot contain more than ten hooks, and so, 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 those components of each one of the island-based fishery management plan fisheries, where buoy gear is an authorized gear, for example, the commercial sector harvesting managing reef fish, which is the deepwater snapper and grouper fisheries. The fishers must limit the gear to ten hooks. This is the current situation, and this is what we have in our regulations. Then Alternative 2 modified the definition just for the commercial sector, and it will be increased, the number of hooks, up to twenty-five, and those fishing commercially in federal waters for managed reef fish can legally use the gear configuration employed by some, the preferred by some, in Puerto Rico waters. Mostly in Puerto Rico water, and, to a lesser extent, in the U.S. Virgin Islands. This alternative will just apply to those fishing commercially for managed reef fish species. As I mentioned earlier, this Alternative 2 can be a little problematic for those that are harvesting other species incidentally. We all know that, and as you all have told us, the deepwater snapper fishery is very specialized, and you guys are targeting mostly snapper, deepwater snapper, and occasionally some groupers. However, you also notified us that there is incidental catch of different species, although it’s in very small numbers. This alternative would allow for -- Because it would apply not just to the commercial sector harvesting reef fish, but it would allow to -- The U.S. Caribbean EEZ would increase -- Basically, the buoy gear would be authorized, under this alternative, to those fisheries where, in our 50 CFR 622.2 regulation it’s authorized for, and those are commercial harvest of reef fish and pelagic species in the island-based FMPs and the commercial and recreational harvest of non-FMP species and non-managed pelagic species in federal waters of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix. Let me explain a little bit more about this. This is not different to what we have currently in the regulations. The buoy gear, as is currently defined in the regulation, is an authorized gear for not only managed species, but also for non-FMP species, and why we are talking about non-FMP species, which are not managed by the council, is because the Magnuson-Stevens Act gives the councils and NMFS the authority to regulate fishing activity to support the conservation and management of the fisheries, and this could include regulations that pertain to fishing for non-managed species. For example, the regulations in the Caribbean do this in a number of places. For example, when we state that all fishing is 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
prohibited in a particular area that are important to managed species, for example in a spawning area, and we have seen this in, I believe, in Abrir la Sierra and Tourmaline, where, when there are closures, all fishing is prohibited, but that includes -- All fishing includes species that are managed by the council and species that are not. For example, in other places, when the regulation says that an explosive may not be used to fish in the Caribbean, in the Gulf, or in the South Atlantic EEZ, that is a prohibition that applies to all fishing and not just fishing for managed species, and so, with that, I am just trying to clarify why this particular regulation talks about non-FMPs. Specifying allowable gears for non-managed fisheries is another way to limit bycatch of managed species and generally protect habitat for managed species, and so, in this case, there will be managed and non-managed fisheries, and that means listed as FMP or as non-FMP fisheries, and buoy gear is an authorized gear in both of those fisheries, and so, if we’re going to change the definition of buoy gear, like we are proposing to do in this alternative, it would apply to all of those that are included in there. I do want to make a clarification, and this not just for this alternative, but this is also the current situation, is that the buoy gear definition that is included in 50 CFR 622.2 doesn’t apply to fishing or possession of HMS species. HMS species are bound by a different set of regulations that are specified in 635. The MSA, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, says that the Secretary has authority over any HMS fishery that is within the geographic area of more than one council, including the Caribbean, and the HMS species are defined as tunas, marlin, oceanic sharks, sailfish, and swordfish, and I am bringing this up because it’s very important for fishers that are -- For deepwater fishers to follow the HMS regulations and to have the permits that they need to have for them to be able to harvest species that are HMS, for example the sharks. Just to summarize what I just presented, there were three alternatives, and one of the alternatives has just been proposed by the IPT for council consideration, but, in summary, Alternative 2, which is the one that modifies the buoy gear definition just for reef fish harvest, commercial, and Alternative 3, which is the one that would apply to everywhere where the buoy gear is an authorized gear under our federal regulations, would both increase the maximum number of hooks that can be used with buoy gear to twenty-five per line. 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
This will depend, obviously, on the target and the location, and the location can be Puerto Rico or the USVI islands of St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix, and also which species are going to be targeted, if the targeted species are deepwater snapper or not, or other incidental species that are going to be retained, in contrast with Alternative 1, which is the current situation that maintains the limit at ten hooks. Alternative 2 only affects fishermen fishing commercially for managed reef fish with authorized buoy gear, while both Alternatives 1 and 3 affect all fishers using authorized buoy gear in the U.S. Caribbean waters. This is basically the summary that we include, the kind of analysis that we include in the draft document, and you are all invited to look at that draft document, and, if you have any comments, please let me know. I kept this presentation short, because we have had -- During the past council meeting in April, we described the fisheries, and we also got a lot of comments about how these fisheries are conducted in each one of the islands, et cetera, and so, in this case, we have a couple of next steps that we want to take, that we would like the council to consider. For example, consider this new Alternative 3, and if they want to pursue it, and for the council to decide if there are any changes to the preferred alternative. For any changes, the council can provide a motion for that change. Just to remember that, during the past council meeting, it was only two alternatives, and you selected Alternative 2 as the preferred. If you would like to make any changes, this will be the time. Then, after that is done, the interdisciplinary planning team will finalize the draft amendment, and the final amendment will be presented to the council at the December meeting for final action. The agenda said that there could be a potential final action taken at this meeting. However, the document is still -- The council still needs to consider this new alternative that was just proposed by the IPT, and the document needs to undergo a further review before we are ready to bring it to the council for final action. The public can also, and the council can also, have an opportunity for comment at the December meeting, when we are scheduled to take final action for this amendment, and this is all that I have. If you have any questions, please let me know. 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
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Maria. Great presentation. For sure, I would like to hear from Nelson Crespo and from all the people that fish with this gear that are present. I will ask for a fiveminute break, and also to read and process the important information that was just presented. Let’s take a five-minute break and come back. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, when we come back after the break, whatever you need in the presentation will be shown on the screen. MARCOS HANKE:
Okay.
Thank you, Miguel.
Thank you, Carlos.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was presented.) MARCOS HANKE: Hello, everyone. Good morning again. We are going to start with Vanessa Ramirez, who requested the time for a question, and, after Vanessa, we have Nelson in the queue. Vanessa. Vanessa, can you hear us? Let’s go to Nelson Crespo, and then we will come back to Vanessa. NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With the Alternative 3, I think we should stay with the Preferred Alternative 2, because to open all sectors to fish for deepwater snappers is not going to be easy, and you’re going to impact the fisheries more hard. MARCOS HANKE: said?
Maria, do you want to comment on what Nelson just
MARIA LOPEZ: I couldn’t understand what he said. Nelson, please?
Can you repeat
NELSON CRESPO: On Alternative 3, allowing the recreational sectors to fish for deepwater snapper with up to twenty-five hooks, and that’s correct? MARIA LOPEZ: No, and so let me clarify Alternative 3 and what this would apply to. Alternative 3, and, as I mentioned earlier, this is not different than what is currently in the regulations and everything that the current definition of buoy gear up to ten hooks applies to -- These are the fisheries that it applies to. When we did the island-based FMPs, we reorganized the regulations, because we are dividing them by island, and so I wanted to tell you exactly what this applies to. Hook-and-line is -- The buoy gear is included under the category of hook-and-line, right, and so it’s allowed for under the Puerto Rico management plan, and it’s allowed under the commercial fishery and, for the pelagic 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
commercial fishery, buoy gear is another one that is a gear that is allowed. Also, for non-FMP pelagic fisheries, which is something that the council does not manage, buoy gear is an allowed gear. For the Puerto Rico commercial fishery non-FMP, which are species that are not included in our FMPs that are harvested commercial, buoy gear is an allowed gear, and, for the Puerto Rico recreational non-FMP species, buoy gear is an allowable gear, and so those are the species that we do not manage, the council does not manage. However, buoy gear is an allowed gear for that. In this alternative, the rationale for this alternative is that you have expressed, the fishers have expressed, that, when they harvest deepwater snapper and grouper, sometimes they incidentally catch other species, and they would like to retain them. Under Alternative 2, the modification of the buoy gear for up to twenty-five hooks, if the fisher is going to use more than ten hooks, it has to be only for harvest of reef fish, and, when I say managed reef fish, I am talking about the deepwater snappers and groupers that you guys harvest with this particular gear. If you catch any other species incidentally, and you want to retain those species, and you are using that hook that has more than ten hooks, you are not going to be able to retain them. You can retain them if you are using less than ten hooks, because that’s what we have in the current regulations, and so this Alternative 3 would allow you to retain those incidental species, of course the ones that are not prohibited, with using this up to twenty-five hooks. Does that clarify it, Nelson? MARCOS HANKE:
Go ahead, Nelson.
NELSON CRESPO: Now I understand. 3 as the preferred.
So we should select Alternative
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Nelson, for the participation. one is Vanessa.
The next
VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Marcos. Vanessa Ramirez, for the record. I think that, already, with the explanation that Maria gave, I have clarified what I wanted to ask, and so thanks. I also vote for Alternative 3. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Vanessa.
CARLOS FARCHETTE:
We have Carlos and then Tony.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. 40
Let me get my notes here.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Maria, I want to talk, maybe specifically, about the recreational sector. I am a recreational fisherman, an ardent recreational fisherman, and I believe that I should be managed, and so are recreational fishers allowed to use the ten hooks with gear attached to the vessels, but not buoy gears? That is my first question. MARIA LOPEZ: It’s not buoy gear -- The buoy gear is not attached to the boat, and so, if that -- I mean, in federal waters, recreational fishers can use hand line, rod-and-reel, spears, et cetera, and so buoy gear is not an allowed gear. That depends on what you call it. If you have a rod-and-reel, if you’re fishing with a rod-and-reel, you’re legal. CARLOS FARCHETTE:
Right.
MARIA LOPEZ: So I don’t know what is the configuration of the recreational that you have. CARLOS FARCHETTE: They use gear attached to the vessel or something like a pulley kind of rig with a big spool on it that goes to the bottom, but it’s still attached to the boat, and it’s not a buoy gear, but I am kind of concerned about allowing a recreational fisher to harvest just as much fish as a commercial guy, and I don’t know if maybe we can consider attaching the bag limit to the recreational fisher. I am not really sure what other species that are not managed -- At that depth of water that they’re catching as incidental, and I’m not sure. MARIA LOPEZ: If I may, Mr. Chair, this action is not -- None of the alternatives are going to be increasing the number of hooks that a recreational fisher can use, and this is for the commercial harvest of managed reef fish of all the other species. When Alternative 3 talks about commercial and recreational harvest of non-FMP species, these are species that we the council are not managing, and these are species, for example -- They’re species that are basically not included in our fishery management plans. For example, when we had the Reef Fish FMP, each one of the FMPs have a lot of species, and the number of species that are managed under each one of the plans is very reduced, and so, if there are any species that are not included, and a recreational fisher harvests those species with buoy gear, they are allowed to do that. Now, let me clarify. Buoy gear, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, my understanding is that it’s not used by many persons. CARLOS FARCHETTE:
No. 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
MARIA LOPEZ: But this alternative -- You are correct that, if the council goes with this alternative, this alternative will allow those recreational fishers that are fishing for non-FMP species to fish with up to twenty-five hooks, instead of ten. Not for the commercial harvest of managed reef fish, but just for species that are not managed. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Which is kind of difficult to do. If you’re fishing at 1,200 feet, and you catch queen snapper, and are they supposed to release those? MARIA LOPEZ: Yes. You are not supposed to -- You cannot retain -- I mean, you have twenty-five hooks, deepwater snapper -- I am sorry. You know what? There is a recreational -- I forgot about this. There is a recreational bag limit for harvest of reef fish, and so they would have to abide by that. Let’s not forget that. CARLOS FARCHETTE:
Right, but queen snapper --
MIGUEL ROLON: Carlos, if I may, let Jocelyn clarify. Maybe she has more to clarify this question. She has her hand up. CARLOS FARCHETTE:
All right.
JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure. I think what Maria was saying is accurate, that we need to just know which -- Where buoy gear is an authorized gear, and then, under Alternative 3, where we change the definition of buoy gear when you’re in the EEZ, that means that buoy gear is -- What buoy gear is changes, and so it would go from ten to twenty-five hooks, and that would be the case for every place that buoy gear is authorized. Right now, buoy gear is not listed when fishing recreationally for managed reef fish, and so they wouldn’t be able to use any buoy gear, ten hooks under our current definition. If it were to change to twenty-five, they still wouldn’t be able to use it, because buoy gear is not authorized when fishing recreationally for managed reef fish under the island-based FMPs, but, as Maria had said, there is a category called non-FMP fisheries, and the recreational participants in those non-FMP fisheries can use buoy gear. Under Alternative 3, if we change the definition of buoy gear, just in general, then that would mean that that authorized buoy gear for the non-FMP recreational fishers -- It would allow them to use up to twenty-five hooks. Now, I don’t know what those species are that we don’t manage, but, as Maria mentioned, there were a number that we took out of management. 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
Really, the reason, as Maria had explained, for Alternative 3 is this bycatch issue, and so, if we change the definition of buoy gear only when fishing commercially for managed reef fish, and you have bycatch of a non-managed species, you go check the gear table, and you say, okay, what fishery is this, and, all right, this would be the non-FMP commercial fishery, and it says buoy gear, and this gear actually isn’t buoy gear, because buoy gear for that fishery is ten hooks, whereas buoy gear for the managed fishery is twentyfive, and so that means the non-managed species would be caught with an unauthorized gear, and, as Maria said, that would mean they would need to be thrown back, for being harvested with an unauthorized gear. One way to solve for that is to say, well, we can change what buoy gear is for all fisheries where buoy gear is allowed, and so, if you are fishing commercially, and there is bycatch of a non-managed species, can you fish that with buoy gear, and, if the answer is yes, then what does buoy gear mean? Oh, it’s same thing, irrespective of the fishery you’re operating in, and it’s those twenty-five hooks, and then you can retain that species. It’s trying to just make it so that there’s a consistent definition of what is buoy gear, but things that you should consider are how much is bycatch an issue, how much problem could we create if we’re allowing more hooks across different fisheries, and one thing that Maria did mention, which is important too, is that there is a bag limit for recreational fishers of the managed snappers, groupers, and parrotfish, and so that would sort of -- Even if you’re allowed to use more hooks, you wouldn’t be able to retain more species, but, again, for the managed species, buoy gear is not allowed when fishing recreationally for the managed reef fish. It is a little tricky, figuring out where we’re changing things, but the idea behind Alternative 3 is that it’s a consistent definition of buoy gear across all fisheries, which should allow more retention of bycatch where that fishery, the bycatch fishery, has buoy gear as an authorized gear. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Yes, and I want to correct myself, because I do remember that there is a five-snapper bag limit, and so I’m good. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos. I have a follow-up question on this, just for me to totally understand. If the words “commercial and recreational harvest of non-FMP”, what is on the screen now - If recreational is eliminated from that, is there any legal complication, any problems by doing that, because the council, in the past, expressed the interest for this gear to be a commercial fishing gear. Maybe I am going around, but I just want to make 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
sure, Jocelyn. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure, and so, as Maria mentioned, with the way that we manage, there are a number of rules that are in place to protect the managed fisheries that apply outside of the managed fishery, and so you can limit the gear used to fish for non-managed species, because that could benefit the managed species. Maria went through a couple of examples where we have closed seasons for all fishing, because it benefits essential fish habitat, or spawning of managed species, and so we can think about what gears it would be appropriate to allow in the non-managed fisheries, and potentially that could be to protect EFH, or potentially that could be as a way to ensure that we’re not going to have overfishing, and so there are opportunities to adjust the gears that are allowed. Right now, in the table that has the allowable gears, it does say, for the commercial and recreational non-FMP fisheries, buoy gear is authorized, and, for those non-managed fisheries, there is no bag limits, for example, and so persons could go fish with buoy gear. Right now, it’s ten hooks for non-managed species recreationally, and I am not sure if that’s a problem for the managed species, and I’m not sure if that’s a problem for the habitat, but that’s the state of the law, and then we need to figure out if we need to change that and whether we should allow even more hooks, potentially, which could have the potential for more bycatch, and I’m not sure, but it seems like it’s possible, if you’re increasing the number of hooks. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Jocelyn. Tony, you were next in line, but I would like to hear from Andy, and maybe we’re going to have the benefit of having his input before your participation. Andy. ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos. Following up on, I guess, Carlo’s comment and Jocelyn’s comments, I had similar concerns with regard to the potential for recreational harvest, and I recognize that, obviously, this is authorized under current regulations, and so we would just be kind of repeating the current regulations. I’m wondering if the council is interested and would want to have a discussion about prohibiting buoy gear for recreational harvest in the EEZ, regardless of if it’s a managed fishery or not. Certainly that, to me, seems like something that would be of interest. Even though there are constraints on the bag limit, buoy gear is, obviously, not typically used as a recreational fishing gear. 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
The other, I guess, question, and it may be directed best at Maria and the IPT, would be the issue was brought forward specific to kind of deepwater snapper and increasing the number of hooks. If we apply this to all of the fisheries, and not just reef fish, or at least reef fish and pelagics, is there any concerns or potential for increased effort directed at those species, because of the use of buoy gear and more hooks being used? MARIA LOPEZ: Andy, to answer your question, we don’t expect a change, because the fishery has been conducted in this way for some time. We don’t really have a good separation between what is harvested in state waters versus federal waters, and there is not a limit to the hooks that can be used in state waters, and so our landings are going to be reflecting the current use. We are -- Obviously, if there are some fishers that are currently using up to ten hooks, and they want to increase to twenty-five, there could be an increase in effort, but, based on the information that we have received at different council meetings, this is not expected. At least for deepwater reef fish, the fishers -- This is a very specialized fishery, and the number of hooks that are used depends on current weather conditions and the experience of the fishermen, and the gear is expensive, and so there is a lot of considerations that are done for the decision to increase the number of hooks. With respect to other fishers -- I’m sorry. For other species, based on the landings and what we have seen, from what we can get from the landings, at least for Puerto Rico, the -- I am going to say 85 percent of the landings that are with bottom line, which is not necessarily just buoy gear, but it’s bottom line, but buoy gear is included in that category, and it consists of queen snapper and silk snapper, and so it’s a very, very low percentage of the current landings that is other species. We don’t necessarily know how many people are currently using more than ten hooks in federal waters, but it’s uncertain how much the effort will change by doing this increase, but certainly, if the council wants to consider that we evaluate other alternatives, we can certainly do that in the IPT. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Maria.
Jocelyn.
JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you, Marcos. I was going to say that the document that the Regional Office and council staff and the IPT prepared for this meeting does note that it’s possible that 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
some folks are using more than ten hooks, but, because we don’t know that with certainty, and that would be non-compliance with the law, what are the effects of allowing up to twenty-five hooks, and so we assume that there is compliance with the law, but evaluate what happens if we increase the number of hooks two-anda-half times, and how does that affect effort, because there is a lot of different, as you all know better than I do, factors that go into how you fish this gear. If there was only ten hooks that were in use at a given time, perhaps more sets would be deployed, and so maybe you’re using -If you’re allowed to have twenty-five hooks per set, perhaps then you would set fewer sets, and I also understand there is issues with current and various conditions, as to how many hooks one would put on a set, and so it’s not necessarily the case that persons would always want to use up to twenty-five hooks, and so it seems like there is a lot of uncertainty about how the gear is fished and how it might change over time. The document that was prepared tries to address that, by saying, well, if we’re assuming that folks are using ten hooks, and now we’re allowing them up to twenty-five, this is what we assume could be the case, but, if any of these assumptions aren’t accurate, then the effects could potentially be less, but sort of a worstcase scenario is that this could mean that there is two-and-a-half times the amount of hooks, and, if the soak times are the same, and the amount of sets are the same, then that could potentially be two-and-a-half times the amount of fishing pressure, which could increase the amount of bycatch, but I don’t know that there’s a linear relationship between the hooks in the water and the bycatch. It’s just something that is in the document, and we’re just trying to figure out what really are the consequences to other species, and then, also, we want to understand if there is any consequences to the physical environment, to the bottom, and, when we’ve discussed this gear in the past, we’ve looked at whether or not it impacts the bottom, and we have decided that, based on the floats and everything, and the requirements for the length of the line, that there is not a ton of impacts to the bottom, but that’s also something that we would need to think about, and that’s addressed in the document that was prepared for this meeting. MIGUEL ROLON:
Marcos, one point to this.
MARCOS HANKE:
Yes.
MIGUEL ROLON: The issue with this is that the fishers, commercial fishers, are already using twenty-five hooks per line and not ten, 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
and, in essence, all of them are in violation of the Act as it is, and that’s why correspondence from several fishers have indicated so, and the chairs of the DAPs also reported that that’s the case, in the case of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Whether this is something doubling the hooks, academically, it’s okay, but the issue is not that. The issue is that they are already using it, and they are in violation of the Act, as written, and so what is the council going to do? Can we or not allow the use of twenty-five hooks, and what Jocelyn is saying is that we need to check whether the environment is affected or not. The way the environment would be affected is if we are using ten and then we are doubling in the future, but that’s not the case. We are already affecting the environment with twenty-five hooks already, and so that’s what we need to decide, and the question will be whether we need to reduce that or keep it at ten or not. Anyway, just for the record, those are some of the issues that have been discussed with the fishers. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Carlos has a question.
We have Tony and then Graciela and then
TONY BLANCHARD: What I could see -- I agree with Miguel that if they add more impact to -- Allowing them legally to do. The other part of it is that I could see on the side of the bycatch what’s -- That your bycatch may increase, but I can’t answer that, because I don’t think we have the data on the books to show what kind of bycatch comes out of this type of fishery. To be honest with you, I really don’t know which way to go, because, if you don’t have the data stating what kind of impacts we have to the fishery, as looking at bycatch, and we already have twentyfive hooks in the water, according to what Miguel stated that the fishery uses, and I think, before moving forward in any direction, we need to have some type of survey done, or we need to get some type of data stating what kind of bycatch comes out of this type of fishery, before we decide anything. That’s just my opinion. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Tony. To your point, there is information on the landings, and we addressed it a little bit. Thank you very much for your concern about the bycatch on this fishery. What is also true is that it’s a fishery that is very specific and related, in terms of percentage of the landings, on queen snapper and yelloweye and the other species of deepwater snapper. From my personal point of view, I am not really too concerned about extra bycatch or anything besides what is already happening, and I think the IPT that worked on it did a great job 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
on this analysis. I just want to add a comment to what Andy just mentioned about the prohibition of the buoy gear to the recreational, either here or any other method or venue, and we should consider, depending on what they suggest us to recommend us, to pursue that, because the council has been expressing the interest of making the buoy gear a commercial gear, more than anything. Graciela. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: had to ask.
Mr. Chair, you already discussed what I
MARCOS HANKE:
Carlos, do you have a question to Andy?
Thank you.
CARLOS FARCHETTE: Yes, and, Marcos, you just mentioned it also, but I agree with Andy that we need to have a discussion on maybe prohibiting buoy gear for the recreational fishery. Like I said before, I’m a recreational fisher. If you open the door, I’m going to walk right through, and it’s easier for a recreational fisher to use buoy gear with ten hooks, and he can deploy ten buoys faster than a commercial guy with twenty-five hooks, and it will take him longer, and they don’t use that many buoys. They only put out about maybe four or five. I think we need to have a discussion, like what Andy said, and look at the recreational fishers’ ability to fish like a commercial guy. MARCOS HANKE: Andy, a question for you. Which way do you recommend for us to address this other part of the story, which is making the buoy gear just for commercial? ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos, and I will look to Jocelyn as well to weigh-in here. Because we are modifying the definition of buoy gear and increasing the hooks, I think we have the door open, at this point, to also modify other aspects of that definition, and so what you see on the screen is currently reflected in the definition for buoy gear, and I think we could strike “and recreational”, and that would address the concern about recreational harvest of non-FMP species with buoy gear, and it would be focused solely on commercial harvest for both our managed species and non-managed species. MARCOS HANKE:
Jocelyn, do you want to weigh-in?
MARCOS HANKE: Yes, thank you. I think we might want to have another action in the document to address the allowable gears, so that we could change to remove buoy gear as an allowable gear in the recreational non-FMP fishery, and that would be one way to do it. 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
Otherwise, we kind of get into changing the definition of buoy gear, and so we would say buoy gear, when fishing for X species, Y species, Z species, means this, and that can be a little bit more confusing, and so, if we don’t actually want buoy gear to be allowed, with any number of hooks, or, in particular, with twentyfive hooks, maybe we remove it from the authorized gears in the table for the recreational non-FMP. I will note that buoy gear, right now, is an allowed gear for the commercial non-FMP fishers, and, again, I don’t know an example of one of those species that is not managed that might be caught with buoy gear, but, yes, we can also rethink where buoy gear is allowed and then how we want to define that, and I think that would be appropriate. If we’re addressing the fisheries where buoy gear is allowed, I would recommend doing that in a different action. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Jocelyn. turn to speak? MIGUEL ROLON: something. MARCOS HANKE:
Miguel, you’re asking for a
No, but, if you want me to speak, I can say No, I’m sorry.
MIGUEL ROLON: Andy’s hand is still up, and so Andy can go, if you’re finished, but the council should instruct the staff to pursue this alternative language that Jocelyn is talking about, so we pinpoint the issue of recreational fishers not being allowed to use the buoy gear. MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Before we -- I agree with you, and let’s instruct the staff to do so, and, also, from my expertise and knowledge about this issue, about the buoy gear in this fishery, and after talking to many fishermen, I think the new alternatives that were presented is on the right track of addressing the issue, the ones that were presented today, the two new alternatives. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, Nelson Crespo is coming in and out, and apparently he has some audio problem, but he wanted a turn to speak before. If he’s in, maybe we could allow him to talk? MARCOS HANKE:
Okay.
We have Nelson and then Maria.
NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just agree with what Carlos said regarding the commercial, or the recreational, I mean. MIGUEL ROLON:
Okay.
Now we have Edward Schuster. 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
MARCOS HANKE:
Go ahead, Eddie.
EDWARD SCHUSTER: Okay. Edward Schuster, DAP Chair, St. Croix, and I’m in agreement with what Carlos said and what Nelson said. This fishery, or this method of fishing, was developed by commercial fishers and adopted, or copied, by recreational fishers, and so it would be unfair, highly unfair, to not allow the buoy gear as a method of fishing. It was a trade secret that was given up by fishers, and, just in conversation, to allow the council to know how they fish this type of fish and the method and the way that they fish it, and now it’s adopted by the recreational fishers, and so I would be in agreement to not allow recreational fishers to utilize this gear to impact the fishery. Like we said, as DAP chairs, it’s a very expensive fishery. You could go two weeks, and your effort is there, and the fish are there, but the conditions don’t allow the fish to bite, and, when the perfect conditions are there, the fishers use only one buoy at a time, if the bite is on, and so, allowing the recreational fishers not to use it, I would be in agreement to that, and only commercial fishers to utilize this gear. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you.
Maria.
MARIA LOPEZ: I want to thank everybody for your comments, and this is very, very useful for the development of this action. As I mentioned earlier, obviously, we are still in the development, and, if the council desires for the IPT to include a new action or a new alternative, a new sub-action, we can definitely look into that. What we are going to do is, if you give us the go, is we are going to have a meeting with the IPT and present the points that were brought up at this meeting, and then we are going to come up with a way to address the recreational use of buoy gear for non-managed species. How we end up doing it, if it’s as a separate action or a suboption or another alternative or modifying the alternative, is something that we can decide later, but the important thing is that we can incorporate all the suggestions that you have, and the recommendations, and making sure that it’s included in the document. I just want to clarify that, as I said earlier, the current definition of buoy gear that we have in the regulations does not -- It’s for the commercial harvest of reef fish, and it 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
doesn’t include recreational harvest, and this is managed reef fish. The issue that is being brought up today is regarding the recreational harvest of non-FMP species, and, when I say non-FMP species, let me give you an example. There are some jacks that are not managed in our FMPs that could be caught as a bycatch, or an incidental catch, while pursuing this fishery, for example, and so that will be something like that. We will be addressing that in the document, if you guys desire to do that. MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Thank you, Maria. do you need anything else from us now?
Do you need a motion, or
MARIA LOPEZ: I don’t think we need a motion for this. I think it’s pretty clear what the instructions are. I mean, they’re on the record. Jocelyn, did you -- I am going to get some legal counsel on this. Do you think a motion is necessary at this point? JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: We don’t necessarily need a motion, but I just wanted to confirm that the council intent is to have the IPT look at ways to potentially address where buoy gear is allowed as a gear, as well as how that gear is defined, and so with ten hooks versus twenty-five hooks. If we’re sort of asking folks to go back to the drawing board and come up with additional options for discussion at the next meeting, and that’s clear, then I think we can move on without a motion, but, if you wanted, you could have a motion just to direct staff to look into options for considering where buoy gear is authorized and the appropriate definition. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, you don’t need a motion, as per the comments from Jocelyn and Maria, but just say the council instructs the staff to pursue this, and, also, you need to ask whether there is any other comments before closing the comment period, and then we’ll move to the next item. MARCOS HANKE: Any more comments addressing the comment period time that we have reserved for this? Hearing none, I think the record is clear, and we can pass to the next item on the agenda. MIGUEL ROLON: The record is clear that the council wishes the IPT to continue the work to incorporate the discussion as of today regarding recreational fishers. MARCOS HANKE:
Correct. 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
MIGUEL ROLON:
Okay.
So next.
MARCOS HANKE: The next item on the agenda is Final Action to Submit the Generic Framework Amendment to the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/John, and St. Croix Management Plans for Spiny Lobster. FINAL ACTION TO SUBMIT THE GENERIC FRAMEWORK AMENDMENT TO THE PUERTO RICO, ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN, AND ST. CROIX FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS: SPINY LOBSTER REFERENCE POINTS TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE SARAH STEPHENSON: This presentation will provide a look at the final draft version of the framework amendment to the island-based fishery management plans. Version 3 of the framework amendment and the corresponding changes that would be made to the regulations are available on the council’s website for your review. At the April 2021 regular meeting, the council reviewed the draft framework amendment to each island-based FMP, which would update the spiny lobster management reference points following the accepted SEDAR 57 stock assessments and the stock’s change from Tier 4 to Tier 3 under the ABC Control Rule included in each FMP. Under Action 1, the council reviewed alternatives for setting overfishing limits, or OFLs, acceptable biological catches, or ABCs, and annual catch limits, or ACLs, for the years 2021 to 2023. Alternatives 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 for 2021 to 2023. Under Action 2, the council reviewed alternatives for revising the years of landings data used to trigger an accountability measure, an AM, for spiny lobster from the process described in the islandbased FMPs. Alternatives included using a three-year average of landings and a single year of landings as the AM trigger. Although it was not included as an action, the framework amendment would also update the maximum sustainable yield, the overfished status determination criteria, and the overfishing status determination criteria for spiny lobster in each island area, based on outcomes from the SEDAR 57 stock assessments. For Action 1, the council selected Alternative 3 as the preferred approach for setting OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for spiny lobster for each FMP. This approach sets constant catch values for the years 2021 to 2023. The action included sub-alternatives for the council to set the ACL from the ABC, and the council selected Sub52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Alternative 3b, which set the spiny lobster ACL at 95 percent of the ABC for each island. The council intent is to ask the Science Center to conduct an interim assessment for spiny lobster, to update reference points such as the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for each island, which would require a subsequent amendment be developed. The hope would be to have those updated reference points in place in time for the 2024 fishing season. However, in the event that rulemaking for that subsequent amendment is not in place for 2024, the SSC recommended ABCs for the years 2024 and later, from which the ACLs for those years were derived using that same 95 percent buffer. The table lists the ACLs for 2021 to 2023, and then for 2024 and later, again in that event that the updated values are not in place by the year 2024. For Action 2, the council selected Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for the AM trigger, which would use the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM under each FMP, and so 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 available. The table below illustrates the years of spiny lobster landings that could be used to trigger an AM under this preferred alternative for each fishing year, and the second column, the years of recent landings used, are based on the assumption that the final landings are not available until two years after the year in which the fishing occurred, and so you can see, for fishing year 2022, the most recent landings available would be from 2020, and so the three-year average used to evaluate whether an AM needs to be triggered would be the three-year average from the years 2018 to 2020, and then you can see how each year progresses after that. Then, for next steps in the amendment process, following any questions from this presentation, the council could vote to submit the amendment to the Secretary of Commerce for implementation. The council could give staff permission to make non-substantive changes, editorial changes, in the amendment and give the Council Chair permission to review those changes and submit the amendment. SERO staff would then start the rulemaking process. The proposed rule would include a thirty-day comment period for the public to provide comments. As mentioned before, since this an amendment to the island-based FMPs, the final rule for the amendment would likely occur in early 2022, once those FMPs are in place and 53
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
implemented.
With that, I will take any questions.
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Sarah. Before I pass it, I want to ask this, about the AM part. This is a good time to discuss the -Because, once we decide which month is going to be used to start the AM, the closed days of the AM, we were not thinking about each island specific, and it was the whole U.S. EEZ. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, if I may, this is the time for final action on the presentation that you received from Sarah. At this time, you need to open the comment period. Then, during the comment period, ask the other people present whether they have any comments regarding this presentation. Then you need to have a motion to take final action. That motion, because it’s going to the Secretary, with the caveat of the last slide, then will have to be a roll call vote for this motion, just so you know what you’re supposed to do. MARCOS HANKE: I am going to do that, but I was just asking, because I need to know where, or when, we can address the dates for Puerto Rico, if the council intends to do that in the future, to revisit the dates for the implementation of AMs. SARAH STEPHENSON: Were you asking specifically about, if an AM is triggered and applied, those closure dates starting from September 30 forward to the year, and is that what you were referring to, like when the AM would occur? MARCOS HANKE:
This is what I am referring to, yes.
SARAH STEPHENSON: Okay, and so the council can, obviously, discuss that. That would need to be through another amendment. This amendment that we’re doing retains the regulations as written for AMs, how they’re applied, including that September 30 forward through the year. Then, if that’s not enough time, starting with October 1 and moving towards the end of the year. That will remain as specified in the island-based FMPs, until such time it’s amended, but that was not included in this particular amendment, and so that would require another amendment. MARCOS HANKE:
Okay.
MIGUEL ROLON:
You have Andy with his hand up.
MARIA LOPEZ:
Sorry, Marcos.
MARCOS HANKE: Andy?
Thank you.
Maria.
Are you asking me?
I thought you were asking for a turn to speak, or 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
MARIA LOPEZ:
No, and that was old.
MIGUEL ROLON:
It’s Andy.
ANDY STRELCHECK: Sarah has covered most of what I was going to say, and so that, to me, needs to be taken up in a separate action, if the council wants to reconsider when the accountability measures are triggered. We’re more than happy to discuss, obviously, the accountability measure and what transpired this year, and then the council can consider whether or not they want to pursue an additional action to the one we’re taking final action on today. MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Let’s focus on what was presented then. Thank you for the clarification. We can discuss about this later on. Council members, any comments or any questions about the presentation? MIGUEL ROLON: If not, we had Andy again, and I don’t know whether he still had his hand up. ANDY STRELCHECK: I just wanted to comment, Marcos, that I am supportive of the current preferred alternatives and recommend that we proceed to final action with no changes to the preferred alternatives. MARCOS HANKE:
That’s a motion from you?
ANDY STRELCHECK: That’s my recommendation. Obviously, I wanted to hear if there is other council discussion. MARCOS HANKE:
Any other comments or discussion?
MIGUEL ROLON:
You have Tony Blanchard.
MARCOS HANKE:
Tony.
TONY BLANCHARD:
Anybody else?
So moved.
MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. We need the language that was proposed. Christina, can you put on the screen the language that is proposed? I believe that the intention of the council is very clear, following the discussion by -- Okay. Mr. Chairman, what we have on the screen is the proposed language for the motion. The council moves to approve the Generic Framework Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification of Spiny Lobster Management 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
Reference Points with the selected preferred alternatives and to submit the framework amendment to the Secretary of Commerce for implementation. The question is, to Andy and Tony, if this language reflects the intent of that they want to do, and then we would have to have a roll call vote for this particular motion. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and, just for the record, Andy, this is your motion? Do you accept the language there? ANDY STRELCHECK:
Yes, I accept the language.
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. do you second?
Tony, do you accept the language, and
MIGUEL ROLON:
Tony might have some audio problems.
MARCOS HANKE:
He seconded before, and I just wanted to make sure.
MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. Now, Liajay, for this motion in particular, you have to have a roll call vote, and so that means that, if there is no discussion, then each council member has to vote, after indicating his name, or her name. MARCOS HANKE: Is there any further discussion? We didn’t hear any before. Is there anybody against? Any abstentions? MIGUEL ROLON:
Marcos, you have to have a roll call vote.
TONY BLANCHARD: I am still waiting to see the language show up, and it hasn’t shown up yet. MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. Tony, let me read the language carefully again. The council moves to approve the Generic Framework Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification of Spiny Lobster Management Reference Points with the selected preferred alternatives and to submit the framework amendment to the Secretary of Commerce for implementation. The language makes official what Andy proposed before and the one that you seconded. If you agree with the language, now we have to have a roll call vote. MARCOS HANKE:
Tony, do you agree?
TONY BLANCHARD: Yes, and I -- (Part of Mr. Blanchard’s comment is not audible on the recording.) 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
MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Thank you, Tony. vote. Tony, your vote, please? TONY BLANCHARD:
Yes.
MARCOS HANKE:
Carlos.
CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:
Yes.
Nicole.
DAMARIS DELGADO: MARCOS HANKE:
Yes.
Vanessa.
VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:
We are going to make a
Damaris.
Yes.
Andy.
ANDY STRELCHECK:
Yes.
MARCOS HANKE: Marcos, yes. We are just missing Nicole with an audio problem. Can you hear us now, Nicole? MIGUEL ROLON:
Nicole is not in.
MARCOS HANKE: She’s not in, and so we have in favor, we have Damaris, Marcos, Andy, Tony, Carlos, and Vanessa. We have one abstention, one absent, I’m sorry, MIGUEL ROLON:
One absent, yes.
MARCOS HANKE:
Absent.
The motion carries.
MIGUEL ROLON: Liajay, for the record, we can add the language that incorporates the names of the voting members. We’re ready for the next item, Mr. Chairman. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Nicole just sent me a text that her internet went off in her office. MIGUEL ROLON:
Is she in favor?
CARLOS FARCHETTE:
She is in favor, yes.
MIGUEL ROLON: Let the record show then that Nicole Angelia also voted in favor, and so it’s unanimous. 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
MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Thank you, Carlos, for the help with the technical support there and keeping the communication clear. MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, you can either have lunch now or take the SEAMAP Caribbean, and it’s up to you. The lunch was for 12:30 to 1:30, and so please let us know. MARCOS HANKE:
Let’s start the lunch now, unless --
NICOLE ANGELI: Sorry, Mr. Chair, and I apologize. The internet went out in our office just as the roll call started, and so my apologies. Thank you for moving forward, but I would vote in favor of the motion. MARCOS HANKE: We have that registered already. Thank you for weighing-in and being able to say so. Thank you. The presentation of SEAMAP, is J.J. Cruz around? SARAH STEPHENSON: Actually, sorry for interrupting, Marcos. There were a couple of additional considerations for the council specific to the spiny lobster amendment that I had on my last slide. For instance, does the council want to give permission to staff to make non-substantive editorial changes and then, also, give permission to the Council Chair to review those changes and then submit, and so just a couple more things for the council to consider. MARCOS HANKE:
Yes, and do we need -- Do we have a motion for that?
SARAH STEPHENSON:
It’s in the document, Liajay.
MARCOS HANKE: Motion 2 is the council moves -- This motion is presented by whom, Sarah? MIGUEL ROLON: Nobody at this time, but you need to have a council member to have the motion. NICOLE ANGELI: I move that the council moves to allow staff to make editorial, non-substantive changes to the Spiny Lobster Generic Framework Amendment. Any changes will be reviewed by the Council Chair. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Nicole.
CARLOS FARCHETTE:
Any second?
Second.
MIGUEL ROLON: At this time, you don’t need a roll call. say, if there is no opposition, that motion carries. 58
You can
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 any further discussion?
MIGUEL ROLON:
Tony is raising his hand.
MARCOS HANKE:
Go ahead, Tony.
TONY BLANCHARD: The only problem I have with that is I really believe that it has to be looked over after the changes. It should be looked over by the Full Council, because this is a council decision. MIGUEL ROLON: Tony, in this case, the council decision is already made. These comments are non-substantive changes, and that means a comma here or a period over there, but the essence of what the council approves is already in the motion, and so just trust the staff of the Regional Office and Graciela. They will not deviate from the council intent, in this case. TONY BLANCHARD:
Okay.
MIGUEL ROLON: Don’t worry, Tony. Rest assured that, if we find something that you may not like, we will present it to you immediately. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel and Tony. Any further discussion? Any council member against? Hearing none, the motion carries. The next important item, Sarah, do you want a motion? SARAH STEPHENSON: It’s on the screen here for Motion 3, and this would just give the Council Chair the -- Sorry. The council needs to deem the codified text, that regulatory text for the ACLs that would be changing for the regulations, and you just need to agree to those changes and for implementing the amendment. They are in the briefing book, and so I don’t know if someone wants to pull that up, so you can look at it. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and we all had a chance to look at the briefing book. Is there any council member that wants to see that again, or should we move along with the motion? MIGUEL ROLON: Sarah, can you explain what a codified text is, just for the record? SARAH STEPHENSON: Right, and so these are the regulations that actually get put into the website that tells you what the regulations are, and so the only thing that’s really changing for spiny lobster from what the regulations are under the island-based 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
FMPs, are going to be updating the values for the ACLs, because those are the only management measures that get codified, and so they get put in the ECFR. Does that answer your question? MIGUEL ROLON: Yes, and my point is, Mr. Chairman, is that this is a technical thing that can be trusted, again, with the staff. They are not going to change anything that the council didn’t approve or discuss before, and so, in this case, that codified text will reflect, officially, what the council just agreed a few minutes ago. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. Would any council member that would like to move the suggested language on the screen? VANESSA RAMIREZ:
So moved.
TONY BLANCHARD:
Second.
MARCOS HANKE: We have a second by Tony Blanchard. The Motion 3, presented by Vanessa Ramirez and seconded by Tony Blanchard, reads: The council moves to deem the codified text presented by the staff as necessary and appropriate for implementing the Spiny Lobster Generic Framework Amendment. Any further discussion or any comments? Anybody against it? Hearing none, the motion carries. Sarah, is that it? MIGUEL ROLON:
Mr. Chairman.
MARCOS HANKE:
Go ahead.
MIGUEL ROLON: I was going to suggest that you may want to break for lunch, because I don’t know whether Dr. Cruz-Motta has already committed for something else before 1:30, and so you can start the meeting promptly at 1:30 with that presentation. MARCOS HANKE: Let’s go for lunch now, and that sounds like a good idea, and people can enjoy a little extra lunch time, and thank you very much for a productive morning meeting. We are on schedule. We’re going to start lunch now and come back at 1:30. ANDY STRELCHECK: Marcos and Miguel, real quick, we talked about, obviously, the accountability measure for this year that was implemented, as well as the potential to revisit the accountability measure timing, and at what point can we revisit that during today’s council meeting? MIGUEL ROLON: We were thinking that, at the enforcement section, the Puerto Rico enforcement section, we wanted to discuss it. 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
There are a couple of fishers who wanted to join in on the discussion, and they asked me for some time. They are not here, but they asked me for time to speak during enforcement this afternoon, and that will be at 2:30. ANDY STRELCHECK:
Okay.
Sounds good to me.
MARCOS HANKE: I want to mention, for the benefit of everybody, talking to fishermen, mainly divers, that fish for conch and lobster, the problem of having the data we have related to the AM of September 30 is that it goes over the state water closed season of conch, which is the two main species that they fish for, and there is a big socioeconomic adverse effect on this group of fishermen, especially on the southwest coast of Puerto Rico, and that’s the reason that I made the question in the beginning. Thank you. We are going to break for lunch, and we’ll be back at 1:30. Thank you to all. (Whereupon, the meeting recessed for lunch on August 11, 2021.) - - AUGUST 11, 2021 WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION - - The Caribbean Fishery Management Council reconvened via webinar on Wednesday afternoon, August 11, 2021, and was called to order at 1:30 o’clock p.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke. MARCOS HANKE: Good afternoon, everyone. It’s 1:30 p.m. We’re going to restart the afternoon session for the CFMC virtual meeting, and the next presentation we have online is the SEAMAP Caribbean Gold Copy by J.J. Cruz-Motta. J.J., are you available to present? SEAMAP CARIBBEAN GOLD COPY J.J. CRUZ-MOTTA: Good afternoon, Marcos. Good afternoon, everybody. I am here. Let me share the screen with you. Again, good afternoon, everybody. My name is Juan Jose Cruz-Motta, and I work at the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Puerto Rico, and, for about the last two years, year-and-a-half, we have been working on compiling and collecting all the SEAMAP-C data that we can get our hands on and putting all that data together and trying to make it accessible to everybody. 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
Before I start, I would like to give you a little bit of background on what is SEAMAP and the use that we can use of that data on an EBFM approach. Very likely, you all are aware of SEAMAP, and it’s a cooperative program with the main task of collecting, managing, and disseminating fishery-independent data. Please note that, in these background slides, I have bolded a few phrases, or words, and those words will be important, as we will focus on those as we go towards the end of the presentation. The data that we collect in SEAMAP is supposed to be used to follow trends over time, trends of commercially-important species, and not in SEAMAP-C, but in general in SEAMAP, also environmental parameters are collected, and some focus has been done on analyzing the community structure of fish assemblages in the region. The goals of SEAMAP are those that you can see on the screen. Out of those four, I would like to focus on Number 1 and Number 4. Number 1 is to collect and analyze data on economically and ecologically-important species and their essential habitats to support stock assessment and management needs, and this is very important, with emphasis on ecosystem-based management. On the other hand, the Goal Number 4 is about maximize the accessibility and coordination of fishery-independent survey data. Please note that these four goals were taken out of the 2021-2025 SEAMAP-C management plan. On the other hand, just to refresh you on the work that we have been doing in terms of EBFM, EBFM is a holistic approach that recognizes all the interactions within an ecosystem, rather than considering a single species or issue in isolation. This approach requires new analytical tools that look, at the same, at multiple human impacts and multiple species. Finally, the last thing that I want to say about EBFM, and we can say a lot of things, but the last thing that I want to pinpoint is that it’s a strategic tool for exploring patterns of spatial differences and temporal changes of natural communities and their drivers. This tool can also be used to conduct a risk assessment and ranking policy alternatives. I am saying this because the EBFM approach is complementary to the traditional single-species approach, for example stock assessment, which is used for tactical management, like, for example, setting annual quotas, and so now we’re working, in the council, with this EBFM, which is not an alternative tool, but it’s a complement to 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
what we have already been doing. The problem that triggered this project, or the issues, were two. The first one was that SEAMAP-C data has been collected since 1991, but it was not easily available to stakeholders, and it was not used a lot for, for example, stock assessments. The second issue is that, for some analysis -- It was used for some analysis, but it was criticized, or the users of the data said that most of the data, most of the species, had low numbers, and, for example, a lot of stock assessments could not be done with the SEAMAP-C data. Actually, I am going to give you an example of this, and we are about to do a SEDAR on queen triggerfish, and we have collected only -- In the database, there are ninety-three individuals from 1991 to 2019 for Puerto Rico. Out of those, half of those were collected in the last three years, and I don’t think that will be numbers enough to conduct a stock assessment, and so this is just an example of that, quickly. Here, I just want to say that -- I just want to make a short comment on the low number issue, and that is that, in tropical assemblages, or tropical natural communities, they are generally dominated by few species, and most of the species that you find in tropical assemblages, and the fish assemblages associated to our reefs is not exception, and most of the species that you find in the community are rare. They have naturally low numbers. What you see on the screen is a dominance graph in which you have, on the X-axis, species rank in terms of their relative abundance, and, on the Y-axis, you have an indication of that relative abundance. Please note that only four species make up more of 5 percent of that relative abundance. The blue line is the east coast of Puerto Rico, and the red line is the west coast of Puerto Rico. Most of the one-hundred-and-something species that were found in Puerto Rico are naturally rare, and so, in a community that has these characteristics, it would be really, really hard to get enough numbers to do stock assessments, not because we’re not sampling hard enough, but it’s because, naturally, most species in tropical assemblages are not that common. This is the comment that I wanted to make about the small numbers. It’s just a combination of the tools that we’re using to sample these assemblages plus the reality, a fact. If somebody is wondering what were the most abundant, I am just putting here the species. It’s two groupers and one snapper and one porgy. 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
The objective of these projects then were to address those two issues, and it was, one, to compile, curate, and make available all SEAMAP-C data, and two was to analyze temporal trends of that data using a multi-specific approach. Objective 1 was related to Goal 1 of SEAMAP, which is maximize the accessibility of the data, and Objective 2 was directly related, or it is directly related, to Goal Number 4 of SEAMAP, which is to support management needs, with emphasis on ecosystem-based management, and what comes next is an example of Objective 1 and an example of Objective 2. Objective 1, the database, first of all, I want to tell you a few general characteristics of this database. It’s a database that has information at individual level of size, weight, sex, and stage of the individual, and those asterisks mean that, for sex and stage, not all entries have that data. That information was collected, was sampled, using many types of gears, like traps, handline, and longline. The characteristics, or the protocol, the specific method for each one of those, have changed considerably through time, in terms of immersion time, number of hooks, length of the longline, et cetera, et cetera. Out of that information, then we can estimate or make estimations of abundances and biomasses for species, and that information is discriminated by year, month, depth, habitat, sampling stage, region, and others. Others has an asterisk, because, in addition to the original factors considered in this database, we added others, other factors, such as, for example, proximity to nursery area, whether the data point is within an MPA or not, or, for example, distance to the closest fishing village. Those, we create those to be able to use these SEAMAP-C data in an EBFM context. Here, in this table, we have a few characteristics, some very general characteristics. The first line is total number of individuals per region, and like, here, we have east Puerto Rico, west Puerto Rico, and the USVI. This is St. Croix and St. John all combined. Number of species sampled through the years in each one of the regions, what year we started collecting data in each one of those, how many sampling stations all through the years, number of singletons, and I just wanted to single out this one, because singletons is the number of species where we sampled only once, and so we have only one individual through the entire database, and please note that those percentages are relatively -- It’s a 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
quarter of the species that we have reported, that they have only one individual, and then, obviously -- I just wanted to mention this, because, obviously, for assessment of absolute biomass of abundance, that’s totally -- We cannot use that data. However, it can be used from an assemblage or description of the community point of view, since we know, at least, that that species is present in that community. That has a lot of ecological implication, and just remember that the function of a community is directly related with the diversity, regardless of the relative abundance, and so this gives us important data on diversity, even though we cannot use that data for abundance estimates. This is the status of compilation, and it’s 100 percent for Puerto Rico. We are almost done for the USVI and trying to chase down three years, and we know those years were sampled, but we haven’t been able to find the data yet, but I’m pretty sure -- Hopefully we will find those three years that are missing. In terms of compilation of data, that data will be provided to any -- It will be publicly available through this interface, and this is the web version. The link will be available through the council webpage, and you can see there, in orange, the sampling stations for Puerto Rico, and in yellow are the sampling stations there for the Virgin Islands. Here, you will have the classical selectors for site, for the Puerto Rico sites and for the USVI, and you could select based on dates or based on species, if you are looking for sampling in particular. Let’s suppose that I want to -- For example, here, I want to see all the stations that were sampled in Quadrant Number 54, which is this one here, and then note that, now, I don’t have all the orange dots, and I only have the dots inside Number 54, and, if I go into that selection of sites, then I have here -- What I have here on the left and the right is a summary of the data that you have in that group of sites, and it’s basically the relative proportion of all the species that were found in those sites, in terms of biomass and in terms of abundance. Also, here, down here, we have detail on the dates that those sites were sampled, and here is some of those graph bars, and here are total abundances and biomass, and these are not discriminated by species, but to give you an idea of the dates when those stations were sampled, and it was between 1991 and 2019. If you go and then click on each one of the sites, the dots within the square, 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
you will have details on what is in each one of those dots. Like, for example, in this one, we have eight different elements, and then the first element is the species, and we have red hind, and we have four individuals, which, in total, weighed 0.8 kilo. Not show here, if you actually -- Sorry. Let me show the next one. The next one is another example, and this is a snapper, and we found only one of these, and this is the weight. What I wanted to say is, if you click on that, on that specific sampling site, you will be able to download the data, the actual data, the data where you will have the weight and size per individual in that site for all the species that were sampled there. Of course, you can do a broader selection, like all the sites of Quadrant Number 54, and then you will get all the data. Also, you will be able to get the entire data matrix from the council webpage. Once all of this is totally compiled and double-checked, it will be uploaded here, and so you will have the option also to get the entire data, and you will be able to do whatever you want with that data. You can organize it in the way that you prefer. This is in terms of Objective Number 1. For Objective Number 2, I am going to briefly present in the last five minutes, and I am going to present just an example of how these analyses, alternative analyses, on SEAMAP-C data can be used for an EBFM approach. Just remembering from the background slides, EBFM focuses on the community structure, the entire fish assemblage, rather than one species. Then it follows trends over time and then tries to identify what are the drivers of those trends. To develop this example further, I am going to start with something that is very familiar to most of the people sitting in this meeting today, which is the conceptual model that has been developed, or are being developed, by different groups associated with the council. Here, we have -- I am not specifying which stakeholder did this, but one of the stakeholders created this conceptual model for this specific group of people, and the commercial fisheries is the main node, or is the most important component here, and we know it’s the most important only because it received the highest number of connections in this conceptual model. If you take this one and contrast it with another group of stakeholders, the second group of people then highlighted the biomass, and biomass refers to the biomass of fish assemblages, everything, right, and, also, for them, it was the most important, 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
because it received -- We identified that component as the most important, because it received the most connections. One important thing about all these conceptual models that we are developing is that, eventually, we would like to compile all of those, and then, when you have contrasting views of what will be the most -- For example, like the one that I just mentioned to you is what is the most important, and then a quantitative approach is necessary to start to compile, to amalgamate, all these different models. In this example, we have three models, but, actually, last time I counted, we already have eighteen or nineteen different conceptual models, and a very brief comment on this. Why we need so many is because we want to incorporate as many opinions as possible in the development of these conceptual models, but then I will close that brief comment. Coming back to this example, we need quantitative data to start to see that, okay, what is more important here and what the data is saying, and how -- Perhaps the two components are important, but how we connect them. Then, coming back here, I am going to -- Out of this spaghetti salad we’ve got here, I’m going to just extract all the components on your left that affect fish biomass and all the elements that fish biomass takes, which is commercial fisheries, and it’s sport fishing, and subsistence fishing. Please note that this is not that different from the other group of stakeholders, because, actually, the other group of stakeholders, instead of calling this a fish biomass, they call it pelagics, conch, and reef fish, something similar here, and, for them, the important connection was in this sense. Again, we need to build a consensus model out of these two contrasting views, and then here is where we go and get our data. In this case, the SEAMAP-C data can be useful to build this, to select the specific drivers on the size of this trend affecting fish biomass. To do that, we’re going to -- Don’t panic, and we’re going to go through this very slowly, but, here at the top, the first thing we’re going to do is try to describe patterns of temporal variation, or temporal changes, on the fish biomass of the entire assemblage. Here, again, we’re not focusing on one species, but all 165 species we found in the west region of Puerto Rico, and what you have here, in this square, is not much different from a traditional map. In 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
a traditional map, you have cities, and let’s say it’s cities in the United States, and then you can see which cities are closer together and which cities are further apart, and it’s the same thing here. These dots, if they are very close together, it means that the structure and composition of the fish assemblage is very similar, but, if they are further apart, it means that structure and composition is very different. To give you an example, I am now putting here, in this map, the years, the year 1991, 1992, and 1993. The conclusion from this, or the interpretation of this, is that changes between 1991 and 1992 were bigger than those changes between 1992 and 1993. Why is that? Because the 1991-1992 line is longer than the line 19921993. The other important thing about these maps is that the direction of those lines can also be interpreted. Note that 1991 to 1992 seems to go horizontally, where the line of 1992 and 1993 goes vertically. That means that the type of changes that happened between 1991 and 1992 were different to those between 1992 and 1993. In other words, the species that came or left were different in 1991 to 1992 than 1992 to 1993, or, instead of came or left, the species that we sampled. Anyhow, here, in this first part, I just put all the dates between 1991 and 2005, and please note that it seems that all these years -- The structure and composition of the assemblages seems to be pretty homogeneous, but then, I would say 2001, 2004, and 2005, the assemblages start to change, and please note now where it’s 2006 and 2009. Then look what happened in 2010 and 2011. There are bigger changes than those that we observed between 1991 and 2005 here. We can keep doing this and complete the whole data series. Now, what I just did is a graphical representation, and there are no statistics behind this, and then we can apply these tests here called SIMPROF, which allow us to identify groups of years that are statistically different, which are those that are circled in green, and so the first conclusion of the analysis of the west region of the SEAMAP-C data is that the assemblages that we sampled through the years had five very distinctive compositions. We were sampling different structures of those communities, right? The first question, and it’s a question that we’re going to answer later, and not in this project, but down the road, within the EBFM approach, is are these type of changes also seen in the catch data? 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
Are these changes also observed in other monitoring programs, such as the Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program? The second question then is what are driving those changes? Also, I wanted to mention, and please note how the data in 2018 and 2019 here, these two, belong -- Or is not different from the data in 2006 and 2009. From 2006 to 2019, it seems that there is a cycle, a loop, and like there are changes that come back to a stage in 2006 and 2009, and so it will be interesting to see, in 2020 and 2021, if this keeps coming here, or if it will stay here or do something different. Describing these types of changes will help understand what is happening with the system, and, to understand what is happening to the system, we need to relate that to the specific species that are going, and what you see here is a graphical representation of a statistical analysis called SIMPAIR, which is designed to identify specific species, or a group of species, responsible for the changes that I just described. Please note that, in that little group between 1999 and 2005, the two small groupers here were pretty abundant. However, those were decreasing and were replaced mostly by snappers. Any change that happened in this first axis, in the horizontal axis, can be related them to changes between groupers and snappers and these other species on the left. With this, we can identify species that are important in these changes. More importantly is what are the drivers, and, like, for example, the environmental drivers or anthropogenic drivers or management issues that are responsible for those changes, and, before I give you an example of how we do that, I just wanted to put it in perspective that each region in the blue line here is the same map that I showed you before, but now I have what happened, the temporal changes that happened, in the east. The line, the blue line, is shorter than the red line only because we started sampling the east in 2009, several years after we started in the west, but what is interesting is between 2009, that you have here, and 2017, the last year we’ve got for the east, it’s also a loop. You can see that you have 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, and 2017. Also, the type of changes are happening in the same direction, and so this is also very interesting, because then, whatever is happening to these assemblages, it seems that it’s a large-scale change. Note that, as I mentioned before, we can also test whether these patterns of change are being observed in other data matrices, 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
like, for example, the catch data, for example the data from the Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program, which definitely are targeting different parts of that same community. Anyhow, let’s go back to the aspect of identifying the drivers. MARCOS HANKE: J.J., I’m sorry to interrupt you, but it’s 2:05. Can you try to synthesize and get the most important points on the rest of the slides, because you are running out of time. JUAN CRUZ-MOTTA: Okay. Sure. The only thing that I want to say here is that, the same as we did with the species, you can identify drivers associated with those changes. Note, for the change between 1991 and 2019, in the west region, it seems to be coral cover decreasing and productivity in the water is increasing. How do I use all that to refine this model that I showed you before? Out of all those potential drivers that the stakeholders said were important, all this, we can say that, yes, environmental variables are important, yes, and productivity and temperature. Habitat is important, yes, and coral cover. There are elements that were not evaluated in this example, but we do have the data, and we will eventually evaluate that, right, and so we will be able to say, okay, gear type, yes, is important or, no, it’s not. Nurseries, yes, it is, or it is not. The final message of this slide is that, using SEAMAP-C data, we will be able to refine and amalgamate the different conceptual models. This exercise also helps us to identify these things here, things that the stakeholders said were important, but we have no data, and so, next time some agency opens a call for proposals, perhaps it will be ideal to concentrate on this stuff that says no data, that will help to synthesize this model. This is just future work, but that slide you can read, and I will just leave it here, and thank you very much for your time, and I am sorry for the extra seven minutes. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for an excellent presentation, J.J. I think, at some point in time, we should put some more time for you to present and for all of us to know the great job that you guys are doing a little more, but thank you for the presentation. Any questions? I have time for two questions. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, not a question, but J.J., can you go back to the previous slide, where you have -- That one. This is the key to the future action of the council that we discussed in the five-year strategic plan, because these models are okay when you have this spaghetti salad, as J.J. called it, but the actual action 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
for the council will be, okay, now that we have that, what are we going to do with it, and so this slide here -You have the variables on the left, and you look at the biomass, and you identify all the species, and then you need to see what the council should do with the management plan that we have in place, where do we have the information, and can we move forward with any of these items in the model, so that we can do something about it, and so just to let you know the importance of having this discussion, and we will have J.J. come back when we have more time, but we can revisit this at the meeting in December, if Dr. Motta is available and has any updates to bring to the table at that meeting. Excellent presentation, and thank you very much. JUAN CRUZ-MOTTA: Thank you, Miguel, and I would be happy to share further details with you in December. Definitely, yes. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: question.
Thank you, J.J.
GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:
I don’t see anybody else asking a
Mr. Chair, if I may?
Go ahead, Graciela.
GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: This relates back to the efforts that are being made by the Science Center and the actual data storage that we were talking about, to actually have it available for the general public, and so sportfishing for MRIP, for the number of years that we had for Puerto Rico, should be available, and it has landings and size composition for a number of species, and maybe subsistence fishing, from the work that Daniel and Juan Agar have been doing, and so, as Miguel said, this is really the key, and this is something that we should all look at. If we were able to gather most of the information from the Virgin Islands -- The request is open again for anyone who has any kind of datasets that can be shared, and we would really love to collaborate, and so thank you, J.J., and I think that having the clean dataset from SEAMAP, for twenty-seven to thirty years of information, it just makes a big difference. Thank you. JUAN CRUZ-MOTTA:
Thank you, Graciela.
CARLOS FARCHETTE:
I have a quick question.
MARCOS HANKE:
Go ahead, Carlos. 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
CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. On that same slide, I noticed that, on the right-hand -- Or, actually, on both sides, it says commercial fishing, sportfishing, and subsistence. Are you saying -- Are you considering our recreational fisher a sportfishing? JUAN CRUZ-MOTTA: This is the view of a particular stakeholder, and I will have to go to that particular group to see if they put them together or not. That is -- Carlos, now that you mention that, that has been -- Different groups of people put it together, and some other people don’t, and that’s one of the analyses that we will have to do. We will have to say, okay, are we going to do it together or not, but, because they are different views of different people, and this one I used only as an example, but I will have to check for you if that particular group put it together or not. Sorry that I cannot answer your question. CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:
No problem.
Thanks a lot.
Graciela.
GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: We have also knocked on the doors of the HMS groups, and, Carlos, I think that this might address some of your sportfishing questions, but you do have quite a number of sport fishermen that go out for the larger pelagics, and that might not be under management, but that might be significant, in terms of the changes to the fish biomass and the region, and so we will be knocking on those doors. Actually, St. Croix has quite a bit of data from the sportfishing, back in the 1990s and 2000s, and so thank you. CARLOS FARCHETTE:
Thank you.
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, everyone, for a great discussion. J.J., you are creating the tool for the future for the council, and I really appreciate that. Thank you very much for your presentation. The next presentation online is the Outreach and Education Report from Alida Ortiz. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REPORT ALIDA ORTIZ: Good afternoon, everyone. I will try to make my report very concise and short. We will be talking about the discussion that we had in the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel on July 28 and 29 and the recommendations that came out of that meeting and what we are presenting to the council for approval for discussion. First, I am going to just make a very short summary of the projects 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
that we have completed, and one of the probably most important ones that we had been developing for quite a few months is the St. Thomas/St. John MPA outreach strategies. These were requested by Ruth Gomez and Julian and Tony, so that people who come to the St. Thomas/St. John area know about the MPAs, and so we had a project with Sea Grant, and we have a poster that is going to be placed in the marinas or in any place that Ruth and the people there decide to use it, and the same information is in a fact sheet that will be also distributed along the marinas, and everyone that goes to the island should know about these areas, because many of them are going to be fishing or sailing or just going on a tour, and so they have to know that. Also, we were requested to have placemats for the local restaurants and for the tourist restaurants, with the common species that we have called them sometimes underutilized, but these are the ones that are available most of the time, and so we are trying to have those species known to the consumers, so that they can request them, so that they learn about them, and then that will give a little bit of time and space for those other species that are overutilized and have to be under strict management measures. This first one is the local, and some of the species might be similar, or the same ones to the tourism, but then the tourism has other species, and so I want to thank all the support of especially Ruth Gomez and Nicole Greaux, the liaison, that they gave us for this project, and this will be repeated for St. Croix, and we will talk about that later. The other project that we have finished is the life cycle posters of the Nassau grouper and the mutton snapper. There was one issue in Spanish and English, and the other one is in French, and this is a collaboration, I would say, with the WECAFC in the Caribbean for the spawning aggregation education project that they have, and we have talked with them, and we have made several meetings for these projects, but this is already finished, and I don’t know if it is already under printing, but these are the two projects. Then a little bit about the recipe book, or what is going to be our product for the Sustainable Seafood Consumption Campaign, and, here, I am putting, in one slide only, the composition of the book, and it will have a preface and an introduction and a Chapter 1, Chapter 2, 3, 4, and 5, and then a glossary, and this is a workgroup that includes the chefs, and I includes Diana, and it includes Miguel, and it includes the liaisons, because they have also to work with the recipes, and I think it’s going to be a very, very important and different product, because, here, we are putting the 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
underutilized species, but probably in a different way of cooking, but also learning about the nutritional importance of these species, and it will go to all the different areas in the council jurisdiction, but it will also be placed in the chef schools in the UPR, in Carolina, and the Ana Hernandez Cooking School and restaurant school in Carolina also, and so you will see this in different places. Here, I have just an illustration of the recipes, and this is for queen snapper, and it was prepared by one Wanda Pantojas, and so we have the recipe itself, and, here, I still don’t have the nutritional value, but it will be part of the recipe, and then also photos of the plate, so that people know that it can look very good and that they are edible, all of them, and they taste very good, and they are available, and they are not very expensive, and usually they are more common in our fish markets than all the other species that we request all the time. Also, we have been working, and we are still in very intensive meetings, with MREP, the Marine Resource Education Program, and we are working on the curricula review of the workshop that will be done in 2023 and see what information the fishers are requesting that could be taken to the workshop, and then, as soon as it can be done, in will be done in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. With NOAA in the Caribbean, the last issues that we were discussing is the soft coral tissue disease that is being very aggressive in the region, but it’s been studied all over the place, and I think we should recommend that consistent updates on the situation are presented to the council and to the fishers, because it’s something that is all over, and it’s going to take a long, long time to work with it, and so those are the issues that we have been discussing. Now, the way that I am going to present to you the projects and the ideas and the discussion of the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel comes from a document that we prepared in late 2019, the communication and outreach strategies for 2020 to 2025, and our objective there is communication of sound science and data, and it has to do with fish and fisheries and productivity and ecosystems and health governance and socioeconomics and decision-making, all of that. The improvement of public understanding of the processes and interconnection in the marine ecosystem, and we have to take a look at the food web of the marine ecosystem, with humans inside that food web, because we take out many of the species, and then we are able to change the populations, depending on how much we fish and what species are taken out. 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
Then we will also be working with the legislative, regulatory, and institutional frameworks that, many times, if you put an executive order with all the vocabulary that takes an executive order, and if you put the plan from DNER or DPNR and put the vocabulary and the way that it is organized, the fishers and the general consumers don’t really get much out of it, and we have to take that information and put it in a language that they can use. Then design and production of educational materials that will translate all the stock assessment information and all that ecosystem-based fishery management has to the general public, and we can do that not just from the fishing village, but we have to go to the classroom, and to the classroom from the very elementary levels up to the superior grades, and even the university, and it cannot be only in the biology class or in the ecology class, and it has to be in the geography and social studies and history, so that we learn about the history that we have of the fishers in our daily lives. Then we will support that partnership and build new ones, especially with NGOs and with local communities and with schools. Right now, we are doing a lot of connections with what is called eco-schools that are schools that the entire curriculum is framed along ecological issues, and we have been giving workshops to these teachers, and they are using the materials that we have produced for the council. Then, when we say to increase the political awareness and understanding, it’s that the governance, and also the decisions that the agencies make that have to do with the ecosystem, that have to do with the fishes that we take out of the sea, that they understand the relationship between the regulation that is recommended, or imposed, and the impact on the ecosystem, and so that is what we discussed as communication strategies. Then we have to be very aware who are our stakeholders. When we say outreach and education for the council, most of the time, we think that it is only to the fishers, or to the people involved in fishing, and, yes, they are very, very important, and they are our primary targets, but then the consumers, in general, and it doesn’t matter whether they live on the coast or whether they live in the mountains. People from the mountain go down to the coast to buy fish or to eat fish there. Tourism is an activity, and it’s like Cabo Rojo and Fajardo and St. Thomas and St. Croix, and tourism, and the people who go there from different places in the world, have to know about the fishers 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
and the fisheries and the importance of this activity. Then, the decision-makers and the government agencies, those also are the ones responsible for enforcement, or compliance, with those regulations that protect and that make the sustainability of the resource. Then education, and you know me, and I am a teacher, and I don’t care where I teach or when or at what time, and education has to be from all levels, even from the kids in the first grade that do a diagram or that do an art on fishing and ecosystem issues to those that study fisheries in the university and then become the scientists that we need. We will make that very clear in the discussion of the council. Then we discussed specific areas of action for outreach and education in 2020 to 2025. Here, we took the information that was given to the council by Michelle Duval, and we took out of there the basic concept of ecosystem-based management and the islandbased fishery management plans and the sustainable fish and seafood consumption and the marine protected areas in the council’s jurisdiction, and we discussed each one of these specific areas, and then we put out all the ideas that we had for outreach products. One very, very important, and I think this is the one that we are putting a lot of emphasis now, is this thing of the marine protected areas, because it is very easy to say this area is protected, but, when the people ask why, when, what is the use, and what are you going to do with it, and how does that benefit the ecosystem, and how does that benefit the social community, then that thing has to be put in different ways and different spaces, so that everyone, again, from the mountain to the sea, understands this, and we are following that Executive Order of May 26, 2000, and using that definition. In terms of the strategic plan, we also have that data that they put out of the fishers and the people who answered the questionnaire were very concerned with the frequency of communication and the variety of tools, and it is not just a poster, and it is not just a fact sheet. The educational resources and how are they moving to improve public awareness of fisheries issues. Regular in-person outreach workshops and clarity and simplicity of presentations, and so the products that we recommend, or that the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel recommended, are based on the 2025 plan that we had already and then what is coming out of the strategic plan, and we want to make very sure that outreach and education is important for putting out to the public the 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
strategic plan. The plan is not only for the council, or for the DAPs, or for the fisheries, but it’s for everyone. These are the initiatives that were proposed, and this is what we are presenting to the council right now. First of all, we have the calendar that, for this year, is going to be marine protected areas in Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix. Obviously, the MPAs that are in the Exclusive Economic Zone in each one of these islands, but also some of those that are territorial waters but are important. Sometimes, when we think of marine protected areas, we think only of the water around, but then the fishes, many times, don’t read and don’t know where to go, and so the mangroves and the estuaries and the beaches and the rocky shore, and they are all connected to the water, and so we have to take into account where are the marine reserves in Puerto Rico that are governed by the territorial government in St. Thomas/St. John, in St. Croix, and so the calendar will have MPAs from all these islands, and also the location they are and why and when they were established. Then we will have flyers and fact sheets on different issues of ecosystem-based fishery management. I think that this is a concept that, even if we leave it as fisheries management, this way of thinking about management of a natural resource is the way that should be done for all natural resources. When we exploit a forest, or when we use the trees in the mangrove, or even if it is just to make charcoal, we are impacting the ecosystem, and, if the management of that mangrove is not based on ecosystem-based management, we’ll have the same mess that we have been having up until now, and so we are going to put a lot of importance on this. One issue, or one idea, that came out very, very sensitive to the entire group is the bulletin boards, and this was suggested and requested by Ruth Gomez in our meeting, and it is to have bulletin boards in the marinas in the areas where our fisheries regulations should be learned and distribute them. Consequently, every time there is a new regulation, or every time there is a new fact sheet, it should go to a bulletin board, and the council probably will have to provide some funding for this and work with the marinas and work with the local governments. Then they also asked, and this was in Puerto Rico, to put signs with pertinent information in MPAs that are identified by the government from the shore, so that people that go -- For example, the one that I can think of is Tres Palmas, and that is one of our newest reserves, and that they know that that is part of a protected area, and these are the reasons, in terms of fisheries, 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
or in terms of ecosystem-based fishery management, behind that designation. These signs, we’ll also have to talk to each one of the governments, to see where and how -- Where they do have already a design, and the only thing they need is probably support for producing the signs. The illustrated materials, they were -- The O&E AP asked for materials that have the technical, the scientific, information and not just on scientific graphics or in boards or photos, but that are more attractive to the community, and so we are calling it illustrated materials, and probably you could call it a comic book, but it’s not going to be for the children. It’s going to be for everyone, and so we are working with that, for the language, easyto-understand language, and ecosystem-based management and the fishery ecosystem plan and climate change connection with fisheries. This last one, climate change, we can have a lot of information even in the newspaper, but then what does that mean? In one way, it’s the fishery ecosystem and the other way to the social ecosystem of those fisheries. There was a suggestion for -- It came first for St. Thomas, I think, and then we thought that it could be to all the islands, wherever it can be done, and it is the murals. MIGUEL ROLON: Alida, it’s not St. Thomas. had the idea for murals.
It’s St. Croix that
ALIDA ORTIZ: Okay, and so it was St. Croix, but these murals that illustrate some of the issues or some of the facts that we want people to know, and, if they are attractive, if they have good information, it’s just in a graph, and you learn the same thing that you would learn in a fact sheet, and so murals is one. Then, also, there was a recommendation to make the contact again to the newspapers and to the radio and to all the media that the community, the consumers, the fishers, find information, and so we are going to start working with the local newspapers, and they will work with radio stations, and then, the information that is given in a technical document, then we can put it in an easy-toread, and it’s open for everyone, and so these are our initiatives. Now, I would like to Christina to talk to us a little bit about the social media that we have. MIGUEL ROLON:
Christina, before you start, you have five minutes. 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
You went over the time. ALIDA ORTIZ: That will be with Christina and then the liaisons have a very short report for each one of the islands. CHRISTINA OLAN: Thank you, Alida. I will be sharing my screen. Thanks to all. Good afternoon, and my name is Christina Olan, and I am the Social Media Manager for the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. I will give you a brief update on what we have been publishing through our social media pages, in Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube. We continue publishing information regarding seasonal closures, meetings, activities, pictures, educational materials, new publications, content produced by other agencies or NOAA, for example, that we are part of. Then collaborations, workshops, our bulletin, lives, and videos. We have been recently collaborating with AmandOceano, which is an organization composed by students of marine sciences, and they are organizing lives, and so we, along with Sea Grant, we share the Facebook lives, and, for example, we have one regarding mangroves, which are essential fish habitats, and, also, this kind of collaboration is a way to give an opportunity to new scientists, young ones, to express themselves and to share their research with other persons in a very clear and simple way. Thanks to Andy Maldonado, and he has been collaborating with us on a lot of topics, but especially regarding the hurricane season, and he prepared recommendations for fishers to be prepared for the hurricane season, and so we put those recommendations both on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, in English and Spanish. All the content that we have been publishing, except the ones that are just for Puerto Rico, we have been publishing it in English and in Spanish. As we did with Puerto Rico, and we already published a table with fish markets and fishers that are on our islands, and we also did that with St. Thomas, with the help of Nicole Greaux, the fisheries liaison, and, as I mentioned in other meetings, this is a living document, and so, if you find there that we are missing somebody, or a fish market, just feel free to tell me, and we will add that person or fish market, and we will update the document and publish it again. There are a few things that we have in August, and those workshops will be resumed, and we will start with a recreational fisher education program, and we have been announcing that through our 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
social media pages. Also, we will have a workshop on the Caribbean small boat permit changes. We have been publishing the Repaso de PEPCO, and it was a request from the fishers that have been participating in PEPCO, and they requested us to publish the same information that they have been learning through PEPCO. This is an example of a bulletin, a monthly bulletin, and, with Sea Grant, we updated the seasonal closures table in way that we can also present it as a sign in the marinas. It was an idea from Marcos Hanke, and Marcos already did that in his marina, and also, now, we are going to print that sign and distribute that sign around Puerto Rico. We posted the announcement already, and so the people from the marinas and fishers and administrators can call us, or write to us, and let us know that if they are interested in the sign. We have new videos also on YouTube, and we have Cooking with Ita and Ta, and the third video -- We will have the premier on Friday, this Friday, and they are Ita and Ta, and thank you. As always, I mention that I am very thankful to all the fishers and agencies and followers and scientists and staff of the council and council members and liaisons and O&E AP members and consumers and teachers and students and NGOs and sea lovers. Thank you, because all of them help us to improve and increase the content that we publish to our social media pages. Any questions or ideas, please let me know. Thank you. ALIDA ORTIZ:
Thank you so much, Christina.
MARCOS HANKE:
We have liaisons now, right, Alida?
ALIDA ORTIZ: Well, this is my presentation for outreach and education. If there is any questions right now from the council, I would answer it, because the reports from the liaisons are individual. MIGUEL ROLON: The report from the liaisons was supposed to be included in the half-hour that we have here, and so let’s go to the report of the liaisons, and I believe that, what has been presented by Alida Ortiz, if there is no opposition, we will continue working with her, and with all the collaborators and partners, in fulfilling that list in the next five years. ALIDA ORTIZ: start?
We have Wilson and Nicole Greaux.
80
Nicole, would 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
NICOLE GREAUX: Good afternoon. For the St. Thomas/St. John network, we have been going around to the different fish markets, just to talk to the different fishermen, to see if they have any concerns or queries or need more information on the island-based fishery management plans or anything that they might have heard through council review, if they need help with understanding the scientific terminology. The St. John fishers have been speaking to me a lot about certain concerns they have dealing with fishing vending sites, and also lack of communication with certain things that happen when it comes time for the fishery registration. We have a potential plan in place to help them out, and so, with the next fishery registration that’s coming up next year, we have found a way to resolve their concerns and issues, and I’m really happy about that, and with the communication between both myself and Dr. Havertes, who is our new Chief of Fisheries, helping the fishers with their pre-registration and registration forms, and that was very exciting, giving them information on how to go about filling out different forms that were new to them for this year with the pre-registration. Then, also, being able to work with Christina and having the different fish vending sites and the fishermen that have agreed so far to be included on that particular project listed for other people that visit the website to get a chance to see where they can find fish for sale on different days of the week. ALIDA ORTIZ:
Thank you, Nicole.
Do I have Mavel?
MAVEL MALDONADO: Good afternoon, everyone. I hope that everybody is okay. In the last few months, I’ve been in contact with the fishermen, and everybody here is very happy with everything that’s going on. They have some concerns, as I was saying at the last meeting, with the fish market, but, otherwise, they are good. They are happy with the sale of the fish. Here in St. Croix, we’ve got more fish selling spots than in St. Thomas, and so trying to figure out each one of them and like different times -- It has been kind of hard, but I was able to share my contact with some of them, and, if I am not able to talk to them personally, we’re either texting or on the phone, and that’s about it. The concerns that we had for the registration this year, everything went smooth. Whatever hiccups they had, it had nothing to do with the Fish and Wildlife Department, and it had to do like with the 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
agricultural department division or with the consumers, but everything went smooth, and I was able to be there present, at least three days out of the five, and I was able to help them, and everything was smooth, and, like I said, I have contact with them. The past few weeks, I wasn’t here, but, any concern that they had, the ones that have my contact, they were able to call me, and I was able to direct them to the department that they had to go, and I am seeing what the future holds with my relationship with the fishermen and with the DFW. ALIDA ORTIZ:
Thank you so much, Mavel.
Wilson, are you there?
WILSON SANTIAGO: Yes, I’m here. Good afternoon, everyone. I am Wilson Santiago, the Puerto Rico liaison officer, for those of you that don’t know me. This year, as the Puerto Rico liaison, we have continued with the educational program for commercial fishers. This year, we made it virtual, and we are planning to start again with face-to-face workshops, probably in November or December of this year. We have to see how the pandemic goes. We have been distributing educational videos and information for the commercial fishers regarding the federal and state regulations and the social media, the CFMC social media, and a broadcast group for fishers that is in WhatsApp, the WhatsApp app. We have distributed all the educational materials of the CFMC and Sea Grant, and Sea Grant has given us a lot of educational materials for the fishers, and DNER too, everything for the fishers and the fishing villages. Like I said, the educational program for Puerto Rico commercial fishers, we named it PEPCO. In Spanish, we call it PEPCO, and the virtual program, the workshop, we sent certificates to all the participants via mail, with a lot of educational materials, and so, for the program, we are -- Next week, we are having, like Christina said in her report, we are having a continuing education workshop for the commercial fishers about the new regulations of the HMS for Caribbean small boat permits. That workshop is going to be August 18, and we are going to have the presenter from NOAA Fisheries, a contractor from NOAA Fisheries, with the help of Christina Olan, too. We are coordinating with Sea Grant personnel on another continuing education workshop for the commercial fisher divers regarding compression sickness, and that workshop doesn’t have any dates, but it’s probably soon that it’s going to have a date. 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
We are coordinating with fishing villages presidents to start PEPCO face-to-face, like I said earlier, starting in November or December of this year, and so, next week, we are starting with Helena Antoun, and we are starting a workshop for the recreational fishers, and that is going to be August 19 and August 26, of this month of this year, and so that is what we have. The issues and concerns from the fishers, everything that I heard, about the queen and cardinal snapper permit for the state, for the DNER, and fish identification with the common names, and they have issues with the HMS permit for the Caribbean small boat, and that is why we are doing this workshop next week, and another issue that the fishers have in Puerto Rico is for the license and permits and the time waiting for the DNER to respond, and those issues have been sent to DNER personnel, to Damaris Delgado, and they all know about this issue, and we are working on it, and so that is my report. If anyone has a question, I am going to be putting my phone and my email in the chat, for any of you if you want to contact me. Any questions? ALIDA ORTIZ:
Thank you so much.
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Wilson. Thank you, Alida, and we have to speed up the process, and I just want to say, very briefly, to thank you, Alida, for being so effective at putting together all the ideas that were approved and mentioned from the council before, in the previous meetings, and to see actually the work that has been done, and keep doing a great job. Thank you very much. ALIDA ORTIZ:
Thank you.
JOSE RIVERA: Marcos, this is Jose Rivera from National Marine Fisheries Service. MARCOS HANKE:
Yes, Jose.
JOSE RIVERA: I just wanted to comment to Alida that, in one of her posters, she had the mutton snapper listed as Lutjanus vivanus, and I believe it should be Lutjanus analis. ALIDA ORTIZ:
Can you repeat that, Jose?
JOSE RIVERA: In one of your posters that was talking about the different fish, it was described as Lutjanus vivanus, which is not mutton snapper. MIGUEL ROLON:
That’s the chillo. 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
JOSE RIVERA: Yes, vivanus is chillo, but she was talking about mutton snapper. MIGUEL ROLON: Mutton is analis. thank you very much for that.
We will take care of that, and
JOSE RIVERA:
Okay.
MIGUEL ROLON:
Alida and I will look at it.
That’s a mistake.
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. That is one of the purposes of those kinds of presentations, that the team and everybody can support and help us out. Thank you. Enforcement issues is the next item on the agenda, and we’re going to start with the Puerto Rico DNER. NASSAU GROUPER DISCUSSION MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, before we go into that, there are two things that we want to discuss, and one came up this morning, and the first one is that, in the case of the Nassau grouper, you sent a letter to the Virgin Islands administrator, and that letter has been answered regarding the Nassau grouper. We also, this morning, decided to look at the spiny lobster and the closure when we go over the ACLs. The letter was included in the briefing book, the Nassau grouper letter, and there are some issues here that we need to look at and see if you want to take any action. Personally, I thought that the Nassau grouper -- Actually, I was talking to Jose Rivera, and we all thought that the Nassau grouper was protected everywhere, but it’s not. According to this letter, even the ESA does not protect the Nassau grouper, as we thought. There are two issues here, and one is compatible regulations, because, as well said by Miguel Borges before, in the case of the Nassau grouper, they cannot intervene in the area of jurisdiction of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, nine nautical miles around Puerto Rico and three nautical miles around the U.S. Virgin Islands. If we want to protect the species, we need to take some action, and so the paragraph -- The first part of the letter, the last paragraph, you have a statement here that, as a threatened species, the prohibition of take of a species under Section 9 of the ESA does not automatically apply to Nassau grouper. Fisheries have not taken regulatory action to extend those protections to this species, and so we need to ask, here, if that can be done or not. 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
The other statement, in the same paragraph, is that NOAA Fisheries concluded that authorizing the fisheries off Puerto Rico and off St. Croix was not likely to adversely affect Nassau grouper and authorizing the fisheries off of St. Thomas/St. John is likely to adversely affect, but unlikely to jeopardize, the continued existence of Nassau grouper. Anyway, that is for you, and then you cannot do much about ESA, except for requesting some action, but, in the case of the management plan, you do have responsibility, and so those two questions are open for discussion, and then that will be followed by the other thing about the spiny lobster, and so the first question is the status of compatible regulations in the government of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands regarding the Nassau grouper and whether they plan or have anything on the agenda for the future to adopt compatible regulations to protect the Nassau grouper. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. Actually, I think it’s pertinent to ask if Jocelyn can answer this question, but what the council can do and what is the route to address this issue that we thought we were much better -- That we had much more protection. MIGUEL ROLON:
Marcos.
MARCOS HANKE:
Go ahead, Miguel.
MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, we need to hear from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands first, because they already sent a letter to you with the legal advice received by the Regional Administrator on this one, and so we can expand later, but, at this time in the agenda, you have Puerto Rico and the USVI, and so we need to hear from them first. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for your guidance, but it’s just that, for me, this got out of guard, and I am really worried with this situation. Go ahead, Puerto Rico DNER. MIGUEL ROLON:
We are all worried.
DAMARIS DELGADO: If it’s okay, I would go with some of the numbers that we have of interventions of the Rangers, if that’s okay, or I don’t know if you just want to have a discussion on the Nassau grouper and other stuff. MARCOS HANKE:
Let’s focus on the Nassau grouper now.
DAMARIS DELGADO:
Okay.
Well, we just want some support from NOAA 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
about the protection of the species, and we have been trying to get more support from Miguel Borges with regard to the state waters, and, whatever you could do for us, it would be appreciated. MIGUEL ROLON:
Marcos.
MARCOS HANKE:
Go ahead, Miguel.
MIGUEL ROLON: That’s not the point. The question about enforcement was addressed at the July 21 meeting. What we need to hear is whether we are going to do something extending the protection to the Nassau grouper by any action in the federal government or the local government, and, the way it is now, the Nassau grouper is only protected when you catch a person catching the fish, if the fish is in their boat, in the EEZ, period, and that’s it. If you catch the fish, and you cannot prove -- Let’s say that the federal government intervenes with somebody within nine nautical miles of Puerto Rico, and that’s the case, and, if they can do it, they have to prove that that fish came from the EEZ, and that is -- According to people that I have talked to, and Miguel and others expressed the issue at the meeting, and it’s almost impossible. The first question is do we need to -- Addressing the letter from Mr. Strelcheck, do we have any way to extend the protection to the Nassau grouper, regarding ESA, and, in the case of the MagnusonStevens Act, we already took action, at least in the EEZ, where we prohibited goliath and Nassau grouper, and let’s stick to Nassau grouper, to protect the species. When we started this, when the fishers asked questions to us several years ago, it was a generation-and-a-half was the extend to protect the protection to the Nassau grouper, and the darned thing is sexually mature at twenty-two years old, and so you may need to have thirty-four years to declare the fish ready to open, one-and-a-half generations. Those are the questions that we have with the Nassau grouper. The Nassau grouper is supposed to have an international component, but that’s another story, because we are telling everybody and his brother throughout the Caribbean, NOAA Fisheries and the council and others, to protect the Nassau grouper, and yet, here in the U.S., we have millions of dollars and a lot of brainpower, and a lot of people, and we cannot protect the Nassau grouper effectively, and that’s what the fisher who called me -- He was a little bit -- Well, not happy about it. 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
He is asking the council what can we do, and so the first question is whether there will be compatible regulations in the local governments’ jurisdiction for the Nassau grouper, and second is, if not, then what can we do on the federal government side, if anything, to protect the Nassau grouper, using the MSA and the ESA, and that’s where we are with the Nassau grouper. MARCOS HANKE: to speak.
Thank you, Miguel.
Andy is requesting for a turn
ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos, and let me say a few words, and then I think it would be helpful for both Manny Antonaras and Jocelyn to also speak. All of you have the letter before you that I sent a week or two ago. The issue here boils down to we have both state and federal regulations that prohibit harvest under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and we have to establish that Nassau grouper was taken in or from the EEZ, and that doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to observe that it was taken in or from the EEZ, but enforcement has to have a way of providing evidence to determine that a violation has occurred. We do not have authority, obviously, to enforce the territorial laws, which I think was another component of this conversation, and so, specific to, obviously, the issue at-hand, the Magnuson Act, or even territorial laws, obviously prohibit harvest, but we have an enforcement challenge before us, and so I would like Manny Antonaras to speak to that and anything else with regard to enforcement first, and then maybe we can get into a discussion of the Endangered Species Act and what can or can’t be done, in terms of future work. MARCOS HANKE:
Manny.
MANNY ANTONARAS: Thank you, Marcos, and, just to follow-up on what Andy Strelcheck had said, the difficulty in trying to prove a case at the dock, or in state waters, is exactly that, and we have to show -- We have to be able to prove that the Nassau -That the fish was harvested in the EEZ, and this is often the case with most of the things that we enforce under Magnuson. Sometimes we are -- We do have -- Under the ESA, we don’t have to prove EEZ harvest if there is a take prohibition in place for species that are listed as endangered. In this case, with Nassau being threatened, we don’t have any take prohibitions which would allow OLE to make a case at the dock without having to prove that EEZ nexus, and so, for purposes of this discussion, under the 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
current regulation, the Magnuson regulation, we would have to prove that the fish was harvested in the EEZ. The other point that I was going to make was that, even if we have -- Even if a territory has a compatible law, a compatible law with the federal law, we still would not have OLE authority to enforce territory laws, as it stands. MIGUEL ROLON:
Marcos, you have Julian and Tony.
MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I’m organizing myself here. Go ahead, Julian.
Julian first.
JULIAN MAGRAS: Good afternoon. Julian Magras, for the record. I am a little bit confused on the whole compatible regulation thing, because, back in 2005, when we went through the Sustainable Fisheries Act, and we had to take the 30 percent reduction, and we put all of these seasonal closures in place, which are compatible both federal and local, and I don’t understand why it cannot be enforced by either law, and it doesn’t need to be proven that it was caught in federal waters, because it’s a compatible regulation that was done by the council, which is federal. It gets very confusing, and this issue is not only about the Nassau grouper, but it happens with all the seasonal closures, when they go into effect on the three-month closures, and we have the issues where fishermen are continuously -- Not only commercial fishermen, but recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, charter fishermen, and they continue to bring in these species that are closed. We look at the Nassau grouper as one individual that the guy called about, but it’s way more than that, and there is also a law about filleting the fish at-sea, and so the fish cannot be filleted atsea. That was one of the things that was part of that whole document, and so I don’t understand, and I think we need to have some more face-to-face discussion, and hopefully it happens in December, so that we can lay the case down on a sidebar or something about this whole process and how it’s being done, because we are putting the rules in effect, and then we are not doing nothing to enforce them, and so the fishers just look at us, when we talk to them, and they laugh that you guys can’t do nothing, and nothing is being done, and there is no enforcement. Every document that we have done, from conceptual models to the five-year strategic plan, enforcement came out as number-one to the top, and here it is that we have issues that can be addressed right at the dock, right at the dock, and it happens in the United 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
States all the time, and you don’t have to be on the water. You just sit at the dock when that boat comes in, and you search them. You search their catch, and you will be able to stop a lot of the illegal activity that is going on. Trust me. Once the message gets out that the first boat has been checked, and they have been given a fine and everything, it’s going to slow right down. They are going to get scared, and we need to sit down as a group, and we need to look at this more carefully, because we already have a lot of compatibility rules in place, but we just need to figure out, as a group, how we can enforce them. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Julian.
Great points.
Tony.
TONY BLANCHARD: I would have to agree with a lot of what Mr. Magras has said there. To my understanding, and just an example, the regs on the Nassau grouper is possession. You don’t actually have to be the guy that catches the fish, but you just have to be in possession of that fish in order to be in violation. Correct me if I’m wrong. Number two, what is the local government -- What is their take on all of this? What are they willing to do, because, if you’ve got some guys that are abiding by the regs, and then you have those that ain’t abiding by the regs, the only one that is suffering the wrath here, for lack of a better description, is the men that are following the rules, and so why should I follow the rules, when everybody else ain’t following the rules? At the end of the day, I agree with him, and we need to come to some kind of consensus, or agreement, as to how these regs are being enforced, because, just like him, my understanding of how the regulations is being enforced, and how they can be enforced, is two different things, because, like he said, I don’t understand. If you’re in possession of the species, and you get to the dock, this species, to the best of my knowledge, is listed as threatened, I believe, and you come to shore, and you cannot do anything about it, and that’s just an example for the Nassau, and I agree with him that this is happening with other species, and, at the end of the day, the guys that play by the rules seem to be the guys that get penalized, and not necessarily the guy that don’t really care. I’m not saying that there is only -- Just like him, there is a certain sector of individuals doing it, and I just think that, across-the-table, there is nothing being done, and, at the end of the day, the guys that are playing by the rules of the game are 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 ones that are suffering, and so we need to come to some kind of consensus agreement or something to get these regs enforced. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, I have, in the chat, very close to this, Nicole Angeli, stating that Julian is correct, and the 12 VRR 316.14(e) specifies that the possession of Nassau grouper is prohibited year-round in the territory, until the CFMC determines that it has recovered. That is what we were saying before. In the case of the U.S. Virgin Islands, the law is there at the federal level and the local level. Enforcement will be the issue. In the case of Puerto Rico, I have not seen it, and maybe Damaris has some letters to the language, but I haven’t seen compatible regulations on the Nassau grouper, and so those two issues are the important thing. If we concentrate on the letter that we have, we can have -- I would like for the Chair to follow the list of people who want to comment, and there is a bunch of people here, and I will send you the list, and then we can talk a little bit more when they finish. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I have here a bunch of people. I have Carlos, Vanessa, Loren, and Manny. I would like to give the opportunity to Loren Remsberg and Manny Antonaras, and, please, Carlos and Vanessa, let’s hear from them, because they might give us some important information to clarify this discussion. Loren Remsberg, please. LOREN REMSBERG: Thank you, Marcos. This is Loren Remsberg from NOAA’s Office of General Counsel, in the Enforcement Section. I thought it might be helpful to clarify, in case there is confusion about what it means when there is compatible regulations for a species in the territory and in the EEZ under the Magnuson Act. The Magnuson regs require us to show -- In order to prove a violation and assess a penalty, we have to show that that species was harvested in the EEZ or it was possessed in the EEZ, and so, if we can develop that evidence, even if it’s at the dock, we can charge that violation federally. If a territory has a compatible regulation, that does not give the federal government any authority to penalize someone, because we don’t have authority to bring an action under a territorial law. We can only bring an action under a federal law, at least under the Magnuson Act. If there is a compatible territorial prohibition that covers that species, that violation can still be prosecuted, but it just needs to be prosecuted by the territory, and so it’s really a matter of 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
jurisdiction, and separate jurisdictions, but it doesn’t mean that nothing can be done. It’s just more of a question of who can respond, and so I wanted to clarify that, in case there was any confusion. Even when regs are the same, these are separate jurisdictions, and so who can act on it depends on the facts and what can be proven. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, I also would like to read, for the record, that Graciela found the regulation that we have in Puerto Rico, and what it says is that any person that possesses, offers to sell, or individual or species within a federal schedule, which is the Nassau grouper, will be in violation of the regulation, including people that are importing, and they have to demonstrate, et cetera, et cetera. So the issue is not compatible regulations, and those two governments, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, do have compatible regulations, and it’s a matter of enforcement, and the issue of enforcement, as stated by everybody here, calls for some action, and so we don’t need to do anything else except for looking for ways to legally enforce the law, and we have heard from everybody in the federal government that are here that they cannot go into the local area of jurisdiction to enforce federal laws. There may be a memorandum of understanding, but, usually, the memorandum of understanding works one way, and they deputize local government enforcement agents to enforce the law in the EEZ and not the other way around, and so this is really the issue that needs to be discussed. I have Nicole Angeli also to add to the list. MARCOS HANKE: I have her on the list, but I need to go first to Carlos Farchette. CARLOS FARCHETTE: I spent -- As you all know, I spent half of my life in law enforcement with DPNR, and a solution to this is that we need to get community involvement, just like all other police work. The officer has to get someone that can trust them, and get an informant, and give them the name of the person that they believe, or they know, is filleting those fish or bringing them in, or the color of the boat, which is what I used to do as an officer, and, that way, you can pull a surveillance on a particular boat, because what you’re doing now is there’s someone out there filleting fish, and that’s looking for a needle in a haystack. If someone can get working with someone -- I mean, I’m retired for twelve years, and I still have my informants, and so there has to be a local issue, and I do believe that, if the federal agent is 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
working on a patrol boat with local officers, he can assist with prosecution, and I know it’s different between what he is authorized to do in territorial waters as opposed to EEZ, and so I know that Manny and the attorney and all of those are correct to what they say. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos. I have Vanessa, but, Vanessa, please hold on for a second. I have Manny Antonaras that requested, and then Jocelyn, and then I will go to Vanessa. MANNY ANTONARAS: Thank you, Marcos, and thank you, Loren. I actually wanted to follow-up a little bit on the compatible regulations, and I think Loren did an excellent job explaining that. Just to add to that, if one of our folks is at the dock, and, right now, we do have a federal officer who is assigned to USVI, specific to this case, who will be off of field training at the end of this month. In a scenario like Julian or Tony explained, where we have somebody at the dock, and, for example, we do have our officer there, if we are not able to establish a federal violation, and we can’t prove that the fish were harvested in the EEZ, and the USVI does have a compatible regulation that says you cannot possess Nassau in the territorial waters or at the dock, at that point, our officer can work with a local officer to bring that case through the USVI, and that’s something we do regularly with all of our partners. I am really looking forward to partnership with the USVI and with Puerto Rico and continuing the partnerships. Then the other point, as Carlos mentioned, and I couldn’t agree more with what Carlos said about informants and working with the community for community policing, because, oftentimes, we do get complaints. If those complaints are not specific enough, it is very difficult, even with having an officer and an agent in the USVI and Puerto Rico, to respond to something, and we are a lot more efficient when we have specifics. As Carlos said, a color of a boat, location where the subjects may be coming in, time of day, time of year, all of those specifics, help us. Just to bring something forward that says this is occurring, it’s very difficult to follow-up on that sort of thing, and that’s all I have. Thank you, Marcos. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Manny.
Let’s go to Nicole.
NICOLE ANGELI: Thank you so much. I would have covered some of this in the report at our time allotted as well, but, at this time, all of our local law enforcement are still on the COVID taskforce 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
and called to the VIPD, and so, for any violations of this sort, 911 should be called immediately, and they will patch through to environmental enforcement, so that they can deploy their environmental enforcement officer. Local environmental enforcement was not notified of this incident, and so I just wanted to make it clear that 911 is the correct number to call, at this time, for any fisheries violations that you might see while you’re out. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you very much.
Jocelyn,
JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you, Marcos. I was just going to say things that Loren and Manny had already said about what happens in state waters, because I had heard some confusion as well about what the federal government can do in state waters, but, really, it’s just keeping clear that the federal authority is to enforce federal violations, and, if they’re in state waters, they would have to just establish that whatever is occurring was a violation of federal law. As Manny had said, if it looks to be that what is occurring might be a violation of some compatible state law, it would be an issue of referring it to the state entity, and so I just wanted to make sure that everyone was clear about that, because I had heard a little bit of confusion there, but I think Loren and Manny did an excellent job explaining the different jurisdictions. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you very much.
Edward Schuster.
EDWARD SCHUSTER: Edward Schuster, for the record. I think, if my memory jogs me correctly, with this Nassau grouper and how long we’ve been involved with this issue with the Nassau grouper, and Julian and Jimmy Magna, the whole group from 2004, and the word “possession” was put in there to actually give -- I want to believe that I am correct in what I say, but, if I’m wrong, I stand to be corrected. Roy, when he was in his position, he put the word in language of “possession”, because he made the remark and said there are no fence lines to stop the fish from going in federal waters and local waters, and so he put the word in there of “possession”. If you are in possession of a fish that is protected, whether federally or locally, you’re in violation. It’s just like a sea turtle, and so, if you’re saying to me, if I caught the sea turtle in local waters, and it’s protected federally, I can’t be prosecuted? I mean, to me, it’s like we’re 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
just pissing away our time in the wind. I mean, then here it is that you want a fisher to risk his life, or his livelihood, out at sea, and, when you live in a small fishing community, it’s very hard, and, yes, I know you have informants, and Carlos said it for this thirty-three years that he’s been in law enforcement, but it’s very hard, in times like this right now, to narrow it down to who the person is. Then, when you go out to sea, and you’re fishing, twenty or thirty miles from shore, or however many miles, you’re in no-man’s-land, and they’re at war at-sea, and you’re at war back at land, when you come back, and you’ve just risked your whole life and your livelihood and your family’s livelihood. I think there is something that needs to be done. Whether the local enforcement gets involved with the federal agency and get it moving, or else all of our hard work, from way back in the MSA, with that 700-page document, has gone down the drains. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE:
We have Jocelyn.
JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you, Marcos, and so I can speak to some of the language that’s in the regulation, and this is also in that letter, where we quote the regulation, but it’s unlawful to fish for or possess Nassau grouper in or from the EEZ, and so what possession helps with is if a fisher is in the EEZ waters, and the fish is onboard, and that’s a violation, and so you don’t have to catch them in the act of harvesting. Then the “in or from the EEZ”, that’s also explained in the letter, and that would allow enforcement to establish a federal violation if they could establish that the fish came from the EEZ, and that is what the federal law prohibits, and so there might be state laws that also prohibit possession of Nassau grouper, or harvest of Nassau grouper, but, when you’re in the state waters, you have to figure out if you’re looking at that state violation or if you can establish that it’s a federal violation, for example because you can somehow establish the fish came from the federal waters. There is this protection that goes from the state to the federal waters, where the rules are the same, but it’s a question of who enforces the protection and what are the facts. Is it a violation of the federal law, or is it a violation of the state law, and I can let Manny and Loren say anything else on those points, but that’s really kind of what we’re talking about, is how do we get that protection throughout those waters, and it’s relying on both the state and the federal law as complements to each other. 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
MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Jocelyn.
Miguel.
MIGUEL ROLON: hands.
Just that you have Andy and others raising their
MARCOS HANKE:
Yes.
Andy.
ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos, and thanks, Jocelyn, for that further clarification. I wanted to, I guess, first lead by I really appreciate hearing from the fishermen and the frustration that they are conveying on this issue, and we responded in writing, in terms of kind of our jurisdictional authority, but it really seems, to me, that the crux of the problem isn’t so much the regulations, or even our regulatory authority, but our limited ability to actually have staffing and resources to conduct the enforcement, and that’s no slight to the USVI or Puerto Rico, or even our own Office of Law Enforcement, but it’s just that we have limited resources to conduct that enforcement. We certainly have the ability, if officers are present, to take enforcement action, and, obviously, it’s a little more complicated, under the Magnuson Act, in terms of the burden of proof of determining whether or not Nassau grouper came in or from the EEZ, and we’re working with the territories in that instance. We did note, in the letter as well, that, under the Endangered Species Act, we haven’t taken additional steps to impose further regulatory actions, and that certainly could be done. It likely would take some time for our office to do that, and that then removes the MSA kind of burden of proof requirement, and it would make it a federal violation to be in possession of Nassau grouper, regardless of the area which that event occurs. I guess I would point out that, in doing that, you still have to have the resources and officers available in order to conduct that enforcement, and, without that, I think we’re faced with a similar situation that we’re taking about now and the challenges with just enforcing regulations, given the limited availability of our officers. MARCOS HANKE: I am missing?
Thank you.
Christina, do we have anybody else that
CHRISTINA OLAN: I still see Edward, Julian, Andy, and Miguel with raised hands, and I don’t know if they want to add comments, in the case of Edward and Julian and Miguel, if they also want to speak. 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
MARCOS HANKE:
Which Miguel?
CHRISTINA OLAN:
Miguel Rolon.
MIGUEL ROLON:
Julian is first, and then you have Eddie.
MARCOS HANKE:
Okay.
Go ahead, Julian.
JULIAN MAGRAS: Julian Magras, for the record. If at some point we can put this on the agenda again, for the December meeting, so we can have some further discussion, I would greatly appreciate it, and maybe we can have a sidebar with local enforcement, federal enforcement, and whichever fisher representatives are there, and all of the DAP chairs who are normally at the meetings, so we can have a little discussion, because I think we need to take the focus off of Nassau grouper and look at all the compatible regulations with the seasonal closures that are in place, and have some kind of discussion and see, at that time, with all the brains and the lawyers and everybody, if maybe we can put something in writing and see what can happen, bringing it up to the higher level after all of us sit down and discuss it, and so I’m just throwing that out there. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: If my memory is good, Tony is the next one that had a hand raised. MIGUEL ROLON: It was Eddie that still had the hand. finish, lower your hand. EDWARD SCHUSTER:
I lowered my hand.
When you
Sorry about that.
MIGUEL ROLON: So it’s me now. The whole issue boils down to this. Possession is covered in the EEZ as well as in two local areas, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The point is, who is going to enforce that, because, right now, if I’m in the EEZ, or in the Government of Puerto Rico’s jurisdiction, or in the Government of the Virgin Islands’ jurisdiction, in possession of the darned Nassau grouper, I am in violation of the federal government and/or the local law, and so who is going to enforce that? We already heard from the National Marine Fisheries Service that they cannot go into the area of jurisdiction to enforce the laws, period, and they don’t do that. If you are going to have the Endangered Species Act amended somehow, or ask for an amendment to extend protection to the species of the Nassau grouper, then, as Andy said, you can have a federal government person enforce the law wherever that fish is, and you don’t have to prove that it’s 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
in the EEZ, because the ESA trumps the MSA, in this case. However, if you do that, once you have a species in the ESA, it’s a long process to get it out, but, in the case of the Nassau grouper, I wouldn’t worry about the long process, because, by the time that thing is able to recuperate or recover, I will be dead or out of a job, but we need to start the process now. The immediate thing now is how can we enforce the laws that are protecting the Nassau grouper at this time? Do we need to ask National Marine Fisheries Service to consider extending protection to the species that we call Nassau grouper under the ESA? Those are the two issues that we need to discuss about. Some people talked about a memorandum of understanding, and the memorandum of understanding that we had for enforcement before is, as I said, deputizing the local government to enforce the law in the EEZ, and not the other way around, unless we have something like the ESA change. The other issue that was presented by Julian, and, if you agree, we can have a whole morning to just discuss compatible regulations and ask to two local governments to come prepared to discuss that, and it’s not for the Nassau grouper only, but for all the other species that are in need of protection in both jurisdictions, local and federal. The question to the council, at this time is do you want to pursue this by just emphasizing the need of enforcement, and then look for ways that we can enforce it? We at the council can do little things. For example, Natalia and Diana and I, we are going to put, on our webpage, a hotline again for enforcement. In the case of the Virgin Islands, you can call 911, as Dr. Angeli just mentioned, and you can do the same for Puerto Rico, and, of course, you have the number that is already on the webpages of the National Marine Fisheries Service. That will take care, at least in my mind, of the issue of enforcement, or it will be at least one step in the right direction of enforcement. Then the second question is do you want to ask the action agency to extend protection to the Nassau grouper? Especially, if you look at the letter, the word “take” is the key word for the Nassau grouper, and what we get from doing that is then allow the federal government to go all the way to the shoreline to intervene anybody with possession of the Nassau grouper. You don’t have to talk all at the same time, but let us know what -MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Miguel. 97
On the same lines, I would like
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 read, for the record, a question that Michelle Scharer just posted. We need to know what is the timeline for NOAA to take regulatory action, along the same lines that you just explained. Jocelyn. MIGUEL ROLON:
She is talking about ESA, by the way.
JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure. Thank you. As Andy said, there is some authority that, if NOAA Fisheries wanted to extend the take protections under Section 9 of the ESA to threatened species, there is the ability to do that. I don’t really know what that timeline would look like or what sort of information the agency would need to determine that that would be an appropriate next step, but that’s something that we can look into as the agency is considering necessary efforts to protect the species and ensure its conservation and recovery under the Endangered Species Act, but that’s the regulatory process, sort of extending those protections, and that’s how that would occur. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you.
Tony.
TONY BLANCHARD: I would have to agree with Julian. I think we should table this until the December meeting. I think we need to get the local governments into the same -- Onto the same playing field and figure out how this so-called problem will be dealt with, because this is not just about the Nassau. This is about all the other regulations that we have on the books that are federal as well as local as well as the other regs. I think we need to come to the table in December with the local governments and figure out how this works. MARCOS HANKE:
I have Andy.
Thank you, Tony.
Andy.
ANDY STRELCHECK: I just wanted to comment on timing. I certainly can talk with our Protected Resources Division Chief, but it would expect that this would be several years in the making, in order to do this, and it’s not because it wouldn’t be a priority. We have a whole slew of listing actions, critical habitat designations, that are under legal timelines, and so those, right now, are taking priority, from a protected resources standpoint. Nassau grouper critical habitat is one of those actions that we’ll be working on, but I can commit to getting back to Miguel with a general idea of timeline, if we were to move forward with any sort of regulatory actions. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Miguel, I have a question for you. I think it’s a good idea that we address, many times, making a 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
working group, with let’s say representatives from the USVI, from Puerto Rico, one from the federal government, to have a report and to discuss this in detail in a smaller group, to support the discussion in the next council meeting, and do you think that that’s a good idea? MIGUEL ROLON: In the case of the Nassau grouper, we have everything that we need right here on the table. The only thing that we need to do is to ask the question of whether there will be enforcement or not of the Nassau grouper within the area of jurisdiction of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, as well as the EEZ. The Nassau grouper is protected under the two local jurisdictions and the federal government, but what we are lacking here is the actual enforcement of the law, and, in the case of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, they have enforcement people, and so ask them to go ahead and enforce the law. In the case of the EEZ, we already have that, and so what we are looking at is the lack of enforcement of a particular law and regulation that is trying to protect the Nassau grouper. However, the other issue about the possibility of changing the ESA, that’s something that need to wait. As Andy said, let’s wait and check on the regulatory action timeline, because, as he said, there is a lot of other things that ESA takes care of, and remember that sometimes what you ask is not what you want, because now you have a species under the ESA protection, and it’s very difficult to get it out. Let’s say that a miracle happens, and the Nassau grouper is all over the place in five years. Then to take it out of the ESA is a little bit difficult, and so we don’t need more regulations at this time. What we need is to enforce the regulations that we have, and the word “possession” has been mentioned by everybody, the lawyers and Julian and others, and so let’s concentrate on that one. However, what Julian and Tony are talking about is a little beyond that, and so probably what we can do is to have a session at the council meeting in December where everybody will be present and look at possible compatible regulations, and I will talk to Julian later, and others, and Graciela, of course, and we are going to compile a list of those species that are under regulations and see which ones have compatible regulations and which ones are lacking compatible regulations, not only in the federal government, or in the local government, but also in the federal government. 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
Sometimes you may have a regulation that applies to a species that are shared by the local and federal jurisdictions, and then you need federal compatible regulations, and so, going back to what you were saying, and we have taken too much time, is, if the directives are clear, we will put together, with the Chair, an agenda item, and give ample time for discussion, that will address all the species that are under regulation that would need compatible regulations and all the issues that are being brought to the table by the chairs of the DAPs and Council Member Tony Blanchard, and we can sit down at the next meeting and discuss it. Then, from the meeting, we can decide the next steps to follow. At that meeting, probably we will have a timeline that is needed for amending the ESA, if we need to, or incorporate the protection to the species of Nassau grouper, if we need to. If you agree with that course of action, we can go ahead and do it and then go to another item. MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Is everybody in agreement with what Miguel just explained? Hearing no comment, let’s do that, and let’s go for the next item on the agenda, the next item for discussion. We had deviated from the Puerto Rico DNER report. SPINY LOBSTER DISCUSSION MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, I suggest that we leave the report for the December meeting and discuss the other one, which is the pressing one, which is this explanation about the spiny lobster issue. Local fishers -- I don’t see anyone here, but they asked me to bring this to your attention, and Andy is ready to discuss it. The issue is that we already have a regulation that calls for closure of the spiny lobster whenever we go over the ACL. The ACL, the way that we do it, we have the average of the three years. In the case of Puerto Rico, we are supposed to close as many days as needed to compensate for the catches that went over the established limit, starting on December 30 backwards, all the way to January 1, if needed, and then, the following year, will start in October. Hopefully that will never happen. In this case, the spiny lobster season had been shortened, and now we have the closure, and that is an in-season closure, from August 22 to September 30, and October 1 will be the first day of the continuation of the season, and that’s where we are at this time. The fishers who called my office, they were asking me whether the Government of Puerto Rico will have compatible regulations, making this closure effective from the shoreline to the edge of the EEZ, 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
and my answer was we don’t know. I sent a note to Damaris, and so this is the time to ask the local government whether they intend to have any compatible regulations, but, as of now, the area where the spiny lobster closure is effective is the EEZ surrounding Puerto Rico, and I believe that Andy has his hand up. MARCOS HANKE:
Andy.
ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Miguel, and you did a great job kind of describing what occurred this year, and so the accountability measure was triggered, based on average landings for 2017, 2018, and 2019 exceeding the catch limit. If you recall, obviously, 2017 was a hurricane year, and we also recognize that last year was impacted by COVID regulations, and the average landings were then reviewed and assessed to determine how much harvest would need to be reduced and take into consideration some of the recent landing trends. We determined that that August 22 to September 30 timeframe was needed to close the fishery to reduce catch levels, in order to constrain the catch limit. Certainly we would be supportive of Puerto Rico adopting compatible regulations for the closure, but, at this point, our authority only lies with closing federal waters of the EEZ, in response to the accountability measure being triggered. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. This is a question for the Puerto Rico DNER. Damaris, do you have any comment about the intention, or not, to adopt, at this time, the closure in the state waters? DAMARIS DELGADO: Yes, I do. We do not intend to expand that closure to our state waters. We have prepared, from the lab, the Fisheries Research Lab, a report to the Secretary, to the DNER Secretary, recommending not to extend that prohibition to state waters. We are in the process of having the Secretary sign a letter with regard to that. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Damaris.
DAMARIS DELGADO:
You’re welcome.
MARCOS HANKE: Andy, about the discussion on the dates on the lobster, do you want to follow-up on that? Any questions or any guidance from the council? Anything you want to say about that? ANDY STRELCHECK: Well, I believe it was you, Marcos, earlier, that was commenting about wanting to reconsider when the accountability measure is -- The start date of the accountability 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
measure. As Miguel described it, it starts on September 30 and works backwards, and then October 1 forward, if that closure isn’t sufficient, and so, if the council wants to consider alternatives to when an accountability measure is triggered and how we specify the closure dates, that would need to be taken up in a new amendment action to the island-based FMPs. Given the history of landings for spiny lobster, and the spiny lobster ACL that we approved earlier today, there is a high likelihood that we will be exceeding the catch limit for spiny lobster in future years, if previous landing trends continue into the future, and so I think it’s a good idea to revisit the accountability measure, and I would also suggest that the council look at other options, such as a fixed seasonal closure, to ensure that you’re not exceeding the catch limit on a regular basis. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Would any other council member like to comment? I have Vanessa, and, after the discussion, somebody please put a motion on the floor to move this along, if it’s the intention of the council. Vanessa. VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a comment, and, also, it’s presented by two commercial fishermen in the area, and they have lobster traps between the ten and fifty miles, and, because of the size and the amount of those traps, and the line between them, it’s very difficult for them to move all of that equipment inside the nine miles or bring that equipment back to land. They asked if they can take the traps every two weeks, just to clean the equipment, because it’s necessary to clean it and not to be just leaving it there for the days of the closure, and so they are asking if there is any way, or any permit, or any letter that they can have so that, when they are cleaning the traps, they don’t be asked by enforcement if they are harvesting or something like that. That’s just to clarify for them. MIGUEL ROLON: If I may, Mr. Chairman, very quick, if they are in the EEZ with lobster, they are in violation of the Act, and so they had better remove those lobster traps out of the EEZ. VANESSA RAMIREZ: Yes, that’s what I suggested, but the thing is, for the amount of traps and the line, and it’s, obviously, long between them and it’s very hard for the boats that they have to practically take everything out or move that inside the nine miles, and so they only have the chance to leave those traps inside the 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
water, but they are going to get dirty, and they, of course, are going to be fishing in there, and they don’t want all the lobster that can get in to die or something. MIGUEL ROLON: They have to start removing the traps now. That happened before, and the answer that we got from the enforcement people in National Marine Fisheries Service, and they are here, and they can repeat it again, is they have to remove it, because they will be in possession of an animal that is prohibited at that time. The other thing is that we might need a -- That will come in the law, in the regulations, but we will need a rationale from Puerto Rico for not having compatible regulations, given that they have exactly the same information that the federal government has. The other point, Marcos, is that, in the case of the spiny lobster, the reason why you have the September date backwards is because we adopted the U.S. Caribbean approach, given that, in the case of St. Thomas/St. John, the top months are Christmastime, the same as in St. Croix. However -- And twelve days were closed in St. Croix, and the people didn’t know it, but it was closed for twelve days starting on December 31 backwards. Then we applied that to Puerto Rico, because, in the case of the U.S. Virgin Islands, it’s better for them to close starting September 30 backwards, but, as you and I were talking before the meeting, in the case of Puerto Rico, probably they should pick another month, because those are high-yield months, according to the information that the fishers are giving to us. One thing is what the people tell you, and the other thing is what the people report, and, if you look at every month, every year, the last three years, those are the dates that came up to be the dates that have to be closed in the EEZ to compensate for the overage these past three years, the average that we have. If you want to revise that, for the island-based FMP of Puerto Rico, and it’s not necessary for the island-based FMP of St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix, and that’s for them to talk about it, but then your motion, or action here, will be to ask the staff to look into this matter and maybe prepare some documents for you to consider, not necessarily at the December meeting, but in due time, when they are ready and they can present that to us after this meeting. MARCOS HANKE: Miguel, just to move the process along, a motion would be required now? 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:
Ask Jocelyn about whether you need a motion or not.
MARCOS HANKE:
Jocelyn.
JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thanks. I just recommend motions when you want to be clear what exactly you’re asking the staff to do, and so what I have been hearing is we’re sort of looking at only changing the time of when the closure occurs for Puerto Rico, but you could have a motion that clarifies that and that just gives clear direction to staff as to what you want, or you could just provide a statement as to what you’re seeking, but just motions help with the record, so that we all know what the action items were, but it’s not necessary one way or the other. MARCOS HANKE:
Go ahead, Miguel.
MIGUEL ROLON: In this case, given the importance of this, number one, it would be good to have a motion, and, also, appearances are important, because you are closed now, and, if you have a mixed reaction to change that, it doesn’t look good for anybody, and so, in this case, a motion to say to examine the time of starting closures in the spiny lobster fishery in Puerto Rico will be what you want, and so language to that effect will do the trick, and I believe that, especially members from Puerto Rico, should put together a motion, and we can put it on the screen by Liajay, and you can vote on it. Make it simple and to the point and move forward. MARCOS HANKE: Liajay, can you put the screen and capture the language that Miguel just said, to see if there is any council member who will move the motion, the recommended language? MIGUEL ROLON: The council to instruct the staff to examine the time of starting the closure of the spiny lobster in Puerto Rico and report back to the council with the appropriate documentation. Then I need a mover and a seconder, and, if you like the language, or if you want to change it, this is the time. MARCOS HANKE: Is there anybody that would like to move this suggested language? VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:
So moved.
Do we have a second?
DAMARIS DELGADO:
Second. 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
MARCOS HANKE: motion?
Second by Damaris.
GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:
Is there discussion on the
Clarification, Mr. Chair, if I may?
Yes.
GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: So it would be only for the spiny lobster in Puerto Rico? MIGUEL ROLON:
At this time, yes.
MARCOS HANKE: Yes. At this time, yes. Is there anybody in opposition? ANDY STRELCHECK: speak. MARCOS HANKE:
Any further discussion?
Marcos, I have a comment, and Carlos wants to
Go ahead, Andy.
ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos. I guess a couple of points. One, I mentioned the potential for looking at a fixed seasonal closure rather than just examining the starting time of the closure, and the reason that I am suggesting this is that it potentially provides more certainty to the fishermen, in the event that accountability measures are triggered on a regular basis and doesn’t result in, obviously, the seasons changing as much or as large from year-to-year. The other question, I guess, would be for Miguel, in terms of kind of the staff direction, and so, at this point, it sounds like the motion would not be for an options paper, but simply just for presentation and information to be brought back to the council, and so I want to clarify that. MIGUEL ROLON:
It’s exactly that.
MARCOS HANKE:
We have --
MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, you have Daniel Matos that asked for a chance to talk about clarification with the spiny lobster no closure in the local government. MARCOS HANKE:
Yes.
Daniel.
We have the motion open.
Daniel.
MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, we can’t say it’s a motion and then let Daniel talk about it, because they already decided to do that. 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
MARCOS HANKE: Let me see here, and I don’t see any other council member commenting. Let’s finish the motion. Any other comments from -- I have Maria Lopez. Maria. MARIA LOPEZ: Just for clarification on the motion, just to make sure that we know what we are going to be looking for, what you - What the council is intending is for staff to evaluate the timing of the application of the accountability measures for spiny lobster in Puerto Rico, and is that what you’re saying? MARCOS HANKE:
Correct.
MARIA LOPEZ: Just for Puerto Rico, and just for spiny lobster, and this is the timing of the accountability measures? MIGUEL ROLON: lobster.
Yes.
MARIA LOPEZ:
Okay.
Puerto Rico and the timing of it and the spiny
MIGUEL ROLON: As Andy said, we are not asking for an options paper, because, as know, an options paper has all kinds of implications. What we just want to know is the status of this, and you can come back to the December meeting and tell us this is what you have, this is the day you have for last three years, and let us know. MARIA LOPEZ:
Okay.
Thank you.
JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: I think it would be useful if you could have that reflected in the text of the motion, because the phrase “examine time of starting closure” doesn’t necessarily link it to the AM, and so, if you were to state something, if this worked for the person that proposed the motion, and for the seconder, perhaps something along the lines of “to examine when AMs would be applied under the Puerto Rico FMP for spiny lobster”. Right now, just so everyone is aware, the AMs say that they start from September 30 and move earlier to the beginning of the fishing year, and then, if they need additional time for the closure, it then goes from October 1 towards the end of the fishing year, and so we would be looking at perhaps a different start time. MIGUEL ROLON: Jocelyn, can we just let -- Can you dictate the appropriate language slowly, so that Liajay can write it? “The council instructs the staff to examine when AMs will be applied -” 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
JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: I think you could then say, “to spiny lobster” and then “under the Puerto Rico FMP”. MIGUEL ROLON:
Is that okay, Jocelyn?
JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure. You could maybe add “examine alternative times when AMs”, and then maybe change “would” to “could”, and so examine alternative times when AMs could be applied, and then that conveys that you’re seeking different potential options for when it might make sense to apply the AMs. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you very much.
MIGUEL ROLON: For the record, is that okay, Jocelyn, that the council instructs the staff to examine alternative times when AMs will be applied to the spiny lobster under the Puerto Rico FMP and report back to the council with the appropriate documentation, and that’s okay? JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Yes, and just to note that “would” was changed to “could”, and so “examine alternative times when AMs could be applied to spiny lobster under the Puerto Rico FMP”. MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. the new language? DAMARIS DELGADO:
Then, Vanessa and Damaris, do you agree with
Yes.
VANESSA RAMIREZ: Excuse me, Miguel, but I think that Maria has something to say about the motion. I see something in the chat. MARCOS HANKE:
Yes.
Maria.
MARIA LOPEZ: It’s not about the motion, and I can wait until you are finished. MIGUEL ROLON:
Then go ahead and vote on it, Marcos.
MARCOS HANKE: Any further discussion? Any opposition to the motion? Hearing none, the motion carries. Vanessa, just because I couldn’t hear you very well, you accepted the language that is on the screen, correct? VANESSA RAMIREZ:
Yes, correct.
CARLOS FARCHETTE:
I had a question.
MARCOS HANKE:
Carlos. 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
CARLOS FARCHETTE: Does this mean that -- I don’t understand what we’re trying to do, because I thought that Puerto Rico and the USVI already determined, when we have an overrun, when the AM would start, and are we changing that now, and would it change for anything else that somebody may say, well, I would prefer that you start the closure at this date for other species that there’s an overrun, and I’m not really sure what’s going on. MIGUEL ROLON: This is for the spiny lobster only in the case of Puerto Rico. All the rest stay the same, unless we find different at the December meeting, but, at this time, the question that the council wants to ask is whether there is an area to change the time when the AMs will kick in for the spiny lobster in Puerto Rico only. Then, if St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix, by the December meeting, wants to do something else, then fine. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Rico want that?
But why, is what I’m not sure.
Why would Puerto
MIGUEL ROLON: Well, because they found that, in the case of Puerto Rico, that period is important for the fishery, something that I don’t know, and that’s why I believe that, until you have this information in front of you, you don’t know whether this is good or bad. My point is that the mere fact that somebody tells you that something that is happening out there doesn’t cut it for the MSA, and you have to prove that it’s in the best available data. This motion, the only thing it does is to ask the staff to provide those alternative times and then come back to the December meeting and say this is what we found, and it could be a PowerPoint presentation, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be an options paper and all that, because then we have more time and other things to do, and so I believe that your question is very important, but that’s where we are at this time. CARLOS FARCHETTE:
Okay.
MIGUEL ROLON: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that you have four hands. You have Andy. Andy, go ahead. ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Miguel. Now that we’ve passed the motion, to help staff with some direction, it would be helpful, if there’s any time periods that council members would like us to explore, or, for that matter, to avoid -- Certainly we’re well aware of wanting to avoid closures during major holidays like Christmas and Easter, and I heard, obviously, rationale earlier from Marcos about some of the complexities of spiny lobster closing 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
with divers also harvesting queen conch, but, if there is other things that you would like staff to consider, I think it would helpful to at least briefly talk about that now, so that staff have some direction and can bring that information back to the council in December. MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. For the record, in the case of Puerto Rico, what happened is that, the divers who go after lobster, they alternate with the queen conch, and the queen conch is closed within those days, and, actually, Puerto Rico is the only one that moved the darned closure to October the 31st. Now you have October, September, and August closed for the queen conch. Then the scuba divers, commercial scuba divers, they switched to spiny lobster, to compensate for the loss of catches of the queen conch during those days, and that’s the issue that Marcos wanted to convey to the group here, and that is why we need to get this information to the council. Regarding the timing, we do not pretend that you will have all of this information by December, and so I would rely on Graciela, especially, and Maria, to put together the timeline as they see fit, and so if we can have the information by December, fine, but I believe that this will take a little more time, and remember that they are working with the island-based FMP implementation and other things, and so that’s why the intention of the council is clear, and it will be also clear that we need some time to put this together and present a good paper, a good document, for the council to discuss it. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. That is exactly my point, and I was kicked off of the meeting, but I am back. Maria. MARIA LOPEZ: Thank you for the turn to speak. I just wanted to remind the council that, back in 2016, the council created an amendment to some of their plans to modify the timing of the AM closures, and this is why we ended up with the September 30 backward date. With the alternatives that were analyzed, there were several different dates, and a lot of information that was provided by the DAPs about the different -- Also from the landings, from the landings data about the different species that were fished during which months, which were the months with the highest landings, which were the months with the lowest landings, and then also socioeconomic considerations as to when those closures would occur. 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
There was also the opportunity for each one of the islands to choose the closure time that was better for them, and so the date of September 30 was chosen by the three islands as the general date to close, and, included in that document, there is a rationale for that. Now, we can use that information that we already have in this amendment, because, as I said, we already analyzed different dates, and bring this to the council again for Puerto Rico, so that they can reevaluate the selection of that date to adapt to this new information. Thank you. MIGUEL ROLON:
Mr. Chairman.
MARCOS HANKE:
Go ahead.
MIGUEL ROLON: That’s exactly why I said the appropriate documentation, but we have all the elements of judgment already here, all the information, and this is a matter of copy-and-paste and put it in a PowerPoint presentation, and then you can shoot at it in December. MARCOS HANKE: Yes. We have Jocelyn, Andy, Daniel, and Vanessa with raised hands. Jocelyn. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you. I apologize. I am a culprit of a former raised hand, and so I have nothing to add. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE:
Okay.
ANDY STRELCHECK:
Andy.
The same with me.
I took my hand down.
MIGUEL ROLON:
So you have Vanessa and Daniel.
MARCOS HANKE:
Daniel.
DANIEL MATOS:
Yes, I’m here.
MIGUEL ROLON: Wait. You have Vanessa first, to this point, and then Daniel, who wants to clarify the issue, and so Vanessa goes first. MARCOS HANKE:
Okay.
Vanessa, go ahead.
VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify, as Miguel and you do, about why we are trying to look for this, to Carlos. Of course, we have a lot of divers, especially on the west side of the island, and practically we have until the twelve miles for the divers. 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
Once this same closure for the two most commercial targeted species coincides, practically, we have those divers looking around in a small area of the nine miles, and some of them usually just can’t fish for nothing, because they only know how to fish for lobster and queen conch, or at least for the price, and so that’s why we are looking for this measure and this information, to clarify and help them to diversify and also to check out how we can help them. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you.
MIGUEL ROLON:
Now you have Daniel.
MARCOS HANKE:
Daniel.
DANIEL MATOS: I am here. Hello, everyone. I am sorry, but I have some problems with the internet, and I wasn’t hearing everything, but, when I tried to answer and talk, I had a lot of problems, and I’m so sorry. There are three factors to avoid the closure of the spiny lobster right now. Number one, as you already discussed, we have probably 200, or 300, divers, commercial fishers, and they are divers, and, right now, there is the closed season for the queen conch, and so, if we close now, these commercial fishers will have a lot of problems, and so it’s a very big socioeconomic problem. Number two, we observed the landings for the last five or six years, and, because of the Hurricane Maria, and later the earthquakes off the south of Puerto Rico, and the COVID-19 pandemic, we have probably 7,000 less commercial trips from 2019 to 2020, and so we understand the fishing pressure has decreased significantly for all fishery resources, including the spiny lobster. The number three factor is the carapace length, and we have studied the carapace length average from 1990 to 1999, and, for these ten years, the carapace length was ninety-six millimeters, and then we compared the year 2000 to the year 2009, and the carapace length increased from ninety-six millimeters to 103 millimeters. Then we compared 2010 to the year 2019, and the carapace length for these ten years -- The carapace length average increased to 106 millimeters, and so the carapace length showed us to increase for the last thirty years. Also, the spiny lobster landings in the east coast is very good, and the lobster are larger. In the south, we see the same thing, and so we don’t see signs to overfish the spiny lobster right now, and so these three factors are the 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
result to not close right now. MARCOS HANKE:
Thank you, Daniel.
VANESSA RAMIREZ:
We have Vanessa.
Mr. Chair, I already had my turn.
MARCOS HANKE: I am letting myself go through what I am receiving through the texts here and on the chat. I’m sorry. Is there anybody else that would like to participate? Hearing none, I think we have the record clear and straight, and the motion was approved, and the next item on the agenda, and we apologize with the enforcement, and we discussed most of the enforcement issues before, among all the agents, and we’re going to get a little more detail about the reports for the enforcement for the U.S. Coast Guard, the USVI, Puerto Rico, and National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA in December. We’re going to go for the next item on the agenda, and thank you for the patience of everybody. I know that we are a little late, but this was a very, very important issue for the local fishermen. The next item on the agenda is Exempted Fishing Permits, EFP. EXEMPTED FISHING PERMIT (EFP) UPDATE SARAH STEPHENSON: I do not have a presentation, and I was just going to give a quick update to inform the council of an exempted fishing permit request that the Southeast Regional Office received from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center lab in Panama City, Florida. Just as a quick reminder, an EFP is required for any fishing activity that would occur that would otherwise be in violation of the MSA or other fisheries laws and their implementing regulations, which is not considered part of like an exempted educational activity. For example, an EFP could allow an applicant to collect fish out-of-season, to get scientific data, so that we could better manage the species. NMFS Panama City Lab is requesting an EFP to continue collecting information on the population size and abundance, the life history characteristics, and habitats of deepwater snappers off the western, northern, and southern coasts of Puerto Rico. An EFP for similar work was issued last year, and that expired on August 1 of this year. The new EFP would be valid from the date of issuance through August 1 of 2023, and so it would be almost a two-year permit. The proposed research would use NMFS staff, or NMFS-contracted 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
observers, and commercial fishers on commercial fishing vessels to deploy video cameras on deepwater fishing gear and to collect samples of black, blackfin, cardinal, queen, silk, and wenchman snappers. The project objectives are to use underwater video to collect size and abundance data and describe benthic habitats of the deepwater reef fish species off the three coasts of Puerto Rico to collect biological samples to determine reproductive cycles, growth estimates, and the age and size at sexual maturation of the commercially-important snapper species. A total of 270 trips would be conducted during the two-year project period, forty-five trips per region per year, and so the region is the western, northern, and southern coasts, and then approximately forty of the trips each year would be in federal waters, and the rest would be in Puerto Rico commonwealth waters. Sampling trips would occur at depths of 328 to 2,133 feet, or 100 to 650 meters, within one to twelve miles of the coast, and they would use hook-and-line gear while adrift, and so no anchoring would occur. The EFP would exempt the project participants from select snapper and grouper seasonal closures from part of the Bajo de Sico area closure and from the combined grouper/snapper/parrotfish bag limit. The bag limit exemption would apply to any individual on the vessel without a valid commercial fishing license, such as the applicant or the contracted observers. The request for this EFP was received in May, and a notice was published in the Federal Register on July 1. The thirty-day comment period closed on July 30, and one comment was received. The commenter just requested that NMFS elaborate on what is meant by allowing contracted fishermen, commercial fishermen, to be given the fish for personal use and consumption after the samples are collected. They also stated that they couldn’t find information on the socioeconomic impact evaluations of choosing commercial, rather than say recreational, fishermen to support the EFP, and they also stated that technology exists capable of 3D modeling the reinsertion of deepwater fishers and the scope of the project should be expanded accordingly. Both the current and the proposed EFP applications and documentation are available on our website, which I will drop the link to that in the chat, and NMFS, as the action agency, will 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
move forward with getting the EFP in place. Once in place, a copy of the issued permit will also be available on SERO’s website, and, with that, I will just take any questions that you may have. MARCOS HANKE: Any questions? Hearing none, thank you, Sarah. We have a five-minute public comment. Is there anybody from the public, Liajay, Christina, or Miguel, that would like to participate? CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:
Carlos Farchette?
CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:
Carlos does.
Yes.
Go ahead, Carlos.
CARLOS FARCHETTE: I will wait, if there’s somebody from the public that wants to speak. MARCOS HANKE:
Okay.
Anybody else?
Go ahead, Carlos.
OTHER BUSINESS CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to go -- I am going to go outside of my jurisdiction here for what I’m about to say, and I want to apologize to DNER, but it’s been on my mind for a while, for years, and I will probably get in trouble, but, like John Lewis said, it’s going to be good trouble. All this talk about spiny lobster brought me to the point about what is happening in Puerto Rico state waters with the spiny lobster, and I would like Puerto Rico to seriously consider prohibiting trammel nets to harvest spiny lobster in state waters. They could consider a buyback program, which St. Croix did when they prohibited gill and trammel nets. We bought them back from the fishermen, so that they could use the funds to invest in a different method of fishing, and one thing that Puerto Rico’s government can do is promote the use of lobster traps by those people that are using those trammel nets to harvest lobster. That’s all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MARCOS HANKE: speak?
Thank you, Carlos.
Nelson Crespo, did you want to
NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Carlos, for your comment, and I want to add a little bit more regarding this 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
issue. I have been saying this for a long time, and nobody has ever made a real attempt to address it. I know this is a local issue, but it’s really important to pay attention to this. As a commercial fisherman, I would like to catch as much as possible, but we have to recognize that, in a fishing year, no matter how good it is, it’s a dangerous to the fishery and to the ecosystem, and this year is a clear example of this. Many of the lobster lose their legs, et cetera, and the quality of the product is not the best. A number of undersized lobsters that, without enforcement, for sure are not going to go back to the water, and I don’t want to mention that, in some locations, they catch turtles and other species in danger. The number of dead fish already -- Fish that are already damaged is considerable, and this, at the end, affects all of us. In addition, the deepwater snapper -- I fish lobster with only pots, and I have fished with trammel nets, because I know how harmful they are. I ask for this council at least to carry out studies on this fishing gear, in order to verify what I am saying. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Nelson. Just for general information, the internal -- The locals made the same recommendation a few years back, and they have been consistent on that matter. Anybody else from the public? MIGUEL ROLON:
You have Vanessa.
VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Carlos, for bringing this point up at the table. I just want to make a comment. In 2019, some fishermen -- Many of us go to public hearings that the government has in the capital, just to check out what options that we can get about this, and many of the presentation were great, and there were many suggestions, but, practically, everything stayed there, and we don’t hear nothing about that project anymore. I know that the one that presented decided that they have to make some changes, especially taking information about how many fishermen, commercial fishermen, are still doing this art, and, also, because they have to take in that many of those that are using this are already from the first or second generation of fishermen, and it will be hard for them to learn another kind of art, but they were thinking about also to give like a special permit and many things that we put on the table in there, but, practically, after 2019, I don’t hear anything about that. Thanks. 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
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Vanessa. Anybody else from the public? Hearing none, Miguel, do you want to say something before we pass to Other Business? MIGUEL ROLON:
No.
I’m okay.
MARCOS HANKE: I don’t think we have any other business on my list here, and we are ready to adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much. MIGUEL ROLON:
Wait.
You have the Next Meetings in the agenda.
MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I’m going to go there. Let me finish. Under Other Meetings, and we don’t have anything else under Other Business, but we need to announce and establish the next date for the next council meeting. Miguel, can you help me on that? NEXT MEETING MIGUEL ROLON: We did that last year, and the same dates still are true for this year. It’s the 7th and 8th of December, and it will be a hybrid meeting at the Marriott Courtyard in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Governor of Puerto Rico presently has stated that there will be a regulation in place now, and we don’t know whether the darned regulation will be in place by December, but anybody coming into Puerto Rico as a guest of the hotel has to be vaccinated and has to prove, and they are working on a digitized system, has to prove that he has a certificate of vaccination or has a weekly test for determining whether he is COVID free or not. In this case, Diana already sent, to the federal folks, the information, via an email, and it will be distributed also to everybody, to see how many people will be coming to the meeting and staying at the hotel, and we have until September 30 for you to get us that information, because we need to close the contract with the hotel. In addition, we have taken note of some of the issues that you want to discuss in the agenda, and one that is agreed on is that we will have, on December 8, the second day of the meeting, from 9:00 to 12:00, a full discussion on compatible regulations, and so I will encourage especially the two local governments to bring the documents regarding your regulations in place at that time, and those from Dr. Angeli and Damaris, and, of course, Graciela will put together the list of regulations that we have at this time compatible. For example, the spiny lobster is compatible throughout the range, 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
in terms of the carapace length, and not necessarily all the others, but that is one example that we need to discuss. In addition, at that time, we are going to look at the compatible regulations and enforcement issues regarding not only the Nassau grouper, as we discussed today, but all the other species, and we will have the presentation by the three chairs of the DAPs, by Graciela and any other scientists from the local government of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and for managers to tell us what are the present regulations and what are the intentions of the local governments regarding compatible regulations. I know that, in the case of the Virgin Islands, we have been working with it for some time, and, in Puerto Rico, they are revising the regulations in place and the actual law, and the local fishing law, and that’s all we have, Mr. Chairman, and the meeting will also have virtual capabilities, and so you will be able to join in the meeting via Zoom, as you do right now. That’s all. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Miguel, since the VI has this key with a QR code, and will Puerto Rico be able to read that, or do we have to do -MIGUEL ROLON:
Can you ask that again?
You have the QR code, yes?
CARLOS FARCHETTE: Yes, I have a QR code, and so I wondered if Puerto Rico would read that, or do have to offer a vaccination card. MIGUEL ROLON: In the case of Puerto Rico, they are implementing -- You are talking about the vaccine, and so you have to bring your certificate, the vaccine code. Once Puerto Rico has the code, probably people can join in, and it will be similar, according to the newspaper today, as the one that they are implementing in New York, in New York City, but we will keep you abreast of the regulations, and probably, by November, we might have something else, updates on the situation, according to the Governor, and so we will make sure that Diana will send you the latest requirements to travel to Puerto Rico. CARLOS FARCHETTE:
Sounds good.
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for a great question, Carlos, and thank you, all. Anybody else, one more time, that needs to speak or to ask something, before I adjourn? Hearing none, a turn to speak from Robert Copeland. LT. ROBERT COPELAND:
Good evening, and sorry for the last-minute 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
question here, but I just wanted to confirm that the dates for the next meeting are the 7th and the 8th of December. MIGUEL ROLON:
Yes, they are.
MARCOS HANKE:
That is correct.
LT. ROBERT COPELAND: Okay. For you guys’ awareness as well, like last year, those dates coincide with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council as well. Was there any potential of moving these dates? If not, I completely understand, but I just was wanting to put that out there, that they coincide with the South Atlantic Council as well, which is another seat that I sit on. MIGUEL ROLON:
We cannot move it.
LT. ROBERT COPELAND:
The contract is already in.
Understood.
MIGUEL ROLON: We can keep you abreast of anything that comes up and make sure that the Coast Guard is well informed of anything that will happen at the meeting. Also, if we need information from you, rest assured that I will convey any questions to you, so that you will have the chance to answer it. LT. ROBERT COPELAND: Yes, please do, and I will brush up on anything that I need to, especially in regard to the Nassau grouper. I have written some notes down here on my end, to see if I can do anything from the Coast Guard standpoint or whatnot, but I will make sure that I am prepared for any questions that may come from the December meeting, but thank you very much for your time. MIGUEL ROLON:
I really appreciate it.
MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. Anybody else? Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much for your patience and great participation, and I will see you guys in December, the 7th and 8th, in Isla Verde, Puerto Rico, for the ones that are going to attend in-person. Thank you. MIGUEL ROLON:
For the record, it’s 4:35.
(Whereupon, the meeting adjourned on August 11, 2021.) - - -
118
Generic Framework Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification of Spiny Lobster Management Reference Points Based on SEDAR 57 Stock Assessments
Including Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Version 3.0, August 2021
Environmental Assessment Cover Sheet Name of Action Generic Framework Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification of Spiny Lobster Management Reference Points Based on SEDAR 57 Stock Assessments including Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. Responsible Agencies and Contact Persons Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) 270 Muñoz Rivera Ave., Suite 401 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903 (787) 766-5926 Graciela García-Moliner (graciela_cfmc@yahoo.com) Caribbean Council website National Marine Fisheries Service (Lead Agency) Southeast Regional Office (SERO) 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 (727) 824-5305 Sarah Stephenson (sarah.stephenson@noaa.gov) SERO Website Type of Action ( ) Administrative ( ) Draft
( ) Legislative (X) Final
This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared using the 2020 CEQ NEPA Regulations. The effective date of the 2020 Council on Environmental Quality National Environmental Policy Act Regulations was September 14, 2020, and reviews begun after this date are required to apply the 2020 regulations unless there is a clear and fundamental conflict with an applicable statute. 85 Federal Register at 43372-73 (§§ 1506.13, 1507.3(a)). This EA began on December 8, 2020, and accordingly proceeds under the 2020 regulations.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
II
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Document ABC ACL AM CEA CFMC EA EBFM EEZ EIS FMP FMSY MFMT MSA MSST MSY NEPA NMFS OFL OY SDC SEDAR SEFSC SSC SYL USVI
acceptable biological catch annual catch limit accountability measure cumulative effects analysis (Council); Caribbean Fishery Management Council environmental assessment ecosystem-based fishery management exclusive economic zone environmental impact statement fishery management plan fishing mortality rate yielding maximum sustainable yield maximum fishing mortality threshold (Magnuson-Stevens Act); Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act minimum stock size threshold maximum sustainable yield National Environmental Policy Act National Marine Fisheries Service overfishing limit optimum yield status determination criteria Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (stock assessment) Southeast Fisheries Science Center Scientific and Statistical Committee sustainable yield level United States Virgin Islands
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Abbreviations and Acronyms III
Table of Contents for the Environmental Assessment Table of Contents for the Framework Amendment Statement of Purpose and Need Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives Chapter 3. Affected Environment Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences List of Preparers List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Table of Contents for the EA IV
Table of Contents Environmental Assessment Cover Sheet ........................................................................................ II Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Document .................................................................. III Table of Contents for the Environmental Assessment .................................................................. IV Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... V List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. VIII List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... XI Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2
What Action is Proposed? ................................................................................................ 1 Why is the Council Considering Action? ......................................................................... 2
1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.3 1.4
Spiny Lobster Stock Assessments ............................................................................ 3 Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule ............................................................... 3 Statement of Purpose and Need ................................................................................ 5
Where Will the Action Have an Effect?........................................................................... 6 History of Federal Fisheries Management ....................................................................... 6
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives .............................................................................. 8 2.1
Action 1: Spiny Lobster OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs .......................................................... 8
2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2
Proposed Alternatives for Action 1........................................................................... 9 Discussion of Action 1 Alternatives ....................................................................... 11
Action 2: Spiny Lobster Accountability Measure Trigger ............................................ 14
2.2.1 2.2.2
Proposed Alternatives for Action 2......................................................................... 14 Discussion of Action 2 Alternatives ....................................................................... 15
Chapter 3. Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 19 3.1
Description of the Fishery .............................................................................................. 19
3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2
Description of the Physical Environment....................................................................... 30
3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.3
Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 20 St. Thomas and St. John.......................................................................................... 24 St. Croix .................................................................................................................. 27 Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 31 St. Thomas and St. John.......................................................................................... 31 St. Croix .................................................................................................................. 32 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) .................................................................................. 32
Description of the Biological and Ecological Environments ......................................... 33
3.3.1 3.3.2
Description of the Species ...................................................................................... 33 Bycatch ................................................................................................................... 35
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Table of Contents V
3.3.3 3.4
Description of the Economic Environment .................................................................... 37
3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 37 Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 38 St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John ................................................................... 48
Description of the Social Environment .......................................................................... 58
3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.6
Protected Species .................................................................................................... 35
Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 58 St. Thomas and St. John.......................................................................................... 60 St. Croix .................................................................................................................. 61 Environmental Justice (EJ) Considerations ............................................................ 63
Description of the Administrative Environment ............................................................ 66
3.6.1 3.6.2
Federal Fishery Management .................................................................................. 66 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Fisheries Management.................................. 67
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 69 4.1 Action 1: Spiny Lobster Overfishing Limit (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), and Annual Catch Limit (ACL) ................................................................................... 69 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.2
Action 2: Spiny Lobster Accountability Measure (AM) Trigger .................................. 81
4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.3
Effects on the Physical Environment ...................................................................... 69 Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment................................................. 71 Effects on the Economic Environment ................................................................... 73 Effects on the Social Environment ......................................................................... 78 Effects on the Administrative Environment ........................................................... 80 Effects on the Physical Environment ...................................................................... 81 Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment................................................. 83 Effects on the Economic Environment ................................................................... 85 Effects on the Social Environment ......................................................................... 86 Effects on the Administrative Environment ........................................................... 86
Cumulative Effects Analysis .......................................................................................... 87
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review ......................................................................................... 93 5.1 5.2 5.3. 5.4
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 93 Problems and Objectives ................................................................................................ 93 Description of the Fishery .............................................................................................. 93 Impacts of Management Measures ................................................................................. 93
5.4.1 Action 1: Spiny lobster Overfishing Limit (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), and Annual Catch Limit (ACL) ............................................................................... 93 5.4.2 Action 2: Spiny Lobster Accountability Measure (AM) Trigger .......................... 94 Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Table of Contents VI
5.5 5.6
Public and Private Costs of Regulations ........................................................................ 95 Determination of Significant Regulatory Action ........................................................... 95
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis ........................................................................... 96 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 96 6.2 Statement of the need for, objective of, and legal basis for the proposed rule .............. 96 6.3 Identification of federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule ............................................................................................................................. 96 6.4 Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed action would apply............................................................................................................................... 96 6.5 Description and economic impacts of the compliance requirements of the proposed rule 97 6.6 Significance of economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities .............. 105 Chapter 7. List of Preparers ....................................................................................................... 107 Chapter 8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted......................................... 108 Chapter 9. References ................................................................................................................ 109 Appendix A. Island-based Fishery Management Plans Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule ............................................................................................................................................. 116 Appendix B. Other Applicable Law .......................................................................................... 117
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Table of Contents VII
List of Tables Table 1.1. Spiny lobster SYL, ABC, and ACL specified for federal waters under the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP. Values are in pounds whole weight.............................................................................................................................................. 4 Table 2.1. Management reference points from SEDAR 57 spiny lobster stock assessments for each island/island group.................................................................................................................. 8 Table 2.2. Variable-catch OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster for each island/island group, based on SEDAR 57 stock assessments and Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule included in each islandbased FMP. All values are in pounds whole weight. ..................................................................... 9 Table 2.3. Constant-catch OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster for each island/island group, based on SEDAR 57 stock assessments and Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule included in each islandbased FMP. All values are in pounds whole weight. ..................................................................... 9 Table 2.4. Variable-catch ACLs for spiny lobster for each island/island group based on the variable-catch ABCs recommended by the SSC as reduced by the Council’s management uncertainty buffer (Alternative 2, Sub-alternatives 2a-2c). .......................................................... 10 Table 2.5. Constant-catch ACLs for spiny lobster for each island/island group based on the constant-catch ABC recommended by the SSC as reduced by the Council’s management uncertainty buffer (Alternative 3, Sub-alternatives 3a-3c). .......................................................... 11 Table 2.6. Years of spiny lobster landings that would be used to trigger an AM under the Action 2 alternatives, assuming that the island-based FMPs and the Spiny Lobster Framework Amendment are both implemented in 2022. ................................................................................. 17 Table 3.1.1. Landings of spiny lobster (in pounds) in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019 with the percent reported from state waters (0-9 nautical miles), federal waters (9-200 nautical miles), or unknown location. ......................................................................................................................... 21 Table 3.1.2. Percent of spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019 reported by gear type................................................................................................................................................ 21 Table 3.1.3. Landings (in pounds) of spiny lobster and co-occurring species landed and number of trip tickets that reported spiny lobster and co-occurring species in Puerto Rico in 2018 and 2019............................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 3.1.4. Landings of spiny lobster (in pounds) in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019 with the percent reported from state waters (0-3 nautical miles), federal waters (3-200 nautical miles), or unknown location. ........................................................................................................ 24 Table 3.1.5. Percent of spiny lobster landings in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019 reported by gear type. ................................................................................................................... 25 Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
List of Tables VIII
Table 3.1.6. Landings (in pounds) of spiny lobster and co-occurring species landed and number of trip tickets that reported spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Thomas and St. John in 2018 and 2019. .............................................................................................................................. 25 Table 3.1.7. Landings of spiny lobster (in pounds) in St. Croix for 2012-2019 with the percent reported from state waters (0-3 nautical miles), federal waters (3-200 nautical miles), or unknown location. ......................................................................................................................... 28 Table 3.1.8. Percent of spiny lobster landings in St. Croix for 2012-2019 reported by gear type. ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 3.1.9. Landings (in pounds) of spiny lobster and co-occurring species landed and number of trip tickets that reported spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Croix in 2018 and 2019. ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 3.4.1. Number of farms, total amount of farmland, and number of farms by land size, 2012 and 2018. .............................................................................................................................. 39 Table 3.4.2. Ex-vessel value and average price of spiny lobster per pound in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019. .................................................................................................................................... 44 Table 3.4.3. Ex-vessel value and price per pound co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019. ...................................................................................................... 45 Table 3.4.4. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019. ...................................................................................................................... 46 Table 3.4.5. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species by area fished in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019............................................................................................. 47 Table 3.4.6. Landings, value, and price of spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John for 20122019............................................................................................................................................... 53 Table 3.4.7. Landings, value, and price of spiny lobster in St. Croix for 2012-2019. ................ 54 Table 3.4.8. Ex-vessel value and price of co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019. ............................................................................................ 55 Table 3.4.9. Ex-vessel value and price of co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in St. Croix, 2012-2019. ......................................................................................................................... 55 Table 3.4.10. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Thomas and St. John, 2012-2019.................................................................................................. 56 Table 3.4.11. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Croix, 2012-2019. ......................................................................................................................... 56 Table 3.4.12. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species by area fished in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019. ........................................................................ 57 Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
List of Tables IX
Table 3.4.13. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species by area fished in St. Croix for 2012-2019. ................................................................................................ 58 Table 4.1. Maximum revenue losses associated with revising island/island group spiny lobster ACLs. ............................................................................................................................................ 75 Table 6.1. Spiny Lobster ACLs under Alternative 1 (no-action) and Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b of Action 1. .............................................................................................................................. 98 Table 6.2. Decreases in spiny lobster ACLs under Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b by island area..................................................................................................................... 98 Table 6.3. Comparison of Action 2, Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 sequences of landings used to estimate landings for comparison with the ACL. .............................................. 99 Table 6.4. Maximum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for Puerto Rico, 2021 - 2025. ......................................................................................................................................... 101 Table 6.5. Minimum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for Puerto Rico, 2021 - 2025. ......................................................................................................................................... 101 Table 6.6. Range of impacts in Puerto Rico, 2021 – 2025. ....................................................... 102 Table 6.7. Maximum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Thomas and St. John, 2021 - 2025. ....................................................................................................................... 103 Table 6.8. Minimum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Thomas and St. John, 2021 - 2025. ....................................................................................................................... 103 Table 6.9. Maximum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Croix, 2021 2025............................................................................................................................................. 104 Table 6.10. Minimum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Croix, 2021 2025............................................................................................................................................. 104 Table 6.11. Comparison of reductions of spiny lobster ACL (lb) for Puerto Rico by alternative, Action 1....................................................................................................................................... 105 Table 7.1. List of interdisciplinary plan team members and other contributors. ...................... 107
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
List of Tables X
List of Figures Figure 1.1. U.S. Caribbean region with boundaries between the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix management areas. .......................................................................................... 6 Figure 3.4.1. Labor force and unemployment rate in Puerto Rico, 2012 – 2020........................ 38 Figure 3.4.2. Puerto Rico real GDP (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2020. ....................... 40 Figure 3.4.3. Puerto Rico’s GNI per capita (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2019............. 40 Figure 3.4.4. Arrival guests through August of each year, 2017 – 2020. .................................... 42 Figure 3.4.5. Monthly labor force, January 2019 – December 2020. ......................................... 43 Figure 3.4.6. Construction jobs in USVI, January 2017 – September 2019. .............................. 48 Figure 3.4.7. Employees in construction, mining and logging sector in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. ................................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 3.4.8. Employees in the leisure and hospitality, manufacturing, and trade, transportation and utilities sectors in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. ...................................................... 50 Figure 3.4.9. Total USVI visitor arrivals, 2016 – 2020. ............................................................. 51 Figure 3.4.10. Annual change in real GDP, 2016 – 2020. .......................................................... 51 Figure 3.4.11. Annual change in rum exports to U.S.................................................................. 52 Figure 3.5.1. Puerto Rico coastal communities with villas pesqueras. ....................................... 59 Figure 3.5.2. St. Thomas and St. John coastal communities and subdistricts.............................. 61 Figure 3.5.3. St. Croix coastal communities and subdistricts. .................................................... 62 Figure 3.5.4. Social vulnerability indices for Puerto Rico coastal municipalities. ..................... 64 Figure 3.5.5. Social vulnerability indices for St. Thomas (STT) and St. John (STJ) coastal subdistricts. ................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 3.5.6. Social vulnerability indices for St. Croix coastal subdistricts. .............................. 66 Figure 6.1. Range of annual landings and baseline ACL, Puerto Rico..................................... 100 Figure 6.2. Range of annual landings and baseline ACL, St. Thomas and St. John. ................ 102 Figure 6.3. Range of annual landings and baseline ACL, St. Croix. ........................................ 104
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
List of Figures XI
Chapter 1. Introduction The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) is one of eight regional fishery management councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Council prepares fishery management plans (FMP) and amendments to those FMPs that are designed to manage fishery resources within the federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean, which includes waters off Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for the stewardship of the nation's ocean resources and their habitat. Specifically, NMFS is responsible for the collection of data and for conducting stock assessments in support of science-based fishery management to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished fish stocks. The Council develops a framework amendment and sends it to NMFS, which implements the measures in the amendment on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce through the development of regulations. NMFS’s Southeast Regional Office is responsible for implementing and enforcing management measures based on the U.S. Caribbean FMPs and amendments.
1.1 What Action is Proposed? The Generic Framework Amendment to the Comprehensive FMP for the Puerto Rico Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Puerto Rico FMP), the Comprehensive FMP for the St. Thomas and St. John EEZ (St. Thomas and St. John FMP), and the Comprehensive FMP for the St. Croix EEZ (St. Croix FMP) includes an action to update the status determination criteria (SDC) and other management reference points for spiny lobster under each FMP based on the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 57 (SEDAR 57) stock assessments. The Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP are collectively referred to as the island-based FMPs throughout this Framework Amendment. Status determination criteria are the measurable and objective factors, maximum Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Status Determination Criteria and Definitions Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold (MFMT) – The level of fishing mortality (F), on an annual basis, above which overfishing is occurring. The MFMT or reasonable proxy may be expressed either as a single number (a fishing mortality rate or F value), or as a function of spawning biomass or other measure of reproductive potential. Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) – The biomass level below which the capacity of the stock to produce MSY on a continuing basis has been jeopardized. A stock or stock complex is considered overfished when its biomass has declined below MSST. Overfishing Limit (OFL) – The annual amount of catch that corresponds to the estimate of MFMT applied to a stock or stock complex’s abundance and is expressed in terms of numbers or weight of fish. Overfishing occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is subjected to a level of fishing mortality or total catch that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis. Overfished. A stock or stock complex is considered “overfished” when its biomass has declined below the MSST.
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), minimum stock size threshold (MSST), and overfishing limit (OFL), or their proxies, that are used to determine if overfishing has occurred, or if the stock or stock complex is overfished. 50 C.F.R. 600.310(e)(2)(i)(A). Under the National Standard 1 guidelines, SDC, maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), acceptable biological catch (ABC), and annual catch limit (ACL) are collectively referred to as “reference points,” 50 C.F.R. 600.310(b)(2)(iv). The SDC and other reference points are collectively referred to as management reference points throughout this Framework Amendment.
Other Management Reference Points Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) – The largest long-term average catch or yield that can be taken from a stock or stock complex under prevailing ecological, environmental conditions and fishing technology characteristics (e.g., gear characteristics) and the distribution of catch among fleets. Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) – The catch level recommended by the SSC and set at or below OFL to account for scientific uncertainty. Annual Catch Limit (ACL) – The limit of total annual catch for a stock or stock complex that serves as the basis for invoking accountability measures. The ACL cannot exceed the ABC. Optimum Yield (OY) – The amount of fish that provides the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems.
The SDC to be updated for spiny lobster under this Framework Amendment to the island-based FMPs (Framework Amendment) include the MFMT, the MSST, and the OFL. Other spiny lobster management reference points to be updated include the MSY, or MSY proxy, ABC, OY, and ACL. The Framework Amendment includes a second action that would revise the accountability measure (AM) trigger for spiny lobster in each island/island group from the AM trigger described in the island-based FMPs.
1.2 Why is the Council Considering Action? The Council is considering action to update management reference points to incorporate information from the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 57 U.S. Caribbean Spiny Lobster stock assessments, which are considered best scientific information available for the U.S. Caribbean spiny lobster stocks. Following the SEDAR assessments, the spiny lobster stock in each island-based FMP would change from Tier 4a (data limited, no accepted assessment available) to Tier 3 (data limited, accepted assessment available) in the Council’s ABC Control Rule, which is included in each island-based FMP. The Council is also considering revising the AM trigger for spiny lobster to (1) respond to landings information available since the AM trigger was developed under the island-based FMPs and (2) anticipate changes to the spiny lobster ACLs moving forward, following the spiny lobster stock assessments. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 1. Introduction 2
1.2.1
Spiny Lobster Stock Assessments
In 2019, SEDAR completed three stock assessments for spiny lobster, one for the Puerto Rico spiny lobster stock, one for the St. Thomas and St. John spiny lobster stock, and one for the St. Croix spiny lobster stock (SEDAR 57 2019; http://sedarweb.org/sedar-57). Due to the lack of an estimable spawner-recruit relationship, MSY could not be reliably estimated for the three spiny lobster stocks. Therefore, the stock status, OFL, and projected landings were presented relative to a provisional MSY proxy of FSPR30%. 1 SEDAR 57 used management threshold definitions of FSPR30% for the MFMT and 75% of SSPR30% for the MSST. The assessments estimated that the fishing mortality was below MFMT and the spawning output was above MSST. Thus, each spiny lobster stock was determined to be not undergoing overfishing and not overfished. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed results from SEDAR 57 and determined that the stock assessments are suitable for management advice. Specifically, the SSC (1) supported the three island-based spiny lobster stock assessments (statistical catch at age models) as providing the best scientific information available relative to the SDC of overfishing status and overfished status; (2) accepted the FSPR30% as an MSY proxy; (3) supported the outcome of the SEDAR 57 that overfishing is not occurring relative to the recommended MFMT and that the populations are not overfished relative to the recommended MSST; and (4) supported and recommended the use of the assessments to update the values for management reference points and SDC in each of the island-based FMPs, using the Council’s ABC Control Rule included in each the island-based FMPs as described below. The Council requested that the SSC coordinate with the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) to provide OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster for each island/island group, based on SEDAR 57, for 2021 to 2023. Council intent would be to request the SEFSC provide an interim assessment 2 by 2023 to update OFL projections and set catch levels for 2024 and later years.
1.2.2
Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule
The ABC is a level of annual catch recommended by the Council’s SSC, which accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of the OFL, any other scientific uncertainty, and the Council’s risk policy (50 CFR 600.310(f)(1)(ii)). The Council’s risk policy could be based on an acceptable probability (at least 50%) that catch equal to the stock’s ABC will not result in overfishing. The Council’s choice of a risk policy cannot result in an ABC that exceeds the OFL (50 CFR 600.310(f)(2)(i)). Councils and their SSC should develop a process by which the SSC 1 The FMSY proxy of FSPR30% is calculated from spawning-stock-biomass-per-recruit (SPR) analyses. Under conditions of no fishing mortality, 100% of a stock’s spawning potential is obtained. A fishing mortality rate, denoted by FSPR30% would allow the stock to attain 30% of the maximum spawning potential, which would have been obtained under conditions of no fishing mortality. 2 An interim assessment would update the model projections used in the SEDAR 57 stock assessments with more recent commercial landings and length-composition data, as available, for each island/island group.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 1. Introduction 3
can access the best scientific information available when implementing the ABC Control Rule (i.e., specifying the ABC) (50 CFR 600.310(f)(3). The SSC must recommend the ABC to the Council. Each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs adopt and apply a newly devised, four-tiered ABC Control Rule to specify SDC (i.e., MFMT, MSST, and OFL or OFL proxy) and other management reference points (i.e., MSY or MSY proxy and ABC), depending on differing levels of data availability (see Appendix A). In each FMP, spiny lobster was considered a Tier 4a stock (data limited with no accepted assessment, with relatively low vulnerability to fishing pressure). 3 In the FMPs, the MSY proxy, MFMT, and MSST for Tier 4a stocks were defined (see Appendix A), but due to data limitations, were not quantified. Similarly, under Tier 4a, the OFL could not be quantified. Thus, a new reference point, the sustainable yield level (SYL), which is a level of landings that can be sustained over the longterm, was quantified and used as the OFL proxy and an additional MSY proxy. 4 Under the island-based FMPs, the SSC recommended ABCs, which were derived from the spiny lobster SYLs, and the Council set each spiny lobster ACL at 95% of the respective island’s ABC (Table 1.1). Table 1.1. Spiny lobster SYL, ABC, and ACL specified for federal waters under the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP. Values are in pounds whole weight. Fishery Management Plan Puerto Rico St. Thomas and St. John St. Croix
Spiny Lobster SYL* 924,968 367,035 346,541
Spiny Lobster ABC 554,981 220,221 207,925
Spiny Lobster ACL 527,232 209,210 197,528
* Under Tier 4 of the ABC Control Rule included in each FMP, the SYL was quantified and used as the OFL proxy.
Based on the uncertainty in the data used in the SEDAR 57 stock assessment models, the SSC in consultation with the SEFSC recommended that spiny lobster be classified as a Tier 3 stock (data limited, accepted assessment available) under the ABC Control Rule for each FMP. Under Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule, if the biomass of the stock falls below MSST, which would be set equal to 75% of the long-term spawning stock biomass at MFMT (SSBMFMT), the stock would be determined to be overfished (i.e., if B/MSST <1) and the Council would then need to develop a rebuilding plan capable of returning the stock to a level that allows the stock to achieve MSY on Spiny lobster was considered to be a Tier 4a stock in each FMP due in part to recruitment (the species is found throughout the Caribbean and the duration of the larval stage is several months) and sizes of spiny lobsters that are harvested compared to the minimum size limit in place (average carapace lengths observed were greater than the minimum size limit of 3.5 inches carapace length). 4 The SYL is intended to be used when the information or resources needed to produce a quantitative stock assessment are not available to determine the MSY or corresponding reference point such as the OFL, and therefore it is specific to Tier 4. 3
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 1. Introduction 4
a continuing basis. Additionally, under Tier 3, in years when there is a stock assessment, if fishing mortality (F) exceeds the MFMT, the stock is considered to be undergoing overfishing (i.e., if F/MFMT >1), because this level of fishing mortality, if continued, would reduce the stock biomass to an overfished condition. In years in which there is no assessment, overfishing would occur if landings exceed the OFL. 5 Under Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule, the ABC is derived from the OFL, reduced by the SSC’s scientific uncertainty 6 buffer (sigma; for spiny lobster stocks sigma = 1.0) and reflecting the acceptable probability of overfishing determined by the Council (P*; for spiny lobster stocks P* = 0.45). 7 The ACL would then be derived from the ABC, reduced by the Council’s management uncertainty 8 buffer (Action 1).
1.2.3
Statement of Purpose and Need
The purpose of this framework amendment is to update management reference points for spiny lobster under the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs to account for the SEDAR 57 spiny lobster stock assessments and application of the Council’s ABC Control Rule and to revise the AM trigger for spiny lobster stocks. The need for this framework amendment is to update management measures for spiny lobster stocks based on best scientific information available to prevent overfishing and achieve OY, consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Under Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule, overfishing would be determined to be occurring if one year of landings exceeds the annual OFL for the stock. 6 Scientific uncertainty takes into account the deficiencies in and vagaries of reporting, which includes potential biases (over reporting, underreporting, trends), changes in reporting forms, changes in fisher behavior, the contribution of unspecified landings, expansion factors and validation capacity, availability of recreational data (quantity and quality), availability of ancillary data, and life history parameters, focusing on how these deficiencies affected data quality. 7 The SSC set a sigma value of 1.0 at their May 2020 meeting and the Council set a P* value of 0.45 at their June 2020 meeting. 8 Management uncertainty refers to uncertainty in the ability of managers to constrain catch so the ACL is not exceeded, and the uncertainty in quantifying the true catch amounts (i.e., estimation errors). 5
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 1. Introduction 5
1.3 Where Will the Action Have an Effect? Under the Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c), the Council is responsible for managing fishery resources, including spiny lobster, in federal waters in the U.S. Caribbean region (Figure 1.1). The EEZ around each island/island group was discussed in detail in the respective FMP, and is incorporated herein by reference. The EEZ around Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico EEZ) ranges from 9-200 nautical miles (17-370 kilometers) from the shore of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the outer boundary of the EEZ. The EEZ around St. Thomas and St. John (St. Thomas and St. John EEZ) and around St. Croix (St. Croix EEZ) ranges 3-200 nautical miles (6-370 kilometers) from the shore of the respective USVI island/island group to the outer boundary of the EEZ.
Figure 1.1. U.S. Caribbean region with boundaries between the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix management areas.
1.4 History of Federal Fisheries Management The island-based FMPs established management measures for the EEZ around each respective island. The island-based FMPs updated the list of species included for federal management and how those species would be grouped into stocks or stock complexes; specified management reference points for managed stocks and stock complexes; updated accountability measures; described essential fish habitat for managed species; and updated the FMP framework procedures. The island-based FMPs retained other management measures established under the U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs that apply to the respective island management area (e.g., seasonal and area closures, minimum size limits, recreational bag limits). The Secretary of Commerce approved the island-based FMPs on September 22, 2020.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 1. Introduction 6
Prior to the development of the island-based FMPs, spiny lobster was managed throughout the U.S. Caribbean EEZ under the Spiny Lobster FMP of Puerto Rico and the USVI (CFMC 1981), as amended. The history of management actions under the Spiny Lobster FMP are summarized in Appendix C of each island-based FMP. Below is an annotated list of fishery management actions implemented under the island-based FMPs and the Spiny Lobster FMP and its amendments that are specifically related management reference points and AMs for spiny lobster. Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c) The FMPs included a new four-tiered ABC Control Rule to define management reference points for spiny lobster. Each FMP updated the AM trigger for spiny lobster. Spiny Lobster FMP (49 FR 50049 December 26, 1984) The Spiny Lobster FMP defined MSY and OY for spiny lobster. Under the FMP, MSY was estimated for the three island areas (Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, St. Croix) and then summed to provide an estimate for the entire management area (U.S. Caribbean EEZ). Amendment 1 (56 FR 19098 April 25, 1991) Amendment 1 implemented definitions for overfished and overfishing and outlined framework actions that could be taken by the Council should overfishing occur. Amendment 2 (70 FR 62073 October 28, 2005) Amendment 2, part of the Caribbean Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment, redefined MSY and OY and defined the MSST and MFMT for spiny lobster. Amendment 5 (76 FR 82414 December 30, 2011) Amendment 5, part of the 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment, revised the management reference points and status determination criteria established in Amendment 2 and established ACLs (specified for each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix) and AMs for spiny lobster. Amendment 6 (81 FR 29166 May 11, 2016) Amendment 6 revised the language within the FMP to be consistent with language in the implementing regulations at 50 CFR Part 622 describing the application of AMs in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 1. Introduction 7
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives Framework procedures included in the Puerto Rico Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP allow the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) to modify management measures in certain situations, including when a new stock assessment indicates changes should be made to management reference points and status determination criteria (SDC), and to revise accountability measures (AM) (e.g., change AM trigger and AM application) (See Table 5.12.1 in each FMP). Based on Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 57, this Framework Amendment to the island-based FMPs would update values for the following management reference points for the spiny lobster stock in each FMP: maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or MSY proxy, maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), and minimum stock size threshold (MSST) using definitions specified in the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rule included in the island-based FMPs. Under this Framework Amendment, the MSY proxy, MFMT, and MSST for spiny lobster in each island/island group would be as specified in Table 2.1. Table 2.1. Management reference points from SEDAR 57 spiny lobster stock assessments for each island/island group. Management Reference Point MSY proxy* MFMT (FSPR30) MSST (0.75*SSBMFMT) (1,000 eggs)
Puerto Rico 432,501
St. Thomas/St. John 133,601
St. Croix 127,742
0.197
0.244
0.203
8.48 E+07
2.13 E+07
2.30 E+07
* Values are in pounds whole weight.
Additionally, the Council would take action to update the overfishing limit (OFL), ABC, and annual catch limit (ACL) for spiny lobster in each FMP (Action 1) and to revise the AM trigger for spiny lobster (Action 2).
2.1 Action 1: Spiny Lobster OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended both a variable-catch approach and a constant-catch approach for updating spiny lobster OFLs and ABCs for the period of 2021-2023 under each FMP. Both approaches use the island-specific OFLs projected from the stock assessment model and the ABC estimates determined by applying Tier 3 of the Council’s ABC Control Rule. For the variable-catch approach, the SSC recommended spiny lobster OFLs and ABCs for 2021 to 2023 for each island/island group that would change each year (Table 2.2). For the constantGeneric Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 8
catch approach, the SSC recommended a constant-catch ABC derived from a constant-catch OFL that was set equal to the average of the 2021-2023 OFLs (Table 2.3). For both the variablecatch and constant-catch approaches, the SSC recommended the spiny lobster OFLs/ABCs for 2024 and subsequent years be set equal to the OFL and ABC values specified for 2023 under the variable-catch approach, until modified by a subsequent amendment. Through Action 1, the Council would select the process for determining the ACL(s) from the ABC(s) recommended by the SSC for spiny lobster in each island/island group based on the Council’s preferred approach for determining OFLs and ABCs (i.e., variable-catch or constantcatch approach). The Council would also select the level of management uncertainty to derive the ACLs from the ABCs. The ACL would be set equal to OY for the stock. The Council could select a different alternative and sub-alternative for each island or island group. Table 2.2. Variable-catch OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster for each island/island group, based on SEDAR 57 stock assessments and Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule included in each islandbased FMP. All values are in pounds whole weight. Year 2021 2022 2023 2024+1
Puerto Rico OFL 444,020 440,387
Puerto Rico ABC 391,587 388,383
438,001 438,001
386,279 386,279
St. Thomas/ St. John OFL 195,223 165,021 150,497 150,497
St. Thomas/ St. John ABC 172,170 145,534 132,725 132,725
St. Croix OFL 200,020 159,452 144,219 144,219
St. Croix ABC 176,400 140,623 127,189 127,189
If subsequent assessments are not completed and an amendment is not implemented by 2024, the OFLs and ABCs would be equal to the values specified for 2023.
1
Table 2.3. Constant-catch OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster for each island/island group, based on SEDAR 57 stock assessments and Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule included in each islandbased FMP. All values are in pounds whole weight. Year 20212023 2024+1
Puerto Rico OFL
Puerto Rico ABC
St. Thomas/ St. John OFL
St. Thomas/ St. John ABC
St. Croix OFL
St. Croix ABC
440,803
388,750
170,247
150,143
167,897
148,071
438,001
386,279
150,497
132,725
144,219
127,189
If subsequent assessments are not completed and an amendment is not implemented by 2024, the OFLs and ABCs under the constant-catch approach would be set equal to the values specified for 2023 under the variable-catch approach (Table 2.2).
1
2.1.1
Proposed Alternatives for Action 1
Alternative 1. No Action. The OFL proxy, ABC, and ACL (which equals OY) for spiny lobster would remain as specified under the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP (Table 1.1). Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 9
Alternative 2. Select the variable-catch approach for specifying OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster (Table 2.2), and use the variable-catch ABCs to derive the spiny lobster variable-catch ACLs (which equals OY) (Table 2.4), under one of the sub-alternatives listed below. Sub-alternative 2a. OY = ACL = ABC Sub-alternative 2b. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.95 Sub-alternative 2c. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.90 Preferred Alternative 3. Select the constant-catch approach for specifying the OFL and ABC for spiny lobster (Table 2.3), and use the constant-catch ABC to derive the spiny lobster constant-catch ACL (which equals OY) (Table 2.5), under one of the sub-alternatives listed below. Sub-alternative 3a. OY = ACL = ABC Preferred Sub-alternative 3b. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.95 Sub-alternative 3c. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.90 Table 2.4. Variable-catch ACLs for spiny lobster for each island/island group based on the variable-catch ABCs recommended by the SSC as reduced by the Council’s management uncertainty buffer (Alternative 2, Sub-alternatives 2a-2c). Island/Island Group Puerto Rico St. Thomas/ St. John St. Croix
Year 2021 2022 2023+1 2021 2022 2023+1 2021 2022 2023+1
Sub-alternative 2a (ACL = ABC) 391,587 388,383 386,279 172,170 145,534 132,725 176,400 140,623 127,189
Sub-alternative 2b Sub-alternative 2c (ACL = ABC * 0.95) (ACL = ABC * 0.90) 372,008 352,428 368,964 349,545 366,965 347,651 163,562 154,953 138,257 130,981 126,089 119,453 167,580 158,760 133,592 126,561 120,830 114,470
If subsequent assessments are not completed and an amendment is not implemented by 2024, the ACLs would be equal to the values specified for 2023.
1
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 10
Table 2.5. Constant-catch ACLs for spiny lobster for each island/island group based on the constant-catch ABC recommended by the SSC as reduced by the Council’s management uncertainty buffer (Alternative 3, Sub-alternatives 3a-3c). Island/Island Group Puerto Rico St. Thomas/ St. John St. Croix
Year 2021-2023 2024+1 2021-2023 2024+1 2021-2023 2024+1
Sub-alternative 3a (ACL = ABC) 388,750 386,279 150,143 132,725 148,071 127,189
Preferred Sub-alternative 3b (ACL = ABC * 0.95) 369,313 366,965 142,636 126,089 140,667 120,830
Sub-alternative 3c (ACL = ABC * 0.90) 349,875 347,651 135,129 119,453 133,264 114,470
If subsequent assessments are not completed and an amendment is not implemented by 2024, the ACLs under the constant-catch approach would be set equal to the values specified for 2023 under the variable-catch approach (Table 2.4). 1
2.1.2
Discussion of Action 1 Alternatives
As stated above, the Council could select a different alternative for specifying OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for spiny lobster under each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, or St. Croix FMPs. Alternative 1 would not update spiny lobster OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs following the SSC accepted SEDAR 57 stock assessments, and thus would not be based on the best scientific information available, even if it was the best scientific information available at the time the island-based FMPs were developed. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) states “conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.” 50 C.F.R. 600.315(a). Under Alternative 1, the ACLs specified for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix would exceed the variable-catch and constant-catch ABCs recommended by the SSC (as based on the SEDAR 57 stock assessments and application of Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule). The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies that ACLs cannot exceed the ABC recommended by the Council’s SSC. MSA § 302(h)(6); 50 C.F.R. 600.310(f)(1)(iii). Alternative 1 would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 2 Guidelines. Contrary to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3, discussed below, would set the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for spiny lobster in each island/island group using the best scientific information available (i.e., SEDAR 57, Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule, and SSC recommendations). Applying the best scientific information available would ensure that federally managed stocks are harvested sustainably while protecting reproductive capacity and maintaining effective ecological contributions. Under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3, if an interim assessment is not completed and an amendment is not implemented by 2024, Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 11
under both the variable-catch and constant-catch approaches the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for 2024 and later would be set equal to the values specified for 2023 under the variable-catch approach (Tables 2.2 and 2.4). Alternative 2, the variable-catch approach, would specify OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for spiny lobster for 2021-2023, and the values would change each year (Tables 2.2 and 2.4). Under Alternative 2, the OFLs for all three islands/island groups would be set at a level above the MSY proxy and would decrease each year from 2021 to 2023, converging down towards the respective MSY proxy (Table 2.1). For each spiny lobster stock, SEDAR 57 stated that the current spawning stock biomass is above the level that produces MSY. So long as a stock’s biomass remains above the level that produces MSY, fishing at the estimated harvest rate that produces the longer term MSY can result in catch levels that are higher than the stock’s MSY. Thus, the stock assessment model initially allows for a higher level of catch that in time decreases towards the MSY proxy and so no negative effects to each stock’s ability to produce its MSY would be expected from the 2021-2023 OFLs being above the MSY proxy. The ABCs, derived from the OFLs, and the ACLs, derived from the ABCs, would also decrease each year from 2021 to 2023. The variable OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs specified for 2021-2023 under Alternative 2 would be less than the values specified under Alternative 1. However, under Alternative 2 the updated management reference points would be expected to better protect against overfishing in relation to those included in the island-based FMPs, thus ensuring, to the best extent practicable, continued access to the resource in future years. Under Sub-alternatives 2a-2c, the Council would apply a reduction buffer to the ABC to account for their level of management uncertainty for spiny lobster in each island-specific fishery. Sub-alternative 2a (no reduction) would set the ACL equal to the ABC, resulting in the greatest harvest allowed of the sub-alternatives (Table 2.4). Sub-alternative 2b (5% reduction buffer) and Sub-alternative 2c (10% reduction buffer) would result in more conservative ACLs for spiny lobster when compared to Sub-alternative 2a, with Sub-alternative 2c allowing for the least amount of harvest of the sub-alternatives. As under Alternative 2, Preferred Alternative 3 would update OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for spiny lobster in each island/island group. For each island/island group the total harvest allowed under Preferred Alternative 3 would be equal to the total harvest allowed under Alternative 2, but Preferred Alternative 3 would specify a constant-value OFL, ABC, and ACL for spiny lobster for each island/island group for 2021-2023 (Tables 2.3 and 2.5) based on the OFL and ABC recommendations from the Council’s SSC. Under Preferred Alternative 3, the OFL for each island/island group would be greater than the MSY proxy, but would not converge towards the respective MSY proxy (Table 2.1). As mentioned above for Alternative 2, for each island/island group, the current spiny lobster spawning stock biomass is above the level that produces MSY and no negative effects to each stock’s ability to produce its MSY would be Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 12
expected from the 2021-2023 OFLs being above the MSY proxy. For years 2024 and later, the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs under Preferred Alternative 3 would be equal to the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs set for year 2023 and later under Alternative 2. Under both alternatives, those values would remain in place until amended. The sub-alternatives under Preferred Alternative 3 would set the ACL from the ABC using the same management uncertainty reduction buffers specified in the sub-alternatives under Alternative 2, described above. The Council selected Sub-alternative 3b as their preferred sub-alternative. Preferred Sub-alternative 3b has a 5% reduction buffer from the ABC to ACL to account for management uncertainty. Summary Managing based on best scientific information available better ensures the spiny lobster stocks are harvested sustainably. For all three island management areas, Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 have a smaller buffer between the OFL and the ABC 9 when compared to the buffer between the OFL proxy (SYL) and ABC under Alternative 1. 10 In general, a smaller buffer would increase the likelihood that OFL could be exceeded if catch rates or effort is higher than expected. If the OFL is exceeded, this would indicate that the stock is experiencing overfishing and would require immediate action to end overfishing. However, the overfishing SDC under Alternative 1 do not reflect the best scientific information available for spiny lobster and the higher ACLs under Alternative 1 could lead to overfishing as defined under SEDAR 57. The ACLs for spiny lobster under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 are less than the ACLs under Alternative 1. However, under all alternatives, exceeding the ACL could require AM-based closures in subsequent fishing years to prevent repeated ACL overages and protect against overfishing. In Puerto Rico, the most recent and complete (i.e., landings adjusted using coast-specific expansion factors) post-hurricane landings for spiny lobster (years 2018 and 2019) were at a level above the proposed OFLs and ACLs under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3, but under the OFL proxy (SYL) and ACL specified under Alternative 1. If future spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico are at the 2018 or 2019 levels, then the AM could be triggered and management actions, including reductions to the fishing season, would be required under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 but not under Alternative 1. Landings of spiny lobster in both St. Thomas and St. John and St. Croix in 2018 and 2019 have been below the proposed OFLs and ACLs under all alternatives, and thus would not be expected to trigger AMs and any management actions such as fishing season reductions if landings remain at that level.
The ABC for spiny lobster under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 is 88% of the OFL for each island/island group, providing a 12% buffer between the two reference points. 10 The ABC for spiny lobster under Alternative 1 is 60% of the OFL proxy (i.e., the SYL) for each island/island group, providing a 40% buffer between the two reference points. 9
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 13
2.2 Action 2: Spiny Lobster Accountability Measure Trigger Through Action 2, the Council would revise the AM trigger for the spiny lobster stock under each FMP. The process for applying an AM would remain as described in each FMP, and reproduced below: Process for Applying an AM for Spiny Lobster: If an AM is triggered, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would reduce the length of the spiny lobster fishing season following the overage determination by the amount necessary to ensure (to the greatest practicable extent) landings do not again exceed the ACL in the year of application. Any fishing season reduction would be applied from September 30 and moving toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the required length of the fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction would be applied from October 1 and moving toward the end of the fishing year. The Council could select a different alternative for each island or island group.
2.2.1
Proposed Alternatives for Action 2
Alternative 1. No Action. Use the AM trigger described for spiny lobster in the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, or St. Croix FMP, as follows: An AM would be triggered if spiny lobster landings exceed the spiny lobster ACL, unless NMFS’ Southeast Fisheries Science Center determines the overage occurred because data collection or monitoring improved rather than because landings increased. Landings from the following years, in order, would be used to evaluate an exceedance of the spiny lobster ACL. (1) Landings from 2018 (2) Landings from 2019 (3) Two-year average of landings from 2019 and 2020 (4) Three-year average of landings from 2019, 2020, and 2021 (5) Thereafter, a progressive running three-year average (2020-2022, 2021-2023, etc.). The NMFS Southeast Regional Administrator in consultation with the Council may deviate from the specific time sequences used to determine if the ACL was exceeded based on data availability. 11 Preferred Alternative 2. Use the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to evaluate whether an AM is triggered. An AM is triggered if average landings
The RA may update the years specified for triggering an AM for spiny lobster, beginning with landings from the most recent year available. If the island-based FMPs take effect in 2022, the most recent year of available landings likely would be 2020.
11
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 14
exceeded average ACLs in place during those years. The years of landings used to trigger an AM can be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available. Alternative 3. Use the most recent single year of spiny lobster landings to evaluate whether an AM is triggered. An AM is triggered if landings exceeded the ACL in place during that year. The years of landings used to trigger an AM can be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available.
2.2.2
Discussion of Action 2 Alternatives
The National Standard Guidelines describe two general types of AMs, in-season AMs and AMs for when the ACL is exceeded (50 CFR 600.310(g)). Caribbean stocks are managed using the latter, AMs for when the ACL is exceeded. The guidelines state that “as soon as possible after the fishing year,” on an annual basis, the AMs will evaluate whether an ACL was exceeded and take action to correct the issue that caused the ACL overage and remedy any biological consequences, once known. Landings for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) are generally available one to two years after the fishing year, thus, all AMs are applied post-season. In general, using a multi-year average of landings to trigger an AM would be expected to account for any biological (e.g., year-class variability) and economic (e.g., market demand) variability in the landings, thereby reducing the probability that an AM would be triggered. However, if landings in a particular year are very high, when using a multi-year average as the AM trigger, that year of high landings could be used in the AM trigger analysis up to three times, potentially triggering AMs in three consecutive years. Spiny lobster continues to be a highly targeted species in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, though spiny lobster landings have fluctuated from island to island following the disastrous 2017 hurricane season. Although landings for 2020 are not available at this time, it is expected that these landings would be less than the previous years’ landings due to the reduced fishing effort in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alternative 1 (No Action) would continue to use the stepwise comparison of landings (i.e., single year, subsequent single year, two-year average, three-year average) specified in the islandbased FMPs as the AM trigger for spiny lobster. Alternative 1 would not use a multi-year average as the AM trigger until the third year after the amendment was implemented, and would not use a three-year average until the fourth year (Table 2.6). Under Alternative 1, AMs for spiny lobster could be triggered more frequently in the initial two years, which compare a single year of landings to the ACL, when compared to years 3 and 4, which compare a multi-year average of landings to the spiny lobster ACL(s) in place during those years. Using a multi-year average could dampen the variability of a high landings year and avoid an AM being triggered. Using a single year would only use that one year of high landings when evaluating the AM Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 15
trigger. Under Alternative 1, the years of landings used to evaluate whether an AM is triggered may be adjusted “based on data availability.” Preferred Alternative 2 would compare the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings, as estimated by NMFS and based on best scientific information available, to the average of the ACLs for those years to determine if an AM is triggered. Preferred Alternative 2 states that the years of landings used to evaluate whether an AM is triggered may be adjusted based on the “best scientific information available,” which better defines when NMFS in consultation with the Council may deviate from the specific years of landings used as the AM trigger under Alternative 1. The language in Preferred Alternative 2 makes it clearer that if landings for a given year are available, but there are concerns with the reliability (e.g., concerns with quality of data and expansion factors in Puerto Rico) of that data, then NMFS may use different data to evaluate the AM trigger. Both Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 use a multi-year average of landings as the AM trigger, thus accounting for any variability in the landings. However, Alternative 1 uses a prescribed process to build up to a three year average, starting with a single year of landings, then another single year, then a two-year average, then a three-year average. Because Preferred Alternative 2 immediately uses a three-year average as the AM trigger, and three-year averages can dampen variability, Preferred Alternative 2 would potentially trigger AMs less frequently in the initial years following amendment implementation than Alternative 1. With regard to triggering an AM, the effects of Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 would be the same beginning in the fourth year, when they both use three-year averages. Unlike Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2, which use an average of landings to trigger an AM, Alternative 3 would compare the most recent single year of spiny lobster landings, based on best scientific information available, to the ACL for that year to determine if an AM is triggered. Alternative 3 would be the most straightforward approach to ACL monitoring in that a single year of landings would be compared to the ACL in place during that year (i.e., an additional step to determine average landings and average ACLs would be needed). If the level of spiny lobster harvest was much greater than the ACL in a given year, and triggered an AM, that year of high landings would only be used once in the ACL monitoring process. This contrasts with the multi-year approach in Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2, where a year with extremely high landings could be incorporated into the average landings for comparison to the ACL up to three times, potentially resulting in an AM triggered each time. For example, under Preferred Alternative 2, if the 2022 landings of spiny lobster were abnormally high, then that year of landings would be used in the 2020-2022 average, the 20212023 average, and the 2022-2024 average, potentially exceeding the average ACLs and triggering an AM each time. As a result, a fishing season reduction could be triggered over multiple fishing seasons given a single year of high landings. But, as explained above, using a Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 16
three-year average of landings as in Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 could dampen (i.e., reduce) any variability in landings that may occur. As in Preferred Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would also use the best scientific information available when comparing landings to the ACL in place. Under Alternative 3, if the most recent year of data (e.g., 2022) were determined to be incomplete, then NMFS could use the previous year of landings (e.g., 2021) that were considered to be the best scientific information available for comparison to the ACL in place during that year (e.g., 2021). Table 2.6. Years of spiny lobster landings that would be used to trigger an AM under the Action 2 alternatives, assuming that the island-based FMPs and the Spiny Lobster Framework Amendment are both implemented in 2022. Year Fishing Amendment Year Implemented
Most Recent Landings Available*
AM Trigger under Alternative 1**
1
2022
2020
Single year (2020)
2
2023
2021
Single year (2021)
3
2024
2022
4
2025
2023
5
2026
2024
Two-year average (2021-2022) Three-year average (2021-2023) Three-year average (2022-2024)
AM Trigger under Preferred Alternative 2 Three-year average (2018-2020) Three-year average (2019-2021) Three-year average (2020-2022) Three-year average (2021-2023) Three-year average (2022-2024)
AM Trigger under Alternative 3 Single year (2020) Single year (2021) Single year (2022) Single year (2023) Single year (2024)
* For the U.S. Caribbean region, landings are generally available two years after when the fishing occurred (i.e., the fishing year). Data availability may be additionally delayed by rare events such as hurricanes. ** Alternative 1 (No Action) identifies a different sequence of years for triggering the spiny lobster AM than the years included in the island-based FMPs. The dates in Table 2.6 reflect the expectation that the Regional Administrator would deviate from that specific time sequence to account for more recent, available data (i.e., start with 2020 as the first, single year of landings assuming amendment implementation date in 2022), as authorized in the FMP.
Summary The choice of alternatives under Action 2 could influence the frequency with which an AM is triggered, and thus could affect the frequency with which an AM-based fishing season reduction is applied for spiny lobster. The frequency of AMs triggered and applied under Action 2 would depend on the magnitude of future landings, which are difficult to predict. For example spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico in 2018 and 2019 were above the MSY proxy specified in SEDAR 57 (432,501 pounds [lb]), but preliminary landings reported 12 for 2020 are much lower (~150,000 lb). If future spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico recover to the 2018 and 2019 Puerto Rico landings are adjusted each year using an expansion factor determined by DNER staff at the Fisheries Research Laboratory, which is based on intercept sampling of commercial fishermen. Expansion factors for 2020 are not available at this time.
12
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 17
levels, then AMs would likely be triggered every year, regardless of the alternative selected. Similarly, the spiny lobster landings in St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix have been substantially less than the landings before the 2017 hurricane season, and well below the ACLs proposed under the Action 1 alternatives, and would thus likely not trigger an AM under any of the Action 2 alternatives. Under the Action 2 alternatives, if an AM was triggered NMFS might determine that corrective action is not needed to prevent a future ACL exceedance given differences in the observed fishing effort in the year(s) the landings occurred (the year[s] of landings used to trigger an AM) and the year in which the AM application would occur.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 18
Chapter 3. Affected Environment This section describes the environment and resources included within federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix that would be affected by the proposed actions. Additional information on the physical, biological/ecological, economic, social, and administrative environments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) have been described in detail in the Puerto Rico Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (CFMC 2019a), the St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c). These are incorporated herein by reference and summarized below.
3.1 Description of the Fishery The fisheries of the U.S. Caribbean region provide food, livelihoods, and income to residents and visitors alike. The region’s fisheries (federal and state 13) can be divided into commercial, recreational, and subsistence sectors. Commercial fishermen pursue multiple species using multiple gear types and are characterized as “artisanal” because their fishing vessels tend to be less than 45 feet (ft) (13.7 meters [m]) long, have small crews, yield small revenues (when compared to revenues from commercial fishing in the continental U.S.), and their seafood processors are small-scale producers. In the Caribbean Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) Amendment (CFMC 2005), fishable habitat was defined as those waters less than or equal to 100 fathoms (183 m). The majority of fishing activity for Council-managed species occurs in that area. The total area of fishable habitat (less or equal to 100 fathoms) in the U.S. Caribbean is estimated to be approximately 2,932 square miles (mi2) (7,594 square kilometers [km2]), of which only 13.7% (403 mi2 [1,045 km2]) is in the U.S. Caribbean Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Spiny lobster, managed in U.S. Caribbean federal waters since 1985, are targeted by commercial and recreational fishermen in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, although recreational data (i.e., pounds landed) are not available for spiny lobster. Spiny lobster accounted for 29% of the total dollar amount of commercial landings reported in 2018 for both Puerto Rico and the USVI (NMFS 2020a). Annual catch limits (ACL) for spiny lobster were established for each island/island group in 2011, based on commercial landings, and revised under the island-based FMPs. For each island/island group, in the event that spiny lobster commercial landings exceed the ACL set for the stock, an accountability measure (AM) would be triggered and would apply to both fishing State means each of the several states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other Commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States (50 CFR 600.10).
13
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 19
sectors (i.e., commercial and recreational fishing sectors). Additionally, recreational fishermen are limited to a daily bag limit of three spiny lobster per person per day, with no more than 10 spiny lobster per vessel per day. The minimum size limit for spiny lobster in the U.S. Caribbean region is 3.5 inches (8.9 centimeters) carapace length. In 2017, Hurricanes Irma and Maria devastated the islands of the U.S. Caribbean as well as their fisheries. Many fishermen who fished for spiny lobster switched over to targeting other species providing food fish for local residents rather than high-valued spiny lobster for tourists. Reported landings of spiny lobster since that time have been greatly reduced for the USVI fisheries, which are still recovering. In Puerto Rico, spiny lobster landings decreased in 2017, but have since recovered to pre-hurricane levels. In 2020, the fisheries were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely reduced fishing effort. Ninety-four percent of Puerto Rico commercial fishermen and 81% of USVI fishermen stopped fishing for some period in the first half of 2020 (NMFS 2021a).
3.1.1
Puerto Rico
Landings of spiny lobster are available from self-reported commercial fishermen logbooks since 1983, and include information on fishing gear type and location where the catch was landed. Commercial fishermen target multiple species using multiple gear types during the same fishing trip, with 63.2% of fishermen using at three gear types during a fishing trip (Griffith et al. 2007). Approximately half of the commercial fishermen target spiny lobster (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011). Commercial divers selectively target a diverse group of highly valued species including spiny lobster (Agar and Shivlani 2016) and fishermen using trap gear target reef fish, deep-water snappers, and spiny lobster. Fish traps are used to catch spiny lobster and various reef fish, such as silk snapper, mutton snapper, lane snapper, hogfish, yellowtail snapper, white grunt, red hind, and parrotfish species, while lobster traps mainly catch spiny lobster (Agar et al. 2017). Fish traps are more common than lobster traps because of their versatility in catch, with 66% of commercial fishermen using fish traps and 20% using a combination of fish and lobster traps (Agar et al. 2017). Landings of spiny lobster in Puerto Rico have generally increased each year since ACLs were established in 2012, with a brief decline in 2017 when Hurricanes Irma and Maria hit the region (Table 3.1.1). Reporting of harvest location from unknown areas has improved since 2012, with the majority of the spiny lobster landings since 2013 reported from state waters (0-9 nautical miles). In Puerto Rico, more than half of the spiny lobster landings were reported as harvested using dive gear, followed by trap gear, and then net gear (Table 3.1.2).
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 20
Table 3.1.1. Landings of spiny lobster (in pounds) in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019 with the percent reported from state waters (0-9 nautical miles), federal waters (9-200 nautical miles), or unknown location. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Landings (lb)* 385,811 275,424 376,779 418,273 449,233 283,221 520,829 488,968
Percent from State Waters 26% 71% 77% 78% 87% 91% 93% 90%
Percent from Federal Waters 11% 8% 8% 9% 7% 7% 5% 8%
Percent from Unknown Area 63% 21% 15% 13% 5% 3% 3% 2%
* Puerto Rico landings are adjusted using an expansion factor determined by DNER staff at the Fisheries Research Laboratory, which is based on intercept sampling of commercial fishermen. (Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
Table 3.1.2. Percent of spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019 reported by gear type. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Diving 58% 64% 59% 57% 53% 58% 62% 57%
Traps 39% 30% 35% 38% 41% 37% 34% 37%
Nets* 3% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% 4% 6%
* Gill nets and trammel nets are prohibited gear types in federal waters for the harvest of spiny lobster. (Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
In 2018, 10,964 of the total 26,372 trips reported by commercial fishermen included landings of spiny lobster. Of those 10,964 trips, the most commonly caught species during the same trip included queen conch, hogfish, and queen triggerfish, among others (Table 3.1.3). In 2019, 12,366 of the total 30,731 trips reported by commercial fishermen included landings of spiny lobster. The same species were the most commonly co-occurring catch in 2019, both in pounds and frequency of trips.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 21
Table 3.1.3. Landings (in pounds) of spiny lobster and co-occurring species landed and number of trip tickets that reported spiny lobster and co-occurring species in Puerto Rico in 2018 and 2019. Species Lobster Spiny Conch Queen Hogfish Triggerfish Queen Boxfish Unspecified Grouper Red Hind Octopus Unspecified Parrotfishes Unspecified Snapper Mutton Snapper Lane Snapper Unspecified Porgy Unspecified Snapper Yellowtail Grunt Unspecified Lionfish Snapper Cubera Goatfish Spotted Crab Unspecified Jack Bar Grouper Unspecified Squirrelfish Snapper Silk Grouper Coney Mackerel Cero Snook Common Snapper Vermilion Grunt White Goatfish Yellow Mackerel King Lobster Ridged Slipper Crab Coral Shark Tiger Sharks Requiem Unspecified Shellfish Unspecified Stingrays Unspecified Grouper Yellowfin Jacks
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
2018 Landings 520,829 172,718 62,939 44,933 31,144 26,422 15,833 23,518 21,327 18,856 14,068 11,325 11,551 14,606 3,883 4,186 4,483 657 3,639 3,321 1,896 5,673 1,755 628 292 937 484 749 1,031 200 186 3,667 2,050 1,112 404 897 1,581
2018 Trips 10,964 3,520 2,841 2,279 1,975 1,387 989 868 944 623 615 498 530 262 225 206 172 156 124 155 123 111 81 27 13 44 20 48 49 18 21 53 40 64 23 39 18
2019 Landings 488,734 100,809 52,893 45,646 33,562 23,117 14,238 25,508 18,782 21,595 14,351 9,437 10,836 15,788 4,698 3,742 3,374 1,036 3,332 2,862 1,844 3,952 1,629 1,221 2,704 2,287 1,437 450 1,036 300 235 3,899 2,269 758 1,615 747 2,038
2019 Trips 12,365 3,485 3,131 2,925 2,305 1,460 1,305 1,231 1,168 1,031 835 735 713 529 291 280 205 196 165 161 159 154 123 81 71 69 50 49 49 46 45 43 42 41 39 26 25
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 22
Species Tunny Little Mojarras Unspecified Shark Lemon Drummer Whitemouth Herring Sardinella Mullet White Snapper Blackfin Ballyhoo Grouper Misty Jack Horse-Eye Fishes Bony Unspecified Barracuda Crab Blue Land Tuna Skipjack Wahoo Snapper Queen Tuna And Mackerels Unspecified Tuna Albacore Tuna Blackfin Dolphinfish Snapper Black Lobster Spanish Slipper Eel Moray Green Shark Reef Snapper Cardinal Snapper Schoolmaster Squids Unspecified Surgeonfish Doctorfish Topsnail West Indian Tuna Yellowfin Grunt Bluestriped Shark Hammerhead Great Shark Sharpnose Sevengill Shrimp Penaeus Unspecified Conf = Confidential data (Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
2018 Landings 1,433 Conf 225 330 92 259 1,832 855 48 563 75 290 Conf 736 309 Conf 140 278 1,231 180 85 Conf Conf Conf -
2018 Trips 18 Conf 12 9 5 12 23 12 6 12 5 9 Conf 8 7 Conf 5 6 6 5 13 Conf Conf Conf -
2019 Landings 1,661 310 476 662 146 134 701 589 494 133 335 125 187 160 169 321 173 391 95 Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf
2019 Trips 16 15 15 13 13 12 12 11 11 11 10 8 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 23
3.1.2
St. Thomas and St. John
Landings of spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John are available from self-reported commercial fishermen logbooks since 1974, and include information on fishing gear type and location where the catch was landed. In the USVI landings are assumed to be fully reported and correction factors are not used. Commercial fishermen target a variety of species using multiple gear types, with 80.8% using more than one method of fishing (e.g., trap fishing, line fishing, net fishing, or diving) (Kojis et al. 2017). Approximately 44% of the commercial fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John target spiny lobster (Kojis et al. 2017). In St. Thomas and St. John, fish traps are used to catch spiny lobster and various reef fish, such as queen triggerfish, red hind, gray angelfish, doctorfish, white grunt, saucereye porgy, mutton snapper, and parrotfish species, while lobster traps primarily catch spiny lobster. Kojis et al. (2017) found that roughly 40% of commercial fishermen used fish traps and 11-12% of commercial fishermen used plastic or wire lobster traps. Only 32% commercial fishermen fished by diving and most skin and SCUBA divers used snares for catching spiny lobster (Kojis et al. 2017). Landings of spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John have remained fairly stable since ACLs were established in 2012, peaking in 2016 (Table 3.1.4). Reporting of harvest location from unknown areas has remained constant since 2012, albeit at low levels (less than 5%). The majority of spiny lobster are reported from federal waters (3-200 nautical miles) (Table 3.1.4). In St. Thomas and St. John, the majority of spiny lobster are harvested using trap gear, with a small percentage harvested using dive gear (Table 3.1.5). Table 3.1.4. Landings of spiny lobster (in pounds) in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019 with the percent reported from state waters (0-3 nautical miles), federal waters (3-200 nautical miles), or unknown location. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Landings (lb) 83,157 84,513 92,261 109,455 121,695 91,911 86,708 88,100
(Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Percent from State Waters 24% 16% 18% 29% 34% 41% 55% 46%
Percent from Federal Waters 76% 79% 81% 69% 61% 59% 45% 54%
Percent from Unknown Area 0% 5% 1% 3% 5% 0% 0% 0%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 24
Table 3.1.5. Percent of spiny lobster landings in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019 reported by gear type. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Diving 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 6% 7% 1%
(Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
Traps 98% 99% 99% 99% 98% 94% 93% 99%
In 2018, 806 of the total 1,756 trips reported by commercial fishermen included landings of spiny lobster. Of those 806 trips, the most commonly caught species during the same trip included, queen triggerfish, red hind grouper, and gray angelfish, among others (Table 3.1.6). In 2019, 755 of the total 1,471 trips reported by commercial fishermen included landings of spiny lobster. The same species were generally the most commonly co-occurring catch in 2019, both in pounds and frequency of trips. Table 3.1.6. Landings (in pounds) of spiny lobster and co-occurring species landed and number of trip tickets that reported spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Thomas and St. John in 2018 and 2019. Species Lobster, Spiny Triggerfish, Queen Grouper, Red Hind Angelfish, Gray Cowfish, Scrawled Surgeonfish, Doctorfish Snapper, Yellowtail Grunt, White Squirrelfish Triggerfish, Unspecified Porgy, Saucereye Grouper, Coney Grunt, Bluestriped Surgeonfish, Blue Tang Parrotfish, Stoplight Angelfish, French
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
2018 Landings
2018 Trips
2019 Landings
2019 Trips
86,708 20,587 13,538 7,543 4,603 3,708 2,850 6,248 2,837 4,721 3,714 2,089 3,584 2,484 3,048 3,411
806 438 433 418 385 359 359 354 353 351 347 323 320 313 309 302
86,869 14,746 12,869 5,744 3,447 3,603 2,347 5,955 2,608 2,847 2,919 1,967 3,551 2,135 3,141 2,465
755 362 336 300 310 295 281 315 311 226 270 257 274 248 263 209
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 25
Species Parrotfish, Redtail Grunt, Cottonwick Hogfish Grunt, Margate Snapper, Mutton Angelfish, Queen Crab, Unspecified Lionfish Snapper, Lane Porgy, Jolthead Grouper, Yellowfin Grouper, Red Snapper, Blackfin Blue Runner Parrotfish, Redfin Snapper, Silk Grunt, Tomtate Parrotfish, Redband Mackerel, King Jack, Bar Nassau Grouper Jack, Almaco Snapper, Vermilion Porgy, Sheepshead (Calamus) Parrotfish, Princess Grouper, Tiger Parrotfish, Queen Schoolmaster Grouper, Graysby Wahoo Surgeonfish, Ocean Jacks Spadefish Snapper, Queen Octopus, Unspecified Lobster, Spanish Slipper Conch, Queen Needlefish, Unspecified Grouper, Black Dolphinfish
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
2018 Landings
2018 Trips
2019 Landings
2019 Trips
2,207 1,743 2,180 2,279 2,663 1,330 1,417 1,940 2,036 592 1,270 1,075 1,828 598 181 1,344 110 201 311 204 610 570 88 77 196 209 202 195 9 300 44 250 18 117 20 19 1,383 Conf Conf
255 253 222 189 183 178 136 128 122 75 69 53 50 47 27 22 20 17 16 16 11 11 11 10 9 8 8 8 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 18 Conf Conf
2,467 1,128 1,862 2,131 1,289 1,429 863 1,884 457 247 850 864 2,138 107 216 1,335 157 182 97 82 41 237 Conf 231 Conf Conf 68 Conf Conf 186 Conf Conf
257 194 171 143 115 182 120 114 57 28 44 40 72 9 28 8 23 14 5 6 7 10 Conf 11 Conf Conf 7 Conf Conf 23 Conf Conf
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 26
Species
2018 Landings
2018 Trips
2019 Landings
2019 Trips
Grouper, Misty Rainbow Runner Grouper, Yellowmouth Topsnail, West Indian Snapper, Black Barracuda Sharks, Requiem, Unspecified Herrings Tuna, Blackfin Bream, Sea Grouper, Yellowedge Tuna And Mackerels, Unspecifi Pompano, Florida Shark, Reef Tunny, Little Hind, Rock
Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf -
Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf -
Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf
Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf
Conf = Confidential data (Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
3.1.3
St. Croix
Landings of spiny lobster in St. Croix are available from self-reported commercial fishermen logbooks since 1975, and include information on fishing gear type and location where the catch was landed. In the USVI, landings are assumed to be fully reported and correction factors are not used. Commercial fishermen target a variety of species using multiple gear types, with 70% using more than one method of fishing (e.g., diving, line fishing, trap fishing) (Kojis et al. 2017). Kojis et al. (2017) found that 59.6% of the commercial fishermen in St. Croix targeted spiny lobster. In St. Croix, commercial landings reported using dive gear have consistently been greater than landings reported for hook-and-line or trap gear. Half of the fishermen surveyed in St. Croix reported owning their own SCUBA gear, and almost all reported using snares (to target spiny lobster) or spears (to target reef fish) during diving operations (Kojis et al. 2017). In St. Croix, fish traps are used to catch spiny lobster and various reef fish, such as blackfin snapper, silk snapper, schoolmaster, red hind grouper, and queen triggerfish, while lobster traps primarily catch spiny lobster, although only one fishermen reported using lobster traps. Landings of spiny lobster in St. Croix have generally decreased each year since ACLs were established in 2012 (Table 3.1.7). Reporting of harvest location from unknown areas has fluctuated since 2012, generally occurring at low levels (less than 10%). The majority of spiny Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 27
lobster are reported from state waters (0-3 nautical miles) each year (Table 3.1.7). In St. Croix, the majority of spiny lobster are harvested using dive gear, followed by trap gear (Table 3.1.8). Table 3.1.7. Landings of spiny lobster (in pounds) in St. Croix for 2012-2019 with the percent reported from state waters (0-3 nautical miles), federal waters (3-200 nautical miles), or unknown location. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Landings (lb) 87,073 59,398 39,724 44,963 31,582 26,193 10,970 15,721
(Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
Percent from State Waters 51% 57% 64% 55% 63% 65% 59% 59%
Percent from Federal Waters 49% 41% 30% 38% 31% 29% 39% 30%
Percent from Unknown Area 0% 2% 5% 7% 7% 6% 2% 11%
Table 3.1.8. Percent of spiny lobster landings in St. Croix for 2012-2019 reported by gear type. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
(Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
Diving 82% 90% 94% 87% 97% 89% 94% 92%
Traps 18% 10% 6% 13% 3% 11% 6% 8%
In 2018, 313 of the total 804 trips reported by commercial fishermen included landings of spiny lobster. Of those 313 trips, the most commonly caught species during the same trip included, stoplight parrotfish, queen triggerfish, and queen conch, among others (Table 3.1.9). In 2019, 384 of the total 939 trips reported by commercial fishermen included landings of spiny lobster. The same species were generally the most commonly co-occurring catch in 2019, both in pounds and frequency of trips, although in a different order of importance.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 28
Table 3.1.9. Landings (in pounds) of spiny lobster and co-occurring species landed and number of trip tickets that reported spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Croix in 2018 and 2019. Species Lobsters, Spiny Parrotfish, Stoplight Triggerfish, Queen Conch, Queen Grouper, Red Hind Schoolmaster Grunt, Bluestriped Grouper, Coney Parrotfish, Redtail Parrotfish, Redfin Snapper, Mutton Surgeonfish, Doctorfish Angelfish, French Angelfish, Gray Goatfish, Unspecified Snapper, Gray Parrotfish, Queen Parrotfish, Redband Surgeonfish, Blue Tang Hind, Rock Blue Runner Surgeonfish, Ocean Snapper, Lane Grunt, Tomtate Snapper, Queen Grunt, Cottonwick Porgy, Saucereye Porgy, Jolthead Grunt, White Snapper, Yellowtail Cowfish, Scrawled Lionfish Angelfish, Queen Parrotfish, Princess Squirrelfish Jack, Bar Grunt, Margate Triggerfish, Unspecified
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
2018 Landings
2018 Trips
2019 Landings
2019 Trips
10,970 6,020 2,977 6,466 893 1,163 844 666 1,864 1,128 493 667 594 516 509 427 707 371 194 268 455 410 370 470 377 373 34 28 65 39 43 65 70 102 41 Conf Conf Conf
313 159 146 105 90 84 77 77 74 65 63 59 59 54 49 48 42 38 37 32 29 29 28 28 27 26 18 13 10 9 9 9 8 6 5 Conf Conf Conf
15,325 3,813 2,137 7,950 1,510 1,867 673 830 3,421 934 410 803 64 375 52 308 326 625 810 327 164 275 234 207 Conf 24 19 917 62 143 37 266 331 168 40 146 107
384 105 137 114 110 113 65 62 112 71 40 57 21 45 15 38 22 59 62 28 9 15 11 19 Conf 11 10 59 19 11 8 17 23 13 4 24 9
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 29
Species
2018 Landings
2018 Trips
2019 Landings
2019 Trips
Barracuda Snapper, Blackfin Snapper, Vermilion Grouper, Yellowfin Grouper, Red Grouper, Tiger Grunt, Unspecified Snapper, Mahogany Crab, Unspecified Hogfish Snapper, Silk Bream, Sea Snapper, Black Sharks, Requiem, Unspecified Rainbow Runner Tuna, Unspecified Tunny, Little
Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf -
Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf -
Conf Conf Conf 48 6 31 Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf
Conf Conf Conf 9 5 12 Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf
Conf = Confidential data (Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
3.2 Description of the Physical Environment The physical (including geology and climate) and habitat environments of the U.S. Caribbean were described in detail in the Generic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment to the FMPs of the U.S. Caribbean, the EFH Final Environmental Impact Statement (EFH-FEIS), and the Fiveyear Review of EFH in the U.S. Caribbean, Vols.1 and 2 (CFMC 1998, CFMC 2004, CFMC 2011c). The most recent descriptions of the physical environment can be found in the islandbased FMPs (CFMC 2019a, CFMC 2019b, CFMC 2019c). These documents are incorporated herein by reference and are summarized below. The U.S. Caribbean is located in the eastern portion of the Caribbean archipelago, about 1,100 miles (mi) (1,770 kilometers) east-southeast of Miami, Florida (Olcott 1999). The region is composed of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the Greater Antilles and the USVI in the Lesser Antilles island chains, both of which separate the Caribbean Sea from the western central Atlantic Ocean. The USVI are part of the Virgin Islands chain, which lies in the northeastern Caribbean about 50 mi (80 km) east of Puerto Rico’s main island, and consists of four major islands: St. Thomas, St. John, St. Croix, and Water Island (DPNR 2005). The U.S. Caribbean EEZ covers an area of approximately 75,687 mi2 (196,029 km2), which, for management purposes, is divided into the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix management areas (see Figure 1.1). Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 30
The coastal marine environments of Puerto Rico and the USVI are characterized by a wide variety of habitat types, with 21 distinct benthic habitats types delineated (Kendall et al. 2001). The EFH-FEIS (CFMC 2004) summarized the percent distribution for all habitats in the U.S. Caribbean from the 2,121 mi2 (5,494 km2) of total bottom area mapped from aerial photographs. This total included both Puerto Rico (1,934 mi2 [5,009 km2]) and the USVI (187 mi2 [485 km2]), and covered from the shoreline to about 66 ft (20 m) depth.
3.2.1
Puerto Rico
The Puerto Rico EEZ is located 9 - 200 nautical miles (17 - 370 km) from the shoreline and covers approximately 65,368 mi2 (169,303 km2). Puerto Rico approximately 110 by 35 mi (177 by 56 km), and is the smallest and the most eastern island of the Greater Antilles (CFMC 1998). Puerto Rico includes the adjacent inhabited islands of Vieques and Culebra as well as various other isolated islands without permanent populations including Mona, Monito, and Desecheo. Puerto Rico is surrounded on three sides by deep ocean waters: the Mona Passage to the west (> 3,300 ft [1,000 m] deep); the Puerto Rico Trench to the north (~28,000 ft [8,500 m] deep); and the Venezuelan Basin of the Caribbean Sea to the south (~16,400 ft [5,000 m] deep). To the east, Puerto Rico shares the shallow-water shelf platform with St. Thomas and St. John, USVI. For Puerto Rico, the following areas have been designated as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) by the Council for coral and/ reef fish species, which are managed with seasonal closures that are also applicable to spiny lobster: • Tourmaline Bank - closed December 1 through the last day of February, each year, to all fishing, including spiny lobster; and • Abrir la Sierra Bank - closed December 1 through the last day of February, each year, to all fishing, including spiny lobster.
3.2.2
St. Thomas and St. John
The St. Thomas and St. John EEZ is located 3 - 200 nautical miles (6 – 370 km) from the shoreline and covers approximately 1,103 mi2 (2,856 km2). The islands of St. Thomas and St. John are bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the north and the Caribbean Sea to the south. The island of St. Thomas is bordered to the west by the Puerto Rico islands of Vieques and Culebra, and to the east by St. John, which is bordered on the east by the British Virgin Islands. The shelf shared by the islands of St. Thomas and St. John is about 8 mi (12.9 km) wide on the south and 20 mi (32.2 km) wide on the north (Goenaga and Boulon 1992) with an area of approximately 510 nm2 (1751 km2). Most of the shelf area is greater than 80 ft (24.4 m) deep (Kojis and Quinn 2011).
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 31
For St. Thomas and St. John, the following areas are managed with year-round or seasonal closures that are applicable to spiny lobster: • Hind Bank Marine Conservation District - closed year-round to all fishing, including spiny lobster; and • Grammanik Bank - closed February 1 through April 30, each year, to all fishing, including spiny lobster.
3.2.3
St. Croix
The St. Croix EEZ is located 3 - 200 nautical miles (6 – 370 km) from the shoreline and covers approximately 9,216 mi2 (23,870 km2). The island of St. Croix is surrounded by the Caribbean Sea. St. Croix is located about 46 mi (74 km) south of St. Thomas and St. John and lies on a different geological platform than Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, and St. John. St. Croix is separated from those islands by a 2.5 mi (4 km) deep trench (CFMC 2004). The St. Croix shelf is much narrower and shallower than that of the northern islands (Goenaga and Boulon 1992), and has a total area of approximately 99 nm2 (343 km2) (Gordon 2010). Most of the shelf area is less than 80 ft (24.4 m) deep (Kojis and Quinn 2011). For St. Croix, the following areas have been designated as HAPC by the Council for coral and/ reef fish species, which are managed with seasonal closures that are also applicable to spiny lobster: • Red Hind Spawning Aggregation Area (Lang Bank) - closed December 1 through the last day of February, each year, to all fishing, including spiny lobster; and • Mutton Snapper Spawning Aggregation Area - closed March 1 through June 30, each year, to all fishing, including spiny lobster.
3.2.4
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
EFH is defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) as “those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (16 U.S. C. 1802(10)). EFH for life stages of species that were managed under the U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs and would continue to be managed under the island-based FMPs was identified in the Caribbean SFA Amendment (CFMC 2005) and mapped in the EFH-FEIS (CFMC 2004). EFH for life stages of species new to management was identified in the island-based FMPs (CFMC 2019a, CFMC 2019b, CFMC 2019c). The habitats described for the species new to management overlap with and occur within the same geographic extent as the habitats previously described for species managed under the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, Queen Conch, and Coral FMPs.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 32
Specific EFH identified for all species in the island-based FMPs include both estuarine/inshore (e.g., estuarine emergent and mangrove wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, intertidal flats, palustrine emergent and forested systems, and estuarine water column) and marine/offshore (e.g., live/hard bottom habitats, coral and coral reefs, seagrass and algal plains, sand and shell substrate, and the marine water column) areas. Essential fish habitat includes the spawning area in the water column above the adult habitat and the highest degree of overlap occurs in the pelagic environment (i.e., the water column), because most of the managed use this habitat as eggs, larvae, juveniles, or adults. In Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, EFH for spiny lobster consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by phyllosome larvae) and seagrass, benthic algae, mangrove, coral, and live/hard bottom substrates from mean high water to 100 fathoms depth (habitats used by other life stages).
3.3 Description of the Biological and Ecological Environments The Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c) include a description of the biological and ecological environments for the species managed in federal waters in the respective island/island group, including spiny lobster, which is incorporated herein by reference and summarized below.
3.3.1
Description of the Species
The species directly affected by actions proposed in this framework amendment is spiny lobster. 3.3.1.1
Life History
The Caribbean spiny lobster, Panulirus argus (hereafter referred to as spiny lobster), occurs in the Western Central and South Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, ranging from North Carolina in the north to Brazil in the south. The spiny lobster occurs from the extreme shallows of the littoral fringe to depths exceeding 328 ft (100 m) (Kanciruk 1980; Munro 1974). The distribution of spiny lobster extends to the edge of the shelf, which is described as the 100-fathom contour (183 m) (CFMC 1981). Shallow-water areas with mangroves and seagrass (Thalassia testudinum) beds serve as nursery areas (Munro 1974), with the spiny lobsters generally moving offshore when they reach reproductive size (Phillips et al. 1980). Adult spiny lobsters are found on shelf areas that offer adequate shelter in the form of reefs, wrecks or other forms of cover (Munro 1974). Spiny lobsters are primarily carnivores, feeding upon smaller crustaceans, molluscs, and annelids (Cobb and Wang 1985). This species shelters communally by day and emerge to feed at night (Munro 1974). Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 33
3.3.1.2
Status of the Stock
Previous stock assessments for spiny lobster in the U.S. Caribbean have attempted to quantify stock status using both traditional as well as data-limited stock assessment procedures (SEDAR 57 2019). SEDAR 8 (2016) was the most recent data-limited assessment (e.g. mean-length, indicator-based control rules) prior to the SEDAR 57 stock assessments. Prior to the current assessment (SEDAR 57), nearly all evaluations have resulted in unsatisfactory determination of stock status. The SEDAR 57 assessment applied an integrated statistical catch-at-age (Stock Synthesis version 3.30) model using data through 2016. Stocks in both St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John approached the levels corresponding to FSPR30% and SSPR30% during the mid to late 2000s. Since that time, a reduction in fishing mortality has allowed the stock spawning output to increase. In Puerto Rico, the stocks were already exploited when the time series began (1983). Fishing mortality was initially above FSPR30%, but declined and remained below that threshold after 1986, with exceptions, particularly during the period 1999-2005. Spawning output remained below SSPR30% from the initial year through 1992, but has since remained above SSPR30%, except between 2000 and 2007. Based on the management thresholds (i.e., MSST and MFMT) from in SEDAR 57, the spiny lobster stocks in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix were not considered overfished and were not undergoing overfishing. 3.3.1.3
Responses to Climate Change
There is a lack of research and long-term data on the impacts of climate change on Caribbean marine ecosystems and fishery resources (Oxenford 2017). The majority of the research to date has been outside of the Caribbean. Those research efforts mainly examined the effects of one or two stressors over short-term laboratory experiments, which is unlikely to accurately reflect the real complexity of long-term climate change effects on U.S. Caribbean reef ecosystems. Additionally, climate change research and data efforts need to consider cumulative effects of stressors on individual species and on ecosystems as a whole, while also considering other anthropogenic stressors that chronically occur in the region. Climate change can affect spiny lobster populations as the coral reef ecosystems in which they reside shift due to increases in water temperatures and extreme weather events (e.g., hurricanes). These climate change-related shifts can also affect the food chain that the spiny lobsters rely on. Additionally, the extended larval phase of spiny lobsters makes them particularly vulnerable to climate variability, specifically the warming of surface temperatures. 14 Ross and Behringer (2019) found that in addition to affecting the survival and size at metamorphosis of spiny lobsters, especially post-larval and juvenile lobsters, changes in temperature and salinity also 14
http://www.fao.org/fi/static-media/MeetingDocuments/WECAFC/WECAFC2019/17/Ref.35e.pdf
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 34
altered the spiny lobsters ability to identify chemosensory cues, such as selecting suitable shelters, which may result in decreased survivorship due to impaired behaviors.
3.3.2
Bycatch
Each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs include a bycatch practicability analysis for the species managed under each FMP, which is incorporated herein by reference, and pertinent portions are summarized below. Fisheries that are noted for producing large amounts of bycatch (e.g., trawling) are essentially absent from the U.S. Caribbean. Thus, bycatch is not as significant an issue in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, compared to other regions. What little bycatch that does occur is generally confined to regulatory discards. Under the island-based management approach, regulatory discards specific to spiny lobster include: • •
Sublegal lobsters: federal laws prohibit the harvest of spiny lobster under 3.5 inches (8.9 cm) in carapace length; and Egg-bearing female spiny lobsters (i.e., berried).
In Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, spiny lobster are harvested commercially in federal waters using trap gear (both fish trap and spiny lobster trap) and by hand or snare collection while diving. Recreational harvest of spiny lobster in federal waters is thought to mostly be conducted while diving, though recreational data are not available at this time. All legal spiny lobsters caught by commercial fishermen in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries are assumed to be retained and assumed discards include sublegal and berried spiny lobsters (SEDAR 57 2019). Consensus opinion during the SEDAR 57 data workshop was that discard mortality of spiny lobsters was negligible. The actions in this framework amendment are not expected to significantly increase or decrease the magnitude of bycatch or bycatch mortality in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries that target spiny lobster. Additionally, since fishermen in the U.S. Caribbean region traditionally utilize most resources harvested, and the amount of bycatch from the fisheries targeting spiny lobster are minimal and are not expected to change under this amendment, little to no affect to mammals or birds would be expected.
3.3.3
Protected Species
Within the U.S. Caribbean, some species and their habitats are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or both. At least 17 species of whales and dolphins have been reported in or near U.S. waters in the northeastern Caribbean (Mignucci-Giannoni 1998), including waters around Puerto Rico. All 17 species are protected under the MMPA. Three of these species (i.e., sperm, sei, and fin whales) are also Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 35
listed as endangered under the ESA. 15 In addition to these three marine mammals, five species or distinct population segments (DPS) of sea turtles (green - North Atlantic DPS and the South Atlantic DPS; hawksbill; leatherback; loggerhead - Northwest Atlantic DPS); four species or DPSs of fish (Nassau grouper; scalloped hammerhead shark - Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS; oceanic whitetip shark; giant manta ray); and seven species of coral (elkhorn coral, staghorn coral, rough cactus coral, pillar coral, lobed star coral, mountainous star coral, and boulder coral) occur in the U.S. Caribbean and are also protected under the ESA. ESA designated critical habitat for the green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and Acropora corals also occur within the Council’s jurisdiction. Critical habitat for green and hawksbill sea turtles occurs entirely within Puerto Rico state waters, and over 99% of the critical habitat for leatherback sea turtles around St. Croix occurs within USVI state waters. Designated critical habitat of Acropora corals in Puerto Rico and the USVI extended from the mean low water line seaward to the 98 foot (30 meter) depth contour (73 FR 72209), the majority of which occur in state waters. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) completed a biological opinion on September 21, 2020, evaluating the impacts of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species that occur in the U.S. Caribbean region (NMFS 2020b). In the biological opinion, NMFS determined that the authorization of the fisheries conducted under each of the island-based FMPs is not likely to adversely affect sperm, sei, and fin whales; the Northwest Atlantic DPS of loggerhead sea turtle; giant manta rays; or critical habitat of green, hawksbill, or leatherback sea turtles. The biological opinion also determined that the authorization of the island-based fisheries is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the North Atlantic distinct population segment (DPS) of green sea turtle, South Atlantic DPS of green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip shark, Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead shark, elkhorn coral, staghorn coral, rough cactus coral, pillar coral, lobed star coral, mountainous star coral, or boulder star coral, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated Acropora critical habitat. An incidental take statement for select ESA species was included in the biological opinion, and reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impact of the incidental takes were specified, along with terms and conditions to implement them. The actions contained in this Framework Amendment are not anticipated to modify the operation of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, or St. Croix fisheries in a manner that would cause effects to ESA-listed species or critical habitat that were not considered in the 2020 biological opinion. Five DPSs of humpback whales are listed under the ESA; however, the West Indies DPS, which is the only DPS present in the U.S. Caribbean, is not listed as endangered or threatened (81 FR 62259).
15
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 36
3.4 Description of the Economic Environment 3.4.1
Introduction
The 2017 hurricane season was disastrous for both the Puerto Rico and USVI economies. In a span of a few weeks in September, Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria devastated the island areas. Irma was estimated to have caused $1 billion in damages in Puerto Rico (Sullivan and Fieser 2017). Hsiang and Houser (2017) from the Climate Impact Lab estimated the impact of Hurricane Maria using an econometric model of the costs of cyclones over the past 60 years and applied it to the characteristics of Hurricane Maria and the economic conditions before the hurricane in Puerto Rico. They found that Maria could lower Puerto Rican incomes by 21% over a 15-year period - a cumulative $180 billion in lost economic output. They concluded that it could take 26 years for Puerto Rico to return to its pre-Maria economic conditions. The Puerto Rican consulting firm Estudios Técnicos (2017) estimated the capital loss from Hurricane Maria in the range of $16 to $20 billion. Damages to the island’s electric and communication infrastructures were estimated to be as high as $1.6 billion and $567 million, respectively. Estudios Técnicos also estimated a loss of income by employees of at least $1 billion. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information estimated damages caused by Hurricane Maria of $90.0 billion in Puerto Rico. 16 The USVI economy is small and extremely vulnerable to natural disasters - windstorms, earthquakes, tsunamis - as well as external economic shocks due to the high degree of trade dependence and lack of economic diversification (USVI Bureau of Economic Research [BER] 2020). Hurricane Irma passed over St. Thomas as a Category 5 storm on September 6, 2017, with peak winds of 178 miles per hour. Two weeks later, on September 20, Hurricane Maria hit St. Croix, to the southeast, as a Category 5 storm. Damages from Irma exceeded $2.4 billion in the USVI (USDA National Resources Conservation Service Caribbean Area). 17 Maria damaged or destroyed 70% of the buildings on St. Croix, including schools and the island’s only hospital. Public revenues, according to estimates based on USVI fiscal data, were halved after the two hurricanes (Congressional Research Service 2018/2020). The USVI government borrowed funds to cover some budget deficits, which raised concerns over levels of public debt and unfunded pension liabilities. Local policymakers proposed tax increases and austerity measures.
16 17
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.pdf https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/pr/newsroom/features/?cid=nrcseprd1420889
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 37
Descriptions of the economies of the island areas (Puerto Rico, St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John) prior to the 2017 hurricanes are found in the Environmental Assessments for the Comprehensive Fishery Management Plans and are incorporated by reference. The remainder of this section focuses on the post-hurricane economies of the island areas.
3.4.2
Puerto Rico
3.4.2.1
General Economic Conditions
The number of Puerto Ricans leaving for the mainland increased to 301,304 in 2017; however, many returned later. Net out migration in 2017 was 77,321 persons, meaning 223,983 persons migrated to the island that year (U.S. Census Bureau 2020).
1,250,000
16.0 14.0
1,200,000
12.0
1,150,000
10.0
1,100,000
8.0 6.0
1,050,000
4.0
1,000,000 950,000
2.0 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Labor Force
2017
2018
2019
2020
Unemployment Rate
Labor Force (Number Employed & Unemployed)
Despite the adverse impacts of the 2017 hurricane season, the annual unemployment rate fell in 2018 and 2019, but it rose again in 2020. However, the labor force continued its general declining trend after 2017 despite the bump in 2019 (Figure 3.4.1). Note that the unemployment rate in 2020 was substantially lower than it had been from 2012 through 2016, when it was never fell below 11.8% (U.S. Department of Labor [USDOL] Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS]).
0.0
Unemp Rate
Figure 3.4.1. Labor force and unemployment rate in Puerto Rico, 2012 – 2020. (Source: USDOL BLS)
Most of Puerto Rico’s farms are located in the central and western municipalities, and Hurricane Maria’s path took it through much of the island’s prime farmland. Puerto Rico’s Secretary of Agriculture stated to the New York Times that 80% of the island’s crops with a preliminary estimated value of $780 million were wiped out by the hurricane (Robles and Ferré-Sadurní 2017). Plantain, banana, and coffee crops were hit the hardest. Approximately half of the coffee plants were lost (Ayala 2017).
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 38
The chicken and egg industry lost 60% of its production (Ayala 2017). Approximately 2 million of the island’s 2.6 million chickens were killed, many of them drowned, and poultry housing and processing equipment were destroyed (Dorell 2017). Dairy cows died and surviving cows have been less productive than before. Communities and households lost gardens and family livestock. The federal government’s response to the losses incurred by dairy farm operations included $12 million to the island’s 253 licensed dairy operations to purchase feed for their estimated combined 94,000 cows for 30 days (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Farm Service Agency [FSA] 2017). The 2018 Puerto Rico USDA Census of Agriculture (USDA 2020) shows a sharp decline in the number of farms and their land (cuerdas) from 2012 to 2018. The sharpest decline in the number of farms were those with one to nine cuerdas (Table 3.4.1). Table 3.4.1. Number of farms, total amount of farmland, and number of farms by land size, 2012 and 2018.
Year
Number of Farms
Total Amount of Farm Land
Number Farms with 1-9 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 10 - 19 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 20 - 49 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 50 - 99 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 100 - 175 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 175 - 259 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 260 or more Cuerdas
2012
13,159
584,988
5,129
2,859
2,872
940
563
401
395
2018
8,230
487,775
2,213
1,853
1,950
952
579
330
353
Change
-37.46%
-16.62%
-56.85%
-35.19%
-32.10%
1.28%
2.84%
-17.71%
-10.63%
(Source: Puerto Rico USDA 2018 Census of Agriculture)
The Puerto Rico Planning Board estimated that Hurricane Maria had a $43.1 billion impact on the island’s economy as of October 12, 2018 (Lloréns Vélez 2018). The Planning Board said losses for the private sector alone totaled $30 billion, with manufacturing reporting the highest loss of income and agriculture among the highest damage to infrastructure and equipment. After taking Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and private insurer disbursements into account, the net adverse impact to the economy was $30.3 billion. Hurricane Maria did not cause damages to the territory’s pharmaceutical industry. In 2018, five of the world’s top ten selling drugs (Humira, Eliquis, Opdivo, Enbrel and Xarelto) were manufactured there, and internationally, eight of the 15 top-selling pharmaceutical products are made in Puerto Rico (Miller 2020). In 2019, nine out of Puerto Rico’s top 10 commodity exports to the rest of the world were pharmaceutical or medical device products (Census U.S. International Trade Data). In 2020, there were 50 pharmaceutical and 30 medical-device manufacturing sites dotted throughout the island. In 2019, pharmaceutical exports totaled more than $44 billion, and, of that, $30.89 billion of that total was exported to the U.S. market. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 39
Puerto Rico’s real gross domestic product (GDP) declined in 2019 and 2020 (Figure 3.4.2), which is consistent with its declining trend since 2006. Real GDP in 2019 was 12% lower than it was in 2016, and in 2020, it was 7.5% less than it was in 2019 due in part to a series of earthquakes and the COVID-19 pandemic. Public debt represented 59% of GDP in 2019 and 65% of GDP in 2020. Gross national income (GNI) per capita declined by 8.35% from 2016 through 2019 (Figure 3.4.3). The World Bank has not yet reported a 2020 estimate of GNI per capita.
Real GDP (millions of 2020$)
$21,000.00 $20,000.00 $19,000.00 $18,000.00 $17,000.00 $16,000.00 $15,000.00
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Figure 3.4.2. Puerto Rico real GDP (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2020.
(Source: World Bank for GDP 2016 – 2019, Knoema for GDP for 2020, and BEA for implicit price deflator)
$20,500.00 $20,000.00 $19,500.00 $19,000.00 $18,500.00 $18,000.00 $17,500.00
2016
2017
2018
2019
Figure 3.4.3. Puerto Rico’s GNI per capita (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2019. (Source: World Bank for GNI per capita and BEA for implicit price deflator)
Because Puerto Rico lies on the boundary between the North American and Caribbean plates, the archipelago is prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. There were three significant earthquakes in January 2020 and each had many strong aftershocks. On January 6, 2020, there was a 5.8 Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 40
magnitude earthquake, followed the next day by a 6.4 magnitude earthquake, which was centered off the southern coast, 6 miles south of Indios. It knocked out all power and caused at least $110 million in damages according to Reuters (Valentin Ortiz 2020). Another estimate put that figure at $3.1 billion (Kaske and Levin 2020). More than 600 homes and other buildings were destroyed, one person died, and there were damages to bridges and roads. Also, thousands of homes and other buildings were damaged. The iconic Punta Ventana, a natural formation that is a popular destination for tourists, collapsed. Approximately 70% of Puerto Rico’s power is generated along the south coast, while approximately 70% of its demand is along the north coast. The territory’s largest power plant, the Costa Sur power plant with a capacity of 970 megawatts, was knocked out of service from cracked foundations, ruptured pipes, split water tanks, a damaged turbine and damages to the plant’s control room. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) shut down the power grid as a safety precaution, and two-thirds of the utility’s 1.4 million customers were without power for days. The Costa Sur plant was not back online until August 2020. On January 11, there was an aftershock that registered at 5.9 magnitude. Many of these aftershocks were of significant magnitude and made relief and recovery difficult. Over two dozen quakes had a magnitude of 4.5 or more. On January 15, there was a 5.2 earthquake and ten days later, a 5.0 magnitude earthquake hit near Guayanilla. On 14 January, PREPA said service had been restored for 99% of its customers. On May 2, 2020, the same area was rocked by a magnitude 5.4 earthquake that caused new damage in Ponce. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) stated that it was an aftershock of the January 7 magnitude 6.4 earthquake, and USGS included it in the earthquake swarm that they had been tracking since January. Another magnitude 4.8 aftershock struck the area at the beginning of August, causing further damage and slowing repairs. A USGS report predicts that the aftershocks could continue for a decade (van der Elst et al. 2020). The continuance of aftershocks and damages from the aftershocks complicates estimates of the economic impacts of the damages in 2020. Most renewable energy-generating facilities survived Hurricane Maria with modest amounts of damage, but a solar photovoltaic farm at Humacao and the Punta Lima wind farm at Naguabo both on Puerto Rico's east coast where the eye of the storm came ashore - were badly damaged. The solar photovoltaic farm was rebuilt, while the Punta Lima wind farm remained nonoperational as of May 2020 (U.S. Energy Information Administration [USEIA]). The earthquakes in early 2020 did not damage any renewable generating facilities. The solar micro grids using rooftop solar panels that were installed primarily by private, federal, and non-profit organizations after the hurricanes in 2017, were able to maintain power supply in some communities following the earthquakes.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 41
Although Puerto Rico has, on average, more than 65% sunny hours per day and 22 miles per hour winds year-round, less than 3% of all the energy produced there is through renewable energy. Under the Puerto Rico Energy Public Policy Act, which was signed into law in May 2019, that has to change. PREPA must obtain 40% of its electricity from renewable resources by 2025, 60% by 2040, and 100% by 2050 (USEIA). The territory’s renewable resources include wind, hydropower, and solar energy. For fiscal year 2020, 2.5% of PREPA's electricity came from renewable energy, with solar photovoltaic accounting for half and wind accounting for onethird of total renewable generation. The remainder came from hydroelectric and landfill gas facilities (USEIA). Tourism’s contribution to GDP fell from 5.68% in 2016 to 5.50% in 2017 and 4.82% in 2018 (Puerto Rico Tourism Company). Both the earthquakes and SARS pandemic (COVID-19) of 2020 (and that continues into 2021) has greatly affected island tourism. In 2019, there were approximately 1.11 million tourist arrivals; however, that fell to approximately 0.523 million in 2020. Figure 3.4.4 shows the number of arrival guests through August of each year since 2017 and note the sharp declines in 2018 and 2020.
2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0
2017
2018
2019
2020
Figure 3.4.4. Arrival guests through August of each year, 2017 – 2020. (Source: Puerto Rico Tourism Company, Registrations and Occupancy Report)
The labor force continues to shrink as shown in Figure 3.4.5. Note that there is no data for the size of the labor force in March or April 2020.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 42
Dec-20
Nov-20
Oct-20
Sep-20
Aug-20
Jul-20
Jun-20
May-20
Apr-20
Mar-20
Feb-20
Jan-20
Dec-19
Nov-19
Oct-19
Sep-19
Aug-19
Jul-19
Jun-19
May-19
Apr-19
Mar-19
Feb-19
Jan-19
1,120,000 1,110,000 1,100,000 1,090,000 1,080,000 1,070,000 1,060,000 1,050,000 1,040,000 1,030,000 1,020,000
Labor Force
Figure 3.4.5. Monthly labor force, January 2019 – December 2020. (Source: USDOL BLS)
After years of wrangling with its creditors, the territory disclosed a plan in September 2019 for resolving the biggest governmental bankruptcy in United States history, by cutting $129 billion in debts to about $86 billion - a reduction of 33 percent (New York Times September 27, 2019). In June 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the financial oversight board, which was established by Congress to oversee Puerto Rico's finances after the 2014 bankruptcy, was constitutional (Coleman 2021). In February 2021, the board announced that it has reached an agreement in principal with creditors to reduce a portion of the U.S. territory’s more than $70 billion public debt load. However, Governor Pedro Pierluisi rejected the agreement for reasons that it overburdened pensioners. The board responded with a revised plan in March that includes a proposed cut of up to 8.5% to monthly pensions of at least $1,500. That has long been a point of contention between the board and the governor, who has repeatedly said he would not approve such cuts. Ultimately, the plan also has to be approved by a judge overseeing Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy-like process. If that occurs, the plan would reduce Puerto Rico’s outstanding debt from $35 billion to $7.4 billion, an 80% cut. Among other things, it also would cut total debt service payments by more than 60%, which the board said would save the government nearly $60 billion in debt service payments. Governor Pierluisi who has previously said he would reject any plan with high pension cuts, said the government will declare in court that it does not fully support the plan, but still, he called the proposal a step in the right direction.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 43
3.4.2.2
Economic Description of the Fishery
Estimated annual landings of spiny lobster, as noted in Section 3.1.1, have gradually been increasing since ACLs were established in 2012. 18 Commensurate with this increase, the dockside value of these landings has also been gradually increasing peaking at almost $3.5 million in 2018, before falling marginally to $3.33 million in 2019 (Table 3.4.2). The increased value is somewhat less pronounced when expressed on a deflated basis as a result of a relatively stable deflated per pound price which changed little during the eight-year period ending in 2019. 19 Table 3.4.2. Ex-vessel value and average price of spiny lobster per pound in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019.
a
Value ($)
Year
Landings (Pounds)
Current
Deflated
2012
385,811
2,429,083
2013
275,412
2014
Price ($/lb) Current
Deflated
2,703,569
6.30
7.01
1,747,305
1,918,540
6.34
6.97
376,779
2,414,956
2,608,152
6.41
6.92
2015
418,273
2,681,686
2,893,539
6.41
6.92
2016
449,233
2,920,828
3,110,681
6.50
6.92
2017
283,221
1,909,666
1,999,781
6.74
7.06
2018
519,864
3,470,626
3,533,097
6.67
6.79
2019
488,316
3,333,652
3,333,652
6.83
6.83
a
Values and prices are deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
The information presented in Section 3.1 also indicates that approximately 40% of the trips reported by commercial fishermen in in 2019 included landings of spiny lobster (12,366 of the total 30,731 trips). These trips frequently harvest species co-occurring with the harvest of spiny lobster. 20 Estimated annual revenues generated from the landing of these co-occurring species are presented in Table 3.4.3. As indicated, estimated annual revenues associated with the cooccurring harvests have ranged from about $1.35 million in 2013, to about $2.0 million in 2018. The price per pound of these co-occurring species gradually increased over the 2012-2019 period approaching $4.00 in the more recent years. The increase was somewhat less when inflation is removed, but still substantially larger than that observed for spiny lobster. The increasing These landings are considered ‘estimates’ because, as discussed in Section 3.1.1, all landings are not reported and landings that are reported are thus adjusted using an expansion factor determined by DNER staff at the Fisheries Research Laboratory. 19 Specifically, the difference between the highest observed annual deflated price ($7.06 in 2017) and the lowest observed annual deflated price ($6.79 in 2018) was only about four percent. 20 A detailed listing of the co-occurrence species as well as the number of trips in which they were landed is presented in Table 3.1.3 18
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 44
deflated annual price trend observed for the co-occurring species may reflect a changing species composition, a change in demand/supply of the co-occurring species, or some amalgam. Table 3.4.3. Ex-vessel value and price per pound co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019.
a
Value ($)
Price ($/lb)
Year
Landings (Pounds)
Current
Deflateda
Current
Deflated
2012
507,310
1,608,715
1,790,500
3.17
3.53
2013
402,243
1,353,258
1,485,877
3.36
3.69
2014
466,076
1,537,349
1,660,337
3.30
3.56
2015
482,078
1,606,366
1,733,269
3.33
3.33
2016
475,793
1,628,102
1,733,928
3.42
3.64
2017
353,569
1,406,567
1,467,049
3.98
4.15
2018
521,953
2,043,477
2,080,259
3.92
3.99
2019
441,983
1,734,545
1,734,545
3.92
3.92
Values and prices are deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
A comparison of the information in Tables 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 provides insight to several features. First, landings of the co-occurring species, expressed on a poundage basis, exceeded landings of spiny lobster by a significant margin in the earlier years of analysis. However, this margin declined over time and by 2018 spiny lobster landings approached the landings of co-occurring species while 2019 spiny lobster landings exceeded the landings of co-occurring species (by almost 50,000 pounds). Second, while landings of co-occurring species, expressed on a poundage basis, tended to exceed spiny lobster landings during the earlier years, the value of spiny lobster landings consistently exceeded the value of co-occurring species; often by more than $1.0 million. This reflects the significantly higher per pound price received by fishermen for spiny lobster. This price differential, however, appears to have narrowed in more recent years. A comparison of the information in Tables 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 also highlights the fact that landings of both spiny lobsters and co-occurring species were both abnormally low in 2017; undoubtedly reflecting the impact from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Of greater interest, however, is the fact that 2018 landings of both spiny lobsters and co-occurring species were the highest on record during the eight-year period of analysis. This may suggest some ‘surplus’ stocks harvested in 2018 that evaded harvest in 2017. Revenues per trip can be ascertained based on those trips where a trip ticket is submitted. Based on these trips, total revenues per trip (i.e., spiny lobsters and co-occurring species) averaged Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 45
about $240 during the eight-year period of analysis with an increasing trend during the later years (Table 3.4.4). Revenues from the landing of spiny lobsters ranged from a low of 56% of total trip revenues in 2013, to a high of 66% in 2019. Despite a significant decline in estimated industry-wide landings of spiny lobsters and co-occurring species in 2017 (see Tables 3.4.2 and 3.4.3), estimated spiny lobster catch per trip in 2017 approximated the eight-year average while the landings of co-occurring species were the highest observed during the eight-year period. This would suggest the decline in industry-wide 2017 landings reflect a decline in number of trips as opposed to a decline in harvest per trip. Table 3.4.4. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019. Year
a
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Revenues Current Deflateda 120 133 114 125 136 146 145 157 159 170 153 160 173 176 182 182
Revenues From Co-occurring Species Current Deflated 83 93 89 97 88 95 88 95 89 95 111 115 98 100 95 95
Total Revenues Current Deflated 203 226 202 222 224 242 234 252 248 264 264 275 271 275 277 277
Based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
As noted in Section 3.1.1, the harvest of spiny lobsters in Puerto Rico occurs in both state waters (0-9 nautical miles) and federal waters (9-200 nautical miles) with harvests from state waters dominating the catch. Estimated per trip revenues (spiny lobster and co-occurring species) from both state and federal waters for the 2012-2019 period are presented in Table 3.4.5. Since 2016, revenues (unweighted) from the harvest of spiny lobsters in state waters have averaged $167 per trip compared to $186 in federal waters. 21 Similarly, revenues generated from the harvest of cooccurring species in state waters since 2016 averaged $99 per trip compared to $97 in federal waters. Total (unweighted) revenues from state waters averaged $266 per trip compared to $283 in federal waters. This relatively small differential in per trip revenues (about six percent) in conjunction with a multitude of other factors (e.g., rougher sea conditions in a small boat and the higher fuel costs associated with an increased travelling distance) may help to explain the relatively small percentage of trips occurring in federal waters (see Table 3.1.1). 22 Furthermore, while not shown in Table 3.4.5, calculated prices between spiny lobsters reported to be harvested The starting point of 2016 was selected because that was the first year where landings from ‘unknown area’ was less than 10% (see Table 3.1.1). 22 While there appears to be little difference in average trip revenues from harvests in state waters vis-à-vis federal waters, revenues from ‘unknown area’ are consistently less than either revenues from state or federal waters. 21
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 46
in state waters were not found to be significantly different from those lobsters reported to be harvested from federal waters. Table 3.4.5. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species by area fished in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019. Spiny Lobster Revenues From Total Revenues Co-occurring Species Revenues Year State Federal Unknown State Federal Unknown State Federal Unknown Waters Waters Area Waters Waters Area Waters Waters Area 2012 122 126 117 76 127 79 199 254 197 2013 117 133 99 88 124 80 205 256 179 2014 140 144 117 89 99 80 229 243 197 2015 151 149 118 89 99 79 240 248 197 2016 162 155 133 91 90 60 253 245 193 2017 151 192 139 110 113 130 261 306 269 2018 173 211 133 99 89 81 272 299 214 2019 183 185 138 96 97 62 279 281 200
As discussed in Section 3.1.1, traps and diving have represented in excess of 90% of the commercial harvest of spiny lobster in Puerto Rico since 2012 (Table 3.1.2) with reported harvests from diving consistently exceeding reported harvests from traps. Approximately 70% of trips reporting the harvest of spiny lobster from federal waters indicate that the harvest was taken via diving with the figure approaching 80% in 2019. While important to the Island’s economy, economic analysis of Puerto Rico’s commercial fishing industry is limited. With respect to the Island’s commercial diving sector, the most comprehensive study is that conducted by Agar and Shivlani (2016) who interviewed ‘active’ divers between March 2014 and March 2015 in an effort to ascertain characteristics of the fishermen and their fishing practices. The researchers found that the commercial divers had various economic objectives associated with their fishing trips with about two-thirds of the fishermen reporting having a ‘target’ (e.g., catch and/or income) that that he hoped to achieve. About a quarter of the interviewees reported maximizing benefits (i.e., catching as much as possible) as their trip objective. Gross returns per trip among diving operations according to Agar and Shivlani (2016) ranged from $75 to $700 and averaged $251. 23 Total variable costs per trip, according to Agar and Shivlani (2016) averaged $81 resulting in net earnings per trip of about $170. The crew size
This number compares favorably to the revenue figures (for all trips reporting the harvest of spiny lobster) presented in Table 3.4.14. Specifically, 2014 estimated per trip revenues based on trip tickets equaled $224 or about 90% of that reported by Agar and Shivlani (2016).
23
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 47
(including the captain) averaged 2.4 indicating per trip net earnings per person of about $70 (with owner-captains generally receiving somewhat more than crew members). Agar et al. (2017) also examined the commercial Puerto Rico trap fishery with data for the analysis coming from active trap fishermen. Interviews were conducted between June 2014 and January 2016. The average boat length among participants was 20 feet. About two-thirds of the participants reported fishing exclusively with fish traps while another 20% reported fishing with both fish traps and lobster traps. Among survey participants, about 40% reported a trip objective of maximizing landings while about 30% had an objective of covering costs. On average, respondents reported making an average of 2.3 trips per week with average landings per trip being 57 pounds. Gross revenues per trip were estimated to equal $290 (a median of $207) with total variable costs per trip equaling $57. This resulted in estimated net earnings of $232 per trip.
3.4.3
St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John
3.4.3.1
General Economic Conditions
Since after the devastating twin hurricanes of 2017, the most dynamic sector of the USVI economy has been construction. Federal disaster assistance is spurring reconstruction, infrastructure repair, and several hazard mitigation activities, resulting in high demand for construction workers. As shown in Figure 3.4.6, the number of jobs in construction more than doubled from 2017 to 2019: 1,618 in August 2017 and 4,076 in August 2019. However, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a decline in construction in 2020 and early 2021. Employees in the construction, mining and logging sector, which are essentially all in construction (96%) in the USVI, declined in 2020 and early 2021, but stayed above the numbers prior to the hurricanes as seen in Figure 3.4.7. 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Aug-16
Mar-17
Sep-17
Apr-18
Oct-18
May-19
Dec-19
Figure 3.4.6. Construction jobs in USVI, January 2017 – September 2019. (Source: USVI DOL, Labor Market Basket)
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 48
Thousands of Employees
6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Dec-14
May-16
Sep-17
Feb-19
Jun-20
Oct-21
Figure 3.4.7. Employees in construction, mining and logging sector in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. (Source: U.S. BLS)
In March 13, 2020, Governor Bryan issued an Executive Order and Proclamation declaring a State of Emergency in response to the pandemic. Ten days later the Governor issued a “stay-athome” order and ordered all non-essential businesses to remain closed, beginning March 25. The order also officially limited gatherings to 10 persons or fewer, closed all bars, prohibited restaurants from offering dining room service, and limited taxis and safaris to half-capacity passenger loads. 24 On April 6, Governor Bryan ordered the closure of all beaches through April 20. On April 13, 2020, the Governor announced that the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Insular Affairs has given the U.S. Virgin Islands $7,863,776 in funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Federal COVID-19 stimulus bill. Also on that day, the Federal Aviation Administration awarded the USVI $41,145,247 to maintain the territory’s airports as part of the CARES Act Federal stimulus bill. On May 4, the USVI began to allow some non-essential businesses to reopen; however, the State of Emergency was extended on May 7 for another 60 days, which meant it would not expire until July 12. On May 21, 2020, Governor Bryan announced he was easing restrictions on bars and restaurants, allowing bars to reopen and restaurants to serve dine-in customers beginning the Tuesday after Memorial Day. Seven days later the Governor announced that the USVI would move to the “Open Doors” phase, which would allow all business to reopen. With that, hotels, villas and Airbnb vendors were able to begin taking reservations and hospitality-related businesses had restrictions lifted. Thermal scanners were installed at the airports and other measures were put into place to track visitors and their health. On July 9, 2020, Governor Bryan tightened restrictions on travelers and set a 10% positivity rate as the threshold, affecting visitors from any state at that rate or higher, which at that date were: Alabama; Arizona; Florida; Georgia; Idaho; Kansas; Mississippi; Nevada; South Carolina; and Texas.
On April 2, 2020, the U.S. President declared that a major disaster existed in the USVI based on COVID-19, which opened the door to getting Federal assistance to mitigate the virus. 24
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 49
10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0
Jan-16 Mar-16 May-16 Jul-16 Sep-16 Nov-16 Jan-17 Mar-17 May-17 Jul-17 Sep-17 Nov-17 Jan-18 Mar-18 May-18 Jul-18 Sep-18 Nov-18 Jan-19 Mar-19 May-19 Jul-19 Sep-19 Nov-19 Jan-20 Mar-20 May-20 Jul-20 Sep-20 Nov-20 Jan-21
Thousands of Employees
Even before the pandemic affected travel and tourism, Hurricanes Irma and Maria were disastrous to USVI tourism. Not only were Hurricanes Irma and Maria disastrous for tourism but also they had a tremendous impact on both commercial and recreational fishing (Stoffle et al. 2020). In the immediate aftermath of the hurricanes, the number of stay-over tourist arrivals declined, and employment in the leisure and hospitality sector plummeted, as several large hotel properties closed for renovations. The number of employees in the leisure and hospitality and trade, transportation and utilities sectors began to recover in 2019, but they declined again in 2020 (Figure 3.4.8). Employment in the manufacturing sector was not similarly affected, and it rose from 566 employees in August 2017 to 760 in August 2019 and has stayed relatively constant since then despite the pandemic.
Leisure & Hospitality
Manufacturing
Trade, Transporation & Utilities
Figure 3.4.8. Employees in the leisure and hospitality, manufacturing, and trade, transportation and utilities sectors in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. (Source: U.S. BLS)
Charlotte Amalie in St. Thomas, which is one of the most popular cruise destinations in the Caribbean, suffered severe damage, and two cruise ports were closed for weeks. From 2014 through 2016, an average of 23 ships made call in September and another 29 in October. There were only two cruise ship calls to St. Thomas in September and none in October of 2017. The peak cruise season runs from December through April. Although the numbers of monthly cruise passenger arrivals and ship calls rebounded in December 2017, the numbers of passengers and ship calls from January through April of 2018 were less than they had been the previous four years. Total annual visitor arrivals declined in 2018, but rebounded in 2019 and forecasts for 2020 were optimistic; however, that optimism was short-lived and visitor arrivals declined dramatically in 2020 25 (Figure 3.4.9).
25
In 2016, there were approximately 2.57 million visitor arrivals, in 2020 there were approximately 0.86 million.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 50
3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Figure 3.4.9. Total USVI visitor arrivals, 2016 – 2020. (Source: USVI BER)
Real GDP grew by 1.5% in 2018 and then by 1.7% in 2019, which generated optimism for the USVI economy in 2020, but that was before the pandemic. Real GDP fell by 14.2% in 2020 (USVI BER) (Figure 3.4.10).
5.0 0.0
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
-5.0 -10.0 -15.0
Figure 3.4.10. Annual change in real GDP, 2016 – 2020. (Source: USVI BER, November 2020)
Petroleum products account for 42% of total exports in 2018. However, that was largely a reexport business, and little value was added in the territory. That is expected to change since St. Croix’s long-idled refinery, now the Limetree Refinery, restarted in February 2021. Although it has brought back jobs, it is also bringing back memories of the pollution produced by the former HOVENSA refinery. According to Reuters (March 8, 2021), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants the refinery’s owners, Limetree Bay Ventures, to increase its monitoring of air quality due to emissions affecting the nearby neighborhoods, but the owners have so far balked.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 51
After tourism and petroleum, the next most important sector is the production and export of rum. Rum constituted 41% of total exports in 2018 by value. Rum exports to the mainland increased from 2017 to 2019 (Figure 3.4.11).
Thousands of Proof Liters
66,000.0 64,000.0 62,000.0 60,000.0 58,000.0 56,000.0 54,000.0 52,000.0 50,000.0
2016
2017
2018
2019
Figure 3.4.11. Annual change in rum exports to U.S.
(Source: USVI BER, Annual Economic Indicators, May 20, 2020)
The USVI economy performed better in 2018 and 2019, exhibiting positive real economic growth, higher revenues, decreasing unemployment, and improving fiscal balances and liquidity positions for the central government. However, the improvement in economic performance was primarily due to an infusion of Federal disaster relief assistance that is helping rebuild the economy. Despite the positive achievements and progress on reconstruction, the economy still faces many weaknesses and vulnerabilities that could result in the return of significant deficits and financial distress, namely the pending insolvency of Government Employee Retirement System (GERS) and the mounting liquidity issues at Water and Power Authority (WAPA), a semi-autonomous government-owned electric, water, and sewer utility. To minimize these risks, the quality of financial management and governance has to improve across the public sector, new economic growth needs to be stimulated, tourism products need to be revitalized and differentiated, and credible plans shaped to stabilize GERS and improve the management and financial performance of WAPA. The main internal threats to the USVI economy are the massive unfunded liabilities of the GERS and the illiquidity of WAPA. The likely consequences of the dire financial situations of these two entities would be a reduction in the benefits paid to retirees after 2023 in the case of GERS and demands for more transfers from the central government in the case of WAPA. In 2019, the main driver in the economy was government spending. Government spending increased dramatically after 2017, with an influx of federal disaster assistance. In 2018, Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 52
government spending was estimated to be 42% of GDP, when for the decade before the hurricanes (2007-2016), the average government share of GDP was 26.36%. 26 Although the official GDP for 2019 has not yet been calculated, the expected 2019 government spending as a share of GDP is likely to be in the 30% range (USVI BER March 25, 2020). 3.4.3.2
Description of the Fishery
As noted in Section 3.1.2, the vast majority of spiny lobster landings in St. Thomas and St. John are taken by trap and these landings have remained relatively stable since ACLs were established in 2012. By comparison, the majority of spiny lobster landings in St. Croix are taken by diving and harvests from waters off this island have declined steadily and significantly since 2012 (see Section 3.1.3). Annual dockside values of spiny lobster harvests from St. Thomas and St. John for the 20122019 period are given in Table 3.4.6. During this period, annual spiny lobster revenues averaged $843,000 and ranged from a low of $665,000 in 2012 to a high of $1.1 million in 2016. The annual price of the landed spiny lobster, with the exception of 2012, consistently fluctuated around $9.00 per pound. 27 Table 3.4.6. Landings, value, and price of spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John for 20122019.
a
Value ($)
Price ($/lb)
Year
Landings (Pounds)
Current
Deflated
2012
83,157
665,254
2013
84,513
2014
Current
Deflated
740,428
8.00
8.90
769,064
844,432
9.10
9.99
92,261
839,571
906,737
9.10
9.83
2015
109,455
985,095
1,049,126
9.00
9.58
2016
121,695
1,095,255
1,142,351
9.00
9.39
2017
91,911
829,795
865,476
9.03
9.42
2018
86,708
777,361
791,353
8.97
9.13
2019
86,869
781,817
781,817
9.00
9.00
a
Values and prices are deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
In 2018, the USVI’s commercial fishing fleet landed 445,184 pounds of finfish and shellfish, generating approximately $2.96 million in commercial value (NMFS 2020a), which in turn generated approximately $15.2 million in total value added that accounted for approximately 0.38% of GDP, whereas it accounted for approximately 0.64% of GDP in 2014. 27 It should be noted that the price information for the USVI is somewhat questionable in that prices appear to rarely change. It is not known whether this reflects the ‘true’ situation (i.e., fishermen may not adjust price based on demand) or is an artifact of the method used to ascribe a price to the harvested product. In addition, very few prices were given in 2019 and the prices used in this analysis were based on those few prices. Thus, values as well as prices in St. Thomas and St. John as well as St. Croix should be viewed with some caution. 26
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 53
Annual values associated with spiny lobster harvests from St. Croix for the 2012-2019 period are given in Table 3.4.7. Spiny lobster revenues averaged $307,000 per year during the eight-year period ending in 2019. In conjunction with the steady and significant decline in pounds landed, the annual value of spiny lobster landings fell from about $700,000 in 2012 to less than $150,000 in 2019. The decline in both pounds landed and the value of these landings reflects, in part, a sharp decline in number of trips. In 2012, for instance, the number of trips was in excess of 2,000. By 2015 the number of trips had fallen to about 1,000 and continued to fall to 313 in 2018, before increasing to almost 400 in 2019. The annual price of the landed spiny lobster ranged from approximately $7.50 per pound to $9.00 per pound. Little to no trend in the price is evident after removing the influence of inflation. Table 3.4.7. Landings, value, and price of spiny lobster in St. Croix for 2012-2019.
a
Year
Landings (Pounds)
2012
Value ($)
Price ($/lb)
87,073
Current 696,586
Deflateda 775,300
Current 8.00
Deflated 8.90
2013
59,398
440,139
483,273
7.41
8.14
2014
39,724
294,355
317,903
7.41
8.00
2015
44,963
337,228
363,869
7.50
8.09
2016
31,582
237,048
252,456
7.51
7.99
2017
26,193
225,267
234,953
8.60
8.97
2018
10,970
86,540
88,098
7.89
8.03
2019
15,325
137,925
137,925
9.00
9.00
Values and prices are deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
Relevant revenue and price information for co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John for the 2012-2019 period is given in Table 3.4.8. The value of these cooccurring species averaged about $670,000 during the period and ranged from a low of about $530,000 in 2019, to a high of $800,000 in 2016. A comparison of the information in Tables 3.4.6 and 3.4.8 indicates that landings of these co-occurring species accounted for about 45% of total revenues during the period with annual values falling in the narrow range of 40% to 48%.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 54
Table 3.4.8. Ex-vessel value and price of co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019.
a
Value ($)
Price ($/lb)
Year
Landings (Pounds)
Current
Deflateda
Current
Deflated
2012
104,100
603,218
671,382
5.79
6.45
2013
109,216
633,148
695,197
5.79
6.37
2014
128,886
746,088
805,775
5.79
6.20
2015
114,844
660,047
712,191
5.75
6.20
2016
138,566
800,601
852,460
5.78
6.15
2017
121,835
703,934
734,203
5.78
6.03
2018
115,120
667,822
679,843
5.80
5.91
2019
91,308
529,814
529,814
5.80
5.80
Values and prices are deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
Relevant revenue and price information for co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in St. Croix for the 2012-2019 period is given in Table 3.4.9. The value of these co-occurring species averaged about $600,000 annually during the period and ranged from high of about $1 million annually in the earlier years to a less than $200,000 in the later years. Table 3.4.9. Ex-vessel value and price of co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in St. Croix, 2012-2019.
a
Year
Landings (Pounds)
2012
Value ($)
Price ($/lb)
221,580
Current 1,285,871
Deflateda 1,431,174
Current 5.80
Deflated 6.46
2013
161,941
939,949
1,032,064
5.80
6.37
2014
99,134
575,344
621,372
5,80
6.27
2015
92,167
535,304
577,593
5.81
6.27
2016
70,955
413,399
440,270
5.83
6.20
2017
63,835
370,320
386,244
5.80
6.05
2018
29,873
173,309
176,429
5,80
5.91
2019
30,804
178,667
178,667
5.80
5.80
Values and prices are deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
Fishermen in the USVI contend that, given the lack of an export market for their product, the quantity of fish they harvest on any given trip is determined strictly by local market conditions Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 55
(i.e., what they believe they can sell in the local market at some established price). 28 Given the well-established economic issues associated with the islands, particularly St. Croix, the large decline in landings (both spiny lobster and co-occurring species) is not unexpected. Total revenues per trip (i.e., spiny lobsters and co-occurring species) among St. Thomas and St. John commercial fishermen for the 2012-2019 period are presented in Table 3.4.10. These revenues averaged about $1,560 per trip ($1,650 per trip after adjusting for inflation) during the eight-year period of analysis and exhibited stability. Table 3.4.10. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Thomas and St. John, 2012-2019. Year
a
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Revenues Current 617 754 892 954 957 845 965 981
Deflateda 686 828 964 1,016 999 881 982 981
Revenues From Co-occurring Species Current Deflated 559 622 621 682 793 856 639 689 700 765 719 748 829 843 665 665
Total Revenues Current Deflated 1,176 1,308 1,375 1,509 1,685 1,820 1,593 1,705 1,657 1,764 1,564 1,629 1,793 1,825 1,646 1,646
Values and prices deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
Total revenues per trip (i.e., spiny lobsters and co-occurring species) among St. Croix commercial fishermen for the 2012-2019 period are presented in Table 3.4.11. These revenues averaged about $845 per trip ($900 per trip after adjusting for inflation) during the eight-year period of analysis and exhibited stability. Thus, it appears as though all of the sharp decline in the aggregate St. Croix landings (both spiny lobster and co-occurring species) reflects a reduction in trips rather than any significant change in catch per trip. Table 3.4.11. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Croix, 2012-2019. Year 2012 2013 2014
Spiny Lobster Revenues Current 341 278 275
Deflateda 379 305 297
Revenues From Co-occurring Species Current Deflated 629 700 593 652 538 581
Total Revenues Current Deflated 969 1,079 871 957 813 879
The argument often made by these fishermen is that annual changes in landings do not reflect changes in stock status but rather changes in market forces.
28
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 56
Year
a
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Revenues Current 335 284 318 277 349
Deflateda 361 303 332 282 349
Revenues From Co-occurring Species Current Deflated 531 573 496 528 523 546 554 564 452 452
Total Revenues Current Deflated 866 934 780 831 841 877 830 845 802 802
Values and prices deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
Estimated per trip revenues (spiny lobster and co-occurring species) from both state and federal waters for St. Thomas and St. John are presented in Table 3.4.12. Total revenues per trip among the St. Thomas and St. John fishermen are relatively high averaging well in excess of $1,100. The average per trip revenues from federal waters tend to exceed comparable statistics from the state waters by a sizeable margin (generally $500 to $800) and surpassing the $1,000 threshold in 2019. Table 3.4.12. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species by area fished in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Revenues State Federal Waters Waters 515 675 618 821 887 902 870 1,018 784 1,075 679 1,018 975 952 1,048 1,028
Revenues From Co-occurring Species State Federal Waters Waters 379 648 417 682 283 902 290 765 499 874 565 864 510 1,214 279 1,065
Total Revenues State Federal Waters Waters 894 1,323 1,035 1,503 1,170 1,804 1,160 1,783 1,283 1,949 1,244 1,882 1,485 2,166 1,327 2,355
Estimated per trip revenues (spiny lobster and co-occurring species) from both state and federal waters for St. Croix are presented in Table 3.4.13. In general, revenues from the harvest of spiny lobster in federal waters contributes a smaller proportion of total revenues than that observed in St. Thomas and Puerto Rico. In St. Thomas/St. John, for example, the contribution of spiny lobster to total revenues (from federal waters) rarely fell below 50% while the proportion in Puerto Rico was even higher.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 57
Table 3.4.13. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species by area fished in St. Croix for 2012-2019. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Revenues State Federal Waters Waters 306 386 248 339 254 232 315 409 262 361 299 370 252 329 316 464
Revenues From Co-occurring Species State Federal Waters Waters 564 715 593 591 492 466 416 732 354 807 406 753 417 853 360 771
Total Revenues State Federal Waters Waters 870 1,101 841 930 746 698 731 1,141 616 1,168 705 1,123 669 1,182 676 1,235
3.5 Description of the Social Environment The social environments of Puerto Rico and the USVI have been described in detail in the Puerto Rico Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (CFMC 2019a), the St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c), and are summarized below.
3.5.1
Puerto Rico
There is insufficient data to isolate specific communities where lobster fishing is important for Puerto Rico and the USVI. This description of the social environment will be more general in its description of fishing overall and will provide specific detail about lobster fishing where possible. In Figure 3.5.1 a number of Puerto Rico communities are identified that have “villa pesqueras” located within or near the community. These organizations provide infrastructure, such as docking facilities and other resources to assist fishermen with their fishing business and activities. Not all fishermen belong to these organizations, but majority of them do according to Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011. The majority of fishermen in Puerto Rico sell most of their catch but do reserve a small quantity for household consumption (Griffith et al. 2007).
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 58
Figure 3.5.1. Puerto Rico coastal communities with villas pesqueras.
(Source: SERO Social Science Branch/U.S. Census Bureau Tigerline Shapefiles 2018)
Fishermen in Puerto Rico are older with an average age of 50 and have long tenures in commercial fishing with an average of 29 years. Fishermen were also highly dependent upon fishing as a source of household income with those in the western region most dependent (83%), those in the east (78%), south (77%) and north (55%) (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011). Lobster fishermen in Puerto Rico are likely spread throughout many of the communities in Figure 3.5.1. A little over 49% of fishermen in Puerto Rico fished for lobster according to Matos Caraballo and Agar (2011) with the highest percentages on the South and East coasts. The number of traps fished follows the number of fishermen reporting fishing for lobster with the highest average number of traps being fished in the South and East coasts (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011). Fishermen overall sell their fish through multiple avenues with a little over a third peddling their catch themselves, a third sold to wholesalers and a little less than a third sold to fishing associations. Few fishermen sell their catch directly to fish stores or restaurants. Lobster is not Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 59
likely to be peddled as much as other species as it is most likely targeted for the tourist market, which is likely through restaurant sales (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011). Certainly, several events that are more recent have had significant impacts on the fishermen of Puerto Rico since the Census of 2008 has occurred. Both hurricanes Maria and Irma and the more recent COVID-19 pandemic have affected the livelihoods of fishermen and their families. The economic loss, including damages, from Hurricane Maria to Puerto Rico fishermen was estimated to be in the range of $20 million and a loss of jobs at the time close to 146 (J. Agar, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, personal communication). There was some concern as to whether the fishing industry would be able to recover to pre-storm levels. In their study one year later, Agar et al. 2020 found that fishery landings did improve and that landings had contracted by $1.4 million in value over the last quarter of 2017, however, losses did vary considerably. Spiny lobster had accounted for close to 14% of those losses, yet fish and lobster traps accounted for most of the revenue losses during that time and the east coast was hit the hardest losing nearly 55% of the total of 6,700 traps reported being lost. Employment losses did seem to recover, as after about 6 months, a large majority of fishermen reported returning to pre Maria workforce levels (Agar et al. 2020). COVID-19 Pandemic While there has been some recovery from hurricanes, the most recent disaster is concerning as the COVID-19 pandemic has now compounded the impacts of previous disasters and has imposed a significant economic hardship on fishermen from the island. A survey conducted by NOAA (2021) found that of the 318 commercial fishermen who responded, 96 % reported that they had suffered impacts to their fishing operations as a result of the pandemic during the first six months of 2020. Loss of revenue was reported by 87% of those who responded when compared to the first six months of last year as more than 90% stopped fishing operations for a period of time. Many lost crew as a result with approximately 25 % reporting some reduction in the number of helpers. Seafood dealers also suffered impacts from the pandemic with 98% reporting impacts from the pandemic. Revenues were decreased by an average of 56% by over 90% of those reporting and at the time of the survey were operating at about 33% of capacity.
3.5.2
St. Thomas and St. John
Commercial fishing St. Thomas and St. John is relatively small scale with vessels averaging approximately 25 ft. in length. Most vessels are fiberglass or fiberglass and wood with outboard motors. More vessels have inboard motors than in the past and are more likely to have more horsepower (Kojis et al. 2017). In the most recent census for St. Thomas and St. John, fishermen targeted lobster with about 30% of the time with shellfish only accounting for approximately 23% of the overall landings. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 60
Fishermen used traps and SCUBA gear to catch lobster and most sales were to hotels and restaurants (Kojis et al. 2017).
Figure 3.5.2. St. Thomas and St. John coastal communities and subdistricts. (Source: SERO Social Science Branch/US Census Tigerline Shapefiles 2018)
The majority of fishermen keep their vessels moored along the coast, both on the Northside and Southside of St. Thomas, and the east end of St. John and near Cruz Bay (Figure 3.5.2). Frenchtown on the Southside was the most popular location to moor vessels on St. Thomas (Kojis et al. 2017). Fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John live in 37 different estates on the two islands; however, there were two primary locations that fishers lived: Frenchtown and St. Peter.
3.5.3
St. Croix
Fishing on St. Croix is also smaller in scale like the other islands. Vessels are small and most fishermen own one boat with only a few owning more than one. The average vessel size in St. Croix was less than 22 ft. with the longest being 45 ft in length. Engines are primarily outboards and may be used on several different vessels if a fisherman owns more than one (Kojis et al. 2017). Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 61
Fishermen of St. Croix resided in three primary zip codes corresponding to the following areas on the island: Christiansted, Fredricksted and Kingshill, but were scattered over 50 different estates (Figure 3.5.3). The two estates with the most fishermen were Frederikstead and Clifton Hill, which is more southcentral. Another docking facility often used was at Gallows Bay near Christiansted (Kojis et al. 2017).
Figure 3.5.3. St. Croix coastal communities and subdistricts.
Source: SERO Social Science Branch/US Census Tigerline Shapefiles 2018
Fishermen of St. Croix also had a higher average age at 57, with the average age of active fishermen slightly lower at 55. Their average tenure in fishing was also high with an average of 27 years and the majority of fishermen identified themselves as Hispanic with another large percentage identifying as West Indian (Kojis et al. 2017). Most fishermen used several types of gear to fish with, although trap fishermen were more dependent on one type of gear. Trap fishing was the third most common type of fishing gear used by fishermen on St. Croix with fewer than one third using traps. However, close to 60% of Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 62
fishermen in St. Croix said that spiny lobster was an important species. Lobster ranked 2nd in importance to reef fish which is ranked 1st on all the USVI islands (Kojis et al. 2017). Because tourists and visitors prefer lobster, commercial fishermen find ready customers in hotels and restaurants catering to tourists (Valdes Pizzini et al., 2010; Stoffle et al., 2009). COVID-19 Pandemic To understand the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, NOAA Fisheries (NMFS 2021b) social scientists conducted phone surveys with 87 commercial and charter fishermen on the islands of St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John. Of those that responded, 87% reported revenue losses during the first six months of 2020. Approximately 30% of fishermen reported losing some crew members. When comparing their fishing activity to the first six months of 2019, they reported on average operating at about 48% if capacity at the time of the survey.
3.5.4
Environmental Justice (EJ) Considerations
In order to assess whether a community may be experiencing EJ issues, a suite of Community Social Vulnerability Indices (CSVI) created to examine the social vulnerability of coastal communities was developed for the majority fishing communities in the U.S (Colburn and Jepson 2012). Using a unit of analysis at the county rather than census designated places a viable suite of social vulnerability indices were successfully created using the same methodology for all counties within the coastal Southeast including Puerto Rico and the USVI. Using the same variables with minor adjustments, a principal component factor analysis was conducted with results meeting the same criteria used previously in creating the CSVIs. The resulting index factor scores for each community will be reported here. The three indices reported most often in the Southeast Region are poverty, population composition, and personal disruptions. The variables included in each of these indices have been identified through the literature as being important components that contribute to an individual’s or community’s vulnerability. Indicators such as increased poverty rates for different groups, more single female-headed households and children under the age of 5, disruptions such as higher separation rates, and unemployment all are signs of vulnerable populations. These indicators are closely aligned to previously used measures of EJ, which used thresholds for the number of minorities and those in poverty, but are more comprehensive in their assessment. For those municipalities (Puerto Rico) or subdistricts (USVI) that exceed the threshold it would be expected that they would exhibit vulnerabilities to sudden changes or social disruption that might accrue from regulatory change. 3.5.4.1
Puerto Rico
As is evident in Figure 3.5.4, the majority of municipalities show substantial vulnerabilities with most exceeding both thresholds of ½ and 1 standard deviation for two of the indices and some Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 63
exceeding both thresholds for all indices. Cabo Rojo, Aricebo and San Juan are the only municipalities that do not exceed the ½ standard deviation for personal disruption. However, these vulnerabilities do not take into consideration the recent devastation from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. It is expected that even though these municipalities have high vulnerabilities depicted here, they could now have even higher vulnerability scores as a result of the impacts from recent hurricanes.
Figure 3.5.4. Social vulnerability indices for Puerto Rico coastal municipalities. (Source: SERO County Social Vulnerability Indicators database (ACS 2010) 2018)
The vulnerabilities that are depicted here do not mean that any actions within this amendment will have negative impacts, only that if there are any negative effects most municipalities may have a difficult time absorbing the impacts and their recovery may be hindered. 3.5.4.2
St. Thomas and St. John
As is evident in Figure 3.5.5, the majority of subdistricts for St. Thomas and St. John show few vulnerabilities with only one exceeding both thresholds of ½ and 1 standard deviation for at least two of the indices. Charlotte Amalie is the only subdistrict that has two indices exceeding both thresholds. Most other communities show few if any vulnerabilities. Several communities do exceed the threshold for population composition, which is likely a reflection of a higher population of minorities. However, these vulnerabilities do not take into consideration the devastation from Hurricanes Irma and Maria and the recent COVID-19 pandemic. It is expected that even though these municipalities have high vulnerabilities depicted here, they could now Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 64
have higher vulnerability scores as a result of the impacts from the disasters that have occurred recently. The vulnerabilities depicted here do not mean that any actions within this amendment will have negative impacts, only that if there are any negative effects many communities that are experiencing high vulnerabilities may have a difficult time absorbing the impacts and their recovery may be hindered.
Figure 3.5.5. Social vulnerability indices for St. Thomas (STT) and St. John (STJ) coastal subdistricts. (Source: SERO County Social Vulnerability Indicators database (ACS 2014) 2018)
3.5.4.3
St. Croix
As is evident in Figure 3.5.6, the majority of subdivisions show vulnerabilities with most exceeding both thresholds of ½ and 1 standard deviation for at least two of the indices. Northcentral, East End and Anna’s Hope are the only subdistricts that have fewer than two indices exceeding the thresholds. However, these vulnerabilities do not take into consideration the devastation from Hurricanes Irma and Maria or the recent COVID-19 pandemic. It is expected that even though these municipalities have high vulnerabilities depicted here, they Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 65
could now have even higher vulnerability scores as a result of the impacts from recent hurricanes. The vulnerabilities depicted here do not mean that any actions within this amendment will have negative impacts, only that if there are any negative effects that those communities experiencing high vulnerabilities may have a difficult time absorbing the impacts and their recovery may be hindered.
Figure 3.5.6. Social vulnerability indices for St. Croix coastal subdistricts. (Source: SERO County Social Vulnerability Indicators database (ACS 2014) 2018)
3.6 Description of the Administrative Environment The administrative environment was discussed in detail in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs, which is incorporated herein by reference and summarized below.
3.6.1
Federal Fishery Management
Federal fishery management is conducted under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), originally enacted in 1976 as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act claims sovereign rights and exclusive fishery management authority over most fishery resources within the U.S. EEZ, an area extending from the seaward Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 66
boundary of each coastal state to 200 nm from shore, as well as authority over U.S. anadromous species and continental shelf resources that occur beyond the EEZ. Responsibility for federal fishery management decision-making is divided between the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and eight regional Fishery Management Councils that represent the expertise and interests of constituent states. Regional Fishery Management Councils are responsible for preparing, monitoring, and revising management plans for fisheries needing management within their jurisdiction. The Secretary is responsible for promulgating regulations to implement proposed plans and amendments after ensuring that management measures are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and with other applicable laws summarized in Appendix B. In most cases, the Secretary has delegated this authority to NMFS. The Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (Council) is responsible for the conservation and management of fishery stocks within federal waters surrounding Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John (USVI), and St. Croix (USVI). These waters extend to 200 nautical miles offshore from the seaward boundaries of Puerto Rico (9 nm from shore) and the USVI (3 nm from shore). The Council consists of seven voting members: four members appointed by the Secretary, at least one of whom is appointed from each of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the USVI; the principal officials with marine fishery management responsibility and expertise for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the USVI, who are designated as such by their Governors; and the Regional Administrator of NMFS for the Southeast Region. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee reviews the data and science used in assessments, FMPs, and amendments. Regulations implementing the FMPs are enforced through actions of the NOAA’s Office for Law Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, and various state authorities. The public is involved in the fishery management process through participation at public meetings, on advisory panels and through council meetings that, with few exceptions for discussing personnel matters, are open to the public. The regulatory process is in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, in the form of “notice and comment” rulemaking, which provides extensive opportunity for public scrutiny and comment, and requires consideration of and response to those comments.
3.6.2 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Fisheries Management The purpose of state representation at the Council level is to ensure state participation in federal fishery management decision-making and to promote the development of compatible regulations in state and federal waters. The state governments have the authority to manage their respective fisheries including enforcement of fishing regulations, and exercises legislative and regulatory authority over their states’ natural resources through discrete administrative units. Although Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 67
each agency listed below is the primary administrative body with respect to the state’s natural resources, all states cooperate with numerous state and federal regulatory agencies when managing marine resources. 3.6.2.1
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has jurisdiction over fisheries in state waters extending up to 9 nm from shore. Those fisheries are managed by Puerto Rico's Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) per Puerto Rico Law 278 of November 29, 1998 as amended, known as Puerto Rico’s Fisheries Law, which establishes public policy regarding fisheries. Section 19 of Article VI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico provides the foundation for the fishery rules and regulations. Puerto Rico Fishing Regulations 6902, implemented in 2004, included regulations for the management of marine managed areas for fisheries purposes and imposed regulations for the protection of several species such as the Nassau grouper and the red hind. Puerto Rico Regulations 7949, implemented in 2010, is the current regulatory mechanism for management of fishery resources in Puerto Rico state waters as well as for those resources and areas with shared jurisdiction with the U.S. government through the Council. 3.6.2.2
U.S. Virgin Islands
The USVI has jurisdiction over fisheries in state waters extending up to 3 nm from shore. The USVI’s Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) is responsible for the conservation and management of USVI fisheries and enforcement of boating and fishing regulations. The DPNR’s Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) is responsible for data collection pertaining to the fisheries of the USVI. The DFW monitors commercial and recreational fisheries and provides recommendations to the DPNR Commissioner on matters relating to fisheries management. Rules and regulations for the USVI fisheries are codified in the Virgin Islands Code, primarily within Title 48 Chapter 12. More information about these agencies can be found from the following web pages: Puerto Rico DNER: https://www.drna.pr.gov/ USVI DPNR: https://dpp.vi.gov/agency/department-planning-and-natural-resources
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 68
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4.1 Action 1: Spiny Lobster Overfishing Limit (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), and Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Summary of Management Alternatives Alternative 1. No Action. The OFL proxy, ABC, and ACL (which equals optimum yield [OY]) for spiny lobster would remain as specified under the Puerto Rico FMP (Fishery Management Plan), St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP. Alternative 2. Select the variable-catch approach for specifying OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster, and use the variable-catch ABCs to derive the spiny lobster variable-catch ACLs (which equals OY), under one of the subalternatives listed below. Sub-alternative 2a. OY = ACL = ABC Sub-alternative 2b. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.95 Sub-alternative 2c. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.90 Alternative 3 (Preferred for all three island-based FMPs). Select the constant-catch approach for specifying the OFL and ABC for spiny lobster, and use the constant-catch ABC to derive the spiny lobster constant-catch ACL (which equals OY), under one of the sub-alternatives listed below. Sub-alternative 3a. OY = ACL = ABC Sub-alternative 3b (Preferred). OY = ACL = ABC x 0.95 Sub-alternative 3c. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.90
4.1.1
Effects on the Physical Environment
Effects on the physical environment generally occur from fishing effort associated with interactions between fishing gear (e.g., fish traps and spiny lobster traps) and the bottom substrate or from anchoring. As mentioned in Chapter 3, spiny lobster are predominately harvested via diving methods (e.g., using snares) in Puerto Rico and St. Croix and by trap gear in St. Thomas and St. John. Recreational data are not available for spiny lobster in any of the three islands/island groups, but anecdotal information suggests that the majority of recreational harvest of spiny lobster occurs via diving. Of these gear types/methods, traps are most likely to cause direct damage to the physical environment (i.e., benthic habitat) from setting and retrieval of traps, and dragging, which could cause damage to corals and habitat. Through this action, the Council could reduce the ACLs for spiny lobster from those specified in the island-based FMPs. The analysis below assumes for the alternatives that would reduce the ACLs, harvest would be constrained to those lower ACLs, which would in turn reduce the amount of trips taken or gear retrieved and deployed when fishing for spiny lobster and effects to the physical environment. That reduction in harvest relative to the current level would correlate to fewer interactions between fishing gear and anchors with the bottom, which would benefit the Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 69
physical environment. However, as noted above, for the Puerto Rico and St. Croix fisheries, which predominantly use diving methods to harvest spiny lobster, the reduction in allowable harvest would not likely result in fewer gear-bottom interactions. Alternative 1 (No Action) would retain the OFL proxy, ABC, and ACL for spiny lobster specified under the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP. No effects on the physical environment would be expected as the catch levels would not change (no changes in fishing effort from the baseline), thus current interactions with the substrate from gear and anchors would not change. Under Alternative 2, the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs specified for spiny lobster for each island/island group would be less than those specified under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would be expected to decrease any potential negative effects to the physical environment by decreasing the harvest levels allowed for spiny lobster (assuming harvest is constrained to these lower allowable levels). The reference point values set under Alternative 2 would decrease each year from 2021 to 2023, translating into potentially less harvest through time, thus providing greater benefits to the physical environment through time from fewer interactions between fishing gear or anchors and the bottom. Additionally, the management uncertainty buffer used to set the ACL from the ABC would increase from Sub-alternative 2a (no buffer) to Sub-alternative 2c (10% buffer). Thus, more benefits to the physical environment would be expected under Subalternative 2c, as it sets the lowest harvest level of the three sub-alternatives. Similar to Alternative 2, Preferred Alternative 3 could decrease negative effects to the physical environment through lower harvest levels (assuming harvest is limited to these allowable levels). Under Preferred Alternative 3, the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs specified for spiny lobster for each island/island group would also be less than those specified under Alternative 1, but unlike Alternative 2, the values set under Preferred Alternative 3 would be set at constant levels from 2021 to 2023. However, the total amount of harvest allowed under Preferred Alternative 3 would be equal to the total amount of harvest allowed under Alternative 2, and so total effects to the physical environment under the two alternatives would be expected to be the same. The sub-alternatives under Preferred Alternative 3 would set the ACL from the ABC using the same management uncertainty reduction buffers specified in the Alternative 2 sub-alternatives and physical effects would vary when compared to Alternative 1. The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) chose Sub-alternative 3b (5% buffer from ABC to ACL) as their preferred. Both Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 would be expected to provide greater benefits to the physical environment than Alternative 1 through fewer impacts to the bottom from fishing gear and anchors. However, in a multi-species fishery, where fish and spiny lobster are often caught together in trap gear (e.g., in the St. Thomas and St. John fishery and a small percentage of the Puerto Rico Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 70
fishery), reducing harvest of one stock but allowing harvest of others may not reduce overall trips taken or gear hauled and generate associated positive effects to the physical environment. The above discussion would represent the greatest potential benefits to the physical environment. This benefit could be reduced depending on the extent to which fishermen fish for other species with the same or more damaging gear to offset the lower ACL, which in turn depends on market conditions and other factors affecting the ability to alter fishing practices. Those factors are difficult to predict. However, even under the discussion of Alternative 2 or Preferred Alternative 3 above, which assumes lower harvest levels reduce effort, benefits to the physical environment would be minimal in St. Croix and Puerto Rico due to the primary methods used to harvest spiny lobster (i.e., diving) and higher in St. Thomas and St. John due to the potential reduction in the use of trap gear.
4.1.2
Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment
Management actions that affect the biological and ecological environment mostly relate to the impacts of fishing on a species’ population size, life history, and the role of the species within its habitat. Removal of the species from the population through fishing reduces the overall population size. Fishing gear have different selectivity patterns that refer to a fishing method’s ability to target and capture organisms by size and species. This would include the number of discards, mostly sublegal sized individuals or species caught during seasonal closures, and the mortality associated with releasing these species. As described in Chapter 3, spiny lobster are targeted by commercial and recreational fishermen in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The majority of harvest occurs through diving gear, with trap gear predominantly used by commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico and St. Thomas and St. John. Diving is considered a highly selective fishing method and all legal-sized spiny lobster caught by divers are assumed to be retained (SEDAR 57 2019). Similarly, the only spiny lobsters discarded from traps would include sublegal individuals and berried females. Although these retention levels of spiny lobster from the fisheries are high, the SEDAR 57 stock assessments for Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John determined each spiny lobster stock was not undergoing overfishing and not overfished. Alternative 1 (No Action) would maintain the OFL proxy (sustainable yield level), ABC, and ACL for spiny lobster set under the island-based FMPs. Those OFL proxies and ABCs were set using definitions under Tier 4 of the ABC Control Rule included in each of the island-based FMPs, for which the spiny lobster stocks were considered to be data limited with no acceptable assessment available. Following the accepted stock assessments for spiny lobster, the management reference points under Alternative 1 do not reflect the best scientific information available and if future harvest of spiny lobster is landed at or near at the allowable harvest levels under Alternative 1, then overfishing as defined under SEDAR 57 could be occurring. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 71
Contrary to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 (described below) would set OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs following the accepted SEDAR 57 spiny lobster stock assessments using Tier 3 definitions for OFL and ABC, which are considered to be data limited but with an accepted assessment available. Applying the best scientific information available would ensure that federally managed stocks are harvested sustainably while protecting reproductive capacity and maintaining effective ecological contributions. The OFLs and ABCs under Alternative 2 would be substantially less that the OFL proxies and ABCs under Alternative 1, providing increased benefits to the biological/ecological environment for the spiny lobster stocks through the increased conservation of the stocks when compared to the status quo. As mentioned in Chapter 2, although the OFLs specified under Alternative 2 for each island/island group would be set at a level above the SEDAR 57 maximum sustainable yield (MSY) proxy, the OFL projections corresponded to a surplus in the spiny lobster biomass that allow for a higher level of catch that decreases each year towards the respective MSY proxy. The ACLs under Alternative 2 would also be less than the ACLs under Alternative 1, with the greatest decrease in allowable harvest occurring in Puerto Rico (a difference of 135,645 to 179,581 pounds [lb], depending on Sub-alternative and year). The decrease in the spiny lobster ACL in St. Thomas and St. John (37,040 to 89,757 lb) would be similar to the decrease in St. Croix (21,128 to 83,058 lb). For each island/island group, the greatest biological benefits (i.e., the greatest reduction in allowable harvest) would occur for the ACLs specified under Sub-alternative 2c, which sets the ACL at 90% of the ABC. The total harvest allowed under Preferred Alternative 3 would be equal to the total harvest allowed under Alternative 2, so total benefits to the biological/ecological environment would be expected to be the same under the two alternatives. However, the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs set under Preferred Alternative 3 would be constant for 2021-2023, and would not converge in time towards the respective MSY proxy set for spiny lobster under SEDAR 57. As mentioned above in the discussion of Alternative 2, the current spiny lobster spawning stock biomass is above the level that produces MSY and no negative effects to the stocks would be expected from the OFLs being above the MSY proxy. The ACLs under Preferred Alternative 3 would be less than the ACLs under Alternative 1, again with the greatest decrease in allowable harvest occurring under Sub-alternative 3c (i.e., ACL = ABC * 0.90). Preferred Sub-alternative 3b, which would set the ACL at 95% of the ABC for each island/island group, would result in a reduction of harvest for 2021-2023 of 157,919 lb for Puerto Rico, 66,574 lb for St. Thomas and St. John, and 56,861 lb for St. Croix from the ACLs under Alternative 1. Under Preferred Alternative 3 and Alternative 2 the ACLs for 2024 and later would be the same, in both instances reflecting the value specified under the variable catch approach for the year 2023. Benefits to the biological/ecological environment would be expected to be the same under the two alternatives. Preferred Sub-alternative 3b, which allows for a 5% buffer from the ABC to
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 72
ACL, would be expected to have a greater biological effect than Sub-alternative 3a (no buffer) but less than Sub-alternative 3c (10% buffer). The benefits discussed above for Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 would represent the greatest potential benefits to the biological/ecological environment, because it assumes the greatest potential reduction in harvest. Similar to the analysis of effects to the physical environment, this benefit could be reduced depending on the extent to which fishermen fish for other species, or shift effort to fish in state waters. Shifting effort from federal waters to state waters would likely negate much, if not most, of the benefits that might otherwise be forthcoming from revision of the ACLs under Alternative 2 or Preferred Alternative 3. The extent of that change in fishing behavior is difficult to predict. However, assuming that the lower harvest levels equate to fewer spiny lobster removals, it is anticipated that benefits to the biological/ecological environment would occur under Alternative 2 or Preferred Alternative 3 (e.g., reduction in fishing mortality) compared to Alternative 1, but would be minimal. The gear types used to harvest spiny lobster could affect species outside of the fisheries, such as Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species that occur in the action area (e.g., sea turtles and corals). The gear types used to harvest spiny lobster by the island-based fisheries are the same as those analyzed in the biological opinion for the island-based FMPs. With respect to those ESAlisted species (see Section 3.3.3), similar effects to those described in the biological opinion for each species could be expected depending on the extent to which the reduction in the harvest levels results in a reduction in the amount of gear deployed and interactions between that gear and the listed species. However, at this time it is uncertain how fishing under the ACLs proposed under Alternative 2 or Preferred Alternative 3 would impact ESA-listed species compared to the status quo (under Alternative 1). Overall, it is expected that the decreases in ACLs under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 from the ACLs set under the islandbased FMPs (i.e., the ACLs under Alternative 1) would reduce the potential interactions between fishing related activities (e.g., interactions with gear, vessels, anchors) and ESA-listed species.
4.1.3
Effects on the Economic Environment
Alternative 1 (No Action) would maintain the OFL proxy, ABC, and ACL for spiny lobster set under the island-based FMPs (Table 1.1). Thus, the ACL for the Puerto Rico spiny lobster fishery would be maintained at 527,232 lb, the ACL for the St. Thomas and St. John spiny lobster fishery would be maintained at 209,210 lb, and the ACL for the St. Croix spiny lobster fishery would be maintained at 197,528 lb. Given the status quo nature of Alternative 1, there would be no direct economic effects associated with the no action alternative. There could, however, be indirect effects associated with maintaining the status quo. Specifically, results from the SEDAR 57 island-based stock Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 73
assessments concluded that the ACLs specified in the island-based FMPs may provide insufficient protection of the island-based spiny lobster stocks at levels of effort in excess of those needed to harvest OFL on an annual basis. Thus, maintaining the status quo could, at some point in time, result in overfishing and/or overfished stocks. This, in turn, would translate to a long-run loss in revenue, income, and, potentially, fishing-related jobs. Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 would set OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs based on the accepted SEDAR 57 stock assessments using Tier 3 definitions for OFL and ABC. The OFLs and ABCs under both Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 are substantially lower than those under Alternative 1 (status quo) with Preferred Sub-alternative 3b (OY =ACL = ABC x .95) being lower than the status quo (Alternative 1) but larger than those under Sub-alternative 2c or Sub-alternative 3c . Maximum reductions in annual harvests, expressed in pounds (whole weight) can be calculated by subtracting the variable-catch or constant-catch ACLs recommended by the Scientific and Statistical Committee as reduced by the Council’s management uncertainty buffer (given in Table 2.4) from the ACLs given in the respective FMPs. The maximum reduction in pounds can then be converted to maximum losses in revenues by multiplying by the respective island prices. 29 Maximum first year and cumulative five-year reduction in revenues under each of the Subalternatives of Alternative 2 for each of the island platforms are presented in Table 4.1. For all islands/island groups, the maximum reduction in revenues, based on 2019 prices given in Section 3.4.2.2, increases as one moves from Alternative 2 Sub-alternative 2a to Alternative 2 Subalternative 2c. These increasing maximum losses in revenues as one moves from Alternative 2 Sub-alternative 2a to Alternative 2 Sub-alternative 2c reflect the reductions in the spiny lobster ACL for each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix as the management uncertainty buffers are increased. Note that in the first year of analysis (i.e., maximum first-year losses), revenue losses associated with the variable-catch ACL exceed the corresponding losses associated with the constant-catch ACLs for any given management uncertainty buffer. 30 Looking at longer-term losses, however, paints a different picture. For any given management uncertainty buffer, specifically, maximum revenue losses associated with either the variable-catch ACLs or the constant-catch ACLs would be equal. For Puerto Rico, for example, the maximum first year loss in revenues associated with the variable-catch ACL with a moderate amount of management uncertainty buffer (e.g., Subalternative 2b) was found to equal about $1.060 million, while the loss for same constant-catch ACL scenario (Preferred Sub-alternative 3b) was found to be $1.079 million. Yet the Consideration was not given to how prices may increase as restrictions (i.e., fishing season reductions) become more onerous. The limited price data that are available for the respective islands (Table 3.4.2, Puerto Rico; Table 3.4.6, St. Thomas and St. John; Table 3.4.7, St. Croix) give no indication of significant price changes associated with a change in landings. 30 It is important to keep in mind that these revenue losses are measured in relation to maintaining the status quo. 29
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 74
cumulative five-year losses were identical under the two scenarios ($5.425 million). This reflects the fact that larger losses (reduction in harvests) are incurred in the upfront years under the variable-catch ACL scenarios vis-à-vis constant-catch ACL scenarios but the converse is true in the later years (i.e., larger losses would be incurred under the constant-catch ACL scenarios vis-à-vis the variable-catch ACL scenarios). With respect to the constant-catch scenarios, furthermore, lost revenues associated with any given scenario would remain constant for three years before increasing in year four. Table 4.1. Maximum revenue losses associated with revising island/island group spiny lobster ACLs. Island/Island Group Puerto Rico St. Thomas/St. John St. Croix Puerto Rico St. Thomas/ St. John St. Croix
Preferred Sub-alt. 3b
Sub-alt 3c
1,079
1,211
599.2
666.7
190.2 269.5 348.9 445.1 Maximum Cumulative Five-Year Losses ($1,000s) 0 4,763 5,425 6,087 4,763
511.7
578.4
5,425
6,087
0
2,971
3,294
3,616
2,971
3,294
3,616
0
2,601
2,916
3,230
2,601
2,916
3,230
Alt 1
Sub-alt. 2a
Sub-alt. 2b
Sub alt. 2c
Sub-alt. 3a
0
Maximum First-Year Losses ($1,000s) 926 1,060 1,195 946
0
333.4
410.8
488.3
531.6
0
It is important to recognize that revenue losses reported in Table 4.1 for the alternative variablecatch ACL and constant-catch ACL scenarios should be considered ‘upper-bound’ estimates with actual losses being less - and potentially significantly less. There are several reasons for making this, one of them being enforcement. If enforcement is inadequate, a certain (potentially large) amount of spiny lobster harvest from federal waters may continue even after the triggering and application of AMs (which would be fishing season reductions in federal waters). 31 A second reason for asserting that the actual revenue losses under the various alternatives may be significantly less than those provided in Table 4.1 reflects the actions taken by fishermen in response to the triggering and application of AMs (in this case fishing season reductions in federal waters). Take, for example, Puerto Rico. As documented in Section 3.1.1, only a small share of the Puerto Rico annual harvest of spiny lobster is taken from federal waters; about 7% to 8% since 2016. This equates to about 35,000 lb per year based on total annual landings averaging 435,000 lb. Per trip spiny lobster revenues derived from fishing in federal waters Enforcement of the prohibition of fishing specific to only one species (i.e., spiny lobster in this case) via fishing season reductions would almost certainly be exceedingly difficult since the fisherman would need to be observed in the act of taking spiny lobster from federal waters, or law enforcement would otherwise need to be able to prove the harvest occurred in or from federal waters.
31
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 75
since 2016 averaged about $185 (Table 4.3.5). The information in conjunction with price information (Table 3.4.1) allows one to estimate the average lobster harvest per trip in federal waters during the 2016-2019 period (27 lb) indicating that spiny lobster was taken on about 1,300 trips annually in federal waters during 2016-2019. 32 What would be the outcome if triggering and the application of AMs result in the closure of federal waters to the harvest of spiny lobster? If the AMs require a year-round closure of federal waters to spiny lobster harvesting, what would happen to these 1,300 trips? First, they could continue to fish in federal waters as before with the exception that they would not be allowed to take spiny lobster. Thus, these 1,300 trips would continue to be taken in federal waters but spiny lobster cannot be retained. 33 As indicated in Table 3.4.5, however, spiny lobster constitutes the majority of revenues derived from federal waters and precluding spiny lobster from the catch would likely make an otherwise profitable trip unprofitable unless they can compensate for the loss in spiny lobster revenues with an increased harvest of other species. Second, and more likely, fishermen could respond to the triggering and application of AMs (closure of federal waters to spiny lobster fishing) by increasing the number of trips taken in state waters. As suggested by the information in Table 3.4.5, there has been little difference between average trip revenues in federal versus state waters since 2016 (total average per trip revenues equaling about $283 in federal waters versus $266 in state waters). Increasing trips in state waters would result in an increased harvest of spiny lobsters from state waters (as indicated in Table 3.4.5, since 2016 average per trip revenues from the harvest of spiny lobster in federal waters have exceeded comparable figures from state waters by only about 10%; $185 versus $167). This shift in effort (i.e., trips) from federal to state waters provides a second explanation as to why the estimates of lost revenues presented in Table 4.1 should be considered maximums. Furthermore, the shifting of effort from federal waters to state waters would likely negate much, if not most, of the benefits (i.e., protection of the spiny lobster resource from overfishing conditions and subsequent consequences) that might otherwise be forthcoming from implementation of Preferred Alternative 3 or, for that matter, Alternative 2. 34 A third reason why the numbers presented in Table 4.1 should be considered as ‘upper bound’ estimates is that they do not consider the fact that AMs would relate only to the harvest of spiny lobster in federal waters. Estimated spiny lobster landings from federal waters off Puerto Rico since 2016, as noted, have averaged only about 35,000 lb per year, which is considerably less than any decreases in allowable harvest under Alternative 2 (135,645 lb to 179,581 lb depending
As noted, the great majority of spiny lobster fishing activities in the federal waters off Puerto Rico entail diving activities. Based on cost estimates provided by Agar and Shivlani (2016), a quasi producer surplus estimate of approximately $100 per trip can be derived. This would suggest total quasi producer surplus from trips in federal waters (where lobster is included in the catch) of $130,000. 33 Since most of the trips are diving related, it may be preferable to state that lobster cannot be targeted while diving. 34 This assertion, as will be considered shortly, pertains primarily to Puerto Rico. 32
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 76
on the sub-alternative and year) as well as Preferred Alternative 3 (138,482 lb to 179,581 lb depending upon the sub-alternative and the year). While the discussion to point has primarily centered on Puerto Rico’s commercial spiny lobster fishery, the same general observations would likely hold to a lesser extent for St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John. With respect to St. Croix, more than one-half of annual spiny lobster harvests have historically occurred in state waters. Spiny lobster revenues from federal waters, expressed on a per trip basis, have tended to exceed the comparable figure from state waters by a significant amount, which is also the situation with respect to average total revenues per trip (Table 3.4.12). However, triggering and the application of AMs that result in the closure of federal waters to the harvest of spiny lobster in St. Croix would certainly result in some increased effort in state waters the extent of which, however, is unknown. Since diving is the primary method for taking spiny lobster in St. Croix, there may be some ability of fishers fishing in federal waters to recoup some of the revenue losses (from regulations restricting the harvest of spiny lobster in federal waters) by targeting other species. 35 This would likely mitigate some of the effort (i.e., trip) movement from federal to state waters. Revenue losses would, ultimately, be correlated with the length of the closure. An overwhelming proportion of spiny lobster harvests in St. Thomas and St. John are taken by trap (Table 3.1.4). This being a relatively non-selective gear, there is probably only limited ability among fishermen harvesting spiny lobsters in federal waters to recoup some of the revenue losses that would be forthcoming from a triggering of an AM (fishing season reductions for spiny lobster in federal waters). 36 As indicated in Table 3.4.12, average per trip revenues from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Thomas and St. John are relatively large with revenues from federal waters exceeding those from state waters by a relatively large margin (generally in the $600 to $800 range). However, if one subtracts spiny lobster revenues generated from federal waters from total revenues generated from federal waters, one finds that the remaining revenues are generally substantially less than total revenues generated from fishing in state waters. This would suggest that trip migration from federal waters to state waters may be relatively large (with the extent of
Movement of effort from federal waters to state waters would likely be less in St. Croix than in Puerto Rico because the difference between per trip average revenues between federal and state waters in St. Croix is significantly larger than that for Puerto Rico. 36 It is assumed that fishermen would not make any significant changes in the gear employed in response to a seasonal closure in federal waters. Given that traps have historically accounted for more than 90% of spiny lobster landings in St. Thomas and St. John (see Table 3.1.5), one can surmise that the trap is by far the most efficient gear for harvesting spiny lobster on these islands. As such, it would appear to be unlikely that any significant proportion of fishermen would change gear in response to a seasonal closure. 35
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 77
it being dependent on the length of the fishing season reduction). The migration of effort to state waters could lead to higher harvests of lobsters in state waters. 37 Overall, the review of the alternatives in Action 1 yields somewhat mixed results. Both Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 are believed to yield some protection (i.e., prevention from overfishing) of the spiny lobster stocks in St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John with a lower level of protection in Puerto Rico. The amount of protection and related benefits would largely depend on the susceptibility of spiny lobster to overfishing and the amount of migration of effort into state waters as a result of triggering an AM. While there are likely benefits associated with the revised ACLs resulting from the SEDAR 57 island-based stock assessments, which suggest that the ACLs specified in the island-based FMPs may provide insufficient protection of the island-based stocks (e.g., the ACLs specified in the island-based FMPs are greater than the majority of the OFLs derived from the stock assessments), it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty that the benefits of the added stock protection for each of the island-based stocks offset adverse economic effects. Thus, it cannot be stated with any certainty that Alternative 2 or Preferred Alternative 3 outperforms the status quo (Alternative 1) from an efficiency (i.e., benefit/cost) perspective. Given this to be the case, one cannot state that the Preferred Sub-alternative 3b maximizes benefits vis-à-vis other nonstatus quo alternatives considered in the amendment. It can be stated with certainty that the long-run adverse effects associated with Sub-alternative 2a and Sub-alternative 3a would have the least (and identical) adverse economic effects, outside the Status Quo (Alternative 1), while Sub-alternative 2c and Sub-alternative 3c would have the largest (and identical) long-run adverse effects. The long-run adverse effects associated with Preferred Sub-alternative 3b would fall in between Sub-alternative 2a (Sub-alternative 3a) and Sub-alternative 2c (Subalternative 3c). However, the alternatives associated with the lowest long-run adverse impacts may inadequately account for management uncertainty so the lower long-run adverse effects may come at the cost of reduced benefits (i.e., associated with adequate protection of the island-based stocks).
4.1.4
Effects on the Social Environment
Setting management reference points such as OFL, ABC, ACL and OY can impose social effects. Those impacts may be recognized after the catch limits are implemented and subsequent actions, such as AMs, follow to ensure compliance with those limits. The social effects of While it is believed that the migration from federal to state waters would be relatively high in response to a seasonal closure in federal waters, it may be less than 100%; particularly if the seasonal closure is relatively limited in time duration. As such, NMFS could try to fashion the federal closure period to account for a migration assuming NMFS was able to predict this migration. This, however, creates an additional management issue. Specifically, accounting for the migration from federal to state waters would necessitate a time-extension of the seasonal closure in federal waters. This time extension, in turn, would lead to a higher proportion of effort moving from federal to state waters (with the fishermen always having the final move).
37
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 78
retaining reference points for lobster under Alternative 1 may be negative because those reference points may not reflect the most recent information on stock status that was generated from SEDAR 57 stock assessments. Although Alternative 1 would have few short term negative social impacts, there may be longer term impacts that need consideration. Current reference points may have longer term negative effects on the stock, which would in turn have negative impacts upon the fishery and fishermen as the possibility of overfishing as determined under the SEDAR 57 assessments may increase. Alternative 2 would use a variable-catch approach that decreases harvest over time that would be expected to have benefits for the stock but may increase the negative social impacts in the short term from decreased income opportunities. Under Preferred Alternative 3, the ACLs for spiny lobster would decrease in 2021 from the levels as specified in the island-based FMPs, decline again in 2024 and then remain constant. Again, there may be negative social impacts from the decreasing catch levels, but the magnitude of those negative impacts would depend on the degree to which fishermen were able to modify their fishing activities (e.g., shift fishing activities from federal to state waters). Under Action 1, Alternative 1 would have the least adverse social effects. The sub-alternatives for Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 would have slightly more negative social effects with Sub-alternatives 2a and 3a, Sub-alternative 2b and Preferred Sub-alternative 3b having more negative social effects respectively. Sub-alternatives 2c and 3c, could have the largest adverse social effects. Those effects come primarily from decreasing catch levels, which, if there are few or no substitutes for lobster, or if effort does not shift to state waters, could have negative economic impacts that would lead to negative social effects. Furthermore, Alternative 2 (i.e., ACLs change each year from 2021-2023) would be expected to have greater negative social effects than Preferred Alternative 3 (i.e., ACLs remain the same for 2021-2023) given the fishermen’s preference for ACLs that do not change. Of course, the social effects can also be affected by outside influences on the fishery, the fishermen and their communities. Recent events, e.g. natural disasters, economic turmoil, pandemic, etc., have had impacts that are difficult to measure. Recent assessments noted in Section 3.5 have been able to give some indication of the impacts, but in the short term, such social disruptions and their longer term impacts are not completely known. This is of special concern since many of the communities identified, especially in Puerto Rico demonstrate vulnerabilities as measured by social indicators. Negative economic impacts from decreasing catches may be mitigated by a number of strategies, such as substituting other species, but also seeking alternative sources of income. Some of those strategies would depend upon the state of the larger economy which may or may not have recovered from the outside influences mentioned above.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 79
4.1.5
Effects on the Administrative Environment
Modifying management reference points including the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs does not typically result in substantial effects on the administrative environment. Alternative 1 is not expected to impact the administrative environment because it would not change the current management reference points. Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 would result in a short-term increased burden on the administrative environment through the need to take administrative action to specify new management reference points, including catch limits, and the required rulemaking to implement this management change. Once these changes to catch levels are implemented, the type of regulations needed to manage the fisheries that target spiny lobster would remain unchanged, regardless of the harvest levels set. The lower catch levels under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 could result in more accountability measures triggered and applied, which would have more administrative burden (discussed under Action 2 below). Some administrative burden is anticipated with respect to outreach as it relates to notifying stakeholders of the changes to harvest levels.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 80
4.2 Action 2: Spiny Lobster Accountability Measure (AM) Trigger Summary of Management Alternatives Alternative 1. No Action. Use the AM trigger described in the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP for spiny lobster, as follows: an AM would be triggered if spiny lobster landings exceed the spiny lobster ACL, unless NMFS’ SEFSC determines the overage occurred because data collection/monitoring improved rather than because landings increased. Landings from the following years, in order, would be used to evaluate an exceedance of the spiny lobster ACL. (1) Landings from 2018 (2) Landings from 2019 (3) Two-year average of landings from 2019 and 2020 (4) Three-year average of landings from 2019, 2020, and 2021 (5) Thereafter, a progressive running three-year average (2020-2022, 2021-2023, etc.). The NMFS Southeast Regional Administrator in consultation with the Council may deviate from the specific time sequences based on data availability. Alternative 2 (Preferred for all three island-based FMPs). Use the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM. An AM is triggered if average landings exceeded average ACLs in place during those years. The years of landings used to trigger an AM can be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available. Alternative 3. Use the most recent single year of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM. An AM is triggered if landings exceeded the ACL in place during that year. The years of landings used to trigger an AM can be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available.
4.2.1
Effects on the Physical Environment
For Action 2, effects to the physical environment would depend on the degree to which the AMs limit the number of days available for fishing activities targeting spiny lobster during the fishing season (i.e., the length of the fishing season reduction). Analysis of effects for Action 2 contains multiple assumptions: (1) landings of spiny lobster each year are at or near the applicable ACL; thus, the variability in landings is minimal; (2) if an AM is triggered the AM (i.e., fishing season reduction) is applied; (3) when the AM is applied fishermen stop fishing for spiny lobster in federal waters and do not shift effort to state waters; (4) spiny lobster fishermen only fish for spiny lobster (i.e., they would not target another species with the same gear when spiny lobster season is closed); and (5) fishermen do not increase effort in federal waters during the open part of the season to offset the closure, and the AM limits harvest to the ACL. Based on those assumptions, when an AM is triggered and applied, the shortened fishing season would correlate to fewer interactions between fishing gear and anchors and the bottom, which in turn would benefit the physical environment. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 81
Alternative 1 (No Action) would not revise the sequence of years of landings specified in the island-based FMPs in order to evaluate whether an AM is triggered (and subsequently applied). No additional benefits or costs to the physical environment would be expected under this alternative from those described in the island-based FMPs. Alternative 1 would use a combination of a single year of landings and multi-year average of landings to evaluate if an AM for spiny lobster is triggered. In general, using a multi-year average of landings to trigger an AM would dampen variability in the landings. Where there is minimal variability in the landings around the ACL, using an average would reduce the probability that an AM would be triggered and applied. For example, if one year of annual landings was minimally above the ACL and the other two years of annual landings were minimally below the ACL, then the three-year average would likely be below the ACL and would not trigger an AM. If not using an average, an AM would be triggered and may be applied in the year with the overage. Alternative 1 would not have the benefit of using average landings until the third year of implementation, increasing the likelihood that AMs would be triggered in the first two years after implementation. Thus, in the first two years following implementation, Alternative 1 would provide greater benefits to the physical environment than the subsequent years through the increased probability that an AM is triggered and applied and the length of the fishing season for spiny lobster, and thus the fishing effort and gear use, is reduced. Preferred Alternative 2 would compare a three-year average of landings to the average ACL during that time period to determine if an AM is triggered for spiny lobster. As explained above, using a multi-year average would be expected to dampen variability in the landings and trigger an AM-based closure less frequently. Therefore, Preferred Alternative 2 would be expected to provide fewer benefits to the physical environment expected through fishing season closures and the associated reduction in gear-bottom interactions when compared to the first two years of Alternative 1, which compare a single year of landings to the ACL. However, by the fourth year of implementation, Alternative 1 would also use a three-year average of landings as the AM trigger, and the effects of Preferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 from that time and later would be the same. Alternative 3 would potentially trigger an AM more often than Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2, as it compares a single year of landings to the ACL and would not be able to account for variability in annual landings in any year. Thus, Alternative 3 would be expected to provide the greatest benefits to the physical environment, followed by Alternative 1 and then Preferred Alternative 2. However, it is recognized that while landings of spiny lobster are generally harvested at a consistent level through time, the amount of landings could increase based on biological and economic factors (e.g., increased recruitment or market demand). If future landings of spiny lobster occur above the specified ACL on a consistent basis, or at a exponentially high level in a Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 82
single year, then the benefits of using a multi-year average to dampen variability in the landings would be reduced because that average could be above the ACL for multiple years. In those instances of high landings, using a single year of landings would also result in an AM triggered and applied in that single year, though AMs would not be triggered in later years when landings are reduced. In a three-year average scenario, however, averaging a single, very high year of landings could result in multi-years of average landings in excess of the ACL. If landings were well below the specified ACLs, then an AM would not be triggered and applied under the three alternatives. These scenarios would provide the upper and lower thresholds for benefits to the physical environment. Since future landings are difficult to predict, effects from this action to the physical environment are expected somewhere between the upper and lower bounds. In the event that AMs are frequently triggered and applied, and gear use and effort are reduced, benefits to the physical environment would be minimal in St. Croix and Puerto Rico due to the primary methods used to harvest spiny lobster (i.e., diving), and higher in St. Thomas and St. John due to the potential reduction in the use of trap gear.
4.2.2
Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment
The triggering and application of AMs (i.e., fishing season reductions) would be expected to result in positive biological/ecological effects through a reduction in fishing effort on the stock. Reduced fishing effort could result in a more natural size distribution of individuals and an increase in the abundance of individuals in the population, thus increasing the reproductive potential of the stock. Although negative effects could occur through the potential increase in regulatory discards caught during a closure, the discard mortality of spiny in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries was deemed negligible (SEDAR 57 2019). Under Alternative 1, which uses a prescribed sequence of years of landings to evaluate if an AM is triggered, AMs are more likely to be triggered in the first two years after implementation, as they compare a single year of landings to the ACL instead of using a multi-year average of landings. After the initial two years, a multi-year average of landings would be compared to the ACL, and AMs would be less likely to be triggered. Thus, in the first two years after implementation, if an AM is triggered and applied, resulting in a shortened fishing season, Alternative 1 would provide some benefits to the biological/ecological environment by reducing fishing effort for the species. These benefits may decline over time if the multi-year averages of landings used reduce the likelihood that an AM is triggered and applied. Preferred Alternative 2 would be expected to trigger an AM less frequently than Alternative 1, since it compares a three-year average of landings to the ACL, which would dampen the variability that may occur in the annual landings. This alternative would be expected to provide the least amount of benefits to the biological/ecological environment through the triggering and application of AMs. However, effects under Preferred Alternative 2 would be the same as Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 83
under Alternative 1 in the fourth year of implementation, as they would use the same three-year average of landings to evaluate whether an AM is be triggered. Alternative 3 compares a single year of landings to the ACL each year and would be expected to trigger and apply an AM more frequently when compared to Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2, which use a multi-year average of landings. Therefore, Alternative 3 would be expected to provide the greatest benefits to the biological/ecological environment through more frequent application of AMs and reductions in fishing effort on the spiny lobster stocks. The benefits to the biological/ecological environment discussed above were based on the likelihood of the AM being triggered and applied using alternative configurations of years of spiny lobster landings, with the main assumptions that landings occur at or near the specified ACL each year (i.e., they are not highly variable). If future landings are much lower than the ACLs, then an AM would not be triggered and applied under any of the alternatives, but maintaining harvest at or under the established harvest levels would be beneficial to the species. If future landings increase substantially above the specified ACLs, an AM would likely be triggered and applied under all alternatives, and benefits to the stock from the fishing season reduction would help offset the costs of harvesting above the ACL. It should also be noted that the extent of the biological benefits from an AM-based closure would depend on the degree that fishermen shift harvest of spiny lobster to state waters, or for those fishermen that use trap gear, they continue using traps to harvest other species (e.g., reef fish), during a spiny lobster fishing season reduction. If this shift happens, and harvest of lobster continues regardless of AMs triggered and applied, then there would be no benefits to the biological/ecological environment under any of the alternatives. However, that extreme scenario is not anticipated to occur, and it is expected that any AMs triggered and applied would equate to reduced effort and protections to the stock. When an AM is triggered and applied, the reduction in the length of the fishing season would potentially result in a decrease of interactions between the ESA-listed species in the action area (e.g., sea turtles, finfish, and corals) and the gear types and fishing methods used to harvest spiny lobster (e.g., trap gear, diving, and vessel anchors). The magnitude of those benefits would depend on the length of the season reduction, which are dependent on future landings and difficult to predict. As described above, more frequent AMs would be expected under alternatives that compare a single year of landings to the ACL (Alternative 3 and years 1 and 2 following implementation of Alternative 1) compared to alternatives that use a multi-year average of landings (Preferred Alternative 2 and years 3 and later following implementation of Alternative 1). Therefore, Alternative 3 would likely provide greater benefits to the ESA-listed species in the action area when compared to Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 84
4.2.3
Effects on the Economic Environment
The AMs outlined in Action 2 are meant to provide some measure of protection to the respective spiny lobster stocks in the unforeseen situation that harvests exceed ACLs. This protection comes about via subsequent application of AMs (which would be fishing season reductions in federal waters). Two types of costs are associated with the triggering and application of AMs. First, there are costs to the fishermen through increased uncertainty regarding future fishing practices and thus the inability to adequately plan. Business practices are most efficient when uncertainties are held to a minimum. Increasing the applications of AMs leads to greater planning uncertainty by the commercial fishing sector and may also result in greater costs associated with, say, movement of traps from federal waters to state waters. Frequent applications of AMs also impose greater costs to the federal government than when applications of AMs are less frequent. Under Action 2, Preferred Alternative 2 would use the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM where an AM is triggered if average landings exceeded average ACLs in place during those years. Only the most recent single year of spiny lobster landings would be used to trigger an AM under Alternative 3 in which case an AM is triggered if landings exceeded the ACL in place during that year. Under Alternative 1 (the status quo alternative) a multi-year sequence (one year, one year, two years, and finally a three-year average) would continue to be used to estimate landings in relation to the ACL. The most frequent triggers and application of AMs are expected to occur under Alternative 3. Frequent triggers and application of AMs may simply represent large external recruitment to the local fisheries or, in the case of Puerto Rico, use of an expansion factor that may inaccurately expand the sample of trips and landings to the population of trips and landings. Thus, Alternative 3 would generate the greatest adverse economic effects with benefits not significantly greater than those which would be provided under Alternative 1 or Preferred Alternative 2. The benefit, of course, would be protection of the stock but this must be weighed against the probability that a single year of an abnormally high harvest (i.e., a harvest exceeding the ACL) could be the result of a (previous) favorable external recruitment versus excess fishing on the local stock which, in turn, could lead to future local recruitment problems. Alternative 1 is a hybrid of Preferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Given that it uses only a single year for triggering the application of AMs during the first two years of the program, it initially suffers from the same shortcoming as that discussed with respect to Alternative 3. This shortcoming though is temporary in that the effects of Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 would be the same once they use the same three-year moving average.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 85
4.2.4
Effects on the Social Environment
Accountability measures provide some fail safe for management in case unforeseen overages occur in harvesting a resource. The AM revisions proposed in Action 2 are an attempt to capture some variability that occurs with the landings over time while also providing for the delayed landings data that occur for the Caribbean by proposing multi-year averages. With Alternative 1, there would initially be the possibility that AMs would be triggered more frequently with single years being used until a time series is established. This may produce short term negative social impacts if they are indeed triggered and applied annually, but at the same time would have longer term benefits by protecting the resource. Again, the severity of the social impacts would depend upon whether fishermen can find suitable substitutes for spiny lobster in terms of markets and their annual fishing round. In contrast, Preferred Alternative 2 uses a three-year average from the beginning, so is an attempt to take into consider variability of landings over time. The proposed AM in Alternative 3 uses a single year as the measure to trigger an AM, but does not take into consideration of the variability of landings over time or how the fishery may be impacted by outside influences that were mentioned in Action 1. Which of these alternatives would have the least negative social effects is difficult to determine. The alternative that best reflects fishing trends and prevents overages from occurring is the more desirable. Those that incorporate running averages, and allow flexibility based on data availability, like the Preferred Alternative 2, may be more in tune with fishing practices at the time considered and what may occur in the future, and thereby be the more desirable in terms of reducing negative social impacts.
4.2.5
Effects on the Administrative Environment
Alternative 1 (No Action) would not require additional rulemaking and would therefore have no additional effects on the administrative environment. Preferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would both have minor, short-term administrative effects as they would require rulemaking to modify the AM trigger for spiny lobster under the three island-based FMPs. Under all alternatives, if an AM was triggered and applied, a temporary rule to implement an AM-based closure would be published by the agency as necessary. However, under Preferred Alternative 2, AMs may not be triggered and applied as often as under Alternative 1 or Alternative 3, thus reducing the administrative burden from the temporary rule process.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 86
4.3 Cumulative Effects Analysis While this environmental assessment (EA) is being prepared using the 2020 Council on Environmental Quality National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, the cumulative effects discussed in this section meet the two-part standard for “reasonable foreseeability” and “reasonably close causal connection” required by the new definition of effects or impacts. Below is the five-step cumulative effects analysis that identifies criteria that must be considered in an EA. 1. The area in which the effects of the proposed action will occur – The affected area of this proposed action encompasses the state and federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean and includes the communities of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix that fish for spiny lobster. For more information about the area in which the effects of this proposed action will occur, please see Chapter 3, Affected Environment, which describes these resources as well as other relevant features of the human environment. 2. The impacts that are expected in that area from the proposed action – The proposed action would (1) update management reference points for the spiny lobster stock in each island-based FMP including the MSY or MSY proxy, maximum fishing mortality threshold, and minimum stock size threshold following the accepted stock assessments (SEDAR 57 2019); (2) set OFLs, and ABCs for spiny lobster using definitions specified in the ABC Control Rule included in each island-based FMP and set ACLs from those ABCs, reducing those values from the OFL proxies, ABCs, and ACLs specified in the island-based FMPs; and (3) revise the spiny lobster AM so that the AM would be triggered if the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings exceeds the average ACLs in place during those years. The environmental consequences of the proposed action are analyzed in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2. Spiny lobster are primarily harvested via diving methods in Puerto Rico and St. Croix, which has minimal impacts to the benthic environment, and via trap gear in St. Thomas and St. John. Generally the decrease in the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs (Action 1) from the status quo should provide benefits to the physical environment through fewer gear-bottom interactions, assuming harvest is constrained to these lower levels. Due to the methods primarily used to harvest spiny lobster, those benefits would be expected to be minimal in Puerto Rico and St. Croix (i.e., spiny lobster primarily harvested via diving methods) and higher in St. Thomas and St. John (i.e., spiny lobster primarily harvested via trap gear) (Section 4.1.1). Fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John use trap gear to target multiple species , so changing fishing limits for one stock would not automatically change overall fishing effort. Setting OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs based on best scientific information available (i.e., SEDAR 57 and Tier 3 of the ABC Control) would be expected to provide increased benefits to the biological/ecological environment for spiny lobster through the increased conservation of the stocks (Section 4.1.2). Negative economic and social Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 87
effects short-term could occur from the decreasing catch levels (Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4), but those effects would be mitigated by the fishermen’s ability to shift fishing activities to other species (a higher probability in multi-species fisheries) or to state waters. In addition, long-term economic and social benefits could be expected, because managing based on best scientific information available better protects against the risk of overfishing and is more likely to provide for long-term use of the resource. Modifying management reference points is not expected to substantially affect the administrative environment, either adversely or beneficially (Section 4.1.5) because once the changes are implemented, the type of regulations needed to manage the fisheries that target spiny lobster would remain unchanged. Revising the AM trigger for spiny lobster to compare a three-year average of landings to the average ACLs during those years (Action 2) would increase the likelihood that an AM is not triggered and applied. Fewer AMs triggered and applied could result in more effects to the physical environment if more interactions between fishing gear and the bottom occur. However, due to the fishing methods primarily used to harvest spiny lobster in Puerto Rico and St. Croix (i.e., diving) few interactions would be expected to occur (Section 4.2.1). In St. Thomas and St. John, where the majority of spiny lobster are harvested using trap gear, fewer AMs could correspond to more effects to the physical environment. Similarly, fewer AMs triggered and applied would be expected to provide fewer benefits to the biological/ecological environment (Section 4.2.2). Revising the AM trigger, resulting in fewer AMs triggered and applied, would reduce negative economic and social impacts associated with AM-based closures in the shortterm (Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4). Long-term effects would depend on the extent to which AMs are necessary to protect and ensure the long-term access to the resource. Revising the AM trigger would have minor, short-term effects to the administrative environment through the rulemaking required to modify the AMs for spiny lobster, but would potentially have beneficial longer-term effects through fewer temporary rules required to announce AM-based closures (Section 4.2.5). 3. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have or are expected to have impacts in the area – Listed are actions under development in the U.S. Caribbean that would be expected to have impacts associated with them. Other fishery related actions – The island-based FMPs were approved by the Secretary of Commerce on September 22, 2020, and reorganized management measures from the U.S. Caribbean-wide level to each island management area. The cumulative effects associated with the island-based FMPs were analyzed in the EAs for the Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c). Those cumulative effects analyses (CEA) are incorporated here by reference. The majority of the management measures included in the U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs remained substantively unchanged under each island-based FMP, as the island-based FMPs incorporated most of those Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 88
management measures that applied within each island area. The EAs in the island-based FMPs analyzed cumulative effects of the actions included in the FMPs that modified management measures including: listing the species to be managed in federal waters; organizing how those species would be managed (as single stocks, in stock complexes, and with indicator stocks); revising or establishing (for species new to federal management) reference points (e.g., ACLs) and AMs; and updating framework procedures available for future management actions. The CEAs described how transitioning from U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs to island-based FMPs only rearranged past Council actions and would not affect past actions taken by federal or non-federal entities. Specific to spiny lobster, each island-based FMP retained management measures such as size limits and recreational bag limits and revised the management reference points, classifying spiny lobster as a Tier 4a stock (data limited with no accepted assessment, but the stock has relatively low vulnerability to fishing pressure) under the newly established ABC Control Rule. The CEA found that the overall impacts of the actions included in the islandbased FMPs would be minimal. Following the accepted SEDAR 57 stock assessments, spiny lobster would now be classified as a Tier 3 stock (data limited with an accepted assessment) under the ABC Control rule, and this action would revise the reference points specified for spiny lobster under the island-based FMPs. A goal of establishing the island-based FMPs was to ensure the continued health of fishery resources occurring in the exclusive economic zone surrounding each island/island group within the context of the unique biological, ecological, economic, and cultural characteristics of those resources and the communities dependent upon them. The island-based FMPs established a place-based framework designed to provide the foundation for conserving and managing the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries within an integrative, ecosystembased approach. The Council, in partnership with NMFS and other regional constituencies, is in the process of moving towards implementation of ecosystem-based fishery management (EBFM) in the U.S. Caribbean. EBFM enables a more holistic approach to decision-making by considering trade-offs among fisheries, aquaculture, protected species, biodiversity, habitats, and the human community, within the context of climate, habitat, ecological, and other environmental change. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Council would likely request the SEFSC provide an interim assessment for spiny lobster by 2023 to update OFL projections and set catch levels for 2024 and later years. That interim assessment would update the model projections used in the SEDAR 57 stock assessments with more recent commercial landings and length-composition data, as available, for each island/island group. Following that interim assessment, subsequent amendment and rulemaking would likely occur to update, at minimum, spiny lobster OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs. It is also anticipated that the Council would request that a future stock assessment for spiny lobster in each island/island group through the SEDAR process be planned
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 89
for a future date (see http://sedarweb.org/ for the SEDAR Assessment Schedule for the Southeast Region). Non-fishery related actions – Actions affecting the U.S. Caribbean fisheries, including effects of global climate change, were included in the CEAs for the island-based FMPs. Other issues affecting human communities (e.g., high fuel costs, increased seafood imports, restricted access to fishing grounds, regional economies) were considered in the island-based FMPs. Emerging information sheds light on how global climate change would affect, and is already affecting, fishery resources and the habitats upon which they depend. Impacts commonly mentioned are sea level rise, increased frequency of severe weather events, and change in air and water temperatures. In the U.S. Caribbean region, major climate-induced concerns include: (1) threats to coral reef ecosystems - coral bleaching, disease, and ocean acidification; (2) threats to habitats from sea level rise – loss of essential fish habitat; (3) climate-induced changes to species phenology and distribution, (4) changes in resource composition in fishing areas, (5) rise in temperature including ocean temperatures and their relationship to more severe and frequent storms, (6) droughts, and (7) effects on environmental justice. Climate change may impact spiny lobster stocks in the future (see Section 3.3.1.3), but the level of impacts cannot be quantified at this time, nor is the time frame known in which these impacts would occur. The proposed action is not expected to significantly contribute to climate change through the increase or decrease in the carbon footprint from fishing, as this action would not be expected to change how the fishery is prosecuted. In 2017, Hurricanes Maria and Irma severely affected all islands in the U.S. Caribbean region. Stresses to the social structures and economies of the islands caused by the hurricanes are discussed in detail in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. Socially and economically, impacts to gear and infrastructure were substantial, which prevented fishing in the short-term and caused some fishermen to modify their fishing methods, gear, or target species to adapt to new environmental conditions. Additional constraints occurred from loss of market demand due to increased emigration and reduced tourism. Tropical weather events would continue to be a certainty for the region, and experts predict that climate change would increase the frequency and severity of the tropical events. U.S. Caribbean fisheries experienced broad declines in both effort and harvest in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 public health crisis. Global protective measures (e.g., restaurant closures, social distancing protocols) instituted in March 2020 contributed to an almost-immediate impact on commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishermen. On March 15, 2020, the Governor or Puerto Rico instituted a 2-week closure (curfew) for the majority of businesses on the island of Puerto Rico. Although commercial fishermen were exempt from the curfew, 96% of those surveyed reported that COVID-19 related factors had affected their fishing operations and Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 90
resulted in decreased revenues (NMFS 2021a). In early 2020, many fishermen in USVI were still struggling to recover from the 2017 hurricanes, with charter fishermen just starting to recover from the decline in tourism related to hotel closures and infrastructure damage related to the storms. In mid-March 2020, the Governor of the USVI announced the closure of USVI to all tourists, which lasted until mid-July. After a brief reopening to tourism, the USVI was closed again once the COVID-19 threshold was exceeded. Of those surveyed, 87% of commercial fishermen in the USVI reported revenue losses (NMFS 2021a). COVID-19 significantly altered the environment related to the management of the nation’s fisheries and effects of the pandemic would be expected to continue in the U.S. Caribbean region, at least in the short-term. 4. The impacts or expected impacts from these other actions - The cumulative effects from managing fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean, including spiny lobster, have been analyzed in other actions as listed in part three of this section. They include detailed analysis of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries, effects on non-targeted and protected species, and habitats in the U.S. Caribbean. The effects of this action would be expected to be positive in the long term, as they ultimately act to maintain the spiny lobster stocks at a level that would allow the maximum benefits in yield and increased fishing opportunities to be achieved. Some short-term negative impacts on the social and economic environments could occur due to the lower ACLs when compared to the status quo and if AM-based closures related to those revised ACLs occur in the future. However, these effects would be reduced, compared to taking no action, as the stocks would be managed based on the best scientific information available. 5. The overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate – Cumulative effects resulting from the revision of spiny lobster management reference points and AMs, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would be expected to be minimal in each island-management area. Some minor short-term negative effects to the social and economic environments would result from the decrease in ACLs and any increase in associated AMs that are triggered and applied, although long-term positive effects would be expected through the increased conservation and continued access to the spiny lobster stocks. Conversely, positive effects to the physical and biological/ecological environments would be expected from decreased ACLs and increased AMs. No significant overall impacts to the biological/ecological environment, to protected species occurring within that environment, to the habitats constituting and supporting that environment, or to the dependent socio-economic environment would be expected from the cumulative past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions as it would not be expected to significantly affect current fishing practices (i.e., U.S. Caribbean fisheries would continue to target multiple species using multiple gear types; see Section 3.1). Similarly, no significant cumulative effects would be expected to result from reasonably foreseeable future actions that may be taken, by other federal or non-federal agencies in combination with this action. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 91
6. Summary - The proposed action is not expected to have significant effects to the physical, biological, economic, social, or administrative environments. Any effects of the proposed action, when combined with other past actions, present actions, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not expected to be significant. The effects of the proposed action are, and will continue to be, monitored through collection of data by NMFS, individual state programs, stock assessments and stock assessment updates, life history studies, economic and social analyses, and other scientific observations.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 92
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 5.1 Introduction The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for all regulatory actions that are of public interest. The RIR does three things: (1) it provides a comprehensive review of the level and incidence of impacts associated with a proposed or final regulatory action; (2) it provides a review of the problems and policy objectives promoting the regulatory proposals and an evaluation of the major alternatives that could be used to solve the problem; and (3) it ensures that the regulatory agency systematically and comprehensively considers all available alternatives so that the public welfare can be enhanced in the most efficient and cost-effective way. The RIR also serves as the basis for determining whether the regulations are a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria provided in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This RIR analyzes the impacts this action would be expected to have on the spiny lobster fishery of the U.S. Caribbean.
5.2 Problems and Objectives The problems and objectives addressed by this action are discussed in Section 1.2.
5.3. Description of the Fishery A description of the U.S. Caribbean spiny lobster fishery is provided in Section 3.1.
5.4 Impacts of Management Measures 5.4.1
Action 1: Spiny lobster Overfishing Limit (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), and Annual Catch Limit (ACL)
A detailed analysis of the economic effects expected to result from this action is provided in Section 4.1.3. The following discussion summarizes the expected economic effects of the preferred alternative. Preferred Alternative 3 selects a constant-catch approach for specifying the OFL and ABC for spiny lobster, and use the constant-catch ABC to derive the spiny lobster ACL (which equals OY). The analysis concluded that there are likely to be benefits from Preferred Alternative 3 in terms of enhanced stock protection associated with reduced risk of overfishing or venturing toward an overfished status. Preferred Sub-alternative 3b recognizes that that there is uncertainty in the management process and takes this uncertainty into account via providing an extra buffer between the ABC and ACL. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 93
These benefits, which cannot be quantified, likely differ by island (island group) with benefits to protection of the Puerto Rico stock being less than the benefits to the St. Croix stock and the St. Thomas and St. John stock. The analysis concluded that benefits are likely to be limited due to the fact that any action taken to protect the island-based stocks (i.e., accountability measures by way of fishing season reductions) are limited to federal waters. Given this to be the case, a certain segment of the commercial fishing population is likely to respond to fishing season reductions by migrating their fishing practices from federal waters to state waters. If the response to fishing season restrictions is significant (i.e., movement of fishing practices from federal waters to state waters) the Preferred Sub-alternative3b may fail to meet its objective (i.e., sufficient protection of the respective island spiny lobster stocks). While the focus of this discussion is on the outcome of the preferred alternative, it should be noted that all of the alternatives considered in the amendment suffer from the same shortcomings. Given that benefits cannot be adequately determined but may well dissipate due to response by fishermen to fishing season restrictions, one cannot conclude that the Preferred Alternative 3b outperforms the status quo (Alternative 1) from an efficiency (i.e., benefit/cost) perspective. Nor can it be asserted that the Preferred Sub-alternative 3b maximizes benefits vis-à-vis other non-status quo-considered alternatives in the amendment. Finally, it is noted that there are alternatives that would have lower long-run adverse effects associated with Preferred Subalternative 3b. However, these alternatives may inadequately account for management uncertainty so the lower long-run adverse effects may come at the cost of reduced benefits (i.e., associated with protection of the island-based stocks).
5.4.2
Action 2: Spiny Lobster Accountability Measure (AM) Trigger
A detailed analysis of the economic effects expected to result from this action is provided in Section 4.2.3. The following discussion summarizes the expected economic effects of the preferred alternative. Preferred Alternative 2 uses the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM. The AM is triggered if average landings exceeded average ACLs in place during those years. Two types of costs were identified with the triggering and application of AMs. First, there are costs to the fishermen through increased uncertainty regarding future fishing practices. Business practices are most efficient when uncertainties are held to a minimum. Increasing the applications of AMs leads to greater planning uncertainty by the commercial fishing sector and may also result in greater costs associated with, say, movement of traps from federal waters to state waters. Frequent applications of AMs also impose greater costs to the federal government than when applications of AMs are less frequent. Preferred Alternative 2 was found to minimize these costs vis-à-vis other alternatives. While the benefits of Alternative 3 (which would use the most recent single year of spiny lobster landings to Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 94
trigger an AM, where the AM is triggered if landings exceeded the ACL in place during the year), were found to exceed those of Preferred Alternative 2, it was concluded that these provided benefits did not outweigh the added cost.
5.5 Public and Private Costs of Regulations The preparation, implementation, enforcement, and monitoring of this or any federal action involves the expenditure of public and private resources which can be expressed as costs associated with the regulations. Estimated costs associated with this action include: Council costs of document preparation, meetings, public hearings, and information dissemination NMFS administrative costs of document preparation, meetings, and review TOTAL
$TBD $120,000 $TBD
The estimate provided here does not include any law enforcement costs.
5.6 Determination of Significant Regulatory Action Pursuant to E. O. 12866, a regulation is considered a “significant regulatory action” if it is likely to result in: (1) an annual effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action take or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O. Based on the information provided above, this action has been determined to not be economically significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 95
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 6.1 Introduction The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is to establish a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA does not contain any decision criteria; instead, the purpose of the RFA is to inform the agency, as well as the public, of the expected economic impacts of the alternatives contained in the fishery management plan (FMP) or amendment (including framework management measures and other regulatory actions) and to ensure that the agency considers alternatives that minimize the expected impacts while meeting the goals and objectives of the FMP and applicable statutes. With certain exceptions, the RFA requires agencies to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for each proposed rule. The regulatory flexibility analysis is designed to assess the impacts various regulatory alternatives would have on small entities, including small businesses, and to determine ways to minimize those impacts. The following regulatory flexibility analysis was conducted to determine if the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or not.
6.2 Statement of the need for, objective of, and legal basis for the proposed rule The primary purpose and need, issues, problems, and objectives of the proposed action are presented in Chapter 1 and are incorporated herein by reference.
6.3 Identification of federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule No federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.
6.4 Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed action would apply The rule concerns recreational and commercial fishing for spiny lobster in federal waters in the U.S. Caribbean. Recreational fishermen (anglers) who fish for spiny lobster or any species are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6), whether fishing from forGeneric Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 96
hire fishing, private or leased vessels. Therefore, estimates of the number of anglers directly affected by the rule and any impacts on them are not assessed here. The rule would apply to businesses that operate in the commercial fishing industry and particularly, those that operate commercial fishing vessels that harvest spiny lobster in federal waters off Puerto Rico and the USVI. A business in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS code 11411) is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and its combined annual receipts that are no more than $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. The Puerto Rico fishery as a whole is estimated to generate direct revenues of $6.06 million (2020 dollars) annually, assuming current landings have fully recovered from the 2017 hurricane season (NMFS 2017), and the USVI fishery as a whole is estimated to generate direct revenues of $5.48 million (2020 dollars) annually, assuming full recovery from the 2017 hurricane season (Mapp 2017). 38 Therefore, all commercial fishing businesses in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix are small. In 2016, there were 1,074 licensed commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico (CFMC 2019a), and each of those licensed commercial fishermen represent a small commercial fishing business. In 2016, 811 of those commercial fishermen submitted catch reports and 383 of them submitted reports operated in federal waters (SERO Caribbean Branch logbook data 2020). Hence, it is estimated that 383 small commercial fishing businesses operate in federal waters off of Puerto Rico and up to that number may be directly affected the proposed rule. The most recent Census of Licensed Fishers of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) reported 119 licensed commercial fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John and 141 licensed commercial fishermen in St. Croix (Kojis et al. 2017), and each of those fishermen represent a small commercial fishing business. In 2011, 29.5% of licensed commercial fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John and 57.8% of commercial fishermen in St. Croix reported that they fished for spiny lobster. If those figures currently apply in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the USVI, then an estimated 35 small commercial fishing businesses in St. Thomas and St. John and 81 small commercial fishing businesses in St. Croix target spiny lobster and may be directly affected by the proposed rule.
6.5 Description and economic impacts of the compliance requirements of the proposed rule Action 1, Preferred Alternative 3, would use the constant-catch approach for specifying the overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) for spiny lobster, and use the constant-catch ABC to derive the spiny lobster constant-catch annual catch limit (ACL) (which equals optimum yield [OY]). Preferred Alternative 3b would set the OY and ACL equal to 38
This also assumes no reductions in landings and associated revenues due to COVID-19.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 97
95% of the ABC. Action 1, Alternative 1 (no-action alternative), would retain the OFL proxy, ABC, and ACL (which equals OY) for spiny lobster as specified under the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP for years 2021 and later while for earlier years, the OFL, ABC and ACL would be as specified under the Comprehensive ACL Amendment (CFMC 2011) (Table 6.1). Under Action 1, Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b, the ACLs 39 for spiny lobster would decrease in 2021 from the levels as specified in the island-based FMPs, decline again in 2024 and then remain constant at the 2024 figure (Table 6.1). Those decreases and the percent decreases from the current (baseline) ACL are stated in Table 6.2. Table 6.1. Spiny Lobster ACLs under Alternative 1 (no-action) and Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b of Action 1. Island Area Puerto Rico St. Thomas and St. John St. Croix
Relevant Fishing Seasons 2021-2023 2024+ 2021-2023 2024+ 2021-2023 2024+
Alt. 1 (Baseline) ACL (lb ww) 527,232 527,232 209,210 209,210 197,528 197,528
Preferred Alts. 3 and 3b ACL (lb ww) 369,313 366,965 142,636 126,089 140,667 120,830
Table 6.2. Decreases in spiny lobster ACLs under Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b by island area. Island Area Puerto Rico St. Thomas and St. John St. Croix
Changes in ACL (Alt. 1) (lb ww) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fishing Season 2021-2023 2024+ 2021-2023 2024+ 2021-2023 2024+
Changes in ACL (lb ww) (Preferred Alts. 3 & 3b) -157,919 (-42.76%) -160,267 (-43.67%) -66,574 (-46.67% -83,121 (-65.92%) -56,861 (-40.42%) -76,698 (-63.48%)
Table 6.2 above shows the maximum adverse impact on commercial landings (by weight) of small commercial fishing businesses, assuming commercial landings of spiny lobster would reach or surpass the baseline ACLs for all island areas each and every year, 100% of those landings are of spiny lobster from the EEZ, and there are accountability measures (AM) in place to keep those landings from exceeding the ACLs. These ACLs are for combined commercial and recreational landings; however, no recreational landings data are collected for spiny lobster in the U.S. Caribbean. Hence, the ACLs are determined using commercial landings data only. 39
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 98
The actual magnitude of the economic impact of Action 1, Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b, if any, on small businesses that harvest spiny lobster in federal waters is dependent on both the AM and AM trigger used to determine if the federal season should be closed early or not and the level of spiny lobster fishing effort in the EEZ. For example, there would be no actual adverse impact if there were no AM to limit landings to the ACL, no landings were from the EEZ, or if the AM trigger always generated an estimate of landings that is less than the baseline or proposed ACLs. Because the impacts of Action 1 are dependent on Action 2, the impacts of Actions 1 and 2 are evaluated jointly after the following description of Action 2. Action 2, Preferred Alternative 2, would revise the sequence of years of landings data that would be compared to the ACL(s) for triggering an AM for the spiny lobster stock under each FMP. The process for triggering an AM and the process for applying an AM would remain as described in each FMP. The revised sequence would apply to all three island areas. Under Action 2, Alternative 1 (no action), the sequence of landings used to estimate of spiny lobster landings in comparison to the ACL is as follows for fishing year beginning in 2021: single year’s landings in 2019, single year’s landings in 2020, 2-year average of landings from 2020 and 2021, 3-year average of landings from 2020 – 2022, and thereafter a running 3-year average of landings (2021-2023, 2022-2024, etc.). However, the Regional Administrator in consultation with the Council may deviate from the specific time sequences based on data availability. Under Action 2, Preferred Alternative 2 the sequence would be the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings, as estimated by NMFS and based on best scientific information available, and that 3-year average would be compared to the average of the ACLs for those years to determine if an AM is triggered. Preferred Alternative 2 bases the AM trigger on “best scientific information available,” which better defines when NMFS in consultation with the Council may deviate from the specific years of landings used as the AM trigger than the language “based on data availability” as under Alternative 1. Table 6.3 compares the sequences of landings under Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2. Table 6.3. Comparison of Action 2, Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 sequences of landings used to estimate landings for comparison with the ACL.
1
Fishing Season 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Alternative 1 (No-Action) Landings compared to ACL1 1-year (2019) 1-year (2020) 2-year average (2020 & 2021) 3-year average (2020 – 2022) 3-year average (2021 – 2023)
Preferred Alternative 2 Landings Compared to ACL 3-year average (2017 – 2019) 3-year average (2018 – 2020) 3-year average (2019 – 2021) 3-year average (2020 – 2022) 3-year average (2021 – 2023)
Assuming island-based FMPs are implemented in 2021, and there is two-year lag on data availability.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 99
Implementation of the island-based FMPs will change the baseline estimates and ACLs in 2021. Consequently, baseline estimates and ACLs prior to 2021 are not relevant for evaluating the impacts of baseline estimates and ACLs after 2020. However, annual landings of spiny lobster during the period from 2012 through 2019 are highly relevant and represent the expected range of landings from 2021 and later. Puerto Rico There were no single year of annual landings in Puerto Rico from 2012 through 2019 that would exceed the baseline ACL of 527,232 lb (Alternative 1 of Action 1). 40 Annual landings during that 8-year period range from 275,424 to 520,829 lb (Figure 6.1). Consequently, it is expected that there would be no overages under the baseline ACL and baseline estimates (Alternative 1 of Action 2) from 2021 through 2025 in Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0
1
2
3
4
5
Landings
6
7
8
Baseline ACL
Figure 6.1. Range of annual landings and baseline ACL, Puerto Rico. (Source: NMFS SERO 2021).
For Puerto Rico, the preferred ACL (Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b of Action 1) would be less than the preferred estimate (Preferred Alternative 2 of Action 2) for 2021 and there would be an overage of 61,693 lb (Table 6.4). If NMFS reduces the 2021 season because NMFS expects 2021 landings are at the rate to duplicate that overage, there would be an associated reduction of dockside revenue of $442,339 (2020 dollars), 41 which represents approximately 7% of the value of Puerto Rico’s commercial sector from all landings. However, if NMFS expects For the purpose of this analysis, the baseline ACL is the ACL established under the Puerto Rico FMP. The Puerto Rico FMP has been approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and NMFS is in the process of developing a proposed rule to implement the Puerto Rico FMP. The Puerto Rico FMP will replace the aspects of the Spiny Lobster FMP that apply to Puerto Rico, and therefore we are not considering whether landings would exceed the ACL under the Spiny Lobster FMP. In the past, landings have exceeded the ACL under the Spiny Lobster FMP (327,920 lb), and AMs have been triggered and applied (see, e.g., 86 FR 40787, July 29, 2021). 41 Using an average price per pound of $7.17 (2020 dollars). Matos-Caraballo et al (SEDAR57-RD-21) report an average price of $6.42 in 2013. That price is adjusted to 2020 dollars using the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s (BEA’s) GDP deflator as of May 27, 2021. 40
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 100
2021 landings are not at the rate to exceed the proposed ACL because of COVID-19 and/or other factors, there would be no shortening of the 2021 season in the EEZ off Puerto Rico. Therefore, the economic impact of the proposed rule on Puerto Rico small commercial fishing businesses could range from $0 to $442,339 (2020 dollars) in 2021. The highest and lowest 3-year averages of landings in Puerto Rico from 2012 through 2019 are used to evaluate a range of the impact from 2022 through 2025. The highest 3-year average is 486,343 lb, which is greater than the proposed ACL (Table 6.4), and the lowest 3-year average is 311,808 lb, which is lower than the proposed ACL (Table 6.5). If NMFS expects the rates of landings during those four years to be on pace with the highest 3-year average, there would be overage determinations and the seasons would be shortened to reduce landings and associated dockside revenues ranging from 117,030 to 119,378 lb and $839,107 to $855,942 (2020 dollars) per season (Table 6.6). However, if NMFS expects the rates of landings during those years to be on pace with the lowest 3-year average, there would be no overage determination, no shortening of the seasons, and no reduction/loss of dockside revenue in Puerto Rico (Table 6.5). Over the 5year period from 2021 through 2025, the maximum average annual impact would be a reduction of combined annual revenues of $766,486 (2020 dollars), which represents approximately 13% of the average annual dockside revenue from all commercial landings in Puerto Rico. Table 6.4. Maximum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for Puerto Rico, 2021 - 2025. Fishing Season
Landings Estimate (lb)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
431,006 (Ave. 2017-2019) 486,343 486,343 486,343 486,343
Proposed ACL (lb) 369,313 369,313 369,313 366,965 366,965
Overage (lb) 61,693 117,030 117,030 119,378 119,378
Table 6.5. Minimum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for Puerto Rico, 2021 - 2025. Fishing Season
Landings Estimate (lb)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
431,006 (Ave. 2017-2019) 311,808 311,808 311,808 311,808
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Proposed ACL (lb) 369,313 369,313 369,313 366,965 366,965
Overage (lb) 61,693 None None None None
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 101
Table 6.6. Range of impacts in Puerto Rico, 2021 – 2025. Fishing Season 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Overage (lb) 0 to 61,693 0 to 117,030 0 to 117,030 0 to 119,378 0 to 119,378
Loss of Dockside Revenue $0 to $442,339 $0 to $839,105 $0 to $839,105 $0 to $855,940 $0 to $855,940
St. Thomas and St. John There were no single year of annual landings in St. Thomas and St. John from 2012 through 2019 that would exceed the baseline ACL of 209,201 lb (Alternative 1 of Action 1). 42 Annual landings during that 8-year period range from 83,157 to 121,695 lb (Figure 6.2). Consequently, it is expected that there would be no overage determinations and no shortenings of the seasons under the baseline ACL and baseline estimates (Alternative 1 of Action 2) from 2021 through 2025.
St. Thomas/St. John 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0
1
2
3
4
5
Landings
6
7
8
Baseline ACL
Figure 6.2. Range of annual landings and baseline ACL, St. Thomas and St. John. (Source: NMFS SERO 2021).
Preferred alternatives of Actions 1 and 2 would not result in an overage determination in St. Thomas and St. John in 2021 (Table 6.7). The highest and lowest 3-year averages of landings in St. Thomas and St. John from 2012 through 2019 are used to evaluate a range of the impact from 2022 through 2025. The highest 3-year average is 107,804 lb and the lowest is 84,793 lb, and For the purpose of this analysis, the baseline ACL is the ACL established under the St. Thomas and St. John FMP. The St. Thomas and St. John FMP has been approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and NMFS is in the process of developing a proposed rule to implement the St. Thomas and St. John FMP. The St. Thomas and St. John FMP will replace the aspects of the Spiny Lobster FMP that apply to St. Thomas and St. John, and therefore we are not considering whether landings would exceed the ACL under the Spiny Lobster FMP. Landings have not exceeded the ACL under the Spiny Lobster FMP for St. Thomas and St, John (104,199 lb), and AMs have not been triggered and applied.
42
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 102
both are lower than the proposed ACL (Tables 6.7 and 6.8). Consequently, the proposed rule is expected to have no adverse (or beneficial) impact on small commercial fishing businesses of St. Thomas and St. John. Table 6.7. Maximum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Thomas and St. John, 2021 - 2025. Fishing Season
Landings Estimate (lb)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
88,906 (Ave. 2017 – 2019 107,804 107,804 107,804 107,804
Proposed ACL (lb) 142,636 142,636 142,636 126,089 126,089
Overage (lb) None None None None None
Table 6.8. Minimum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Thomas and St. John, 2021 - 2025. Fishing Season
Landings Estimate (lb)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
88,906 (Ave. 2017 – 2019 84,793 84,793 84,793 84,793
Proposed ACL (lb) 142,636 142,636 142,636 126,089 126,089
Overage (lb) None None None None None
St. Croix There were no single year of annual landings in St. Croix from 2012 through 2019 that would exceed the baseline ACL of 197,528 lb (Alternative 1 of Action 1). 43 Annual landings during that 8-year period range from 10,970 to 87,073 lb (Figure 6.3). Consequently, it is expected that there would be no overage determinations and no shortenings of the seasons in the EEZ off St. Croix under the baseline ACL and baseline estimates (Alternative 1 of Action 2) from 2021 through 2025.
For the purpose of this analysis, the baseline ACL is the ACL established under the St. Croix FMP. The St. Croix FMP has been approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and NMFS is in the process of developing a proposed rule to implement the St. Croix FMP. The St. Croix FMP will replace the aspects of the Spiny Lobster FMP that apply to St. Croix, and therefore we are not considering whether landings would exceed the ACL under the Spiny Lobster FMP. In 2013, NMFS determined that landings exceeded the ACL under the Spiny Lobster FMP for St, Croix, (107,307 lb), and that the exceedance was not due to enhanced reporting, and an AM was triggered and applied (78 FR 18247, March 26, 2013).
43
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 103
St. Croix 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0
1
2
3
4 Landings
5
6
7
8
Baseline ACL
Figure 6.3. Range of annual landings and baseline ACL, St. Croix. (Source: NMFS SERO 2021).
The preferred alternatives of Actions 1 and 2 would not result in an overage determination in St. Croix in 2021 (Table 6.9). The highest and lowest 3-year averages of landings in St. Croix from 2012 through 2019 are used to evaluate a range of the impact from 2022 through 2025. The highest 3-year average is 63,811 lb and the lowest is 17,628 lb, and both are lower than the proposed ACL (Tables 6.9 and 6.10). Consequently, the proposed rule is expected to have no adverse (or beneficial) impact on small commercial fishing businesses of St. Croix. Table 6.9. Maximum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Croix, 2021 2025. Fishing Season
Landings Estimate (lb)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
17,628 (Ave. 2017 – 2019 63,811 63,811 63,811 63,811
Proposed ACL (lb) 140,667 140,667 140,667 120,830 120,830
Overage (lb) None None None None None
Table 6.10. Minimum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Croix, 2021 2025. Fishing Season
Landings Estimate (lb)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
17,628 (Ave. 2017 – 2019 17,628 17,628 17,628 17,628
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Proposed ACL (lb) 140,667 140,667 140,667 120,830 120,830
Overage (lb) None None None None None
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 104
Conclusion The proposed rule would have no adverse (or beneficial) impacts on small commercial fishing businesses of St. Thomas and St. John or St. Croix. The proposed rule would have an adverse impact on small commercial fishing businesses of Puerto Rico that could range from $0 to $766,486 (2020 dollars), which represents approximately 13% of the average annual dockside revenue from all commercial landings in Puerto Rico. An estimated 383 small businesses fish in the EEZ off Puerto Rico and may harvest spiny lobster. The average annual loss per small business would range from $0 to $2,001 (2020 dollars).
6.6 Significance of economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities There would be no significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses in either St. Thomas and St. John or St. Croix. However, there could be from no adverse impact to a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small commercial fishing businesses in Puerto Rico. As stated above, the average annual loss of annual dockside revenue from spiny lobster landings could range from 0% to 13%. Spiny lobster is a highly valued species, and it is the highest valued shellfish, with an estimated average price of $7.49 in 2019 dollars (MatosCaraballo 2006 for 2004 price and BEA GDP deflator issued July 29, 2021, for 2019 price). An estimated 49% of Puerto Rico’s active commercial fishermen target spiny lobster (Agar and Matos-Caraballo 2012). Description of significant alternatives Considered, but not selected, alternatives to Action 1 would have higher or lower ACLs than the preferred alternative. All, but the no-action alternative (Alternative 1), would reduce the ACL from its baseline and the amounts of those reductions for Puerto Rico are shown in Table 6.11. Generally the more the ACL is reduced, the larger the potential adverse impact because associated dockside revenues is similarly reduced. Hence, Alternatives 2c and 3c of Action 1 would have larger maximum adverse impacts than Preferred Alternative 3b, assuming the same baseline landings, while Alternatives 2a and 3a would have smaller maximum adverse impact than the preferred alternative. Table 6.11. Comparison of reductions of spiny lobster ACL (lb) for Puerto Rico by alternative, Action 1. Year
2a (lb)
2b (lb)
2c (lb)
3a (lb)
3c (lb)
Preferred 3b (lb)
2021
-135,645
-155,224
-174,804
-138,482
-177,357
-157,919
2022
-138,849
-158,268
-177,687
-138,482
-177,357
-157,919
2023
-140,953
-160,267
-179,581
-138,482
-177,357
-157,919
2024
-140,953
-160,267
-179,581
-140,953
-179,581
-160,267
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 105
Year
2a (lb)
2b (lb)
2c (lb)
3a (lb)
3c (lb)
Preferred 3b (lb)
2025
-140,953
-160,267
-179,581
-140,953
-179,581
-160,267
Average
-139,471
-158,859
-178,247
-139,470
-178,247
-158,858
A considered, but not selected, alternative (Alternative 3) to Action 2 would have the estimate of landings based on the most recent single year’s landings. Such an estimate is vulnerable to atypical fluctuations, and, consequently, that alternative would likely result in more seasons being shortened than the preferred alternative (Preferred Alternative 2). Hence, the adverse impact on small businesses, especially in Puerto Rico, would likely be greater under Alternative 3 than the preferred alternative.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 106
Chapter 7. List of Preparers List of personnel that assisted with development of the Generic Framework Amendment and Environmental Assessment. Table 7.1. List of interdisciplinary plan team members and other contributors. Name
Agency
Title
Graciela García-Moliner
CFMC
IPT Co-lead / Fishery Biologist
Liajay Rivera
CFMC
Technical Assistant for Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management
Sarah Stephenson
NMFS/SFD
IPT Co-lead / Fishery Biologist
María del Mar López
NMFS/SFD
Caribbean Operations Branch Lead / Fishery Biologist
Michael Jepson
NMFS/SFD
Anthropologist
Denise Johnson
NMFS/SFD
Economist
Ed Glazer
NMFS/SFD
Fisheries Social Scientist
Adam Bailey
NMFS/SFD
Technical Writer
Michael Larkin
NMFS/SFD
Data Analyst
Patrick O’Pay
NMFS/PRD
Fishery Biologist
Adyan Rios
NMFS/SEFSC
Biologist
Brent Stoffle
NMFS/SEFSC
Anthropologist
Noah Silverman
NMFS/SERO
Regional NEPA Coordinator
Jocelyn D’Ambrosio
NOAA/GC
Attorney
Miguel Borges
NOAA/OLE
Enforcement Officer
CFMC = Caribbean Fishery Management Council, NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service, SFD = Sustainable Fisheries Division, PRD = Protected Resources Division, SEFSC = Southeast Fisheries Science Center, SERO = Southeast Regional Office, GC = General Counsel, OLE= Office of Law Enforcement
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 7. List of Preparers 107
Chapter 8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted Department of Commerce Office of General Counsel National Marine Fisheries Service Office of General Counsel National Marine Fisheries Service Office of General Counsel Southeast Region National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service Silver Spring Office National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Law Enforcement Southeast Division United States Coast Guard United States Department of the Interior U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources Puerto Rico Junta de Calidad Ambiental (Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board)
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
108
Chapter 8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted
Chapter 9. References Agar, J. J.,and M. Shivlani. 2016. Socio-economic study of the hook and line fishery in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (2014). Marine Fisheries Review. 78(3-4): 12-21. Agar, J. J., M. Shivlani, and D. Solis. 2017. The Commercial Trap Fishery in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico: an Economic, Social, and Technological Profile. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Vol. 37(4):778-788. https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2017.1317678. Agar, J. J., M. Shivlani, and D. Matos-Caraballo. 2020. The aftermath of Hurricane María on Puerto Rican small-scale fisheries. Coastal Management. Volume 48, Number 5, pp. 378-397. Ayala, H. 2017. “How Puerto Rico’s Food Industry Is Picking Up the Pieces After Hurricane Maria” (December 8, 2017). Available at https://www.eater.com/2017/12/8/16739310/puertorico-restaurant-industry-farmers-hurricane-maria. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2021. National Income and Product Accounts. Price indexes for Gross Domestic Product. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2021. GDP for the U.S. Virgin Islands. Available at https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-us-virgin-islands-usvi. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2020. Prototype Gross Domestic Product for Puerto Rico, 2012–2018. Available at https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/prototype-gross-domestic-productpuerto-rico-2012-2018. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 1981. Fishery management plan, final environmental impact statement, and regulatory impact review for the spiny lobster fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 1998. Essential fish habitat (EFH) generic amendment to the fishery management plans of the U.S. Caribbean including a draft environmental assessment. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 169 pp + Appendices. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2004. Final environmental impact statement for the generic essential fish habitat amendment to: Spiny lobster Fishery Management Plan (FMP), Queen Conch FMP, Reef Fish FMP, and Coral FMP for the U.S. Caribbean, Vols. I and II. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 109
CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2005. Comprehensive amendment to the fishery management plans (FMPs) of the U.S. Caribbean to address required provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment). Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 533 pp + Appendices. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2011a. Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Queen Conch Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and Amendment 5 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. September 22, 2011. 523 pp + Appendices. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2011b. Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Amendment for the Fishery Management Plans of the U.S. Caribbean. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 407 pp. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2019a. Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan for the Puerto Rico Exclusive Economic Zone, environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and fishery impact statement. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 637 pp. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2019b. Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan for the St. Thomas/ St. John Exclusive Economic Zone, environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and fishery impact statement. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 507 pp. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2019c. Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan for the St. Croix Exclusive Economic Zone, environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and fishery impact statement. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 509 pp. Cobb, J. S. and D. Wang. 1985. Fisheries biology of lobsters and crayfish. In: Provenzano, A. J. (ed.) The biology of Crustacea, Vol. 10. Academic Press, New York, p. 167-247. Colburn, L.L. and M. Jepson. 2012. Social Indicators of Gentrification Pressure in Fishing Communities: A Context for Social Impact Assessment. Coastal Management 40(3): 289-300. Coleman, J. 2021. Puerto Rico debt restructure plan threatens public pensions (March 9, 2021). The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/542318-puerto-rico-debt-restructure-planthreatens-public-pensions. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 110
Congressional Research Service. 2018/2020. Economic and fiscal conditions in the U.S. Virgin Islands. EveryCRSReport.com. Crosson, S. 2018. Hurricanes Irma and Maria Damage Assessment: Provisional Results for the U.S. Virgin Islands Commercial and For-Hire Fisheries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 60-day Interim Report. In cooperation with the USVI Department Planning and Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Dorell, O. 2017. “Puerto Rico's farmers face near total loss from Hurricane Maria” (October 7, 2017). Available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/10/07/puerto-ricosfarmers-face-near-total-loss-hurricane-maria/736372001/. DPNR (Department of Planning and Natural Resources). 2005. United States Virgin Islands Marine Resources And Fisheries Strategic And Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 567 pp. Estudios Técnicos Inc. 2017. Preliminary Estimate: Cost of damages by hurricane María in Puerto Rico. https://estadisticas.pr/files/inlinefiles/Preliminary%20Estimate%20Cost%20of%20Maria-1.pdf. Goenaga, C. and R. H. Boulon, Jr. 1992. The State of Puerto Rican and U.S. Virgin Islands Corals. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. 66 pp. Hsiang, S. and T. Houser. 2017. “Don’t Let Puerto Rico Fall into an Economic Abyss” in New York Times Op-Ed (September 29, 2017). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/puertorico-hurricane-maria.html. Kaske, M. and J. Levin. 2020. “Puerto Rico Board Releases Emergency Funds After Earthquake” in Bloomberg.com (January 7, 2020). Available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-07/puerto-rico-board-releases-emergencyfunds-after-earthquake. Kendall, M. S., M. E. Monaco, K. R. Buja, J. D. Christensen, C. R. Kruer, M. Finkbeiner, and R. A. Warner. 2001. Methods used to map the benthic habitats of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Kanciruk, P. 1980. Ecology of juvenile and adult Palinuridae (spiny lobsters). Pages 59-96 In: J. S. Cobb and B. F. Phillips, eds. The Biology and Management of Lobsters, Vol. II, Ecology and management. Academic Press, New York. 390 pp.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 111
Kojis, B. and N. J. Quinn. 2011. Census of the marine commercial fishermen of the U.S. Virgin Islands (pp. 126): Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, US Virgin Islands. Kojis, B., N. Quinn, and J. Agar. 2017. Census of Licensed Fishers of the U.S. Virgin Islands (2016). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-715, 160 pp. Lloréns Vélez, E. 2018. “Puerto Rico Planning Board: Hurricane Maria had an economic impact of $43 billion” (December 5, 2018). Available at https://caribbeanbusiness.com/puerto-ricoplanning-board-hurricane-maria-had-an-economic-impact-of-43-billion/?cn-reloaded=1. Mapp, K.E. 2017. Written Testimony of Governor Kenneth E. Mapp of the United States Virgin Islands Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (November 14, 2017). https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=A2538A49-2953-4BA18C94-0807E62050A5 Matos-Caraballo, D., and J. Agar. 2011. Census of Active Commercial Fishermen in Puerto Rico: 2008. Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, Final Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 39 pp. Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A. 1998. Analysis of marine mammal strandings in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Pages 91-92 in The World Marine Mammal Science Conference, Monaco. Miller, R.T. 2020. “Puerto Rico's Big Pharma Push” in IndustryWeek.com (June 01, 2020). Available at https://news.pda.org/en/article/138737/puerto-ricos-big-pharma-push. Munroe, J.L. 1974. The biology, ecology, exploitation and management of Caribbean reef fishes. Scientific Rep. ODA/UWI Fish. Ecol. Res. Proj., 1969-73. Pt. V. 1. The biology, ecology, and bionomics of Caribbean reef fishes: VI. Crustaceans (spiny lobsters and crabs). Univ. W. Indies 2:<101. Dep. Res. Rep. No. 3. Kingston, Jamaica, 57 pp. New York Times. September 27, 2019. Updated June 1, 2020. $129 billion Puerto Rico bankruptcy plan could be model for states. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/business/puerto-rico-bankruptcy-promesa.html. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2020a. Fisheries of the United States, 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2018 Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/commercial-fishing/fisheries-united-states-2018 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2020b. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the authorization and management of the Puerto Rico fishery under the Puerto Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 112
Rico Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the St. Thomas/St. John fishery under the St. Thomas/St. John FMP, and the St. Croix fishery under the St. Croix FMP (SERO-2019-04047). NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2021a. Southeast Fisheries Impacts from COVID-19. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS. Available at: https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-02/Updated-COVID-19-Impact-Assessment-webready.pdf NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2021b. NOAA Fisheries Updated Impact Assessment of the COVID-19 Crisis on the U.S. Commercial Seafood and Recreational ForHire/Charter Industries. Updated Snapshot: January-July 2020. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries. Olcott, P.G. 1999. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. USGS Rep. HA 730-N. Oxenford, H.A. and I. Monnereau. 2017. Impacts of Climate Change on Fish and Shellfish in the Coastal and Marine Environments of Caribbean Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Caribbean Marine Climate Change Report Card: Science Review 2017: 155–173. Phillips, B.F., J.S. Cobb, and R.W. George. 1980. “General Biology.” - In: The Biology and Management of Lobsters, Vol. I: Physiology and Behavior, pp 16-39. J.S. Cobb and B.F. Phillips, Eds. Academic Press, New York. Puerto Rico Tourism Company. 2021. Statistics. Available at www.prtourism.com. Reuters. 2021. Far from White House, Caribbean refinery to test Biden's promises on poverty and pollution (March 8, 2021). Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-caribbeanrefinery-environment-in/far-from-white-house-caribbean-refinery-to-test-bidens-promises-onpoverty-and-pollution-idUSKBN2B00DA. Robles, F. and L. Ferré-Sadurní. 2017. “Puerto Rico’s Agriculture and Farmers Decimated by Maria” in New York Times (September 24, 2017). Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/us/puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-agriculture-.html. Ross, E. and D. Behringer. 2019. Changes in temperature, pH, and salinity affect the sheltering responses of Caribbean spiny lobsters to chemosensory cues. Sci Rep 9, 4375. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40832-y SEDAR 57. 2019. Stock Assessment Report U.S. Caribbean Spiny Lobster Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review. North Charleston, South Carolina. https://sedarweb.org/sedar-57 Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 113
Sullivan, B. K. and E. Fieser. 2017. Maria latest threat to Puerto Rico after $1 billion Irma hit. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-19/hurricane-maria-heads-forpuerto-rico-after-dominica-strike. Stoffle, B., J.R. Waters, S. Abbott-Jamieson, S. Kelly, D. Grasso, J. Freibaum, S. Koestner, N. O’Meara, S. Davis, M. Stekedee, and J. Agar. 2009. Can an Island Be a Fishing Community: An Examination of St. Croix and its Fisheries. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-59. Stoffle, B., A. Stoltz, S. Crosson, and J.S. Tookes. 2020. In the Wake of Two Storms: An Impact Assessment of Hurricanes Irma and Maria on the St. Croix and St. Thomas Fisheries, USVI. The Applied Anthropologist. 40(2):23-33. U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Estimating Puerto Rico’s Population After Hurricane Maria: Revising Methods to Better Reflect the Impact of Disaster. Available at https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/08/estimating-puerto-rico-population-afterhurricane-maria.html U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. U.S. international trade data. Available at https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/data/index.html. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), National Resources Conservation Service, Caribbean Area. www.nrcs.usda.gov. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), Farm Service Agency. 2017. USDA provides support for hurricane-impacted dairies in Puerto Rico. News Release No. 0135.17. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/10/19/usda-provides-support-hurricaneimpacted-dairies-puerto-rico USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2020. Census of Agriculture. Available at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Outlying_Areas/Puerto_Ri co/prv1.pdf and https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Outlying_Areas/usvi.pdf. USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy), Energy Information Administration. Puerto Rico Territory Energy Profile. Updated November 19, 2020 and February 18, 2021. USDOL (U.S. Department of Labor), Bureau of Labor Statistics. National and State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 114
USVI BER (Bureau of Economic Research). November 2020. Selected Economic Indicators Review & Outlook. Fiscal Year-to-Date September 2020. USVI BER (Bureau of Economic Research). 2020. Review of the USVI Territorial Economy 2019. Available at http://usviber.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Review-of-the-Virgin-IslandsEconomy-Final-March-25-2020.pdf. Valdes Pizzini, M., J. Agar, K. Kitner, C. Garcia Quijano, M. Tust, and F. Forrestal. 2010. Cruzan Fisheries: A Rapid Assessment of the Historical, Social, Cultural, and Economic Processes that Shaped Coastal Communities’ Dependence and Engagement in Fishing in the Island of St. Croix, USVI. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFC-597. Valentin Ortiz, L. 2020. Power back on, but thousands still homeless, in quake-hit Puerto Rico. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N29I0GA. van der Elst, N.J., Hardebeck, J.L., and Michael, A.J., 2020, Potential duration of aftershocks of the 2020 southwestern Puerto Rico earthquake: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020– 1009, 5 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201009.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 115
Appendix A. Island-based Fishery Management Plans Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 116
Appendix B. Other Applicable Law The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) provides the authority for fishery management in federal waters of the exclusive economic zone. However, fishery management decision-making is also affected by a number of other federal statutes designed to protect the biological and human components of U.S. fisheries, as well as the ecosystems that support those fisheries. Major laws affecting federal fishery management decision-making are summarized below. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) All federal rulemaking is governed under the provisions of the APA (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II), which establishes a “notice and comment” procedure to enable public participation in the rulemaking process. Under the APA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is required to publish notification of proposed rules in the Federal Register and to solicit, consider and respond to public comment on those rules before they are finalized. The APA also establishes a 30-day wait period from the time a final rule is published until it takes effect, which can be waived in certain instances. The proposed rule associated with this framework amendment will include a request for public comment, and if approved, upon publication of the final rule, there will most likely be a 30-day wait period before the regulations are effective in compliance with the APA. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) The CZMA of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) encourages state and federal cooperation in the development of plans that manage the use of natural coastal habitats, as well as the fish and wildlife those habitats support. When proposing an action determined to directly affect coastal resources managed under an approved coastal zone management program, NMFS is required to provide the relevant State agency with a determination that the proposed action is consistent with the enforceable policies of the approved program to the maximum extent practicable at least 90 days before taking final action. NMFS may presume State agency concurrence if the State agency’s response is not received within 60 days from receipt of the agency’s consistency determination and supporting information as required by 15 C.F.R. §930.41(a). Upon submission to the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS will determine if this framework amendment is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management programs of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), to the maximum extent possible. Their determination will then be submitted to the responsible agencies under Section 307 of the CZMA administering approved Coastal Zone Management programs.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 117
Information Quality Act (IQA) The IQA (Public Law 106-443) effective October 1, 2002, requires the government to set standards for the quality of scientific information and statistics used and disseminated by federal agencies. Information includes any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts or data, in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual forms (includes web dissemination, but not hyperlinks to information that others disseminate; does not include clearly stated opinions). Specifically, the IQA directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies.” Such guidelines have been issued, directing all federal agencies to create and disseminate agency-specific standards to: (1) ensure information quality and develop a predissemination review process; (2) establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information; and (3) report periodically to OMB on the number and nature of complaints received. Scientific information and data are key components of fishery management plans (FMP) and amendments and the use of best available information is the second national standard under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. To be consistent with the IQA, FMPs and amendments must be based on the best information available. They should also properly reference all supporting materials and data, and be reviewed by technically competent individuals. With respect to original data generated for FMPs and amendments, it is important to ensure that the data are collected according to documented procedures or in a manner that reflects standard practices accepted by the relevant scientific and technical communities. Data will also undergo quality control prior to being used by the agency and a pre-dissemination review. Endangered Species Act (ESA) The ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.) requires that federal agencies must ensure actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify the habitat designated as critical habitat (habitat essential to the species’ conservation). The ESA requires NMFS to consult with the appropriate administrative agency (itself for most marine species, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for all remaining species) when proposing an action that may affect threatened or endangered species or critical habitat. Consultations are necessary to determine the potential impacts of the proposed action. They conclude informally when proposed actions may affect but are “not likely to adversely affect” threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat. Formal consultations, resulting in a biological opinion, are required when proposed actions may affect and are “likely to adversely affect” threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 118
NMFS completed a biological opinion on September 21, 2020, evaluating the impacts of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries on ESA-listed species. Refer to Section 3.2.2 for additional information. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) The MMPA established a moratorium, with certain exceptions, on the taking of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas. It also prohibits the importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the United States. Under the MMPA, the Secretary of Commerce (authority delegated to NMFS) is responsible for the conservation and management of cetaceans and pinnipeds (other than walruses). The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for walruses, sea otters, polar bears, manatees, and dugongs. In 1994, Congress amended the MMPA, to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. The MMPA requires a commercial fishery to be placed in one of three categories, based on the relative frequency of incidental serious injuries and mortalities of marine mammals. Category I designates fisheries with frequent serious injuries and mortalities incidental to commercial fishing; Category II designates fisheries with occasional serious injuries and mortalities; Category III designates fisheries with a remote likelihood or no known serious injuries or mortalities. To legally fish in a Category I and/or II fishery, a fisherman must obtain a marine mammal authorization certificate by registering with the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (50 CFR 229.4) and accommodate an observer if requested (50 CFR 229.7(c)) and they must comply with any applicable take reduction plans. NMFS has determined that fishing activities conducted under the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs will have no adverse impact on marine mammals. In the 2021 List of Fisheries published by NMFS, all gear types used to harvest spiny lobster (e.g., trap/pot, dive, hand/mechanical collection) in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries are considered Category III (86 FR 3028). This classification indicates the annual mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock resulting from any fishery is less than or equal to one percent of the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock, while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. This Framework Amendment does not change the list of authorized gear types in these fisheries and as such would not alter this determination. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) regulates the collection of public information by federal agencies to ensure that the public is not overburdened with information requests, that the federal government’s information collection procedures are efficient, and that federal agencies adhere to appropriate rules governing the confidentiality of such information. The PRA requires Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 119
NMFS to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget before requesting most types of fishery information from the public. This action does not contain a collection-ofinformation requirement for purposes of the PRA. Small Business Act The Small Business Act of 1953, as amended, Section 8(a), 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 636(j), 637(a) and (d); Public Laws 95-507 and 99-661, Section 1207; and Public Laws 100-656 and 101-37 are administered by the Small Business Administration. The objectives of the act are to foster business ownership by individuals who are both socially and economically disadvantaged; and to promote the competitive viability of such firms by providing business development assistance including, but not limited to, management and technical assistance, access to capital and other forms of financial assistance, business training and counseling, and access to sole source and limited competition federal contract opportunities, to help the firms to achieve competitive viability. Because most businesses associated with fishing are considered small businesses, NMFS, in implementing regulations, must assess how those regulations will affect small businesses. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) The Magnuson-Stevens Act includes EFH requirements, and as such, each existing and new FMPs must describe and identify EFH for the fishery, minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on that EFH caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of that EFH. The areas affected by the proposed action have been identified as EFH for managed species, as described under the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs. As specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, EFH consultation is required for federal actions, which may adversely affect EFH. Any required consultation requirements will be completed prior to implementation of any new management measures. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires federal agencies to consider the environmental and social consequences of proposed major actions, as well as alternatives to those actions, and to provide this information for public consideration and comment before selecting a final course of action. This document contains an Environmental Assessment to satisfy the NEPA requirements.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 120
Executive Orders E.O. 12630: Takings The Executive Order on Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, which became effective March 18, 1988, requires that each federal agency prepare a Takings Implication Assessment for any of its administrative, regulatory, and legislative policies and actions that affect, or may affect, the use of any real or personal property. Clearance of a regulatory action must include a takings statement and, if appropriate, a Takings Implication Assessment. The NOAA Office of General Counsel will determine whether a Takings Implication Assessment is necessary for this amendment. E.O. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Order 12866, signed in 1993, requires federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of their proposed regulations, including distributional impacts, and to select alternatives that maximize net benefits to society. To comply with E.O. 12866, NMFS prepares a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for all fishery regulatory actions that either implement a new fishery management plan or significantly amend an existing plan. RIRs provide a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits to society associated with proposed regulatory actions, the problems and policy objectives prompting the regulatory proposals, and the major alternatives that could be used to solve the problems. The reviews also serve as the basis for the agency’s determinations as to whether proposed regulations are a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria provided in E.O. 12866 and whether proposed regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E.O. 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations This Executive Order mandates that each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions. Federal agency responsibilities under this Executive Order include conducting their programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefit of, or subjecting persons to discrimination under, such, programs policies, and activities, because of their race, color, or national origin. Furthermore, each federal agency responsibility set forth under this Executive Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 121
Order shall apply equally to Native American programs. Environmental justice considerations are discussed in Chapter 3. The action in this framework amendment is not expected to negatively impact minority or lowincome populations. E.O. 12962: Recreational Fisheries This Executive Order requires federal agencies, in cooperation with states and tribes, to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities through a variety of methods including, but not limited to, developing joint partnerships; promoting the restoration of recreational fishing areas that are limited by water quality and habitat degradation; fostering sound aquatic conservation and restoration endeavors; and evaluating the effects of federally-funded, permitted, or authorized actions on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries, and documenting those effects. Additionally, it establishes a seven-member National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council responsible for, among other things, ensuring that social and economic values of healthy aquatic systems that support recreational fisheries are considered by federal agencies in the course of their actions, sharing the latest resource information and management technologies, and reducing duplicative and cost-inefficient programs among federal agencies involved in conserving or managing recreational fisheries. The Council also is responsible for developing, in cooperation with federal agencies, states and tribes, a Recreational Fishery Resource Conservation Plan, to include a five-year agenda. Finally, the Order requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a joint agency policy for administering the ESA. E.O. 13089: Coral Reef Protection The Executive Order on Coral Reef Protection (June 11, 1998) requires federal agencies whose actions may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems to identify those actions, utilize their programs and authorities to protect and enhance the conditions of such ecosystems; and, to the extent permitted by law, ensure that actions they authorize, fund or carry out not degrade the condition of that ecosystem. By definition, a U.S. coral reef ecosystem means those species, habitats, and other national resources associated with coral reefs in all maritime areas and zones subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States (e.g., federal, state, territorial, or commonwealth waters). The Comprehensive Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans (FMP) of the U.S. Caribbean (CFMC 2005) designated habitats of particular concern in Puerto Rico and St. Croix for managed corals and established management measures to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects caused by fishing on those habitats. There are no implications to coral reefs by the actions proposed in this amendment.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 122
E.O. 13132: Federalism The Executive Order on Federalism requires agencies, when formulating and implementing policies, to be guided by the fundamental Federalism principles. The Order serves to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the states that was intended by the framers of the Constitution. Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government closest to the people. This Order is relevant to FMPs and amendments given the overlapping authorities of NMFS, the states, and local authorities in managing coastal resources, including fisheries, and the need for a clear definition of responsibilities. It is important to recognize those components of the ecosystem over which fishery managers have no direct control and to develop strategies to address them in conjunction with appropriate international, state, tribal, and local entities. No federalism issues have been identified relative to the action proposed in this framework amendment. E.O. 13112: Invasive Species This Executive Order requires agencies to use their authority to prevent introduction of invasive species, respond to and control invasions in a cost effective and environmentally sound manner, and to provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded. Further, agencies shall not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere unless a determination is made that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize the risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions. This action will not introduce, authorize, fund, or carry out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere. E.O. 13158: Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Executive Order 13158 (May 26, 2000) requires federal agencies to consider whether their proposed action(s) will affect any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural or cultural resource within the protected area. This action will not affect any MPAs in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, or St. Croix.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 123
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 2. In § 622.440, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: § 622.440 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs). * * * * * (c) Spiny lobster--(1) For the 2021 through 2023 fishing years, the ACL is 369,313 lb (167,517 kg), round weight. For the 2024 and subsequent fishing years, the ACL is 366,965 lb (166,452 kg), round weight.
* * * * * 3. In § 622.480, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: § 622.480 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs). * * * * * 1
(c) Spiny lobster--(1) For the 2021 through 2023 fishing years, the ACL is 140,667 lb (63,805 kg), round weight. For the 2024 and subsequent fishing years, the ACL is 120,830 lb (54,807 kg), round weight. * * * * * 4. In § 622.515, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: § 622.515 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs). * * * * * (c) Spiny lobster--(1) For the 2021 through 2023 fishing years, the ACL is 142,636 lb (64,698 kg), round weight. For the 2024 and subsequent fishing years, the ACL is 126,089 lb (57,193 kg), round weight. * * * * *
2
Generic Framework Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix SERO
Modification of Spiny Lobster Management Reference Points Based on SEDAR 57 Stock Assessments 175th Caribbean Fishery Management Council Meeting August 11, 2021
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 2
Review from April 2021 Council Meeting Council reviewed actions in the draft framework amendment to the island-based FMPs, which updates spiny lobster management reference points following the accepted SEDAR 57 stock assessments and the change from Tier 4 to Tier 3 under the ABC Control Rule. Action 1 - Update spiny lobster OFL/ABC/ACLs using constantcatch or variable-catch approach. Action 2 - Update accountability measure (AM) trigger for spiny lobster. The framework amendment updates the maximum sustainable yield, overfished criteria, and overfishing criteria for spiny lobster in each island area based on outcomes from the SEDAR 57 stock assessments. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 3
Action 1 – Spiny Lobster OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs Alternative 3 (Preferred for each FMP): Select the constant-catch approach for specifying the OFL and ABC for spiny lobster and use the constant-catch ABC to derive the spiny lobster constant-catch ACL. Island/Island Group Puerto Rico St. Thomas/ St. John St. Croix
Year 2021-2023 2024+ 2021 - 2023 2024+ 2021 - 2023 2024+
Preferred Sub-alternative 3b (ACL = ABC * 0.95) 369,313 366,965 142,636 126,089 140,667 120,830 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 4
Action 2 – Spiny Lobster AM Trigger Alternative 2 (Preferred for each FMP): Use the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to evaluate whether an AM is triggered. An AM is triggered if average landings exceeded average ACLs in place during those years. The years of landings used to trigger an AM can be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available. Fishing Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Most Recent Landings Available* 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
AM Trigger Preferred Alternative 2 Three-year average (2018-2020) Three-year average (2019-2021) Three-year average (2020-2022) Three-year average (2021-2023) Three-year average (2022-2024)
* Assuming landings are available two years after when the fishing occurred (i.e., the fishing year). U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 5
Next Steps Council could vote to submit the amendment to the Secretary of Commerce for implementation. • Council give staff permission to make non-substantive, editorial changes. • Council give Chair permission to review changes and submit Rulemaking started • Proposed rule would include a 30-day public comment period • Final rule after the island-based FMPs are implemented (amendment likely effective in early 2022)
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 6
Questions
NOAA photo library U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 7
CFMC SOCIAL MEDIA CRISTINA D. OLÁN MARTÍNEZ
CONTENT Seasonal Closures
Meetings and Activities
Pictures
Educational Materials
New Publications
Content produced by agencies: NOAA, NWS, GCFI, NWS, SG, DPNR, DNER, USCG
Collaborations
Virtual Worshops
CFMC Monthly Bulletin
FB Lives
Videos
COLLABORATIONS
NEW VIDEOS!
• Cocinando con Ita y Ta (Cooking with Ita and Ta)
THANK YOU! • Fishers • Agencies • Followers • Scientists • CFMC Staff • Council members • Liaisons • OEAP Members • Fish and Seafood Consumers • Teachers and Students • NGOs • Sea Lovers
QUESTIONS? IDEAS?
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/southeast
08/05/2021
F/SER28:ML
Mr. Marcos Hanke, Chair Caribbean Fishery Management Council 270 Muñoz Rivera Ave Suite 401 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918 Dear Mr. Hanke, Thank you for your letter regarding the protection of Nassau grouper in the United States exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Caribbean. You have raised concerns that Nassau grouper, which is managed in federal waters under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is being harvested contrary to federal regulations. This information comes from a person in the U.S. Virgin Islands who did not provide specific details about the alleged noncompliance. Under its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) and NOAA Fisheries have prohibited harvest and possession of Nassau grouper in or from federal waters in the U.S. Caribbean. This prohibition was established under Amendment 1 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (1990) and implemented via regulations maintained by NOAA Fisheries. The prohibition is retained under each of the islandbased FMPs, and will be included in proposed regulations to implement those FMPs (currently under development). Under the regulations, it is unlawful to fish for or possess Nassau grouper in or from the EEZ (50 C.F.R. § 622.434(b)). Because the regulation applies to Nassau grouper “in or from the EEZ,” to establish a federal violation NOAA Fisheries must show that the fish was possessed in, or caught in, the EEZ. If a vessel is in possession of Nassau grouper in the EEZ, it is in violation of the federal regulation. If a vessel possessing Nassau grouper is outside the EEZ, it may still be a federal violation if NOAA Fisheries has evidence that the fish was harvested or possessed in the EEZ. Without such evidence, NOAA Fisheries may refer the violation to the appropriate territory for prosecution under its laws, if applicable. NOAA Fisheries does not have authority to enforce a territory’s laws, even if a territory’s law is compatible with the federal one. Nassau grouper also are protected under the ESA. On June 29, 2016, NOAA Fisheries issued a final rule listing Nassau grouper as threatened (81 FR 42268 (June 29 2016); 50 C.F.R. § 223.102(e)). As a threatened species, the prohibitions on “take” of the species under Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1538) do not automatically apply to Nassau grouper, and NOAA Fisheries has not taken regulatory action to extend those protections to the species. Under the ESA, take means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. § 1532(19)). Therefore, “take” of Nassau grouper is not a violation of the ESA. ESA protections for Nassau grouper include Section 7 consultations on
activities with a federal nexus that may affect Nassau grouper. For example, in a Biological Opinion issued on September 21, 2020, NOAA Fisheries evaluated the effect of the authorization and management of the fisheries under the island-based FMPs on Nassau grouper and other listed species. NOAA Fisheries concluded that authorizing the fisheries off Puerto Rico and St. Croix was not likely to adversely affect Nassau grouper, and that authorizing the fisheries off St. Thomas/St. John is likely to adversely affect, but not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of Nassau grouper. NOAA Fisheries established take limits for the St. Thomas and St. John managed fisheries, and reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions to minimize the impact of the take. These limits, however, are not individually enforceable. NOAA Fisheries encourages the Council to provide specific information about federal violations to the Office of Law Enforcement so that it may investigate them as early as possible. I look forward to working with the Council to develop strategies to protect Nassau grouper and other federally managed and protected species. Sincerely, STRELCHECK.AND Digitally signed by REW.JAMES.13658 STRELCHECK.ANDREW.JAMES .1365863152 Date: 2021.08.05 12:33:53 -04'00' 63152
Andrew J. Strelcheck Acting Regional Administrator cc:
F/SER2 - Jack McGovern F/SER28 – Maria Lopez-Mercer GCSE – Jocelyn D’Ambrosio GCES – Loren Remsberg OLE – Manny Antonaras CFMC – Miguel Rolón
2
Generic Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition
Including Draft Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Version 2 (DRAFT) August 2021
Environmental Assessment Cover Sheet Name of Action: Generic Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition. Responsible Agencies and Contact Persons Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) 270 Muñoz Rivera Ave., Suite 401 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903 (787) 766-5926 Graciela García-Moliner (graciela_cfmc@yahoo.com) Caribbean Council website National Marine Fisheries Service (Lead Agency) Southeast Regional Office 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 (727) 824-5305 Maria del Mar Lopez-Mercer (maria.lopez@noaa.gov) SERO Website Type of Action ( ) Administrative (X) Draft
( ) Legislative ( ) Final
This Environmental Assessment is being prepared using the 2020 CEQ NEPA Regulations. The effective date of the 2020 CEQ NEPA Regulations was September 14, 2020, and reviews begun after this date are required to apply the 2020 regulations unless there is a clear and fundamental conflict with an applicable statute. 85 Federal Register at 43372-73 (§§ 1506.13, 1507.3(a)). This Environmental Assessment began on DATE, 2021, and accordingly proceeds under the 2020 regulations.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
EA Cover Sheet II
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Document ABC ACL AM CFMC EA EEZ EIS FMP MSA MSY NMFS OFL OY SEFSC SSC USVI
acceptable biological catch annual catch limit accountability measure (Council); Caribbean Fishery Management Council environmental assessment exclusive economic zone environmental impact statement fishery management plan (Magnuson-Stevens Act); Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act maximum sustainable yield National Marine Fisheries Service overfishing limit optimum yield Southeast Fisheries Science Center Scientific and Statistical Committee United States Virgin Islands
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Abbreviations and Acronyms III
Table of Contents for the Environmental Assessment Table of Contents for the Generic Amendment Statement of Purpose and Need Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives Chapter 3. Affected Environment Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences List of Preparers List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Table of Contents for the EA IV
Table of Contents Environmental Assessment Cover Sheet ........................................................................................ II Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Document .................................................................. III Table of Contents for the Environmental Assessment .................................................................. IV Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... V List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. VIII List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ VIII Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1
What Action is Being Proposed ....................................................................................... 1
1.2
Why is the Council Considering Action?......................................................................... 2
1.2.1
Statement of Purpose and Need ................................................................................ 4
1.3
Where Will the Action Have an Effect?........................................................................... 5
1.4
History of Management .................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2.
Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................................................ 8
Action: Modification of the Buoy Gear Definition.................................................................... 8 Discussion of Proposed Alternatives .......................................................................................... 8 Chapter 3. Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 11 3.1
Physical Environment .................................................................................................... 11
3.1.1
Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 11
3.1.2
St. Thomas/St. John ................................................................................................ 11
3.1.3
St. Croix .................................................................................................................. 12
3.2
Habitat Environment and Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................... 12
3.3
Biological and Ecological Environment ........................................................................ 15
3.3.1
Description of the Species Affected by this Amendment ....................................... 15
3.3.2
Bycatch ................................................................................................................... 17
3.3.3
Protected Species .................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Description of the Deep-water Reef Fish Component of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix Fisheries .................................................................................................... 19 3.4.1
Deep-water Reef Fish Management........................................................................ 19
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Table of Contents V
3.4.2 Description of the Deep-water Reef Fish Component of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix Fisheries that is Harvested with Vertical Bottom line/Buoy Gear 21 3.5
Economic Environment .................................................................................................. 35
3.5.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 35
3.5.2
Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 36
3.5.3
St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John ................................................................... 42
3.6
Description of the Social Environment .......................................................................... 47
3.6.1
Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 47
3.6.2
St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John ........................................................................ 53
3.7
Description of the Administrative Environment ............................................................ 60
3.7.1
Federal Fishery Management .................................................................................. 60
3.7.2
Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Fisheries Management ................................. 61
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 63 4.1 Effects on the Physical Environment ................................................................................. 63 4.2 Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment............................................................ 63 4.3 Effects on the Economic Environment .............................................................................. 65 4.4 Effects on the Social Environment .................................................................................... 66 4.5 Effects on the Administrative Environment ...................................................................... 68 4.6
Cumulative Effects Analysis .......................................................................................... 69
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review ......................................................................................... 73 5.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 73
5.2
Problems and Objectives ................................................................................................ 73
5.3
Description of the Fisheries............................................................................................ 73
5.4
Impact of Management Measures .................................................................................. 75
5.5
Public Costs of Regulations ........................................................................................... 77
5.6
Determination of Significant Regulatory Action ........................................................... 77
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis ........................................................................... 78 6.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 78
6.2
Statement of the need for, objective of, and legal basis for the proposed rule .............. 78
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Table of Contents VI
6.3 Identification of federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule ............................................................................................................................. 78 6.4 Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed action would apply............................................................................................................................... 79 6.5
Description and economic impacts of the compliance requirements of the proposed rule 80
Chapter 7. List of Preparers ......................................................................................................... 82 Chapter 8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted........................................... 83 Chapter 9. References .................................................................................................................. 84 Appendix A. List of Managed Reef Fish and Pelagic Stocks Included in Each of the Islandbased FMPs ................................................................................................................................... 93 Appendix B. List of Species Identified in the Literature as Incidental Catch in the Deep-water Snapper/Grouper Fishery of Puerto Rico...................................................................................... 96
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Table of Contents VII
List of Tables Table 3.3.1. List of snapper and grouper species harvested in the deep-water vertical bottom line component of the reef fish fishery in each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix. . 16 Table. 3.4.1. Annual catch limits applicable to the deep-water reef fish component. Values are in pounds (lbs. whole weight) ....................................................................................................... 20 Table 3.4.2. Seasonal closures for snapper species in federal and state waters of Puerto Rico and the USVI. ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 3.4.3. Adjusted pounds (whole weight) of some deep-water snapper-grouper species landed in Puerto Rico each year (all gear types)........................................................................... 24 Table 3.4.4. Number of commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico that landed deep-water species each year (all gear types) in all Puerto Rico waters. ..................................................................... 26 Table 3.4.5. Percent of deep-water species landings by weight in Puerto Rico for select gear types reported per distance from shore (i.e., state waters, federal waters, and unknown)............ 29 Table 3.5.1. Number of farms, total amount of farmland, and number of farms by land size, 2012 and 2018. .............................................................................................................................. 37 Table 3.6.1. Contemporary socioeconomic, demographic, and operational aspects of fishing in the USVI* ..................................................................................................................................... 55 Table 3.6.2. Summary information on multi-hook vertical set lines used to capture deep-water snappers and groupers in the USVI* ............................................................................................ 56
List of Figures Figure 1.1. U.S. Caribbean region with boundaries between the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix management areas. .......................................................................................... 5 Figure 3.4.1. Depiction of a vertical line (cala) (Source: Matos-Caraballo and Torres-Rosado 1989) ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 3.5.1. Labor force and unemployment rate in Puerto Rico, 2012 – 2020........................ 36 Figure 3.5.2. Puerto Rico real GDP (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2020. ....................... 38 Figure 3.5.3. Puerto Rico’s GNI per capita (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2019............. 39 Figure 3.5.4. Arrival guests through August of each year, 2017 – 2020. .................................... 41 Figure 3.5.5. Monthly labor force, January 2019 – December 2020. ......................................... 41 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Table of Contents VIII
Figure 3.5.6. Construction jobs in USVI, January 2017 – September 2019. .............................. 42 Figure 3.5.7. Employees in construction, mining and logging sector in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. ................................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 3.5.8. Employees in the leisure and hospitality, manufacturing, and trade, transportation and utilities sectors in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. ...................................................... 44 Figure 3.5.9. Total USVI visitor arrivals, 2016 – 2020. ............................................................. 45 Figure 3.5.10. Annual change in real GDP, 2016 – 2020. .......................................................... 45 Figure 3.5.11. Annual change in rum exports to U.S.................................................................. 46
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Table of Contents IX
Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1
What Action is Being Proposed
At the 170th Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting in August 2020, the Council requested staff begin work on an amendment to the Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Puerto Rico Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Puerto Rico FMP), the Comprehensive FMP for the St. Thomas and St. John EEZ (St. Thomas/St. John FMP), and the Comprehensive FMP for the St. Croix EEZ (St. Croix FMP), collectively known as the island-based FMPs, that would allow for the use of a specific hook and line gear type (buoy gear) to fish commercially for deep-water reef fish in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). This amendment to the island-based FMPs includes and is limited to an action to modify the definition of buoy gear. The Secretary of Commerce approved the island-based FMPs on September 22, 2020, and regulations to implement the plans are under development. The island-based FMPs are expected to be in effect in 2022. Buoy gear is an authorized hook and line gear type for the commercial harvest of reef fish in each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs. Other authorized gear types include automatic reel, bandit reel, handline, longline, rod and reel, trap, pot, and spear (50 CFR 600.725(v) gear table) (Table 1.1) 1. Appendix A.1 of this document lists the species included under the Reef Fish category of each the island-based FMPs. Deep-water snappers (e.g., queen snapper, cardinal snapper) which are mainly targeted with buoy gear are included under this category. Buoy gear is also an authorized gear type for the harvest of managed pelagic fish in each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs. Managed pelagic species are also listed in Appendix A.1. Federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 define hook and line as automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, and rod and reel. Under federal regulations, buoy gear is defined as follows: Buoy gear means fishing gear that fishes vertically in the water column that consists of a single drop line suspended from a float, from which no more than 10 hooks can be connected between the buoy and the terminal end, and the terminal end contains a weight that is no more than 10 lb. (4.5 kg). The drop line can be rope (hemp, manila, cotton or other natural fibers; nylon, polypropylene, spectra or other synthetic material) or monofilament, but must not be cable or wire. The gear is free-floating and not connected to other gear or the vessel. The drop line The regulations implementing the island-based FMPs have not yet been proposed for public comment, and thus the specific text included in the gear tables may change, but the authorized gear types will remain the same. 1
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
must be no greater than 2 times the depth of the water being fished. All hooks must be attached to the drop line no more than 30 ft. (9.1 m) from the weighted terminal end. These hooks may be attached directly to the drop line; attached as snoods (defined as an offshoot line that is directly spliced, tied or otherwise connected to the drop line), where each snood has a single terminal hook; or as gangions (defined as an offshoot line connected to the drop line with some type of detachable clip), where each gangion has a single terminal hook. Federal regulations also define other allowable gear types under the hook and line category: Automatic reel means a reel that remains attached to a vessel when in use from which a line and attached hook(s) are deployed. The line is payed out from and retrieved on the reel electrically or hydraulically. Bandit gear means a rod and reel that remain attached to a vessel when in use from which a line and attached hook(s) are deployed. The line is payed out from and retrieved on the reel manually, electrically, or hydraulically. Handline means a line with attached hook(s) that is tended directly by hand. Longline means a line that is deployed horizontally to which gangions and hooks are attached. A longline may be a bottom longline, i.e., designed for use on the bottom, or a pelagic longline, i.e., designed for use off the bottom. The longline hauler may be manually, electrically, or hydraulically operated. Rod and reel means a rod and reel unit that is not attached to a vessel, or, if attached, is readily removable, from which a line and attached hook(s) are deployed. The line is payed out from and retrieved on the reel manually, electrically, or hydraulically.
1.2 Why is the Council Considering Action? In Puerto Rico and the USVI, small-scale commercial fishermen harvesting deep-water reef fish, particularly snappers (e.g., queen and cardinal snappers) and groupers typically use a type of hook and line gear. The type of hook and line gear is known as vertical bottom line or “cala” in Puerto Rico and as deep-drop gear in the USVI. Vertical bottom line gear configuration and fishing methods used to harvest these deep-water snapper and groupers vary in terms of equipment and materials used, hook type, size and number, number of lines used, types of bait, soaking time, and fishing grounds. Calas or vertical bottom line gear can be either attached to the vessel while deployed in the water and retrieved with an electrical reel or unattached to the Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 1. Introduction 2
vessel while in the water in a buoy gear configuration until the lines are ready to be retrieved with an electrical reel. The buoy gear configuration is typically used by experienced fishermen targeting deep-water snappers and groupers in Puerto Rico and to a lesser extent in the USVI. This type of locally used buoy gear configuration is known as “cala con boya” in Puerto Rico and as “deep-drop buoy gear” in the USVI and is used to mainly fish for deep-waters snappers and groupers: cardinal and queen snapper up to 1500 ft (457m; 250 fathoms) and to a lesser degree for species in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix Snapper 1 stock complex (i.e., Puerto Rico: silk, black, blackfin, vermilion, and wenchman; USVI: silk, black, blackfin and vermilion). Buoy gear is defined in federal regulations applicable to Caribbean fisheries (see federal definition above), but deep-water snapper and grouper fishermen in Puerto Rico and the USVI have expressed to the Council during Council meetings that they would like to increase the maximum number of hooks that are allowed under the legal definition of buoy gear to reflect how the gear has been used in state waters in both Puerto Rico and the USVI. The buoy gear type defined in 50 CFR 622.2 cannot contain more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end, while state law does not impose a limit on the number of hooks on the the local deep-water reef fish buoy gear used in state waters. Therefore, in state waters, deep-water reef fish buoy gear can contain more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end depending on fisher’s preference, species targeted, fishing conditions, among other reasons. The use of any gear not listed as authorized for the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries is prohibited (50 CFR 600.725(v)). The authorized gears for those fishing commercially for reef fish and pelagic species managed under the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Thomas/St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP are automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, rod and reel, trap, pot, spear. A buoy gear configuration with more than 10 hooks between the buoy and the terminal end does not meet the legal definition of “buoy gear” in 50 CFR 622.2 and is not considered authorized “buoy gear.” Such gear does not meet the definition of any other hook and line gear authorized. Therefore, the local deep-water buy gear used in state waters mentioned above cannot be used by those fishing commercially for reef fish or other species managed under the island-based FMPs unless that gear type is added as an allowable gear type under the island-based FMPs for fishing for those species or the definition of buoy gear is amended to include more than 10 hooks. Alternatively, individuals may petition to use the gear. 2 In this amendment, the Council would modify the definition of “buoy gear” included in 50 CFR 622.2 to address the use of additional hooks preferred by some commercial
The federal regulations set forth a process for a person seeking to use a gear not authorized for a particular fishery to notify the appropriate Council, here the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, of the intent to use a the gear and to obtain permission to do so. See 50 CFR 600.725(v); 50 CFR 600.747.
2
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 1. Introduction 3
fishermen of Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John harvesting deep-water snappers and groupers.
1.2.1
Statement of Purpose and Need
The purpose of this amendment is to modify the definition of buoy gear included in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 to allow for the use of a larger number of hooks with this gear type when fishing commercially for deep-waters snapper and groupers managed under the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP. The need for this amendment is to ensure that commercial fishermen fishing for deep-water snappers and groupers in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John, can use buoy gear with more than 10 hooks preferred by some fishermen, while eliminating user conflicts.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 1. Introduction 4
1.3
Where Will the Action Have an Effect?
Under the Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), the St. Thomas/St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c), the Council is responsible for managing fishery resources, including reef fish, in federal waters in the U.S. Caribbean region (Figure 1.1). The Puerto Rico EEZ, described in detail in the Puerto Rico FMP and incorporated herein by reference, ranges from 9-200 nautical miles [17-370 kilometers] from the shore of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The St. Thomas/St. John EEZ, described in detail in the St. Thomas/St. John FMP and incorporated herein by reference, ranges 3200 nautical miles (6-370 kilometers) from shore of St. Thomas and St. John, USVI. The St. Croix EEZ, described in detail in the St. Croix FMP and incorporated herein by reference, ranges 3-200 nautical miles (6370 kilometers) from the shore of St. Thomas and St. John, USVI. Figure 1.1. U.S. Caribbean region with boundaries between the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix management areas.
1.4
History of Management
Prior to development of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix FMPs, reef fish stocks and stock complexes throughout the U.S. Caribbean (included in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix EEZs) were managed within the Reef Fish FMP of Puerto Rico and the USVI (CFMC 1985), as amended. The original Reef Fish FMP included only shallowwater reef fish species (originally titled Shallow-water Reef Fish FMP). The deep-water reef fish (e.g. snappers groupers), which are the main subject of this amendment, were added for Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 1. Introduction 5
management through Amendment 2 to the Reef Fish FMP in 1993. A detailed history of management for the reef fish component of the Puerto Rico fishery, the St. Thomas/St. John fishery, and the St. Croix fishery is included in Appendix C of each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix FMPs. Below is a summary of those amendments to the original Reef Fish FMP that contained actions specifically related to deep-water reef fish. These actions and regulatory measures are incorporated into the island-based FMPs, and are reflected in management of the reef fish component of the Puerto Rico fishery, the St. Thomas/St. John Fishery, and the St. Croix fishery, under the respective island-based FMP. Pelagic species were included for management in the island-based FMPs. Management measures for these species are included in each of the island-based FMPs. Amendment 2 to the Reef Fish FMP (1993) Amendment 2 expanded the existing fishery management unit in the Reef Fish FMP to include the following deep-water reef fish, to address their decline in landings: tiger grouper, black snapper, queen snapper, blackfin snapper, silk snapper, wenchman, vermilion snapper, yellowedge grouper, red grouper, misty grouper, tiger grouper, greater amberjack, almaco jack, blackline tilefish, and sand tilefish. The amendment also retitled the FMP from the Shallowwater Reef Fish FMP to the FMP for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the USVI. The Amendment also applied existing definitions of maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield to all reef fish within the revised fishery management unit, with the exception of marine aquarium finfish, and established seasonal closures for red hind grouper in areas off Puerto Rico and St. Croix and for all Council-managed fish in the Mutton Snapper Spawning Aggregation Area off St. Croix. Regulatory Amendment 2 to the Reef Fish FMP (1996) The framework amendment established seasonal closures in two additional areas off the west coast of Puerto Rico (Abrir La Sierra Bank and Bajo de Sico). It also closed the EEZ portions in three areas to all fishing between December 1 and February 28, each year: 1.5-mile radius centered around a buoy to be deployed in the area known as Bajo de Sico; 1.5-mile radius around Buoy 8 at Tourmaline Bank; and 1.5-mile radius around Buoy 6 at Abrir La Sierra Bank. Amendment 3 to the Reef Fish FMP (2005) Part of the Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment: prohibited the use of bottom tending gear (traps, pots, gillnets, trammel nets, bottom longlines) in the seasonally closed areas of Tourmaline, Bajo de Sico, Abrir la Sierra, Lang Bank, the Mutton Snapper Spawning Aggregation Area, and Grammanik Bank; prohibited the filleting of fish at sea; established a seasonal closure in the area known as Grammanik Bank south of St. Thomas prohibiting all fishing from February 1 – April 30 of each year; established seasonal closures (no fishing or possession), every year during the specified months, for: silk, black, blackfin and vermillion Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 1. Introduction 6
snapper from October 1 through December 31; tiger, yellowfin, yellowedge, red and black from February 1 through April 30. Amendment 5 to the Reef Fish FMP (2011) Among other measures, the amendment separated grouper unit (GU) 4 into two units, GU4 (yellowfin, red, tiger [black grouper was added to GU4]) and GU5 (yellowedge, misty), and modified the snapper unit (SU) by adding cardinal snapper to SU2 and moved wenchman to SU1. The amendment also specified ACLs and accountability measures (AMs) for species undergoing overfishing (snappers, groupers, parrotfish, and queen conch), established or redefined management reference points, including a proxy for maximum sustainable yield (MSY proxy) and an estimate of OY, OFLs, for species undergoing overfishing (snappers, groupers, queen conch, parrotfish), specified separate commercial and recreational ACLs in Puerto Rico based on the preferred management reference point time series and allocated the ACLs in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ by island groups (i.e. Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix) according to the subzones established in the 2010 Caribbean ACL amendment.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 1. Introduction 7
Chapter 2.
Proposed Action and Alternatives
Action: Modification of the Buoy Gear Definition In this action, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) would modify the buoy gear definition for fisheries managed under each of the Comprehensive Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for the Puerto Rico Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Puerto Rico FMP), the Comprehensive FMP for the St. Thomas/St. John EEZ (St. Thomas/St. John FMP), and the Comprehensive FMP for the St. Croix EEZ (St. Croix FMP), collectively known as the islandbased FMPs. Alternative 1. No Action. The definition of buoy gear specified in 50 CFR 622.2 would be retained. Alternative 2. Modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector harvesting managed reef fish in the EEZ off Puerto Rico, St Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix to allow the use of up to 25 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. Alternative 3. Modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the U.S. Caribbean EEZ to allow the use of up to 25 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end.
Discussion of Proposed Alternatives Under Alternative 1, the definition of buoy gear in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 would remain unchanged. The buoy gear definition included in Section 622.2 is re-stated in Section 1.1 of this document. One of the specific requirements under this definition is that buoy gear cannot contain more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. There is no alternative definition of buoy gear applicable to fishing in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix. Thus, in components of the Puerto Rico Fishery, the St. Thomas/St. John Fishery, and the St. Croix Fishery where buoy gear is an authorized gear—such as the commercial sector of those fishing for managed reef fish—fishers must limit the gear to 10 hooks. Gear with more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end does not meet the legal definition of “buoy gear,” or any other gear authorized for those fishing commercially for managed reef fish and other Council-managed species in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 8
Currently, in state and federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, some fishers fishing commercially for deep-water reef fish managed under the island-based FMPs, use a buoy gear configuration that is similar as that defined in federal regulations except for the maximum number of hooks used. Because of data limitations, it is not clear how much harvest occurs using gear containing more than 10 hooks between the buoy and the terminal end in federal waters. Under Alternative 1, gear containing more than 10 hooks between the buoy and the terminal end would not meet the legal definition of “buoy gear” in 50 CFR 622.2, or any other gear authorized for those fishing commercially for managed reef fish species or any other Council-managed species. Use of this gear with more than 10 hooks to fish commercially for managed species, including deep-water reef fish, would continue to be prohibited (or nonauthorized) in federal waters. Under this scenario, fishers that use more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end to fish commercially for managed reef fish or other Council-managed species in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix would need to modify their gear configuration, limiting the number of hooks used to 10 or fewer, to meet the definition of authorized “buoy gear” and come into compliance with the law. Alternative 2 proposes to modify the definition of buoy gear in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector of those fishing for reef fish managed under the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Thomas/St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP. Under Alternative 2, the modified definition would increase the maximum number of hooks that can be used to harvest managed reef fish from 10 to 25. This new maximum number of hooks would allow those fishing commercially in federal waters for managed reef fish to legally use the gear configuration employed by some in state waters and federal waters off Puerto Rico and the USVI. The modification would only apply to those using this gear type to fish commercially for managed reef fish species. It would not change the definition of buoy gear as it applies to the harvest of other species in the Puerto Rico. St Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries. Moreover, the rest of the specifications included in the definition of “buoy gear” such as weight, construction materials for the drop line, and length of the drop line would remain unchanged. Given that Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries are multi-species, fishermen may harvest other species while targeting deep-water reef fish with buoy gear, usually as incidental catch, and this could include Council-managed pelagic species as well as nonmanaged species (See Section 3.4). Buoy gear as currently defined in 50 CFR 622.2 (i.e., maximum of 10 hooks) is an authorized gear type for the commercial harvest of reef fish and pelagic species in the island-based FMPs. Buoy gear is also an authorized gear for the commercial and recreational harvest of non-managed species (non-FMP species) and nonmanaged pelagic species in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix. Thus, under Alternative 2, the maximum number of hooks that can be used with buoy gear to Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 9
commercially harvest Council-managed pelagic species as well as non-managed species will continue to remain at 10. Alternative 2 could be problematic for commercial fishermen who on the same trip, harvest deep-water reef fish, Council-managed pelagics and/or non-managed species with buoy gear because they would not be able to retain any species other than Councilmanaged reef fish harvested with buoy gear containing more than 10 hooks per line. Alternative 2 would make enforcement of this regulation difficult if during an intervention, buoy gear with more than 10 hooks is onboard with both managed reef fish and other species. To avoid enforcement complications and unintended consequences (i.e., restrictions) to fishermen harvesting multiple species on a trip, Alternative 3 proposes to change the definition of buoy gear in the EEZ and that means that for all fisheries where buoy gear is authorized, the gear can have up to 25 hooks. Buoy gear as currently defined in 50 CFR 622.2 is an authorized gear type for the commercial harvest of reef fish and pelagic species in the island-based FMPs, for the commercial and recreational harvest of non-FMP species and non-managed pelagic species in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix. The definition of buoy gear under Alternative 3 would apply to all harvest in the Caribbean EEZ similar to the application of the definition under Alternative 1. Under either of Alternatives 2 and 3, the changes are limited to the definition of buoy gear, and do not alter any other gear type. In summary, Alternatives 2 and 3 would both increase the maximum number of hooks that can be used with buoy gear to 25 per line, depending on target or location, contrasting with Alternative 1 which maintains the limit at 10 hooks. However, Alternative 2 only affects fishermen fishing commercially for managed reef fish with authorized buoy gear, while both Alternatives 1 and 3 affect all fishers using authorized buoy gear in U.S. Caribbean waters.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 10
Chapter 3. Affected Environment This section describes the environment and resources included within federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix that would be affected by the proposed action. Additional information on the physical, habitat, biological/ecological, economic, social, and administrative environments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) have been described in detail in the Puerto Rico Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (CFMC 2019a), the St. Thomas/St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c), and are incorporated by reference and summarized below.
3.1
Physical Environment
The U.S. Caribbean is located in the eastern portion of the Caribbean archipelago, about 1,100 miles (mi) (1,770 kilometers [km]) east-southeast of Miami, Florida (Olcott 1999). The region is composed of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the Greater Antilles and the USVI in the Lesser Antilles island chains, both of which separate the Caribbean Sea from the western central Atlantic Ocean. The USVI are part of the Virgin Islands chain, which lies in the northeastern Caribbean about 50 mi (80 km) east of Puerto Rico’s main island, and consists of four major islands: St. Thomas, St. John, St. Croix, and Water Island (DPNR 2005). The U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ) covers an area of approximately 75,687 mi2 (196,029 km2).
3.1.1
Puerto Rico
The Puerto Rico EEZ is located 9 - 200 nautical miles (17 - 370 km) from the shoreline and covers approximately 65,368 mi2 (169,303 km2). Puerto Rico approximately 110 by 35 mi (177 by 56 km), and is the smallest and the most eastern island of the Greater Antilles (CFMC 1998). Puerto Rico includes the adjacent inhabited islands of Vieques and Culebra as well as various other isolated islands without permanent populations including Mona, Monito, and Desecheo. Puerto Rico is surrounded on three sides by deep ocean waters: the Mona Passage to the west (> 3,300 ft [1,000 m] deep); the Puerto Rico Trench to the north (~28,000 ft [8,500 m] deep); and the Venezuelan Basin of the Caribbean Sea to the south (~16,400 ft [5,000 m] deep). To the east, Puerto Rico shares the shallow-water shelf platform with St. Thomas and St. John, USVI.
3.1.2
St. Thomas/St. John
The St. Thomas/St. John EEZ is located 3 - 200 nautical miles (6 – 370 km) from the shoreline and covers approximately 1,103 mi2 (2,856 km2). The islands of St. Thomas and St. John are bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the north and the Caribbean Sea to the south. The island of St. Thomas is bordered to the west by the Puerto Rico islands of Vieques and Culebra, and to the Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 11
east by St. John, which is bordered on the east by the British Virgin Islands. The shelf shared by the islands of St. Thomas and St. John is about 8 mi (12.9 km) wide on the south and 20 mi (32.2 km) wide on the north (Goenaga and Boulon 1992) with an area of approximately 510 nm2 (1751 km2). Most of the shelf area is greater than 80 ft (24.4 m) deep (Kojis and Quinn 2011).
3.1.3
St. Croix
The St. Croix EEZ is located 3 - 200 nautical miles (6 – 370 km) from the shoreline and covers approximately 9,216 mi2 (23,870 km2). The island of St. Croix is surrounded by the Caribbean Sea. St. Croix is located about 46 mi (74 km) south of St. Thomas and St. John and lies on a different geological platform than Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, and St. John. St. Croix is separated from those islands by a 2.5 mi (4 km) deep trench (CFMC 2004). The St. Croix shelf is much narrower and shallower than that of the northern islands (Goenaga and Boulon 1992), and has a total area of approximately 99 nm2 (343 km2) (Gordon 2010). Most of the shelf area is less than 80 ft (24.4 m) deep (Kojis and Quinn 2011).
3.2
Habitat Environment and Essential Fish Habitat
The coastal marine environments of Puerto Rico and the USVI are characterized by a wide variety of habitat types, with 21 distinct benthic habitats types delineated (Kendall et al. 2001). The Essential Fish Habitat Final Environmental Impact Statement (CFMC 2004) summarized the percent distribution for all habitats in the U.S. Caribbean from the 2,121 mi2 (5,494 km2) of total bottom area mapped from aerial photographs. This total included both Puerto Rico (1,934 mi2 [5,009 km2]) and the USVI (187 mi2 [485 km2]), and covered from the shoreline to about 66 feet (ft) (20 meters [m]) depth. Appendix J in each of the IBFMPs describes the preferred habitats for all reef fish species managed on each island/island group. 3.2.1 Essential Fish Habitat Essential fish habitat (EFH) is defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) as “those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (16 U.S. C. 1802(10)). EFH information for species affected by this amendment is described in each of the IBFMPs and is summarized below. Specific categories of EFH identified in the IBFMPs, which are utilized by federally managed fish and invertebrate species, include both estuarine/inshore and marine/offshore areas. Specifically, estuarine/inshore EFH includes estuarine emergent and mangrove wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, intertidal flats, palustrine emergent and forested systems, and the estuarine water column. Additionally, marine/offshore EFH includes live/hard bottom habitats, Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 12
coral and coral reefs, seagrass and algal plains, sand and shell substrate, and the marine water column. Essential fish habitat includes the spawning area in the water column above the adult habitat. Due to the steep continental slopes that occur off Puerto Rico and the USVI, the majority of fish habitat occurs within the 100 fathoms (183 m) contour line, as does the majority of fishing activity for Council-managed species. Beyond 100 fathoms, the sea bed drops off dramatically and is difficult to fish, as it requires larger vessels and more gear (e.g., more line for fish traps, handlines, etc.), both of which are not typical of U.S. Caribbean fisheries. As a result of the lack of discrete habitat mapping, as well as explicit spatial effort information, especially in the area between the 100-fathom contour and the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ, assumptions had to be made regarding the distribution of species with deep-water or pelagic life stages. Thus, for those deep-water species, in instances when the literature, data, or expert opinion reported the presence of one or more life stage occurring deeper than 100 fathoms (183 m), EFH was assumed to extend to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. Reef Fish EFH in the Puerto Rico FMP: EFH for the Reef Fish consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs and larvae) and all substrates from mean high water to 100 fathoms depth (habitats used by other life stages). In addition, for the juvenile and adult life stages of African pompano, rainbow runner, and crevalle jack, EFH includes all waters from mean high water to 100 fathoms. For gray triggerfish, the eggs are not associated with the water column, and this area is not EFH for the eggs. The Reef Fish EFH description includes the newly managed species: yellowmouth grouper, cubera snapper, gray triggerfish, crevalle jack, African pompano, and rainbow runner. Pelagic Fish EFH in the Puerto Rico FMP: EFH for little tunny (Euthynnus alleteratus) and blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus) (Tuna stock complex); king mackerel (Scomberomus cavalla) and cero mackerel (Scomberomus regalis) (Mackerel stock complex) consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs, larvae, juveniles and adults) and sargassum substrate from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs and larvae). All life stages of these species are pelagic. EFH for wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) (Wahoo stock) consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults) and sargassum, coral reef, and hard bottom substrates from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by juveniles, adults, and larvae [for larvae, sargassum substrates only]).
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 13
EFH for dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus) and pompano dolphin (Coryphaena equiselis) (Dolphinfish stock complex) consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults) and coral reefs, hard bottom, and sargassum substrates from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by juveniles, adults, and larvae [for larvae, sargassum substrates only]). EFH for great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) (Barracuda stock) consists of all waters and sargassum substrates from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs and larvae), and all waters and mangroves, seagrass, coral reefs, and hard bottom substrates from mean high water to 100 fathoms (habitats used by juveniles [water column, mangrove, seagrass], and adults [water column, coral, hard bottom]). EFH for tripletail (Lobotes surinamensis) (Tripletail stock) consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults) and sargassum substrates from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs and larvae). Reef Fish EFH in the St. Croix FMP: EFH for the Reef Fish in the St. Croix FMP consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs and larvae) and all substrates from mean high water to 100 fathoms depth (habitats used by other life stages). Pelagic Fish EFH in the St. Croix FMP: EFH for dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus) consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults) and coral reef, hard bottom, and sargassum substrates from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by juveniles, adults, and larvae [for larvae, sargassum substrates only]). EFH for wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults) and sargassum, coral reef, and hard bottom substrates from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by juveniles, adults, and larvae [for larvae, sargassum substrates only]). Reef Fish EFH in the St. Thomas and St. John FMP: EFH for the Reef Fish consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the EEZ (habitats used by eggs and larvae) and all substrates from mean high water to 100 fathoms depth (habitats used by other life stages). Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 14
Pelagic Fish EFH in the St. Thomas/St. John FMP: EFH for dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus) consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults) and coral reef, hard bottom, and sargassum substrates from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by juveniles, adults, and larvae [for larvae, sargassum substrates only]). EFH for wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults) and sargassum, coral reef, and hard bottom substrates from mean high water to the outerboundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by juveniles, adults, and larvae [for larvae, sargassum substrates only]).
3.3
Biological and Ecological Environment
The Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c) include a description of the biological environment for the species managed in federal waters in the respective island/island group management area, including deep-water reef fish and pelagic species (mostly caught incidentally), which are incorporated herein by reference and summarized below. Reef fish and pelagic species are managed as stocks or stock complexes. See Appendix A.1 for a complete list of species managed under the Reef Fish and Pelagic groups on each of the IBFMPs.
3.3.1
Description of the Species Affected by this Amendment
The waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix support hundreds of marine fish species and invertebrates including corals and organisms associated to coral reefs. The reef fish component/group of the Puerto Rico fishery in the Puerto Rico FMP contains 51 species of fish. The reef fish component of the St. Croix fishery includes 41 species. The reef fish component of the St. Thomas/St. John fishery includes 45 species. Many of these stocks are taken primarily in commercial, subsistence, and/or recreational fisheries. Appendices I and J in each of the islandbased FMPs contain specific information about the distribution and habitat, life history, diet, reproduction and spawning characteristics for all species in the St. Thomas/St. John FMP. Council-managed species harvested with vertical bottom line gear (which includes buoy gear) include deep-water reef fish species such as snappers and groupers. The following species within the Reef fish group in each island-based FMP, occur in deeper-habitats and are directly targeted by the commercial sector or indirectly harvested by commercial fishers while pursuing target species. These species are expected to be affected by this amendment as they are Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 15
harvested commercially with vertical bottom line gear, although not exclusively with buoy gear. Although infrequent, some managed pelagic species are also caught incidentally with bottom line gear. Those are not included in this table. Table 3.3.1. List of snapper and grouper species harvested in the deep-water vertical bottom line component of the reef fish fishery in each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix. Species
Puerto Rico FMP
Snappers
black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, wenchman, cardinal, queen
Groupers
yellowmouth, yellowedge, misty
St. Thomas/St. John FMP black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, queen yellowmouth, yellowedge, misty
St. Croix FMP black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, queen, cardinal, wenchman misty
This list in not all inclusive, and only lists those species that have been identified by fishers as being actively targeted with vertical bottom line gear, including buoy gear, or that are occasionally caught with bottom line gear, and species reported in commercial catch report forms from 2012-2018, where available, or identified in the literature (i.e., Overly (2020); ScharerUmpierre et al. (2019).
Landings data from Puerto Rico commercial catch report forms from 2018 and 2019 list other species as reported on the same trip with deep-water snappers/groupers. These species are very infrequently reported and in small quantities. These include: queen triggerfish, lemon shark, Atlantic scombrops, bar jack, cubera snapper, lane snapper, mutton snapper, yellowtail snapper, king mackerel, unspecified boxfish, requiem shark unspecified, dolphinfish, tuna, red hind, unspecified grunt, yellowfin grouper, cero mackerel, almaco jack, tiger shark, sharpnose, shark unspecified, and reef shark. Appendix B lists some of the species incidentally caught in the Puerto Rico deep-water snapper/grouper fishery identified in the literature. Additional information about bycatch can be found in Section 3.3.2 below. 3.3.1.1 Life History and Biology Appendix J in each of the island-based FMPs contains a comprehensive description of the life history and biology of each of the species that may be affected by this amendment, described in Table 3.3.1.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 16
3.3.2
Bycatch
Each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix FMPs include a bycatch practicability analysis for the species managed under each FMP, which is incorporated herein by reference, and summarized below. Fisheries that are noted for producing large amounts of bycatch (e.g., trawling) are essentially absent from the U.S. Caribbean. Thus, bycatch is not as significant an issue in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix, as compared to other regions. What little bycatch that does occur is generally confined to regulatory discards. Under the island-based management approach, regulatory discards include: Year-round: Nassau grouper: Federal and state laws require that Nassau grouper landed in the U.S. Caribbean be returned unharmed to the water; • Goliath grouper: Federal and state laws require that Goliath grouper landed in the U.S. Caribbean be returned unharmed to the water; • Juvenile yellowtail snapper: Federal law requires that catches of yellowtail snapper under 12 inches (30.5 cm) in fork length be returned to the water (yellowtail snapper are not regulated in the state waters of the USVI and the minimum size in Puerto Rico waters is 10.5 inches [26.7 cm] fork length, about the same as in federal waters) Seasonal: • Red hind, yellowfin, yellowedge, red, tiger, and black groupers; silk, black, blackfin, and vermilion snappers; lane and mutton snappers: federal law prohibits fishing for and possession of these species during their respective EEZ closed seasons. USVI state laws also prohibits fishing for and possession of these species during the state closed seasons to varying degrees (note that the silk, blackfin, black, and vermilion snapper closure applies only in state waters). •
The action in this amendment is not expected to significantly increase or decrease the magnitude of bycatch or bycatch mortality in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries, as the action would not substantially change how the fisheries operate. Section 3.3.1 above and Appendix B list species that have been identified in the literature as bycatch of the deep-water bottom line fishery or that are listed in the Puerto Rico or USVI commercial catch report forms as landed in the same trip as deep-water snappers/groupers harvested with vertical bottom line gear.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 17
3.3.3
Protected Species
Within the U.S. Caribbean, some species and their habitats are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or both. At least 17 species of whales and dolphins have been reported in or near U.S. waters in the northeastern Caribbean (Mignucci-Giannoni 1998), including waters around Puerto Rico. All 17 species are protected under the MMPA. Three of these species (i.e., sperm, sei, and fin whales) are also listed as endangered under the ESA. 3 In addition to these three marine mammals, five species or distinct population segments (DPS) of sea turtles (green - North Atlantic DPS and the South Atlantic DPS; hawksbill; leatherback; loggerhead - Northwest Atlantic DPS); four species or DPSs of fish (Nassau grouper; scalloped hammerhead shark - Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS; oceanic whitetip shark; giant manta ray); and seven species of coral (elkhorn coral, staghorn coral, rough cactus coral, pillar coral, lobed star coral, mountainous star coral, and boulder coral) occur in the U.S. Caribbean and are also protected under the ESA. ESA designated critical habitat for the green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and Acropora corals also occur within the Council’s jurisdiction. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) completed a biological opinion on September 21, 2020, evaluating the impacts of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix fisheries on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species that occur in the U.S. Caribbean region (NMFS 2020b). In the biological opinion, NMFS determined that the authorization of the island-based FMP fisheries or fisheries conducted under each of the island-based FMPs are is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the North Atlantic Population Segment (NA DPS) green sea turtle, South Atlantic DPS green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip shark, the Central and SA DPS of scalloped hammerhead shark, elkhorn coral, staghorn coral, rough cactus coral, pillar coral, lobed star coral, mountainous star coral, or boulder star coral, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated Acropora critical habitat. An incidental take statement for select ESA species was included in the biological opinion, and reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impact of the incidental takes were specified, along with terms and conditions to implement them. The actions contained in this amendment are not anticipated to modify the operation of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, or St. Croix fisheries in a manner that would cause effects to ESA-listed species or critical habitat that were not considered in the 2020 biological opinion.
Five DPSs of humpback whales are listed under the ESA; however, the West Indies DPS, which is the only DPS present in the U.S. Caribbean, is not listed as endangered or threatened (81 FR 62259).
3
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 18
3.4
Description of the Deep-water Reef Fish Component of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix Fisheries
Each of the island-based FMPs contain a comprehensive description of the fisheries and sectors occurring within the respective EEZ and are incorporated in here by reference. Information from SEDAR 26, the original Reef Fish FMP and Amendment 2 was also used to draft this section. This section describes the deep-water reef fish fishery component on each island, with a focus on commercial fishing for deep-water reef fish that are conducted with buoy gear.
3.4.1
Deep-water Reef Fish Management
Deep-water reef fish species were incorporated into the Reef Fish FMP in 1993 (formerly known as the FMP for the Shallow-water Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI); Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 167: 34850-34855). The Lutjanidae species incorporated included: queen snapper (Etelis oculatus), silk snapper (L. vivanus), black snapper (Apsilus dentatus), blackfin snapper (L. buccannella), wenchman (Pristipomoides aquilonaris) and vermillion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens). Others species such as deep-water groupers, jack, and tilefish were incorporated into the plan as well. These deep-water species were incorporated into the FMP because of the decline in landings in general, and in the deep-water snapper aggregate specifically, from 1979 to 1990 (from 340 to 80 metric tons) (Reef Fish FMP Amendment 2, 1993). The primary objective for their inclusion was for the Council to take regulatory action if needed since at the time of the amendment the deep-water snapper fishery was “of less importance than the shallow water fishery in terms of effort and landings”. The species of concern at the time was the silk snapper. Reef fish (including deep-water snappers and other deep-water reef fish) in federal waters are managed with annual catch limits (ACL) for each Puerto Rico sector and for all harvest in the St. Croix and in St. Thomas and St. John (Table 3.4.1), with an aggregate bag limit for recreational harvest, seasonal closure for certain species (Table 3.4.2) and indirectly with area closures that protect spawning populations for some of the species and the habitat that supports those aggregations. Queen and cardinal snappers, two of the most important species in the deep-water reef fish component, have no additional harvest restrictions in federal waters, but are managed with a limited access entry permit and a quota in Puerto Rico state waters (see Section 3.4.2.1 E below).
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 19
Table. 3.4.1. Annual catch limits applicable to the deep-water reef fish component. Values are in pounds (lbs. whole weight) Puerto Rico FMP Commercial Stock/Stock Complex ACL Snapper 1 (black, 424,009 blackfin, silk, vermilion, wenchman) *wenchman not managed in St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John Snapper 2 (queen, 257,236 cardinal) * cardinal not managed in St. Croix or in St. Thomas/St. John PR Grouper 4 (black, 2,492 red, tiger, yellowfin, yellowmouth)
St. Croix FMP
Recreational ACL 111,943
Total ACL
St. Thomas/St. John Total ACL
61,455
20,090
24,974
7,911
568
5,867
N/A
N/A
PR Grouper 5 (misty, yellowedge)
15,327
4,225
N/A
N/A
STX Grouper 5 (black, red, tiger, yellowfin) STX Grouper 6 (misty) STT/STJ Grouper 4 (black, red, tiger, yellowfin) STT/STJ Grouper 5 (yellowmouth, yellowedge, misty)
N/A
N/A
701
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
77 N/A
N/A 2,254
N/A
N/A
N/A
390
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 20
Table 3.4.2. Seasonal closures for snapper species in federal and state waters of Puerto Rico and the USVI.
The commercial deep-water snapper-grouper reef fish component is artisanal and relatively small scale; however, it represents the largest fin fish resource in terms of weight of landings and estimated dollar values in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (Tonioli and Agar 2011; Scharer et al. 2019). The deep-water fishery component ranges from the outer reaches of the shallow-water component (e.g., 40 fathoms) seaward to depths up to about 300 fathoms. Targeted fishes inhabiting the deep-water reef areas and slopes characterized by rocks, ledges, and corals generally are prosecuted with heavy duty traps and by electrically powered reels; bottom longlines are deployed to a limited extent (CFMC 1993). Non-targeted species are commonly caught incidentally while targeting deep-water snappers and groupers with those gears. The following sections characterize the vertical bottom line component of each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries targeting deep-water snappers and groupers.
3.4.2
Description of the Deep-water Reef Fish Component of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix Fisheries that is Harvested with Vertical Bottom line/Buoy Gear
Deep-water reef fish, particularly deep-water snappers and groupers targeted by small-scale commercial fishers, are typically harvested with hook and line gear. The type of hook and line gear used is known as vertical bottom line or “cala” in Puerto Rico and deep-drop gear in the USVI, and includes buoy gear. Hook and line configurations and fishing methods used to harvest deep-water snapper and groupers vary in terms of equipment and materials used, hook type, size, and number, number of lines used, types of bait, soaking time, and fishing grounds. Calas or vertical bottom line gear can be attached to the boat until retrieved with an electrical Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 21
reel or used in a buoy gear configuration, which is typically used by more experienced fishermen targeting deep-water snappers and groupers in Puerto Rico and to a less extent in the USVI, and is not attached to the boat until the lines are ready to be retrieved with an electrical reel. The vertical bottom line buoy gear configuration is known as “cala con boya” in Puerto Rico and as “deep-drop buoy gear” in the USVI and is used to fish principally for cardinal and queen snapper (species in Snapper Complex 2 in Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John, only queen in St. Croix) up to 1500 ft (457m; 250 fathoms) and to a lesser degree for species in the Snapper 1 stock complex in Puerto Rico (i.e., silk, black, blackfin, vermilion, and wenchman) and in St. Thomas/St. John and in St. Croix (i.e., silk, black, blackfin, vermilion) starting from 400 ft (122 m; 67 fathoms). The following sub-sections describe the vertical bottom line/buoy gear component in each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries. 3.4.2.1
Puerto Rico
A. Characteristics of the Deep-water Vertical Bottom line Gear used in Puerto Rico Fishing with vertical bottom lines (locally known as “calas”) is one of the most popular methods of hook and line fishing used to fish in Puerto Rico (Agar and Shivlani 2016). In 1989, Matos-Caraballo and Torres-Rosado (1989) define the “cala” as a bottom line with one or more hooks anchored with approximately 1 to 8 pounds of lead and fished at depths ranging from 50-150 fathoms (300-900 feet). The hooks may either be hung paired from one or more hard frames of galvanized wire (ballestilla is a horizontal bottom line: Christmas tree and fuete are different styles of vertical bottom lines).
Figure 3.4.1. Depiction of a vertical line (cala) (Source: Matos-Caraballo and Torres-Rosado 1989)
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 22
Cala (or fuete) is the common vertical bottom line configuration along the west coast (Figure 3.4.1). In a 2014 survey, Agar and Shivlani (2016) reported that on average surveyed fishers fished two vertical bottom lines per trip (1-5 range, 2 median). They reported that the average vertical bottom line was 1,800 feet long (549 m; 300 fathom) (range reported was 200-9,000 ft.; 1,800 ft. median) and had 18 hooks (range of hooks reported was 5-80, 12 median, 30 mode). For example, the report mentions that west coast fishers tend to use between one and three vertical bottom lines which are 1,800 feet long with a 200 pounds, 18 braided line, and that the line has on average 25 circle hooks with range in size from 9/0 to 12/0. Agar and Shivlani’s (2016) survey showed that the average commercial fishing vessel with vertical bottom line gear made three trips per week. Surveyed fishers reported that fishing trips averaged about 15 hours; although some said they fished up to 120 hours over a multi-day trip 4. For more information specific about this gear, please see Section 3.6 of this document. More recently, public testimony at Caribbean Council meetings and through personal communication between NMFS staff with Puerto Rico fishers indicate that in Puerto Rico, when using the buoy gear vertical bottom line configuration approximately 20-25 hooks are used per line because fishing is only conducted for a few hours and they have to fight with the currents and varying water conditions. Fishers have indicated that it is not practical or cost effective to use more hooks with this gear type because of the depths fished and currents. Fishers previously used more hooks but found out that using an average of 25 hooks per line is ideal, especially to optimize battery life of the electric reels that would retrieve the gear. (N. Crespo, west coast deep-water fisher, pers. communication, February 2021). The number of hooks preferred to be used by a fisher, in addition of the depth fished (depth depend on the species targeted), also depends on the area fished, the strength of the currents, past experiences with the loss of lines/catch, fisher’s experience, among other factors. Because the use of buoy gear to harvest the the deep-water reef fish component of the Puerto Rico fishery is guided by bottom currents, weather patterns, and moon phases, deep-water snappers and groupers are not caught yearlong (strong currents and weather events immensely affect the pursue of this fishery). B. Species Targeted with Deep-water Vertical Bottom line Gear/Buoy Gear (Cala/Cala con boya) and Habitats and Depths Fished Fishermen in Puerto Rico target multiple species of fish and shellfish, including reef fish (especially snappers and groupers), coastal pelagics, deep-water pelagics, lobster, and conch (Figure 3.5.1). Finfish, historically the preferred food of local residents, constitutes the majority of the catch and value. Shallow water reef fish are the most important category of targeted
4
The median trip was 11 hours long.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 23
commercial fish, followed by deep-water snappers and spiny lobster, but target species vary by coastal region (Puerto Rico FMP 2019). Snappers and groupers are found in coastal and deep-water reefs and are among the most targeted fishes. In 2016, snappers comprised 49% of the total reported landings of finfish and 65% of the value of finfish. Silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus) comprised 32% of the snapper landings and 39% of the value, followed by snappers in the other category (unclassified) with 28% of the snapper landings and 33% of the value, yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) with 22% of snapper landings and 16% of the value, lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris), with 14% of snapper landings and 9% of the value, and mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis), with 4% of snapper landings and 3% of the value (NMFS 2017). The same year, groupers represented only 4.7% of the total landings of finfish and 4% of the value of finfish (NMFS 2017). Queen and silk snapper alone accounted for 86% of the vertical bottom line revenues in 2014 (NMFS 2016 in Agar and Shivlani 2016). Among all gear types, silk and queen snapper are two of the most landed deep-water species from 2012 to 2019, with a total of 1,588,074 and 1,041,323 adjusted pounds, whole weight, respectively (Table 3.4.3). Fishing occurs mainly over muddy bottoms and rocky benthic habitat (or hard) at depths that range from 250 to 3,000 feet. Fishermen target deep-water snappers in shelf breaks and the edge of insular platforms. Along the west coast of Puerto Rico, the majority of the vessels fishing with vertical bottom lines targeting queen and cardinal snapper (Snapper Complex 2) in deeper waters (800-1,400 ft) tend to drift fish (galoneando) whereas those that target species such as silk, black, blackfin, vermilion, and wenchman (Puerto Rico Snapper Stock Complex 1) tend to fish while anchored because these species are found in shallower waters (600 ft.; 183m; 100 fathoms) (N. Crespo, west coast deep-water snapper fisher, pers. com, February 2021). In addition to snappers, which are the principal target in this fishery, misty groupers, glass eye snappers, and yellowmouth grouper are also incidentally captured with this gear, as well as some sharks. The most popular baits used by vertical bottom line fishers are squid, sardines, ballyhoo, and miscellaneous tunas (blackfin, skipjack and little tunny) (Shivlani and Agar 2016). Table 3.4.3. Adjusted pounds (whole weight) of some deep-water snapper-grouper species landed in Puerto Rico each year (all gear types). Year 2012 2013 2014
Misty grouper 4,208 3,829 4,570
Yellowedge grouper 394 303 587
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Black snapper 7,149 6,691 4,341
Blackfin snapper 5,338 6,270 7,930
Cardinal snapper 17,842 11,502 17,035
Queen snapper 166,779 97,030 157,443
Silk snapper 180,390 118,084 191,095
Vermilion snapper 11,222 7,266 12,269
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 24
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
Misty grouper 5,505 3,450 4,176 3,793 7,122 36,654
Yellowedge grouper 547 940 1,206 777 1,031 5,785
Black snapper 2,893 8,274 4,601 5,134 4,454 43,537
Blackfin snapper 6,302 9,830 8,201 10,647 10,264 64,781
Cardinal snapper 16,701 9,340 8,926 9,911 12,703 103,959
Queen snapper 164,037 115,088 86,195 102,303 152,448 1,041,323
Silk snapper 180,525 211,793 200,848 194,172 311,167 1,588,074
Vermilion snapper 14,104 13,386 11,561 13,220 14,403 97,432
C. Commercial Fishers Participating in the Deep-water Vertical Bottom line/Buoy Gear Component of the Reef Fish Fishery Approximately 60 commercial fishers currently possess the Deep-water Snapper Special Permit (See sub-section E below) from the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) to fish for queen and cardinal snappers in Puerto Rico state waters. This limited access permit was established in 2013. There is no similar permit in federal waters. Permit holders use vertical bottom line (cala) and/or the buoy gear configuration (cala con boya) to fish for cardinal and queen snappers in both state and federal waters. Fishing with these gear types also occurs in federal waters by non-permitted commercial fishers. The deep-water buoy gear configuration is a very specialized and highly species-specific gear type (N. Crespo, west coast deep-water fisher, pers. communication, February 2021) and it is mostly used by commercial fishers usually in the deeper reefs. In addition to queen and cardinal snapper, the buoy gear configuration may also be used by commercial fishers to harvest mid-depth reef species in the Snapper Complex 1 (silk, black, blackfin, vermillion, wenchman) in both federal and state waters, although not exclusively, as they also use other types of hook and line (cala, handline) and to a lesser extent, traps (Table 3.4.5 and Table 3.4.6). Illegal harvest of species in the Snapper Complex 2 and Snapper Complex 1 also occurs (e.g., harvest of queen and cardinal in state waters by non-permitted fishers; harvest of any species by non-licensed fishers). The number of commercial fishers currently using deep-water vertical bottom line (cala) to fish for deep-water snappers and groupers is estimated to be around 200 (DNER staff, personal communication, February 2021). Within this estimate, an unknown number of fishers use the buoy gear configuration (cala con boya) of deep-water vertical bottom line, which is the subject of this amendment. Information on the actual number of fishers using buoy gear is not collected. The number of fishermen fishing in deep waters has also experienced fluctuations throughout the years. For example, a drop in number in 1996 and 2002 to 2008 could be attributed to higher fuel costs and tighter fishing regulations such as minimum size limits and closed seasons (MatosCaraballo and Agar 2011). However, higher prices received for deep water species has increased Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 25
the number of fishermen participating in the deep-water snapper fishery (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011a). Table 3.4.5 shows the number of fishers that reported landings of deep-water snapper and grouper species from 2012 through 2019. Fishermen consistently reported landing silk and queen snapper more than other species in the deep-water category. Table 3.4.4. Number of commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico that landed deep-water species each year (all gear types) in all Puerto Rico waters. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Misty grouper 36 44 47 46 34 40 38 42
Yellowedge grouper 6 9 13 10 14 19 15 13
Black snapper 59 58 65 58 61 60 59 61
Blackfin snapper 51 66 77 73 83 74 69 71
Cardinal snapper 75 79 75 79 44 62 69 89
Queen snapper 146 152 134 130 82 103 115 145
Silk snapper 259 267 300 276 269 264 249 333
Vermilion snapper 74 76 103 99 88 84 78 95
D. Fishing Areas The Puerto Rico FMP provides an in-depth description of the fishing areas fished in each of the Puerto Rico coasts. This information is incorporated by reference and summarized below. West coast commercial fishermen historically account for the largest number of annual fishing trips, from 45 percent in 2010 to 47 percent in 2011 of all trips off Puerto Rico. The west coast also accounts for the largest share of historical annual landings. From 1988 to 2016, the west coast represented approximately 39 percent of all landings by weight. The south coast ranked second with 28 percent of all landings, followed by the east coast with 20 percent and last the north coast with 14%. West Coast - Puerto Rico’s west coast has an insular shelf area that is greater than the shelf areas of the north and south coasts (Collazo and Calderón 1987, 1988), and has the largest fishing zone in the territory with over 30 fishing areas (Griffith et al. 2002). The commercial fisheries along Puerto Rico’s west coast are the most productive and technologically advanced, and tend to generate from 30-50% of Puerto Rico’s annual landings by weight. Most of the vertical bottom line (“cala”) fleet activity fishing for deep-water snapper-grouper takes place off the coast of Rincón (western Puerto Rico) and Cabo Rojo (southwestern Puerto Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 26
Rico) (Agar and Shivlani 2016; Keithly et al. 2013). Approximately 40-60 small-scale fishermen fish for these resources using hook and line gear, and traps, to a lesser extent. Species targeted are mostly silk snapper and queen snapper (Keithly et al. 2013). A small number of west coast fishermen target queen and cardinal snapper (Snapper Complex 2) in patchy, deepwater habitats influenced by dynamic oceanographic conditions. As a result, only a dedicated cohort of commercial fishermen maintains long-term participation and consistent success fishing for these deep-water stocks. Participant fishermen from Puerto Rico have been identified based on past licensing and landings data, and have been permitted by Puerto Rico’s DNER to exclusively harvest queen and cardinal snapper from Puerto Rico’s state waters (CFMC 2015). More information about this special permitting can be found in Section E below. South Coast - The south coast, from Lajas to Guayama, is characterized by varied habitats from reefs to deep-water habitats that are fished for snappers, groupers, cero and king mackerels, tunas, barracuda, and billfishes (McClane 1974). Features that make the south coast more suitable for fishing operations include a larger insular shelf area, a somewhat less abrupt dropoff, the presence of a number of cays and sandy beaches that make the use of beach seines possible, and less exposure to storms, which is more conducive for the use of fish traps and pot. Most harvested reef fish species are yellowtail, mutton and lane snappers, porgy, parrotfish, hogfish and grunts. Deep-water species are also harvested (e.g., silk snapper) as well as pelagics such as dolphinfish and king mackerel, and baitfish such as ballyhoo and herring, with octopus also being very important. In La Parguera, historically a small fishing village in Lajas, ValdésPizzini and Schärer-Umpierre (2014) identified habitats and associated species recognized and fished by fishermen. Sea grasses and bedrock pavement with some hard and soft coral are fished for lobster, conch, yellowtail snappers, mutton snappers, grunts, and hogfish; coral reefs for snappers, lane snapper, red hind grouper, trunkfish, grunts, hogfish, parrotfish and octopus. The shelf drop-off is fished for dolphinfish, mackerels, groupers, deep-water snappers, yellowtail snapper, red hind grouper, blue runners, and jacks (Valdés-Pizzini and Schärer-Umpierre 2014). North Coast - Matos-Caraballo and Agar (2008) discuss that because of the limited shelf, fishermen in the north coast fish in different locations, favoring the continental shelf (90%), the shelf break (84%), shore (67%), and, in deep waters (46%). In addition, because of the coastal topography offers little protection against heavy swells and rough seas, north coast fishermen favor the use of hook and lines, followed by net gears to a lesser extent, while SCUBA and traps are not that favored (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011a). In the north coast, reef fish are the most landed species, being yellowtail snapper, triggerfish, and parrotfish the most targeted, followed by deep-water snappers (silk and queen), pelagic species such as dolphinfish, king mackerel, and little tunny and target baitfish (herring, mullets, mojarras) (Matos-Caraballo and Agar (2011a).
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 27
East Coast - The east coast has the largest insular shelf size, and it represents 46% of Puerto Rico’s insular shelf (Collazo and Calderón 1987, 1988). Depths of the waters along the east coast are less than 240 ft (73 m) throughout, which partially explains why the large majority of east coast commercial fishermen fish on the insular shelf: 94% in 2002 and 93% in 2008. The east coast features productive fishing grounds between Fajardo and Ceiba and the islands of Culebra and Vieques, where coral reef and deep-water habitats yield snappers, groupers, pelagic fish, lobster, and conch (Griffith et al. 2007), as well as wahoo and blue marlin (McClane 1974). This area also has a number of banks, islets, and cays (Jarvis 1932 in Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011a). Because of the shallow shelf, fishermen can harvest multiple species with different gear types such as lines, traps, and SCUBA (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2008). The most targeted species are the reef fish yellowtail, lane, and mutton snappers, hogfish, porgies, white grunt, and parrotfish (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011a). Deepwater snappers are also among the most targeted species, followed by coastal pelagics, spiny lobster, queen conch, and baitfish (MatosCaraballo and Agar 2008). Table 3.4.5 lists the percentage of landings for the deep-water snapper species cardinal, queen, silk, and blackfin snappers in Puerto Rico for select gear types, distinguishing between landings from the Puerto Rico EEZ, state waters, or unknown, which means no information was provided for harvest location (from all coasts combined). Deep-water buoy gear landings are included under the bottom line category.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 28
Table 3.4.5. Percent of deep-water species landings by weight in Puerto Rico for select gear types reported per distance from shore (i.e., state waters, federal waters, and unknown). State Waters
BOTTOM LINE Federal Waters Unk
State Waters
HAND LINE Federal Waters
State Waters
ROD AND REEL State Federal Waters Waters Unk
State Waters
FISH POT Federal Waters
Unk
Year
Species
2012
Snapper,cardinal
25%
27%
48%
34%
9%
57%
90%
0%
10%
n/a
n/a
n/a
54%
0%
46%
2012
Snapper,queen
10%
48%
42%
2%
4%
94%
33%
0%
67%
n/a
n/a
n/a
89%
0%
11%
2012
Snapper,blackfin
7%
28%
66%
12%
0%
88%
0%
100%
0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
24%
20%
56%
2012
Snapper,silk
14%
29%
57%
8%
10%
82%
11%
6%
83%
n/a
n/a
n/a
22%
11%
67%
2013
Snapper,cardinal
56%
17%
28%
53%
0%
47%
73%
27%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
2013
Snapper,queen
30%
33%
37%
57%
0%
43%
74%
24%
2%
65%
0%
35%
100%
0%
0%
2013
Snapper,blackfin
34%
38%
28%
72%
22%
7%
n/a
n/a
n/a
35%
0%
65%
77%
10%
13%
2013
Snapper,silk
40%
23%
37%
62%
3%
36%
78%
20%
2%
26%
8%
66%
83%
2%
2014
Snapper,cardinal
53%
36%
11%
87%
0%
13%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
14% 100 %
2014
Snapper,queen
19%
60%
21%
62%
31%
7%
79%
13%
8%
62%
0%
38%
64%
36%
0%
2014
Snapper,blackfin
44%
44%
12%
82%
0%
18%
100%
0%
0%
71%
0%
29%
21%
65%
14%
2014
Snapper,silk
47%
35%
19%
30%
8%
62%
78%
11%
11%
43%
9%
48%
81%
7%
12%
2015
Snapper,cardinal
38%
45%
17%
60%
39%
1%
100%
0%
0%
90%
10%
0%
67%
0%
33%
2015
Snapper,queen
23%
53%
24%
29%
64%
7%
98%
0%
2%
20%
80%
0%
100%
0%
0%
2015
Snapper,blackfin
39%
52%
10%
55%
33%
12%
100%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
65%
29%
5%
2015
Snapper,silk
39%
35%
26%
47%
25%
28%
91%
1%
7%
79%
18%
3%
86%
6%
8%
2016
Snapper,cardinal
55%
40%
5%
100%
0%
0%
83%
17%
0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016
Snapper,queen
40%
52%
8%
84%
6%
10%
84%
16%
0%
100%
0%
0%
56%
44%
0%
2016
Snapper,blackfin
49%
47%
4%
90%
7%
3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
48%
0%
52%
79%
18%
3%
2016
Snapper,silk
50%
44%
7%
62%
14%
24%
97%
3%
0%
71%
19%
9%
86%
9%
5%
2017
Snapper,cardinal
63%
36%
1%
73%
27%
0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
30%
43%
27%
41%
0%
59%
2017
Snapper,queen
51%
48%
2%
52%
37%
11%
57%
43%
0%
56%
31%
12%
100%
0%
0%
2017
Snapper,blackfin
50%
45%
5%
90%
10%
0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Unk
LONG LINE Federal Waters Unk
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 29
State Waters
BOTTOM LINE Federal Waters Unk
State Waters
HAND LINE Federal Waters
State Waters
ROD AND REEL State Federal Waters Waters Unk
State Waters
FISH POT Federal Waters
Unk
Year
Species
2017
Snapper,silk
61%
37%
2%
80%
7%
13%
68%
21%
11%
80%
19%
1%
98%
0%
2%
2018
Snapper,cardinal
56%
43%
1%
61%
36%
3%
100%
0%
0%
12%
73%
15%
100%
0%
0%
2018
Snapper,queen
39%
58%
3%
71%
28%
1%
100%
0%
0%
55%
9%
36%
100%
0%
0%
2018
Snapper,blackfin
62%
37%
1%
46%
51%
3%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
2018
Snapper,silk
57%
40%
3%
77%
22%
1%
94%
2%
4%
95%
3%
2%
95%
4%
2019
Snapper,cardinal
40%
56%
4%
95%
5%
0%
100%
0%
0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
0%
0%
1% 100 %
2019
Snapper,queen
36%
61%
2%
78%
19%
3%
86%
0%
14%
66%
15%
18%
61%
0%
39%
2019
Snapper,blackfin
50%
49%
1%
49%
51%
0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
0%
0%
2019
Snapper,silk
51%
46%
2%
79%
16%
5%
67%
8%
25%
77%
12%
11%
92%
3%
5%
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Unk
LONG LINE Federal Waters Unk
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 30
3.4.2.2
U.S. Virgin Islands
A. Characteristics of the Multi-hook Vertical Setlines/Deep-water Buoy Gear used in the USVI Multi-hook vertical setlines are used in the USVI, especially by St. Croix fishers to catch deepwater snapper and grouper along the insular shelf (Kojis et al. 2004). The gear type consists of a line that varies between 600 to 1,500 feet in length depending on the species fished, where each line is weighted with lead and has 25-30 hooks usually baited with squid. Circle hooks are commonly used to minimize the hooks catching on the bottom (Kojis et al. 2004). The buoy gear component of the USVI vertical setline used to fish for deep-water reef fish is known as deep-drop buoy gear. Olsen et al. (1974) provides a description of the vertical setline/deep drop buoy gear fishery, where multiple lines are often set from a boat using downriggers or buoyed and released. The gear is usually used while drift fishing because of the depth of the water and lines are pulled and redeployed one after another on a cycle. USVI fishers fish in short sets to minimize destruction of gear and loss of catch by sharks (Olsen et al. 1974), which is similar to the gear use by Puerto Rican fishermen. Several float lines may be set to fish a larger area until fish are located. Once fish are located, the fisher can concentrate on fishing several lines from the vessel. Chemical light sticks or battery-operated lights may be attached above the hooks as an attractor. Another version of the vertical setline is the use of 1” PVC pipe as a “tree” rig. Holes are drilled in the PVC pipe to accommodate hook leaders branching off the PVC pipe. The pipe is weighted at the bottom and buoyed with a small pressure float to keep the gear vertical in the water on the bottom. Vertical setlines may be fished from a boat and hauled to the surface with mechanical, hand crank reels or electric reels, or with hydraulic reels. During retrieval, the buoys can be unsnapped from the mainline and the line attached to the reel and reeled in (Olsen et al. 1974). Section 3.6.2 discusses specific information about the vertical setlines in the USVI. Public testimony by USVI fishermen at Council meetings provided more recent information about buoy gear fishing in both St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John (CFMC 174th Meeting, July 2021). In St. Croix, the buoy gear is not used year around, only when weather permits. Fishing activities also depend on lunar cycles. In St. Croix, the gear is used from 400 ft to 1,200 ft depth to fish principally for deep-water snappers and occasionally groupers. Gear configuration is similar to the buoy gear defined in federal regulations except for the number of hook used. The number of hooks used vary between 18-25 hooks per line (E. Schuster, St. Croix DAP Chair, 174th CFMC Meeting, July 2021). Distance from terminal end to hook is approximately 2 ft to avoid getting the hook snagged on rock or rubble bottom (C. Farchette, personal communication February 2021). The number of buoys used varies between 1-4 and the number used depends also on fish activity and avoidance of predators such as sharks. Some Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 31
fishers use light for fishing at deep-water areas. A typical fishing trip/day can be from 8 to 12 hours. Species used as bait include squid, small skipjack, and little tunny. Fish harvested are usually sold fresh and have high demand. The deep-drop buoy gear in St. Croix can be described as a “self-regulated fishery”, which is very expensive to pursue and that requires experience (E. Schuster, St. Croix DAP Chair, 174th CFMC Meeting, 2021). The deep-drop buoy gear fishery in St. Thomas/St/ John is smaller than in St. Croix due likely to the distance that fishermen need to travel to access deep-water snapper fishing grounds in the north and south of St. Thomas ( i.e., 20 miles to the north drop, 10 miles to the south drop) (J. Magras, St. Thomas/St. John DAP Chair, CFMC 174th Meeting, July 2021). Fishing is conducted by a few fishermen when weather is calm to fish for deep-water snappers and groupers principally from 250 to 350 feet deep. The number of hooks used can be up to 20 per line, but 10 hooks is the most common number used. Four sets of buoys are usually deployed. The fish harvested with this gear type is sold fresh as there is high demand for the small quantities sold (J. Magras, St. Thomas/St/ John DAP Chair, 174th CFMC Meeting, July 2021). B. Species Targeted with Deep-water Buoy Gear, and Habitats and Depths fished Commercial fishermen in St. Croix target a wide variety of species, usually depending on which fish or shellfish are easier to sell or generate the greatest amount of revenue. Reef fish (all gear types) are targeted by more than 80% of the fishermen, which includes several species in the grouper, snapper, triggerfish, parrotfish, grunt, wrasse, surgeonfish, and squirrelfish families (Kojis et al. 2017). Close to half of the fishermen surveyed by Kojis et al. (2017) also reported that they target spiny lobster and coastal pelagic species such as jacks and mackerels (All gear types). Fishers also reported targeting dolphinfish, wahoo, and deep-water snappers (all gear types) (CFMC 2019b, c). Commercial fishermen in St. Croix target blackfin, silk, black, queen, and cardinal snappers, with some groupers and sharks as incidental catch (CFMC 174th Meeting, 2021). Species harvested with buoy gear in St. Thomas and St. John include silk snapper, blackfin snapper, misty grouper, wenchman, queen snapper, and other non-specified species. C. Commercial Fishers Participating in the USVI Deep-water Buoy Gear Component of the Reef Fish Fishery In a census of USVI commercial fishers, Kojis et al. 2017 noted that more fishers on St. Croix than on St. Thomas and St. John (Table 3.4.2) owned multi-hook gear. The species caught with this gear, deep-water snapper and grouper, are much more commonly fished on St. Croix than on St. Thomas and St. John. In the 2004 commercial fishers census, only one fisher from St. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 32
Thomas/St. John reported owning this gear while 45 St. Croix fishers owned the gear (Kojis 2004). Kojis et al. (2017) further adds that in 2010, 2011, and 2016, three fishers in St. Thomas/St. John, while in St. Croix 26 fishers reported owning this gear in 2010-11 and 42 in 2016. Recent information provided at the 174th Council meeting discuss that in actuality the number of fishers using buoy gear is approximately 12, while in St. Thomas, the deep-drop buoy gear fishery is very small, with 2-4 fishermen currently pursuing this fishery. D. Fishing Areas The St. Thomas/St. John FMP and the St. Croix FMP provide an in-depth description of the fishing areas pursued in the respective islands coasts. In addition, the USVI Commercial fisher census from 2016 (Kojis et al. 2017) provides more details, which are summarized below in addition to more recent information. The 2017 commercial fishers survey (Kojis et al. (2017) discuss that most fishing in USVI occurred in territorial waters (<3 nm from shore) followed by fishing in both territorial and federal waters (>3 nm to 200 nm from shore), and that 10.2% of the fishers surveyed fished exclusively in federal waters. The number and percentage of fishers that fish primarily in territorial waters of St. Croix is more than in St. Thomas/St. John. The authors note that this may be attributed to the narrower St. Croix shelf, excluding part of Lang Bank to the west) that lies in territorial waters. Kojis et al. (2017) further discuss that the shelf edge drops off precipitously to depths of >1,000 ft. and that Lang Bank’s more hazardous sea condition, often deter fishers fishing in small boats from accessing the bank, particularly deeper areas that are in federal waters. In contrast, because the shelf on St. Thomas and St. John is wider, primary fishing grounds lie in federal waters (Kojis et al. 2017). Fishers fishing with vertical setline in St. Croix tend to target areas to the south of and along Lang Bank. While those that fish with vertical setline in St. Thomas/St. John fish in the north and south drops. 3.4.2.3
Licenses, Permits and Fees for the Harvest of Reef Fish (including deep-water reef fish)
Fishing vessel permits are not required to commercially harvest any Council-managed species in federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean (CFMC 2013c). Also, there are no federal licenses or permits required for the recreational harvest of reef fish, queen conch, spiny lobster, or aquarium trade species in the EEZ of the U.S. Caribbean. Efforts are underway to evaluate the development of a federal permit system in federal waters. In addition, there are Highly Migratory Species (HMS) permit requirements that apply to the commercial and the recreational sectors fishing in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. In Puerto Rico Commonwealth waters, a commercial fishing license is required for all commercial fishermen including for full-time resident and nonGeneric Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 33
resident fishermen, part-time fishermen, beginners fishermen, ornamental fisheries, and owners of rental boats including party/headboat and charter boats. As an obligation of the harvest permit, commercial fishermen are required to submit monthly catch reports to the Puerto Rico DNER. Additional commercial permits are required for the harvest of spiny lobster, queen conch, common land crab, incidental catch, and sirajo goby (i.e., cetí) fisheries. Limited Entry Program for the Harvest of Deep-Water Snappers in Puerto Rico Commonwealth Waters Puerto Rico’s DNER Administrative Order 2013-11 (DNER 2013) was implemented in August 14, 2013 to regulate the harvest of queen snapper (Etelis oculatus, (in Spanish, “cartucho”) and the cardinal snapper (Pristipomoides macrophthalmus [in Spanish, muniama de afuera]) (Snapper Complex 2) and to grant special permission to those commercial fishermen dedicated to the capture of these species, while closing harvest to these resources to the rest of the commercial and recreational fishermen. This special permit was implemented to manage the number of fishermen accessing the Snapper Complex 2 and to thereby reduce the likelihood of overfishing the resource. The special permits were awarded to commercial fishermen that had a full-time or part-time commercial fishing license and could show evidence, through historical landings (i.e., harvest of these two species during at least five years and reported annual captures of over 500 pounds), that they targeted these two species (CFMC 2015). The special permit limits fishing trips per fisher to a maximum of 120 trips per year for the harvest of these two species. Fishers can only fish from vessels registered to fish commercially in Puerto Rico. As of Dec 2020, there were approximately 60 fishers permitted. This has also been the approximate number of permitted fishers in other years. USVI Territorial Waters The USVI requires commercial fishing licenses for (1) all commercial fishermen, (2) any person who uses a pot, trap, set-net, or haul seine, (3) any person who sells, trades, or barters any part of their catch (including charter boat operators who sell or trade their catch), and (4) commercial fishing helpers who must obtain a helper’s permit to assist a licensed commercial fisher (the licensed commercial fisher must be onboard when the helper is fishing) (See USVI Handbook). USVI commercial fishermen are required to report their catch (all species) and effort for every trip (CFMC 2011a). Commercial Catch Report (CCR) forms must be submitted to the DPNR on a monthly basis, within two weeks after every fishing trip or within two weeks after the close of the month if no fishing took place (DPNR 2019). Commercial fishing licenses are only issued to U.S. citizens who are permanent residents of the USVI for at least one year. On August 24, 2001, the DPNR implemented a moratorium on issuance of new commercial fishing licenses, which remains in effect. License renewals are only issued to fishermen who have held a
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 34
commercial fishing license within three years of June 2001 and have complied with catch reporting requirements.
3.5
Economic Environment
3.5.1
Introduction
The 2017 hurricane season was disastrous for both the Puerto Rico and USVI economies. In a span of a few weeks in September, Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria devastated the island areas. Irma was estimated to have caused $1 billion in damages in Puerto Rico (Sullivan and Fieser 2017). Hsiang and Houser (2017) from the Climate Impact Lab estimated the impact of Hurricane Maria using an econometric model of the costs of cyclones over the past 60 years and applied it to the characteristics of Hurricane Maria and the economic conditions before the hurricane in Puerto Rico. They found that Maria could lower Puerto Rican incomes by 21% over a 15-year period - a cumulative $180 billion in lost economic output. They concluded that it could take 26 years for Puerto Rico to return to its pre-Maria economic conditions. The Puerto Rican consulting firm Estudios Técnicos (2017) estimated the capital loss from Hurricane Maria in the range of $16 to $20 billion. Damages to the island’s electric and communication infrastructures were estimated to be as high as $1.6 billion and $567 million, respectively. Estudios Técnicos also estimated a loss of income by employees of at least $1 billion. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information estimated damages caused by Hurricane Maria of $90.0 billion in Puerto Rico 5. The USVI economy is small and extremely vulnerable to natural disasters - windstorms, earthquakes, tsunamis - as well as external economic shocks due to the high degree of trade dependence and lack of economic diversification (USVI Bureau of Economic Research [BER] 2020). Hurricane Irma passed over St. Thomas as a Category 5 storm on September 6, 2017, with peak winds of 178 miles per hour. Two weeks later, on September 20, Hurricane Maria hit St. Croix, to the southeast, as a Category 5 storm. Damages from Irma exceeded $2.4 billion in the USVI (USDA National Resources Conservation Service Caribbean Area). 6 Maria damaged or destroyed 70% of the buildings on St. Croix, including schools and the island’s only hospital. Public revenues, according to estimates based on USVI fiscal data, were 5 6
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.pdf https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/pr/newsroom/features/?cid=nrcseprd1420889
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 35
halved after the two hurricanes (Congressional Research Service 2018/2020). The USVI government borrowed funds to cover some budget deficits, which raised concerns over levels of public debt and unfunded pension liabilities. Local policymakers proposed tax increases and austerity measures. Descriptions of the economies of the island areas (Puerto Rico, St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John) prior to the 2017 hurricanes are found in the Environmental Assessments for the Comprehensive Fishery Management Plans and are incorporated by reference. The remainder of this section focuses on the post-hurricane economies of the island areas.
3.5.2
Puerto Rico
The number of Puerto Ricans leaving for the mainland increased to 301,304 in 2017; however, many returned later. Net out migration in 2017 was 77,321 persons, meaning 223,983 persons migrated to the island that year (U.S. Census Bureau 2020).
1,250,000
16.0 14.0
1,200,000
12.0
1,150,000
10.0
1,100,000
8.0 6.0
1,050,000
4.0
1,000,000 950,000
2.0 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Labor Force
2017
2018
2019
2020
Unemployment Rate
Labor Force (Number Employed & Unemployed)
Despite the adverse impacts of the 2017 hurricane season, the annual unemployment rate fell in 2018 and 2019, but it rose again in 2020. However, the labor force continued its general declining trend after 2017 despite the bump in 2019 as shown in Figure 3.5.1. Note that the unemployment rate in 2020 was substantially lower than it had been from 2012 through 2016, when it was never below 11.8% (U.S. Department of Labor [USDOL] Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS]).
0.0
Unemp Rate
Figure 3.5.1. Labor force and unemployment rate in Puerto Rico, 2012 – 2020. (Source: USDOL BLS)
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 36
Most of Puerto Rico’s farms are located in the central and western municipalities, and Hurricane Maria’s path took it through much of the island’s prime farmland. Puerto Rico’s Secretary of Agriculture stated to the New York Times that 80% of the island’s crops with a preliminary estimated value of $780 million were wiped out by the hurricane (Robles and Ferré-Sadurní 2017). Plantain, banana, and coffee crops were hit the hardest. Approximately half of the coffee plants were lost (Ayala 2017). The chicken and egg industry lost 60% of its production (Ayala 2017). Approximately 2 million of the island’s 2.6 million chickens were killed, many of them drowned, and poultry housing and processing equipment were destroyed (Dorell 2017). Dairy cows died and surviving cows have been less productive than before. Communities and households lost gardens and family livestock. The federal government’s response to the losses incurred by dairy farm operations included $12 million to the island’s 253 licensed dairy operations to purchase feed for their estimated combined 94,000 cows for 30 days (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Farm Service Agency [FSA] 2017). The 2018 Puerto Rico USDA Census of Agriculture (USDA 2020) shows a sharp decline in the number of farms and their land (cuerdas) from 2012 to 2018. The sharpest decline in the number of farms were those with one to nine cuerdas (Table 3.5.1). Table 3.5.1. Number of farms, total amount of farmland, and number of farms by land size, 2012 and 2018.
Year
Number of Farms
Total Amount of Farm Land
Number Farms with 1-9 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 10 - 19 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 20 - 49 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 50 - 99 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 100 - 175 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 175 - 259 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 260 or more Cuerdas
2012
13,159
584,988
5,129
2,859
2,872
940
563
401
395
2018
8,230
487,775
2,213
1,853
1,950
952
579
330
353
Change -37.46% -16.62% -56.85% -35.19% -32.10% (Source: Puerto Rico USDA 2018 Census of Agriculture)
1.28%
2.84%
-17.71%
-10.63%
The Puerto Rico Planning Board estimated that Hurricane Maria had a $43.1 billion impact on the island’s economy as of October 12, 2018 (Lloréns Vélez 2018). The Planning Board said losses for the private sector alone totaled $30 billion, with manufacturing reporting the highest loss of income and agriculture among the highest damage to infrastructure and equipment. After
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 37
taking Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and private insurer disbursements into account, the net adverse impact to the economy was $30.3 billion. Hurricane Maria did not cause damages to the territory’s pharmaceutical industry. In 2018, five of the world’s top ten selling drugs (Humira, Eliquis, Opdivo, Enbrel and Xarelto) were manufactured there, and internationally, eight of the 15 top-selling pharmaceutical products are made in Puerto Rico (Miller 2020). In 2019, nine out of Puerto Rico’s top 10 commodity exports to the rest of the world were pharmaceutical or medical device products (Census U.S. International Trade Data). In 2020, there were 50 pharmaceutical and 30 medical-device manufacturing sites dotted throughout the island. In 2019, pharmaceutical exports totaled more than $44 billion, and, of that, $30.89 billion of that total was exported to the U.S. market. Puerto Rico’s real gross domestic product (GDP) declined in 2019 and 2020 (Figure 3.5.2), which is consistent with its declining trend since 2006. Real GDP in 2019 was 12% lower than it was in 2016, and in 2020, it was 7.5% less than it was in 2019 due in part to a series of earthquakes and the COVID-19 pandemic. Public debt represented 59% of GDP in 2019 and 65% of GDP in 2020. Gross national income (GNI) per capita declined by 8.35% from 2016 through 2019 (Figure 3.5.3). The World Bank has not yet reported a 2020 estimate of GNI per capita.
Real GDP (millions of 2020$)
$21,000.00 $20,000.00 $19,000.00 $18,000.00 $17,000.00 $16,000.00 $15,000.00
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Figure 3.5.2. Puerto Rico real GDP (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2020.
(Source: World Bank for GDP 2016 – 2019, Knoema for GDP for 2020, and BEA for implicit price deflator)
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 38
$20,500.00 $20,000.00 $19,500.00 $19,000.00 $18,500.00 $18,000.00 $17,500.00
2016
2017
2018
2019
Figure 3.5.3. Puerto Rico’s GNI per capita (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2019. (Source: World Bank for GNI per capita and BEA for implicit price deflator)
Because Puerto Rico lies on the boundary between the North American and Caribbean plates, the archipelago is prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. There were three significant earthquakes in January 2020 and each had many strong aftershocks. On January 6, 2020, there was a 5.8 magnitude earthquake, followed the next day by a 6.4 magnitude earthquake, which was centered off the southern coast, 6 miles south of Indios. It knocked out all power and caused at least $110 million in damages according to Reuters (Valentin Ortiz 2020). Another estimate put that figure at $3.1 billion (Kaske and Levin 2020). More than 600 homes and other buildings were destroyed, one person died, and there were damages to bridges and roads. In addition, thousands of homes and other buildings were damaged. The iconic Punta Ventana, a natural formation that is a popular destination for tourists, collapsed. Approximately 70% of Puerto Rico’s power is generated along the south coast, while approximately 70% of its demand is along the north coast. The territory’s largest power plant, the Costa Sur power plant with a capacity of 970 megawatts, was knocked out of service from cracked foundations, ruptured pipes, split water tanks, a damaged turbine and damages to the plant’s control room. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) shut down the power grid as a safety precaution, and two-thirds of the utility’s 1.4 million customers were without power for days. The Costa Sur plant was not back online until August 2020. On January 11, there was an aftershock that registered at 5.9 magnitude. Many of these aftershocks were of significant magnitude and made relief and recovery difficult. Over two dozen quakes had a magnitude of 4.5 or more. On January 15, there was a 5.2 earthquake and ten days later, a 5.0 magnitude earthquake hit near Guayanilla. On 14 January, PREPA said service had been restored for 99% of its customers. On May 2, 2020, the same area Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 39
was rocked by a magnitude 5.4 earthquake that caused new damage in Ponce. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) stated that it was an aftershock of the January 7 magnitude 6.4 earthquake, and USGS included it in the earthquake swarm that they had been tracking since January. Another magnitude 4.8 aftershock struck the area at the beginning of August, causing further damage and slowing repairs. A USGS report predicts that the aftershocks could continue for a decade (van der Elst et al. 2020). The continuance of aftershocks and damages from the aftershocks complicates estimates of the economic impacts of the damages in 2020. Most renewable energy-generating facilities survived Hurricane Maria with modest amounts of damage, but a solar photovoltaic farm at Humacao and the Punta Lima wind farm at Naguabo both on Puerto Rico's east coast where the eye of the storm came ashore - were badly damaged. The solar photovoltaic farm was rebuilt, while the Punta Lima wind farm remained nonoperational as of May 2020 (U.S. Energy Information Administration [USEIA]). The earthquakes in early 2020 did not damage any renewable generating facilities. The solar micro grids using rooftop solar panels that were installed primarily by private, federal, and non-profit organizations after the hurricanes in 2017, were able to maintain power supply in some communities following the earthquakes. Although Puerto Rico has, on average, more than 65% sunny hours per day and 22 miles per hour winds year-round, less than 3% of all the energy produced there is through renewable energy. Under the Puerto Rico Energy Public Policy Act, which was signed into law in May 2019, that has to change. PREPA must obtain 40% of its electricity from renewable resources by 2025, 60% by 2040, and 100% by 2050 (USEIA). The territory’s renewable resources include wind, hydropower, and solar energy. For fiscal year 2020, 2.5% of PREPA's electricity came from renewable energy, with solar photovoltaic accounting for half and wind accounting for onethird of total renewable generation. The remainder came from hydroelectric and landfill gas facilities (USEIA). Tourism’s contribution to GDP fell from 5.68% in 2016 to 5.50% in 2017 and 4.82% in 2018 (Puerto Rico Tourism Company). Both the earthquakes and SARS pandemic (COVID-19) of 2020 (and that continues into 2021) has greatly affected island tourism. In 2019, there were approximately 1.11 million tourist arrivals; however, that fell to approximately 0.523 million in 2020. Figure 3.4.4 shows the number of arrival guests through August of each year since 2017 and note the sharp declines in 2018 and 2020.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 40
2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0
2017
2018
2019
2020
Figure 3.5.4. Arrival guests through August of each year, 2017 – 2020. (Source: Puerto Rico Tourism Company, Registrations and Occupancy Report)
The labor force continues to shrink as shown in Figure 3.5.5. Note that there are no data for the size of the labor force in March or April 2020.
Dec-20
Nov-20
Oct-20
Sep-20
Aug-20
Jul-20
Jun-20
May-20
Apr-20
Mar-20
Feb-20
Jan-20
Dec-19
Nov-19
Oct-19
Sep-19
Aug-19
Jul-19
Jun-19
May-19
Apr-19
Mar-19
Feb-19
Jan-19
1,120,000 1,110,000 1,100,000 1,090,000 1,080,000 1,070,000 1,060,000 1,050,000 1,040,000 1,030,000 1,020,000
Labor Force
Figure 3.5.5. Monthly labor force, January 2019 – December 2020. (Source: USDOL BLS)
After years of wrangling with its creditors, the territory disclosed a plan in September 2019 for resolving the biggest governmental bankruptcy in United States history, by cutting $129 billion in debts to about $86 billion - a reduction of 33 percent (New York Times September 27, 2019). In June 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the financial oversight board, which was established by Congress to oversee Puerto Rico's finances after the 2014 bankruptcy, was constitutional (Coleman 2021).
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 41
In February 2021, the board announced that it has reached an agreement in principal with creditors to reduce a portion of the U.S. territory’s more than $70 billion public debt load. However, Governor Pedro Pierluisi rejected the agreement for reasons that it overburdened pensioners. The board responded with a revised plan in March that includes a proposed cut of up to 8.5% to monthly pensions of at least $1,500. That has long been a point of contention between the board and the governor, who has repeatedly said he would not approve such cuts. Ultimately, the plan also has to be approved by a judge overseeing Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy-like process. If that occurs, the plan would reduce Puerto Rico’s outstanding debt from $35 billion to $7.4 billion, an 80% cut. Among other things, it also would cut total debt service payments by more than 60%, which the board said would save the government nearly $60 billion in debt service payments. Governor Pierluisi, who has previously said he would reject any plan with high pension cuts, said the government will declare in court that it does not fully support the plan, but still, he called the proposal a step in the right direction.
3.5.3
St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John
Since after the devastating twin hurricanes of 2017, the most dynamic sector of the USVI economy has been construction. Federal disaster assistance is spurring reconstruction, infrastructure repair, and several hazard mitigation activities, resulting in high demand for construction workers. As shown in Figure 3.5.6, the number of jobs in construction more than doubled from 2017 to 2019: 1,618 in August 2017 and 4,076 in August 2019. However, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a decline in construction in 2020 and early 2021. Employees in the construction, mining and logging sector, which are essentially all in construction (96%) in the USVI, declined in 2020 and early 2021, but stayed above the numbers prior to the hurricanes as seen in Figure 3.5.7.
4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Aug-16
Mar-17
Sep-17
Apr-18
Oct-18
May-19
Dec-19
Figure 3.5.6. Construction jobs in USVI, January 2017 – September 2019. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 42
Thousands of Employees
(Source: USVI DOL, Labor Market Basket)
6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Dec-14
May-16
Sep-17
Feb-19
Jun-20
Oct-21
Figure 3.5.7. Employees in construction, mining and logging sector in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. (Source: U.S. BLS)
In March 13, 2020, Governor Bryan issued an Executive Order and Proclamation declaring a State of Emergency in response to the pandemic. Ten days later the Governor issued a “stay-athome” order and ordered all non-essential businesses to remain closed, beginning March 25. The order also officially limited gatherings to 10 persons or fewer, closed all bars, prohibited restaurants from offering dining room service, and limited taxis and safaris to half-capacity passenger loads. 7 On April 6, Governor Bryan ordered the closure of all beaches through April 20. On April 13, 2020, the Governor announced that the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Insular Affairs has given the U.S. Virgin Islands $7,863,776 in funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Federal COVID-19 stimulus bill. Also on that day, the Federal Aviation Administration awarded the USVI $41,145,247 to maintain the territory’s airports as part of the CARES Act Federal stimulus bill. On May 4, the USVI began to allow some non-essential businesses to reopen; however, the State of Emergency was extended on May 7 for another 60 days, which meant it would not expire until July 12. On May 21, 2020, Governor Bryan announced he was easing restrictions on bars and restaurants, allowing bars to reopen and restaurants to serve dine-in customers beginning the Tuesday after Memorial Day. Seven days later the Governor announced that the USVI would move to the “Open Doors” phase, which would allow all business to reopen. With that, hotels, villas and Airbnb vendors were able to begin taking reservations and hospitality-related businesses had restrictions lifted. Thermal scanners were installed at the airports and other measures were put On April 2, 2020, the U.S. President declared that a major disaster existed in the USVI based on COVID-19, which opened the door to getting Federal assistance to mitigate the virus. 7
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 43
into place to track visitors and their health. On July 9, 2020, Governor Bryan tightened restrictions on travelers and set a 10% positivity rate as the threshold, affecting visitors from any state at that rate or higher, which at that date were: Alabama; Arizona; Florida; Georgia; Idaho; Kansas; Mississippi; Nevada; South Carolina; and Texas.
10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0
Jan-16 Mar-16 May-16 Jul-16 Sep-16 Nov-16 Jan-17 Mar-17 May-17 Jul-17 Sep-17 Nov-17 Jan-18 Mar-18 May-18 Jul-18 Sep-18 Nov-18 Jan-19 Mar-19 May-19 Jul-19 Sep-19 Nov-19 Jan-20 Mar-20 May-20 Jul-20 Sep-20 Nov-20 Jan-21
Thousands of Employees
Even before the pandemic affected travel and tourism, Hurricanes Irma and Maria were disastrous to USVI tourism. In the immediate aftermath of the hurricanes, the number of stayover tourist arrivals declined, and employment in the leisure and hospitality sector plummeted, as several large hotel properties closed for renovations. The number of employees in the leisure and hospitality and trade, transportation and utilities sectors began to recover in 2019, but they declined again in 2020 (Figure 3.5.8). Employment in the manufacturing sector was not similarly affected, and it rose from 0.6 thousand (566) employees in August 2017 to 0.8 thousand (760) in August 2019 and has stayed relatively constant since then despite the pandemic.
Leisure & Hospitality
Manufacturing
Trade, Transporation & Utilities
Figure 3.5.8. Employees in the leisure and hospitality, manufacturing, and trade, transportation and utilities sectors in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021.
(Source: U.S. BLS)
Charlotte Amalie in St. Thomas, which is one of the most popular cruise destinations in the Caribbean, suffered severe damage, and two cruise ports were closed for weeks. From 2014 through 2016, an average of 23 ships made call in September and another 29 in October. There were only two cruise ship calls to St. Thomas in September and none in October of 2017. The peak cruise season runs from December through April. Although the numbers of monthly cruise passenger arrivals and ship calls rebounded in December 2017, the numbers of passengers and ship calls from January through April of 2018 were less than they had been the previous four years. Total annual visitor arrivals declined in 2018, but rebounded in 2019 and forecasts for Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 44
2020 were optimistic; however, that optimism was short-lived and visitor arrivals declined dramatically in 2020 8 (Figure 3.5.9).
3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Figure 3.5.9. Total USVI visitor arrivals, 2016 – 2020.
(Source: USVI BER)
Real GDP grew by 1.5% in 2018 and then by 1.7% in 2019, which generated optimism for the USVI economy in 2020, but that was before the pandemic. Real GDP fell by 14.2% in 2020 (USVI BER) (Figure 3.5.10).
5.0 0.0
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
-5.0 -10.0 -15.0
Figure 3.5.10. Annual change in real GDP, 2016 – 2020. (Source: USVI BER, November 2020)
8
In 2016, there were approximately 2.57 million visitor arrivals, in 2020 there were approximately 0.86 million.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 45
Petroleum products account for 42% of total exports in 2018. However, that was largely a reexport business, and little value was added in the territory. That is expected to change since St. Croix’s long-idled refinery, now the Limetree Refinery, restarted in February 2021. Although it has brought back jobs, it is also bringing back memories of the pollution produced by the former HOVENSA refinery. According to Reuters (March 8, 2021), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants the refinery’s owners, Limetree Bay Ventures, to increase its monitoring of air quality due to emissions affecting the nearby neighborhoods, but the owners have so far balked. After tourism and petroleum, the next most important sector is the production and export of rum. Rum constituted 41% of total exports in 2018 by value. Rum exports to the mainland increased from 2017 to 2019 (Figure 3.5.11).
Thousands of Proof Liters
66,000.0 64,000.0 62,000.0 60,000.0 58,000.0 56,000.0 54,000.0 52,000.0 50,000.0
2016
2017
2018
2019
Figure 3.5.11. Annual change in rum exports to U.S.
(Source: USVI BER, Annual Economic Indicators, May 20, 2020)
The USVI economy performed better in 2018 and 2019, exhibiting positive real economic growth, higher revenues, decreasing unemployment, and improving fiscal balances and liquidity positions for the central government. However, the improvement in economic performance was primarily due to an infusion of Federal disaster relief assistance that is helping rebuild the economy. Despite the positive achievements and progress on reconstruction, the economy still faces many weaknesses and vulnerabilities that could result in the return of significant deficits and financial distress, namely the pending insolvency of Government Employee Retirement System (GERS) and the mounting liquidity issues at Water and Power Authority (WAPA), a semi-autonomous government-owned electric, water, and sewer utility. To minimize these risks, the quality of Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 46
financial management and governance has to improve across the public sector, new economic growth needs to be stimulated, tourism products need to be revitalized and differentiated, and credible plans shaped to stabilize GERS and improve the management and financial performance of WAPA. The main internal threats to the USVI economy are the massive unfunded liabilities of the GERS and the illiquidity of WAPA. The likely consequences of the dire financial situations of these two entities would be a reduction in the benefits paid to retirees after 2023 in the case of GERS and demands for more transfers from the central government in the case of WAPA. In 2019, the main driver in the economy was government spending. Government spending increased dramatically after 2017, with an influx of federal disaster assistance. In 2018, government spending was estimated to be 42% of GDP, when for the decade before the hurricanes (2007-2016), the average government share of GDP was 26.36%. 9 Although the official GDP for 2019 has not yet been calculated, the expected 2019 government spending as a share of GDP is likely to be in the 30% range (USVI BER March 25, 2020).
3.6
Description of the Social Environment
This section describes key dimensions of the social and cultural environments potentially affected by modification of the island-based FMPs to accommodate traditional use of buoy gear for capturing deep-water snappers and related species around Puerto Rico and the USVI. Links to original source materials are provided wherever possible in the cited references section, and interested readers are referred to the Caribbean FMPs for a wide variety of materials of relevance to the regulatory topic of interest.
3.6.1
Puerto Rico
Use of living marine resources has long been an important aspect of life on the islands in what is now called Puerto Rico. Rivera-Collazo (2011) describes Angostura on the north coast of Puerto Rico where settlers were living some 4,650 years ago. Today, a distinct and complex island society and culture are clearly apparent in Puerto Rico, with cultural traditions extending to many other parts of the world and back (Duany 2002; Reichard 2020). The estimated 2017 total population of residents on the islands of Puerto Rico was 3,449,000 persons in 2017, 99% of whom identify as Hispanic (Kaiser Family Foundation 2017). Although fishing activities are In 2018, the USVI’s commercial fishing fleet landed 445,184 pounds of finfish and shellfish, generating approximately $2.96 million in commercial value (NMFS 2020a), which in turn generated approximately $15.2 million in total value added that accounted for approximately 0.38% of GDP, whereas it accounted for approximately 0.64% of GDP in 2014.
9
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 47
undertaken by a small percentage of island residents, they are vital to local fishing families and communities, and provide an important source of food to residents and visitors alike. 3.6.1.1
Commercial/Artisanal Fishing and Social Aspects of Fishing in Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico is a 3,515 square-mile archipelago of mostly small cays, islets, and coral reef ecosystems. Fisheries are conducted especially around the main island and also Vieques, Culebra, and banks near Mona and Desecheo islands (Agar et al. 2020). The most productive fish habitats, and most fishing activities, occur within the 100-fathom contour since the seabed drops off quickly beyond this point. The west coast of Puerto Rico is said to be the most productive fishing zone since the shelf is shallow here and extends far out to sea. Puerto Rico fisheries are primarily artisanal in nature, with harvesters using small vessels, few crewmembers, and multiple types of gear. As stated by Agar and Shivlani (2017), “a captain and a deckhand (known as proel) run most fishing operations.” Ecosystem and fishing knowledge are essential to success. As might be expected of an artisanal-type fishery, revenue tends to be limited. But this is not the sole measure of success, since most participants combine sale of seafood with consumption and sharing in extended family and community settings (ValleEsquivel et al. 2011). Opportunities for expansion of commercial operations are limited since there is little in terms of an export market. This does not indicate isolation; however, since offisland supply chains provide engines, fuel, oil, gear, and other materials to local fleets. Many harvesters work on the ocean on an occasional or part-time basis, often earning additional income through construction or similar part-time or opportunity-based work (Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini 2002; Griffith et al. 2007). The benefits of this strategy are particularly important to the overall household economy and when fish are absent or vessels or engines are not functioning. Commercial pursuit of deep-water snappers and related species is extensive on the west coast of Puerto Rico, though it certainly occurs elsewhere. Trap fishing is common throughout, and pelagic fishing is a mainstay for many operations. Capture, sale, and/or consumption of spiny lobster and queen conch are also important. Typical gears include trolled and static hook and line; lobster and fish traps; beach seines, gill, cast, and trammel nets; slings and spears; hand lines; and various longline and bottom gear (Valle-Esquivel et al. 2011). Pelagic species are important to many. Guided offshore fishing very typically involves trolling for pelagic species with hook and line gear, and also some static hook and line fishing for deep-water snappers and similar species. Certain captains are involved in both the commercial and charter fishing sectors.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 48
Gear traditionally used by commercial harvesters around Puerto Rico includes cala con boya. This vertical longline, multi-hook configuration is used to land various snapper species in deep water with strong currents and rough bottom conditions. Olsen et al. (1974) suggests the gear may have been relatively new in the Virgin Islands during the early 1970s, though its use in Puerto Rico may well be older. With regard to the scope of relevant fishing activity around Puerto Rico, the most recent data regarding the number of resident commercial seafood harvesters indicate that 1,074 licensed harvesters were living in Puerto Rico in 2016, increasing to 1,275 in 2018. The latter number likely reflects purchase but not necessarily immediate use of fishing licenses when other forms of work diminished after Hurricane Maria in 2017. Some 714 harvesters are thought to have been actively fishing soon after the hurricane (pers. comm., Puerto Rico Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2019). Matos-Caraballo and Agar (2011a; 2011b) report that commercial fishing is well distributed around Puerto Rico, with active harvesters residing in 39 coastal municipalities. While trailers and boat ramps are increasingly used as various moorings and harbors are lost to development (Griffith et al. 2013), Matos-Caraballo and Agar (2011b) determined that about 92% of fishermen land their catch in their home municipalities. This attachment to place indicates the importance of fisheries-related social life in communities, neighborhoods, and extended family settings around Puerto Rico. Approximately 34% of licensed harvesters were living on the west coast of the island during the late 2000s (mainly in Cabo Rojo, Rincón, Mayagüez, and Aguadilla), 27% on the south coast (primarily in Lajas, Salinas, Guánica, and Ponce), roughly 20% on the north coast (San Juan and Arecibo), and another 20% on the east coast (Vieques, Fajardo, and Naguabo). The typical commercial harvester was then 49 years old, had at least a high school diploma, and 29 years of fishing experience (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011b). Commercial fishing in Puerto Rico typically involves multiple family members. Griffith et al. (2007) determined that over 40% of local fishing households earned all income through fishing, and Matos-Caraballo and Agar (2011c) found that 84% earned more than half of the annual household income through fishing. Women are known to fish commercially around Puerto Rico, but males are most typically involved, with many women supporting the overall household economy (Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini 2002). Numerous factors influence the nature of artisanal fisheries in Puerto Rico. The north, west, and east sides are particularly vulnerable to major swell events occurring during winter, with all sides exposed to tropical storm swells, winds, and waves. Steep mountains affect local sea states, as do regional trade winds. These and other environmental factors have a bearing on when, for how long, how, and with what intensity fishing activities can occur. The presence, location, Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 49
movement, and prey-related behavior of marketable fish naturally also affect fishing effort and investment of time and money in the operation. Decisions about where and when to fish are also influenced by the condition of vessel and gear, the availability and skill-level of crew members, the ability of harvesters to persist as they age, and many other social and economic factors. For participants in commercial fisheries around Puerto Rico, the relationship between fishing effort, market demand, and pricing is profound. Many harvesters market their own catch in community settings. Some also sell to buyers from local retail establishments and/or restaurants, and other businesses located elsewhere on the island. In Puerto Rico, the relationship between seafood harvesters and those who buy their products is a social process with human relationships at the core. Community-level research conducted with fishermen during the mid- and late-2000s indicates places where fisheries are particularly important organizing features of local society, culture, and economy. Griffith et al. (2007) identified communities with extensive dependence on fishing and related economic activities, including neighborhoods in Fajardo (Maternillo, Mansión del Sapo, and Puerto Real); La Estrella in Rincón; Pozuelo in Guayama; Punta Santiago in Humacao; La Playa in Ponce; Puerto Real in Cabo Rojo; and La Parguera in Lajas. As noted by Griffith and Valdés-Pizzini (2002), and Griffith et al. (2007), villas pesqueras are an important social aspect of commercial/artisanal fishing in Puerto Rico, functioning much like fishing cooperatives and facilities for fishing- and seafood-related social interaction. Villas pesqueras were initiated as a fisheries development strategy in the 1960s and are now typical throughout the island’s coastal towns and cities (Griffith et al. 2007). The Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture typically subsidizes infrastructure needed for mooring, launching, gear storage, sale of seafood, and other services, though some villas pesqueras are owned and maintained privately or by local fishing associations (Griffith et al. 2007). Fishing and seafood are particularly important in certain family and community settings around Puerto Rico. Some islanders inherit the fishing way of life; others grow to base their lives around fishing, with all who persist eventually gaining knowledge of the ocean, atmosphere, and marine resources. Such knowledge can generate respect in certain communities, and the seafood itself is folded into old and evolving recipes for festivals and daily meals, and onto many plates, palates, hearts, and minds. Such cultural topics are addressed in Griffith and Pizzini (2002), who discuss the lives of fishermen and their families around Puerto Rico. Large-Scale Change: The Hurricane Season of 2017 The hurricane season of 2017 was particularly active and damaging in the Atlantic Basin, where 17 named storms, 10 hurricanes, and six major hurricanes developed. Following initial damage from Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico as a high-end Category 4 storm Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 50
with peak winds of 155 mph. Maria lingered over the island for 30 hours, generating storm surge, severe flooding, landslides, massive agriculture impacts, widespread infrastructure damage, and extensive loss of life (NOAA 2017; Milken Institute School of Public Health 2018; Coto 2020; Chan et al. 2018). With regard to impacts on island fisheries, it should be kept in mind that economic conditions were challenging for participants even before the hurricanes of 2017. Rates of household poverty continue to be extraordinarily high in Puerto Rico, consistently exceeding 43% since 2005. In 2018, the household poverty rate was 43.1%—more than double the rate for Mississippi, which has the highest rate of poverty of all states in the nation. In comparison, the national rate of household poverty was 13.1% in 2018 (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). Estimated median household income in Puerto Rico was $20,078 in 2015 and $57,617 for households in the 50 states. At 10%, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Puerto Rico was twice the average across all states and D.C. (Guzman 2017; Kaiser Family Foundation 2017a). The pre-existing poverty problem was majorly compounded by the 2017 hurricane season. Poverty must be considered in social context, which in Puerto Rico often involves the pooling of resources in extended family and community settings. But the relative lack of money in the average Puerto Rico household, coupled with fiscal deficit problems on the part of government (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2018), leaves island residents highly vulnerable to tropical storms and other disasters that generate economic shock and long-term social impacts. After Maria, the situation led many families to meet basic needs in urbanized areas on the island (Acosta et al. 2020), and also to massive out-migration, with some 133,500 residents departing in 2018—a 36.9% increase above the rate for the prior year (Glassman 2019). The storm caused major life trauma for many, with problems that are likely to linger for many years. Pasch et al. (2017:7) estimate physical damages caused by Hurricane Maria at $90.0 billion, indicating a long recovery period. Fishery-Specific Socioeconomic Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico Given the strength of Hurricane Maria at landfall, many vessels were lost, harbors and moorings were damaged, essential supply chains were disrupted, and basic services were absent for many months. Lack of power and communications severely constrained fishing operations (Agar et al. 2020). In some cases, fishery participants and/or their family members were injured or lost their lives. Agar et al. (2020) conducted a socioeconomic assessment of Maria’s impacts during the first year of the event. The work involved 664 in-person interviews or 78.3% of commercial harvesters thought to be active following Maria. The resulting data are useful both for understanding contemporary fishing around Puerto Rico, and for gauging hurricane impacts. Key characteristics of fishing operations maintained by harvesters involved in the study include: Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 51
(a) a mean age of 52.7 years; (b) extensive reliance on fishing revenue, which accounts for 58.6% of household income on average (71.8% on the west coast); (c) an average of 3.6 fishing trips per week, with a range of 3.8 trips/week on the south coast to 4.1 trips/week on the west coast; (d) 33.1 fishing hours per week on average, with a range of 40.5 hours on the east coast to 26.3 hours on the west; (e) average vessel length of ~20 feet using ~100 hp engines on average; and (g) vessels and gear valued at $18,123 on average, with a range of $11,063 on the south coast to $22,117 on the north (Agar et al. 2020:383). Impacts from Maria were particularly difficult for harvesters who rely on certain types of gear, and for those based on the heavily impacted east and north coastlines. Agar et al. (2020:378) write that “Maria caused [overall] commercial landings to fall by 20%, owing to the loss of productive assets, extended power outages, and the loss of customers. While most fishing resumed when electric service was restored, losses totaled $17.8 million, with damages to vessel, engine, gear, and shore side infrastructure accounting for more than half of the losses and foregone revenue the remaining 49%. The east coast was hardest hit, as were fishermen who use traps, handlines, and commercial diving equipment (Agar et al. 2020:378). Citing landings information from the National Marine Fisheries Service (2019), Agar et al. (2020:386) state that 75% of revenue losses were concentrated on six species: queen conch (27%), yellowtail snapper (15%), spiny lobster (14%), lane snapper (7%), dolphinfish (6%) and queen snapper (6%). Around 6,700 traps were lost during the storm. Agar et al. (2020:386) also report that 165 or 16.3% of commercial fishermen active in 2016 departed the industry after the hurricane. The majority of participants did not significantly alter their operations, however, with the exception of those forced to use alternative launch sites or avoid places where habitat had been damaged by the storm. Recovery continues—now in the context of the first pandemic in over 100 years. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Fishery Impacts in Puerto Rico The ongoing pandemic continues to challenge the nation’s marine fisheries and seafood industries. NOAA Fisheries (2021) provides specific understanding of initial pandemic effects in each fishery management region around the country, including Puerto Rico, where NMFS social scientists conducted interviews with 318 commercial fishermen during late summer of 2020. Among key findings, 96% of respondents reported that the pandemic had indeed affected fishing operations during its first six months in the U.S. Roughly, 87% reported reduced revenue, with decline of 65% on average. When asked about pandemic-related factors that hurt their fishing operations most, 79% reported a lack of markets or buyers, 71% reported the effects of state and local government restrictions, and 48% reported health safety measures. About 94% stopped fishing for some time during the first half of 2020, with 33% stopping for more than 3 months. Pandemic impacts during this period typically included a reduced number of trips, a lack of available markets, and difficulty obtaining supplies (NOAA Fisheries 2021). Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 52
A modified version of NOAA Fisheries survey was implemented with 47 seafood dealers around Puerto Rico, 93% of whom reported reduced revenue, with an average decrease of 56%. About 43% of affected businesses reported a loss of employees, and 56% decrease in revenue on average. When asked to identify the top three COVID-19 related factors that had impacted their businesses during its initial months in the U.S., 87% chose state and local market restrictions, 77% chose loss of marketing potential, and 70% chose implementation of health safety measures. About 87% of affected businesses were closed for at least some period during the first half of 2020. Reduced sales to restaurants and stores affected 94% of respondents, and diminished availability of seafood products affected 81% of respondents (NOAA Fisheries 2021)
3.6.2
St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John
For centuries now, persons of African, West Indian, French, and Danish descent have worked and lived in small communities scattered throughout the steep, rocky islands of St. Thomas and St. John and the larger, flatter island of St. Croix (Rogozinski 1994:82; Olwig 1993: 37). In conjunction with other occupations, especially small-scale farming, many early settlers became productive and efficient harvesters of seafood. A thorough review of pertinent historical aspects of fishing and subsistence living on St. Thomas and St. John is provided in IAI (2006, 2007). Governments, firms, and individuals from the U.S. eventually arrived in the islands, largely in pursuit of broad political and economic interests. The U.S. government purchased the islands from the Danish in 1917, just prior to World War I (Austin 2020). As described by Austin (2020: 3), mainland and local policymakers “eventually created a robust manufacturing sector in the U.S. Virgin Islands after World War II. But manufacturing has struggled in the 21st century.” The 2012 closing of the Hess HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix was particularly detrimental to the region’s economy, as it led to the loss of 2,000 jobs. Tourism and related services have increasingly come to dominate the economies of all the U.S. Virgin Islands. Of significance in relation to the impacts of the 2017 hurricane season, St. Croix has long been the principal point of manufacturing and agricultural production in the USVI. The vast majority (~95%) of farmed acres, and some 75% of farms in the USVI were located on St. Croix in recent years. The effects of Hurricane Maria on the St. Croix landscape and public and privately owned infrastructure were profound, and recovery continues as it does on St. Thomas and St. John. The estimated combined population of the U.S. Virgin Islands was 107,268 in 2017 (U.S. Census Bureau 2016). Levels of poverty are significantly higher in the USVI than elsewhere in the U.S., reaching 22% in the island during 2017, as compared to 14% on the continent (U.S. Census Bureau 2016). The unemployment rate was 13% in the USVI and 5% on the mainland in 2017, Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 53
with median household income estimated at $37,254 in the islands and $57,617 on the continent that year (Kaiser Family Foundation 2017b). 3.6.2.1
Social and Cultural Aspects of Fishing on St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix
Fishing in the USVI has long been artisanal in nature. This was the case in the 1930s, when, as noted by IAI (2006:11) “some 400 fishermen were active in the islands, most of whom rowed or sailed small vessels to the fishing grounds.” Fish traps and handlines were most commonly used at that time, and fishing was typically combined with small-scale farming. The growth of island populations, industries, and infrastructure was heavily influenced by increasing rates of leisure tourism during the 20th century (IAI 2006). With specific regard to fishing activities on St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix, demand for seafood expanded late in the 20th century in conjunction with the increasing number of visitors, restaurants, and tourist destinations. At the same time, local fishing-oriented families were increasingly able to supplement ocean-derived income with that from part-time or periodic work arrangements that complemented the shifting nature of ocean conditions and the availability of marine resources. Individuals in some fishing-oriented families now hold high-paying positions in firms and institutions around the islands, and in some cases on the continent, benefiting the household, extended family, and those who continue to be engaged in local fisheries. It is notable that large-scale economic change has in some ways enhanced the evolution of island culture, including cultural aspects of fishing. For instance, various technological advancements have, in the last 20 years, radically improved communication options and speed of contact between fishermen. Information of all kinds, such as the presence of bait or fish in a given location, pending weather conditions, and shifting market conditions are now immediately available to all with a cell phone. Local employment options and new technologies have helped enable the continuation of a traditional lifestyle that emphasizes fishing, strong social relationships between local families, and various cultural traditions in the island’s fishingoriented communities. The concept of community can be defined in terms of networks of people who regularly interact to undertake fishing-related activities at sea or on land. This holds true for St. Croix, where Valdez-Pizzini et al. (2010) identified groups of fishermen and families connected by commercial fishing and associated activities. Fishing communities can also be envisioned in terms of places where overall involvement in and dependence on marine fisheries is particularly extensive (Colburn et al. 2016; Jepson and Colburn 2013; Jepson 2008). Island districts, and even whole islands, have been examined and considered in this way. For example, Stoffle et al. (2009) envision the island of St. Croix as a fishing community in and of itself. Fishing activities Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 54
in the USVI may also be seen as occurring extensively in specific parts of the islands. IAI (2006) identifies places where fishing-oriented families exhibit strong attachment to neighborhood and island districts, including the Northside, East End, and Southside districts of St. Thomas, and the East and West End districts of St. John. Contemporary Commercial/Artisanal Fisheries on St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix Many species of reef fish, the snapper/grouper complex of species, and various pelagic species, have long been of primary interest to commercial fishery participants in the USVI. Spiny lobster, whelks, conchs, and other shellfish are also important here. Fisheries as a whole continue to be essential sources of employment, food, and income in the islands, with commercial/artisanal participants landing an average of 1.4 million pounds of seafood worth $7.4 million each year between 2005 and 2015 (NOAA Fisheries 2017). The recent work of Kojis (2017) describes the region’s fisheries in detail, providing extensive information about the nature and extent of participation, use of various fishing gears, demographic aspects of participants, and other important information. Some 260 commercial fishery participants were identified in the USVI in 2016, with 119 residing on St. Thomas and St. John, and 141 on St. Croix. Fishing fleets and activities around the USVI are small-scale in nature, with the majority of harvesters regularly working less than three miles from shore. Labor is extensive, and many fishermen rely on their own knowledge and skills on the water and to fabricate and repair gear, maintain vessels and engines, and market their landings. Kojis et al. (2017) found that commercial fishery participants spend an average of 34.2 hours/week in the conduct of fishing-related activities, with little variation across the islands. As summarized in the table below, Kojis et al. (2017) provide useful insight into the nature of contemporary commercial/artisanal fishing and fishery participants around the USVI. Table 3.6.1. Contemporary socioeconomic, demographic, and operational aspects of fishing in the USVI* Fishing-Related Variable Mean Age of Participant in Years Years of Fishing Experience Average Size of Immediate Household Most Commonly Reported Ethnic Ancestry Overall Level of Education % Achieving High School Diploma % Engaging in other Employment % of Participants Dependent Solely on Fishing Overall Dependence on Fishing Compared
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
St. Croix 56.9 26.7 2.7 Hispanic ↑ from Kojis (2004) 46% 39.3% 38.9% Higher
St. Thomas/St. John 55.0 30.8 2.5 French ↑ from Kojis (2004) 63% 44.7% 27.5% Lower
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 55
Fishing-Related Variable Mean Length of Fishing Vessel Mean Size of Outboard Engines % Using Twin-Engine Craft Present Value of Fishing Vessel and All Gear
St. Croix 21.9 feet 90 hp ~50% $39,000
St. Thomas/St. John 24.6 110 hp Few $102,000
*Based on Kojis et al. (2017); **The authors correspondingly report that younger fishermen reported more years of formal education than older fishermen across the island groupings.
With regard to species deemed most important by local fishery participants participating in Kojis et al.’s study (2017), reef fish species remained the most important and commonly pursued across the islands. Coastal pelagic species were deemed secondarily important among participants on St. Thomas and St. John, followed by spiny lobster. St. Croix participants considered spiny lobster to be the second-most important fishery locally, with deep-water pelagic fishing the third most important. Hook and line gear is owned by 88% of participants in total, with relatively more fishermen from St. Thomas and St. John using rods and reels to capture large pelagics. Trap gear is said to be relatively less commonly used by fishermen on St. Croix than elsewhere (Kojis et al. 2017). Scuba gear is more commonly used to spear fish, snare spiny lobsters, and hand-gather queen conch on St. Croix and on the other islands, with such gear used by 54% of participants on St. Croix and only 14% on St. Thomas/St. John. Of direct relevance to the underlying purpose of the present document, Kojis et al. (2017), assert that fishery participants, “particularly those on St. Croix, have diversified into other gears such as multi-hook vertical setlines, tuna reel buoy fishing, and vertical set lines [that employ a] single hook for [capture of] pelagic fish.” As can be noted in the table, ownership of vertical set lines for snappers is relatively more common around St. Croix than around St. Thomas or St. John. Frequency of use over the course of the year, specific locations of use, or level productivity are not discussed in Kojis et al. (2017). Table 3.6.2. Summary information on multi-hook vertical set lines used to capture deep-water snappers and groupers in the USVI* Number Using the Gear Within 3 Miles
Number Using the Gear Beyond 3 Miles
Number Using the Gear in Both Zones
Mean Number of Hooks per Line
Mean Number of Lines Fished per Trip
Mean Hours Fished per Trip
Location
N**
Number/% Sampled Who Own the Gear
St. Thomas/ St. John
82
3/3.7%
1
1
1
10†
2.7
4.0
109
42/38.5%
6
0
33
12.2†
2.9
6.5
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 56
Location
N**
Number/% Sampled Who Own the Gear
Number Using the Gear Within 3 Miles
Number Using the Gear Beyond 3 Miles
Number Using the Gear in Both Zones
Mean Number of Hooks per Line
Mean Number of Lines Fished per Trip
Mean Hours Fished per Trip
St. Croix *From Kojis et al. (2017:81); ** N = total number of research participants responding to questions about any gear; †Only one participant from St. Thomas discussed use of the gear in 2016 and so the range in number of hooks used is the same as the mean; whereas the reported range in number of hooks deployed per line among the 42 St. Croix residents who own the gear is between 3 and 40.
Stoffle (pers. comm., 2021) recently interviewed fishery administrators and knowledgeable commercial fishery participants involved the USVI vertical setline fishery. The scientist notes that there may be some general confusion between buoyed vertical lines used for pelagic species and buoyed vertical set lines used in deep water conditions for snappers and groupers. Notably, the interviews indicate relatively less extensive participation in the USVI than indicated by Kojis et al. (2017), suggesting a recent shift away from use of the gear after the hurricane season of 2017. Stoffle’s recent interviews, summarized here, provide useful insight into the fishery as currently practiced in the USVI: This is said to be a very fickle type of fishing, dependent as it is on good weather and sea states, certain moon phases, and specific movement or lack thereof of local currents. St. Croix fishermen state that if the fishing conditions are not all correct, there is no reason to fish. Fishermen report that under the best of circumstances, they are lucky to land 300 pounds in a day’s fishing, and that failure to locate the fish is likely and common. Fishing at depth anywhere from 300 and 1,200 feet, most participants target queen snapper, goldeye snapper, blackfin snapper, black snapper, vermillion, and misty grouper. Most use electric reels and anywhere from 12 to 50 hooks, typically spaced about 6 inches apart. St. Croix fishermen tend to target areas to the south of, and along Lang Bank. Some may use up to six buoys/lines, setting each in sequence and returning to pull and rebait. The process continues if the fishing is good. Some fishermen are said to only use one line. Use of circle hooks is common. Squid, small skipjack, and little tunny are commonly used for bait. Some participants using a single line soak their gear only for a few minutes before retrieval, with the understanding that the bite typically occurs quickly if the fish are present. These deep water species are sold in the local marketplace, typically on Saturdays. The fish are said to be much-loved by local residents and ciguatera is not a problem for this complex of species. Typical price is around eight dollars per pound though gas prices are thought to potentially necessitate an increase in price. Island fishermen tend to target the species as a part of their annual round, which
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 57
includes numerous other target species and gear types. Fishermen report that only a small number of people pursue this fishery, with interviewees estimating only nine involved from St Croix (Summary of discussions between Stoffle and local interviewees, February 2021).
Among the most important issues discussed by fishery participants in the islands during the 2017 study by Kojis et al., was the perceived status of island fisheries, with only some 14% of study participants stating that the region’s fisheries had improved since the prior study in 2010-2011 (Kojis et al. (2017). The overwhelming explanation across the sample was that the availability of preferred species had diminished in formerly highly productive fishing grounds in recent years. Participants on St. Croix asserted that regulations and area closures also underlie recent trends of diminished productivity. With regard to socioeconomic concerns, perspectives between island districts varied considerably, with 45% of participants on St. Croix reporting that their household economy was worse or much worse than five years previously, while only 21% of St. Thomas and St. John fishermen reporting this condition. This may relate to the recent closure of the HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix, indicating formerly strong economic linkages between St. Croix fishing families and a globally significant petroleum refinery (Kojis 2017). Recent Macro-Social Change: Impacts of the 2017 Hurricane Season in the USVI As discussed in relation to Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico fisheries, 2017 was a particularly damaging tropical storm season in the Caribbean. After causing major damage on Caribbean islands to the south, Category 5 Hurricane Irma passed directly over St. John and St. Thomas on September 6. Two weeks later, the dangerous right semi-circle of Hurricane Maria, also then a Cat-5 storm, passed over St. Croix before making landfall on Puerto Rico. Cangialosi et al. (2018) assert that, in addition to three deaths, the effects of Irma itself were profound across the USVI, with particularly severe initial impacts on St. Thomas and St. John: With respect to initial impacts of the 2017 hurricanes on fleets around St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John, the extent of lost fishing income and long-term damage to fisheries-related infrastructure were profound. Crosson (2018) estimates that fleets on St. Croix endured some $2,148,665 in damages, stemming from: loss or damage to commercial fishing vessels and fishing gear; lost income; and loss or damage to fishing-related infrastructure. Estimated combined damages resulting from the same problems on St. Thomas and St. John totaled $3,632,806 (Crosson (2018). Charter fishing fleets also endured significant damages across the USVI, as did various gear suppliers and seafood businesses (Stoffle et al. 2020). As discussed in Stoffle et al. (2020), “the [USVI] commercial and for-hire fisheries still had not yet fully recovered at the time of this study in 2019, almost twenty-two months after the impact of the two hurricanes, with some fishermen unable to either rebuild or recover at all.” Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 58
Indicating the extent of early impacts, Stoffle et al. (2020) report that total unemployment in the USVI rose by some 12% or 4,500 lost jobs soon after the two storms impacted the region, and that by May 2018, only 600 jobs had been recovered. Moreover, “it took months before power was fully restored and transportation [was available to provide] access to land and sea destinations” (Stoffle et al. 2020). According to Austin (2018), the USVI also suffered longterm socioeconomic impacts, with lingering implications for fishery participants and/or family members who work in non-fishery sectors on a periodic, part-time, or full-time basis. This is because the tourism industry and the cruise ship and airline industries that support tourism were heavily impacted by the storms. As such, connections between the fishing industry and larger economy were continuing to recover in 2019, just prior to the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on the region (described in the following section). The COVID-19 Pandemic and Fishery Impacts on St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John During mid-March 2020, USVI Governor Albert Bryan, Jr. announced that in response to a local outbreak of coronavirus in the islands, the entry of all tourists into the USVI would be prohibited. This initial closure remained in place until mid-July when the outbreak appeared to be under control. Following a brief reopening, the islands were once again shut down to limit a subsequent outbreak. Soon after closures were being implemented in the USVI, NOAA Fisheries social scientists conducted interviews with 87 commercial and charter fishermen on the islands of St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John. A second round interviews was finalized in February 2021, with additional results from both rounds of survey work to be released in upcoming months. Among the key findings from NOAA Fisheries (2021) initial survey of pandemic impacts among commercial harvesters in the USVI are the following: (a) 87% of USVI commercial fishermen reported revenue losses occurring between January 2020 and July 2020; (b) affected commercial fishermen reported an average decrease in revenue of 53%; (c) 31% reported a reduction in the number of crew members; and (d) commercial fishermen reported operating at 48% of normal fishing activity. Noting some cross-over participation between commercial and for-hire fleets and fisheries in the USVI, initial pandemic impacts were also determined to be significant among the charter sector, with key impacts including: (a) 100% of affected for-hire operators reported revenue losses; (b) affected for-hire businesses reported a 58% decrease in revenue on average; and (c) 31% reported a reduction in crew member and/ or employees (NOAA Fisheries 2021). Finally, research participants in both the commercial and charter sectors were asked to identify the top three pandemic-related factors that had initially affected their operations. Some 63% of commercial fishermen stated that health safety measures had the greatest effects on their operations, followed by state and local government restrictions (61%), and finally by a relative Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 59
lack of markets or buyers (56%). Meanwhile, a lack of clients was most commonly considered the biggest problems among charter operators (79%), followed by state and local government restrictions (74%), and implementation of health and safety measures onboard (42%) (NOAA Fisheries 2021). Given the severity of the entire sequence of disaster events affecting fisheries in Puerto Rico and across the USVI beginning in 2017, and also the extent of pre-existing economic challenges across the overall region, the situation may well call for an examination of cumulative impacts among fisheries and larger societies across the region.
3.7
Description of the Administrative Environment
The administrative environment was discussed in detail in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix FMPs, which is incorporated herein by reference and summarized below.
3.7.1
Federal Fishery Management
Federal fishery management is conducted under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), originally enacted in 1976 as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act claims sovereign rights and exclusive fishery management authority over most fishery resources within the U.S. EEZ, an area extending from the seaward boundary of each coastal state to 200 nm from shore, as well as authority over U.S. anadromous species and continental shelf resources that occur beyond the EEZ. Responsibility for federal fishery management decision-making is divided between the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and eight regional Fishery Management Councils that represent the expertise and interests of constituent states. Regional councils are responsible for preparing, monitoring, and revising management plans for fisheries needing management within their jurisdiction. The Secretary is responsible for promulgating regulations to implement proposed plans and amendments after ensuring that management measures are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and with other applicable laws summarized in Appendix C. In most cases, the Secretary has delegated this authority to NMFS. The Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (Council) is responsible for the conservation and management of fishery stocks within federal waters surrounding Puerto Rico and the USVI. These waters extend to 200 nautical miles offshore from the seaward boundaries of Puerto Rico (9 nm from shore) and the USVI islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix (3 nm from shore). The Council consists of seven voting members: four members appointed by the Secretary, at least one of whom is appointed from each of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 60
the Territory of the USVI; the principal officials with marine fishery management responsibility and expertise for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Territory of the USVI, who are designated as such by their Governors; and the Regional Administrator of NMFS for the Southeast Region. The public is involved in the fishery management process through participation at public meetings, on advisory panels and through council meetings that, with few exceptions for discussing personnel matters, are open to the public. The regulatory process is in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, in the form of “notice and comment” rulemaking, which provides extensive opportunity for public scrutiny and comment, and requires consideration of and response to those comments.
3.7.2 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Fisheries Management The purpose of state representation at the Council level is to ensure state participation in federal fishery management decision-making and to promote the development of compatible regulations in state and federal waters. The state governments have the authority to manage their respective fisheries including enforcement of fishing regulations, and exercises legislative and regulatory authority over their states’ natural resources through discrete administrative units. Although each agency listed below is the primary administrative body with respect to the state’s natural resources, all states cooperate with numerous state and federal regulatory agencies when managing marine resources. Puerto Rico The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has jurisdiction over commonwealth fisheries in waters extending up to 9 nm from shore. Those fisheries are managed by Puerto Rico's Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) per Puerto Rico Law 278 of November 29, 1998 as amended, known as Puerto Rico’s Fisheries Law, which establishes public policy regarding fisheries. Section 19 of Article VI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico provides the foundation for the fishery rules and regulations. Puerto Rico Fishing Regulations 6902, implemented in 2004, included regulations for the management of marine managed areas for fisheries purposes and imposed regulations for the protection of several species such as the Nassau grouper and the red hind. Puerto Rico Regulations 7949, implemented in 2010, is the current regulatory mechanism for management of fishery resources in Puerto Rico territorial waters as well as for those resources and areas with shared jurisdiction with the U.S. government through the Council.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 61
U.S. Virgin Islands The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) has jurisdiction over territorial fisheries in waters extending up to 3 nm from shore. The USVI’s Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) is responsible for the conservation and management of USVI fisheries and enforcement of boating and fishing regulations. The DPNR’s Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) is responsible for data collection pertaining to the fisheries of the USVI. The DFW monitors commercial and recreational fisheries and provides recommendations to the DPNR Commissioner on matters relating to fisheries management. Rules and regulations for the USVI fisheries are codified in the Virgin Islands Code, primarily within Title 48 Chapter 12. More information about these agencies can be found from the following web pages: Puerto Rico DNER: http://www.drna.pr.gov/ USVI DPNR: https://dpp.vi.gov/agency/department-planning-and-natural-resources
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 62
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4.1 Effects on the Physical Environment Physical effects are not expected from any of the alternatives as the buoy gear used to fish for deep-water reef fish in the U.S. Caribbean has a low potential for affecting the physical environment (e.g., entanglement) because of the types of habitat (e.g., rocky outcrops), and depths (i.e., 400-1,200 ft) where it is used. The use of anchors while fishing with this gear is also not common. For these reasons, no effects are expected from Alternative 1 and increasing the maximum number of hooks that can be used with the buoy gear in Alternatives 2 and 3 is not expected to increase interactions with the bottom. This action is not expected to affect essential fish habitat for any species in Puerto Rico, St. Croix or St. Thomas and St. John.
4.2 Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment For Council-managed fisheries, buoy gear as currently defined under federal regulations as well as the buoy gear configuration preferred by some commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico and the USVI, are mostly used to harvest deep-water snappers and groupers, with queen and cardinal snapper being the species most targeted with this gear type. There are other non-target species that appear in the landings that are harvested as bycatch while fishing for deep-water snappers such as certain species of jacks, and other non-managed species such as the Atlantic scombrops and the glasseye snapper, but these are infrequent. Alternative 1 is the status quo and would not change the current definition of buoy gear in federal regulations. In general, biological/ ecological effects are not expected under Alternative 1. However, if there are fishers currently fishing with a buoy gear configuration that does not conform to the current definition (e.g. maximum of 10 hooks), those fishers would need to reduce the number of hooks to comply with federal regulations. If those deep-water reef fish fishers who reduce the number of hooks do not increase the number of trips or increase the amount of gear used (deploy additional sets) to compensate for the fishing opportunity lost, there would be some benefit to the biological/ecological environment of the target species by reducing fishing pressure. Alternative 2 would increase the number of hooks that could be used with buoy gear to fish commercially only for Council-managed reef fish to up to 25 hooks. The magnitude of any additional biological/ecological effect is dependent on the extent that commercial fishermen can and do increase the number of hooks deployed and increase landings of Council-managed reef fish species. Increasing the number of hooks or setlines does not necessarily translate into higher landings as fishing depends on many environmental factors as well. If fishers that already use 10 or fewer hooks (i.e., those in compliance) increase the number of hooks per setline and that Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 63
increase translates into higher landings, fishing pressure on reef fish target species could increase, increasing the potential for over exploitation of the deep-water reef fish resource. However, deep-water reef fish species in both Puerto Rico and the USVI are not considered to be undergoing overfishing and harvest is constrained by annual catch limits and recreational bag limits. Similar to Alternative 1, if those deep-water reef fish fishers who reduce the number of hooks to 25 or less (i.e., those not in compliance) do not increase the number of trips or increase the amount of gear used (deploy additional sets with max number of hooks) to compensate for any fishing opportunity lost from this change, there would be some benefit to the biological/ecological environment of the reef fish target species by reducing fishing pressure. Alternative 3 proposes to change the definition of buoy gear in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ and that means that for all fisheries where buoy gear is authorized, the gear can have up to 25 hooks. Buoy gear as currently defined in 50 CFR 622.2 is an authorized gear type for the commercial harvest of reef fish and pelagic species in the island-based FMPs, for the commercial and recreational harvest of non-FMP species and non-managed pelagic species in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix. The same effects discussed above for Councilmanaged reef fish species would be expected from this alternative. For Council-managed reef fish (particularly deep-water snappers and groupers), Council-managed pelagics and nonmanaged species, the magnitude of any biological/ecological effects from an increase in the number of hooks would also be dependent on the extent that commercial fishermen can and do increase the number of hooks deployed and the landings associated with that increase. Similar to Alternative 2, negative biological/ecological effects could be expected if an increase in hooks translates into higher landings for any of the species where buoy gear is an allowable gear and the increase in landings has the potential to overexploit the resource. However, this effect is not expected for coastal pelagics and other non-Council species because the harvest of these species while pursuing deep-water snappers/groupers with buoy gear is incidental and minimal. No effects to ESA-listed species would be expected from any of the alternatives proposed in this action. Interactions with ESA-listed sea turtles and finfish (interactions with hook and line gear) are not commonly reported for the deep-water reef fish fishery. In addition, interactions with corals from the use of anchors are not expected, as this fishery is usually conducted while drifting and not anchoring. Listed corals are also not expected to be affected by hook and line gear fishing for deep-water reef fish because corals are usually not present in the areas fished (i.e., fishing occurs mainly over muddy bottoms and rocky benthic habitat at depths that range from 250 to 3,000 feet). In summary, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have their maximum biological/ecological effects if there is currently full compliance and commercial fishermen increase the number of hooks Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 64
deployed to no more than 25 hooks per line to maximize their landings and this increase translates into higher landings and the potential for overexploiting the resource. While the effects for Council-managed reef fish are expected to be similar for Alternatives 2 and 3, for Council-managed pelagic species and other non-managed species caught incidentally, potential negative effects from Alternative 3 would be expected to be minimal but higher than those from Alternative 2 because Alternative 3 would increase the buoy gear hook limit that could be used to harvest these species. If commercial fishermen presently use the maximum number of hooks they prefer to use (and there may be presently zero compliance with the 10-hook limit), then Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would have the same biological/ecological effects because there would be no increase in fishing effort or associated landings from any of the alternatives.
4.3 Effects on the Economic Environment Alternative 1 (No Action) would continue defining buoy gear as having no more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. As such, it would have no adverse or beneficial economic effects beyond the baseline. Alternative 2 would modify the definition to allow up to 25 hooks per line for commercially harvesting reef fish, which could generate additional ex-vessel revenues to commercial fishermen that harvest deep-water reef fish and additional jobs, income, sales, and value-added to seafood markets, restaurants, marine equipment suppliers, and other business sectors that are part of the broader seafood industry. However, the extent of the economic benefits depends on the number of hooks per line that Puerto Rico, St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John commercial fishermen currently use to harvest reef fish in the EEZ. As stated in the description of the fisheries, commercial fishermen that use buoy gear in Puerto Rico use up to 25 hooks per line, while those in the St. Croix and St. Thomas/St John may use more than 10 hooks per line, but average 10. Alternative 2 could be problematic for commercial fishermen who presently harvest both deep-water reef fish and coastal pelagic and other species with buoy gear on the same trip because the maximum number of hooks for harvesting coastal pelagic and other incidentally caught species would remain at 10 per line. Commercial fishermen would have to discard incidentally caught non-reef fish species taken with buoy gear with more than 10 hooks per line. Alternative 3 would modify the definition to allow up to 25 hooks per line for harvesting deep-water reef fish and other species, such as coastal pelagics. Consequently, Alternative 3 could generate the largest additional economic benefits of the three alternatives. The magnitudes of the additional beneficial economic effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 are dependent on the extent that commercial fishermen can and do increase the number of hooks deployed, landings and associated ex-vessel revenue from those landings. If commercial fishermen presently use the maximum number of hooks they prefer to use (and there may be Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 65
presently zero compliance with the 10-hook limit), then Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would have the same economic effects because there would be no increase in fishing effort from any of the alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have their maximum additional economic benefits if there is currently full compliance and commercial fishermen increase the number of hooks deployed to no more than 25 hooks per line to maximize their net revenues per trip; however, Alternative 2’s maximum economic benefit would be less than that of Alternative 3 (because Alternative 2 would not increase the hook limit for coastal pelagic and other non-reef fish species, whereas Alternative 3 would increase that limit).
4.4 Effects on the Social Environment The level of success achieved by commercial fishing operations around Puerto Rico and the USVI is related in part to the capacity to flexibly adapt to the changing environmental, economic, and social factors and opportunities that characterize the industry. Success can be defined in dollar terms, in terms of social experience and the harvest of quality food for the family and community, and in terms of subjective experience, such as personal achievement. Significantly, such outcomes are not guaranteed, and in fact fishing-related challenges are often heightened by regional economic problems and disaster events, such as those recently generating major impacts among the societies and economies of Puerto Rico and the USVI. The use of buoy gear to harvest deep-water snappers (and other species) continue to present social and economic opportunities for those regional fishery participants who possess the necessary gear and environmental knowledge to engage the fishery. As stated elsewhere, the no action alternative, Alternative 1, would not change the current definition of buoy gear. This definition includes the requirement that the gear cannot contain more than 10 hooks between the surface buoy and terminal end. For this reason, the no action alternative does not present the possibility of economic or social change or impact beyond the baseline, where such baseline assumes compliance with existing federal regulations. If analysis is to consider effects among persons not presently in compliance with existing regulations, some loss in the flexibility of the fishing operation would occur—potentially reducing the prospective level of success achieved during any given trip for which more than 10 hooks would otherwise be used. Reactions among those not presently in compliance could also involve a shift in attention and investment to other fisheries around the region and/or diminished involvement in commercial fisheries around the islands. The modified definition of buoy gear specified in Alternative 2 would allow for the use of as many as 25 hooks per buoyed line—specifically among commercial operations focused on harvest of federally managed reef fish. As recently discussed by Puerto Rico- and the USVIGeneric Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 66
based harvesters who possess direct understanding of the fishery in question, the flexibility to use a greater number of hooks than is specified in existing federal regulations is in keeping with traditional patterns of gear use. Such patterns are said to have developed over multiple decades in conditions that call for differing gear-set and gear adjustment strategies, with the latter including adjustment to the number of hooks deployed in order to achieve maximum productivity in conditions that often include heavy currents, large swell, rough local sea states, rugged substrate, and varying behavior on the part of the desired fish species. Inasmuch as Alternative 2 provides fishery participants with the option to use as many as 25 hooks per line, it improves the flexibility of strategic decision-making on-board, thereby increasing the potential for success and resulting social and economic benefits among participants in any given operation. However, this alternative also presents the potential for generating regulatory uncertainty and enforcement challenges since harvesters who deploy buoy gear sometimes incidentally harvest other managed or not presently managed species during the same trip, naturally retaining certain of those species on board. Regulatory/enforcement issues could result due to the fact that the maximum allowable number of hooks that can be deployed to harvest other reef fish species of commercial interest (such as certain pelagic species) would, by regulation, remain at 10 per line. Importantly, Alternative 3 minimizes the potential for regulatory and enforcement problems and any fleet-specific social and economic impacts that could result. This is the case since the alternative would modify the definition of buoy gear to include use of up to 25 hooks between the buoy and the terminal end for commercial harvest of the authorized species, including those incidentally harvested in this fishery. In this respect, the alternative addresses multiple buoybased fisheries while also providing options for captains to determine and deploy an ideal number of hooks for any given set as needed to pursue the desired species given the environmental conditions at hand. Based on discussions with long-time island-based buoy gear specialists, such options better reflect the nature of the traditional buoy gear fishery and thereby improve the potential for trip-specific success. Alternative 3 thus heightens the potential for captains and crew to experience success, where this is defined to include the provision of food and earnings and the continuation of fishery-specific and seafood-related social and cultural practices, among other positive outcomes. Again, such potential outcomes may best be seen in socioeconomic context—which for commercial harvesters based in Puerto Rico and the USVI, includes the large-scale disruptions and recovery processes following from the pandemic, the hurricanes of 2017, and other sources of social and economic change.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 67
4.5 Effects on the Administrative Environment Alternative 1 is the status quo alternative and it is not expected to have any additional administrative effects. Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would be expected to have shortterm administrative effects from the preparation of this amendment and implementing regulations. Long-term administrative effects from Alternative 2 would be expected if by increasing the number of hooks to maximize landings or profit, landings of deep-water reef fish (or other Council-managed reef fish) increase to the point where an annual catch limit(s) is exceeded, prompting a potential application of accountability measures and a closure for the affected species. The same can be said about Alternative 3 for Council-managed pelagic species, but this is not expected because harvest of pelagic species with this gear is minimal or incidental. However, given that landings of species harvested with this gear type are combined for state and federal waters and may already include harvest with more than 10 hooks (this is more for Council-managed deep-water reef fish), this scenario would be unlikely under harvest levels set under the island-based FMPs. Alternative 2 presents the potential for some regulatory/enforcement issues because fishermen who deploy buoy gear to harvest deep-water reef fish could also fish for other species during the same trip and retain those species. The issue could result because the maximum allowable number of hooks per line that can be deployed to harvest other non-reef fish species would remain at 10 per line. This would difficult enforcement as it would be challenging to know what was harvested legally with this gear type. In contrast, Alternative 3 would minimize this potential enforcement issue because the buoy definition under the alternative would apply for the commercial harvest of multiple species and not just to commercial reef fish fisheries under each island-based FMP.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 68
4.6
Cumulative Effects Analysis
While this environmental assessment (EA) is being prepared using the 2020 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations, the cumulative effects discussed in this section meet the two-part standard for “reasonable foreseeability” and “reasonably close causal connection” required by the new definition of effects or impacts. Below is the five-step cumulative effects analysis that identifies criteria that must be considered in an EA. 1. The area in which the effects of the proposed action will occur – The affected area of this proposed action encompasses the state and federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean and includes the communities of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix that are dependent on fishing for deep-water reef fish. For more information about the area in which the effects of this proposed action will occur, please see Chapter 3, Affected Environment, which describes these resources as well as other relevant features of the human environment. 2. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have or are expected to have impacts in the area – Listed are actions under development in the U.S. Caribbean that would be expected to have impacts associated with them. Other fishery related actions – The island-based FMPs were approved by the Secretary of Commerce on September 22, 2020, and would reorganize management measures from the at the U.S. Caribbean-wide level to each island management area. The cumulative effects associated with the IBFMPs were analyzed in the EAs for the Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c). Those cumulative effects analyses (CEA) are incorporated here by reference. The majority of the island-specific management measures included in the U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs would remain substantively unchanged under each island-based FMP. The EAs in the island-based FMPs analyzed cumulative effects of actions included in the FMPs to modify management measures including the list of species to be managed in federal waters; how those species would be managed (as single stocks, in stock complexes, and with indicator stocks); revised or established (for species new to federal management) reference points (e.g., ACLs) and AMs; and updated framework procedures available for future management actions. The cumulative effects analysis (CEA) described how transitioning from U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs to island-based FMPs only rearranges past Council actions and would not affect past actions taken by federal or non-federal
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 69
entities. The CEA found that the overall impacts of the actions included in the island-based FMPs would be minimal. A goal of establishing the island-based FMPs was to ensure the continued health of fishery resources occurring in the EEZ surrounding each island/island group within the context of the unique biological, ecological, economic, and cultural characteristics of those resources and the communities dependent upon them. The island-based FMPs established a place-based framework designed to provide the foundation for conserving and managing the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries within an integrative, ecosystem-based approach. The Council, in partnership with NMFS and other regional constituencies, is in the process of moving towards implementation of ecosystem-based fishery management (EBFM) in the U.S. Caribbean. EBFM enables a more holistic approach to decision-making by considering tradeoffs among fisheries, aquaculture, protected species, biodiversity, habitats, and the human community, within the context of climate, habitat, ecological, and other environmental change. Other than the present action, no other actions are being developed by the Council or considered for implementation by NMFS that would affect reef fish stocks. Non-fishery related actions – Actions affecting the U.S. Caribbean fisheries, including effects of global climate change, were included in the CEAs for the island-based FMPs. Other issues affecting human communities (e.g., high fuel costs, increased seafood imports, restricted access to fishing grounds, regional economies) were considered in the island-based FMPs. Emerging information sheds light on how global climate change would affect, and is already affecting, fishery resources and the habitats upon which they depend. Impacts commonly mentioned are sea level rise, increased frequency of severe weather events, and change in air and water temperatures. In the U.S. Caribbean region, major climate-induced concerns include: (1) threats to coral reef ecosystems - coral bleaching, disease, and ocean acidification; (2) threats to habitats from sea level rise – loss of essential fish habitat; and (3) climate-induced changes to species phenology and distribution (Osgood 2008). Climate change may impact spiny lobster stocks in the future (see Section 3.3.1.3), but the level of impacts cannot be quantified at this time, nor is the time frame known in which these impacts would occur. The proposed action is not expected to significantly contribute to climate change through the increase or decrease in the carbon footprint from fishing, as this action would not be expected to change how the fishery is prosecuted. In 2017, Hurricanes Maria and Irma severely affected all islands in the U.S. Caribbean region. Stresses to the social structures and economies of the islands caused by the hurricanes are Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 70
discussed in detail in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. Socially and economically, impacts to gear and infrastructure were substantial, which prevented fishing in the short-term and caused some fishermen to modify their fishing methods, gear, or target species to adapt to new environmental conditions. Additional constraints occurred from loss of market demand due to increased emigration and reduced tourism. Tropical weather events would continue to be a certainty for the region, and experts predict that climate change would increase the frequency and severity of the tropical events. U.S. Caribbean fisheries experienced broad declines in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 public health crisis. Global protective measures (e.g., restaurant closures, social distancing protocols) instituted in March 2020 contributed to an almost-immediate impact on commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishermen. On March 15, 2020, the Governor or Puerto Rico instituted a 2-week closure (curfew) for the majority of businesses on the island of Puerto Rico. Although commercial fishermen were exempt from the curfew, 96% of those surveyed reported that COVID-19 related factors had affected their fishing operations and resulted in decreased revenues (NMFS 2021a). In early 2020, many fishermen in USVI were still struggling to recover from the 2017 hurricanes, with charter fishermen just starting to recover from the decline in tourism related to hotel closures and infrastructure damage related to the storms. In midMarch 2020, the Governor of the USVI announced the closure of USVI to all tourists, which lasted until mid-July. After a brief reopening to tourism, the USVI was closed again once the COVID-19 threshold was exceeded. Of those surveyed, 87% of commercial fishermen in the USVI reported revenue losses (NMFS 2021a). COVID-19 significantly altered the environment related to the management of the nation’s fisheries and effects of the pandemic would be expected to continue in the U.S. Caribbean region, at least in the short-term. 3. The impacts or expected impacts from these other actions - The cumulative effects from managing fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean, including reef fish, have been analyzed in other actions as listed in part three of this section. They include detailed analysis of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries, effects on non-targeted and protected species, and habitats in the U.S. Caribbean. 4. The overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate – No significant overall impacts to the biological/ecological environment, to protected species occurring within that environment, to the habitats constituting and supporting that environment, or to the dependent socio-economic environment would be expected from the cumulative past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions as it would not be expected to significantly affect current fishing practices (i.e., U.S. Caribbean fisheries would continue to target multiple species using multiple gear types; see Section 3.1). Similarly, no significant cumulative effects Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 71
would be expected to result from reasonably foreseeable future actions that may be taken, by other federal or non-federal agencies in combination with this action. 5. Summary - The proposed action is not expected to have significant effects to the physical, biological, economic, or social environments. Any effects of the proposed action, when combined with other past actions, present actions, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not expected to be significant. The effects of the proposed action are, and will continue to be, monitored through collection of data by NMFS, individual state programs, stock assessments and stock assessment updates, life history studies, economic and social analyses, and other scientific observations.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 72
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 5.1
Introduction
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for all regulatory actions that are of public interest. The RIR does three things: 1) it provides a comprehensive review of the level and incidence of impacts associated with a proposed or final regulatory action; 2) it provides a review of the problems and policy objectives prompting the regulatory proposals and an evaluation of the major alternatives that could be used to solve the problem; and, 3) it ensures that the regulatory agency systematically and comprehensively considers all available alternatives so that the public welfare can be enhanced in the most efficient and cost-effective way. The RIR also serves as the basis for determining whether the regulations are a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria provided in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
5.2
Problems and Objectives
In Puerto Rico and the USVI, commercial fishermen targeting deep-water reef fish and incidentally harvesting other species have traditionally used buoy gear locally known as “cala con boya” in Puerto Rico and as “deep-drop buoy gear” in the USVI. Buoy gear as defined in 50 CFR Part 622.2 cannot contain more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. However, commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico and the USVI are allowed to and traditionally use buoy gear in territorial waters that can contain more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. Hence, the purpose of this action is to modify the federal definition of acceptable buoy gear so as to harmonize it with existing practices of harvesting deep-water reef fish and other species in the U.S. Caribbean.
5.3
Description of the Fisheries
Descriptions of the relevant components of the fisheries of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix are provided in Section 3.4. From 2012 through 2019, cala (vertical bottom line, which includes buoy gear) accounted for the largest average percentage of commercial landings of all species in Puerto Rico by both weight and value: 16% by weight and 21% by value. 10 Average annual ex-vessel revenue in Puerto Rico from species harvested with bottom line gear was $1,375,879 (2020 dollars) during the 8-year period from 2012 through 2019, and there was an
All hook-and-line gears (bottom line (including buoy gear), hand line, long line, rod and reel, and troll line) accounted for an average of 40% of all annual landings by weight and 38% by value. 10
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 73
increasing trend (Figure 5.1). 11 The constant-dollar price per pound increased from $2.39 in 2012 to $4.44 in 2019 (2020 dollars) in Puerto Rico. 12 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Dockside Revenue
2017
2018
2019
Trend
Figure 5.1. Annual ex-vessel revenue (2020 dollars) from landings of species harvested with bottom line gear in Puerto Rico and trend (2-year moving average) of that revenue, 2012-2019. (Source: NMFS SERO LAPPS (2021) for revenue and BEA for GDP deflator (May 27, 2021 release)).
In the USVI, deep-drop buoy gear is within the broad category of hook-and-line gear. From 2012 through 2019, hook-and-line gears accounted for an annual average of 16% of all commercial landings by weight in St. Thomas/St. John, and 31% of landings by weight in St. Croix. However, buoy gear accounts for a much smaller percentage of landings. From 2012 through 2018, nine USVI fishers used deep-drop buoy gear during those seven calendar years to harvest a total of 1,388 lbs ww of Snapper 1 (black, blackfin, silk and vermilion snapper) and Snapper 2 (queen snapper). The annual average would be 198 lbs ww of Snapper 1 and 2 harvested with deep-drop buoy gear in the USVI by one to two fishermen. An estimated 12 commercial fishermen in St. Croix and between 1 and 4 in St. Thomas/St. John use buoy gear (personnel communication CFMC July 2021). Commercial landings (lbs ww) by all hook-and-line gears in St. Thomas/St. John show no obvious increasing or decreasing trend from 2012 through 2019, and 2017 commercial landings, despite the disastrous hurricane season, were greater than in 2013 (Figure 5.2). During the same 8-year period, commercial landings (lbs ww) by hook-and-line gears in St. Croix declined considerably after the disastrous 2017 hurricane season (Figure 5.3). In 2018 and 2019, landings by hook-and-line gears were 25% and 17% of what they had been in 2017. There were fishery disaster declarations in the U.S. Caribbean in 2017 because of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. The constant-dollar price (also called real-dollar price) is an adjusted price to compare prices from one year to another absent inflation. 11 12
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 74
90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Figure 5.2. Annual commercial landings (lbs ww) and trend of those landings (2-year moving average) by all hook-and-line gears in St. Thomas/St. John, 2012 – 2019. (Source: NMFS SERO LAPPS 2021)
180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Figure 5.3. Annual commercial landings (lbs ww) in St. Croix by hook-and-line gears and trend (2-year moving average) of those landings, 2012 – 2019. (Source: NMFS SERO LAPPS 2021)
5.4
Impact of Management Measures
The proposed rule would modify the definition of buoy gear in federal regulations 50 CFR Part 622 as it applies to the commercial sector harvesting reef fish and other Council-managed species in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Specifically, it would increase the maximum number of hooks allowed from 10 to 25. The rest of the specifications included in the definition such as weight, construction materials for the drop line, and length of the drop line would remain unchanged. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 75
It is common practice to assume full regulatory compliance when establishing the economic baseline; however, anecdotal evidence indicates that buoy gear traditionally used in federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean does not comply with current regulation. For that reason, the following sensitivity analysis examines the economic impact of the proposed rule with varying rates of baseline compliance: full (100%), half (50%), and none (0%). With full compliance, NMFS expects all commercial fishermen in the U.S. Caribbean, who deploy buoy gear in the EEZ, currently use no more than 10 hooks per drop line and could increase the numbers of hooks used, which could increase landings and ex-vessel revenues from those landings. 13 An increase in ex-vessel revenues would generate other beneficial economic impacts such as income, jobs, sales and value-added. There is insufficient information, however, to quantify the numbers of commercial fishermen that would increase the number of hooks they use or the increase in the numbers of hooks deployed. There is also insufficient information to quantify the increases in landings, ex-vessel revenues, and other beneficial impacts. With 50% compliance, NMFS expects half of commercial fishermen who currently use buoy gear in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ could increase the numbers of hooks they use, which could increase landings and ex-vessel revenues from those landings, but not as much as if there were full compliance. There is insufficient information to quantify either the numbers of commercial fishermen that would increase the number of hooks they use or the changes in the numbers of hooks deployed. Nonetheless, NMFS expects some commercial fishermen would increase the number of hooks they use, which would increase their landings and ex-vessel revenues. With no compliance, none of the commercial fishermen who use buoy gear could increase the number of hooks used, and there could not be increases in landings and ex-vessel revenues from those landings. Hence, with 0% compliance, the economic effects of the proposed action could be the same as those of baseline (No-action alternative). However, even with 0% compliance, NMFS expects there could be commercial fishermen that currently use more than 10, but less than 25 hooks, and an unknown number of those commercial fishermen could increase the number of hooks they use, which would increase their landings and ex-vessel revenues. NMFS expects the proposed rule would have beneficial economic impacts ranging from a positive economic benefit that would be at its maximum if there is currently full compliance to zero economic benefit (beyond the baseline) that would be at its minimum if there is currently Using more hooks increases effort-related trip costs, and a commercial fisherman would not increase the number of hooks used if the increase in costs reduced the fisherman’s profit. 13
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 76
zero compliance and there would be no increase in effort. The lower the rate of baseline compliance, the smaller the economic benefits of the proposed rule.
5.5
Public Costs of Regulations
The preparation, implementation, enforcement, and monitoring of this or any federal action involves the expenditure of public and private resources which can be expressed as costs associated with the regulations. Costs to the private sector are discussed in section 5.4 above. Total public costs associated with this action include NMFS administrative costs of document preparation, meetings and review, which are estimated to total approximately $.
5.6
Determination of Significant Regulatory Action
Pursuant to E.O. 12866, a regulation is considered a “significant regulatory action” if it is likely to result in: 1) an annual effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of recipients thereof; or 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in this executive order (E.O). Based on the information provided above, this action has been determined to not be economically significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 77
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 6.1
Introduction
The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is to establish a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA does not contain any decision criteria; instead, the purpose of the RFA is to inform the agency, as well as the public, of the expected economic impacts of the alternatives contained in the fishery management plan (FMP) or amendment (including framework management measures and other regulatory actions) and to ensure that the agency considers alternatives that minimize the expected impacts while meeting the goals and objectives of the FMP and applicable statutes. With certain exceptions, the RFA requires agencies to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for each proposed rule. The regulatory flexibility analysis is designed to assess the impacts various regulatory alternatives would have on small entities, including small businesses, and to determine ways to minimize those impacts. The following regulatory flexibility analysis was conducted to determine if the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or not.
6.2
Statement of the need for, objective of, and legal basis for the proposed rule
The primary purpose and need, issues, problems, and objectives of the proposed action are presented in Chapter 1 and are incorporated herein by reference.
6.3
Identification of federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule
No federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 78
6.4
Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed action would apply
The rule would apply to businesses that operate in the commercial fishing industry and particularly, those that operate commercial fishing vessels that use buoy gear in federal waters off Puerto Rico and the USVI. Commercial fishermen who harvest deep-water reef fish and other species, such as Council-managed pelagics, have traditionally used buoy gear locally known as “cala con boya” in Puerto Rico and as “deep-drop buoy gear” in the USVI. A business in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS code 11411) is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and its combined annual receipts that are no more than $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. The Puerto Rico fishery as a whole is estimated to generate direct revenues of $6.06 million (2020 dollars) annually, assuming current landings have fully recovered from the 2017 hurricane season (NMFS 2017), and the USVI fishery as a whole is estimated to generate direct revenues of $5.48 million (2020 dollars) annually, assuming full recovery from the 2017 hurricane season (Mapp 2017). Therefore, all commercial fishing businesses in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix are small. In 2016, there were 1,074 licensed commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico (CFMC 2019), and each of those licensed commercial fishermen represent a small commercial fishing business. In 2016, 811 of those commercial fishermen submitted catch reports and 383 of them submitted reports operated in federal waters (SERO Caribbean Branch logbook data 2020). Puerto Rico’s fishermen tend to target multiple categories of fish and shellfish, and the most popularly targeted category is reef fish. Approximately 77% of small businesses target reef fish, and approximately 56% target deep-water snapper. It is estimated that from 56% to 77% of the 383 small commercial fishing businesses that operate in federal waters off of Puerto Rico may be directly affected the proposed rule. The most recent Census of Licensed Fishers of the U.S. Virgin Islands reported 119 licensed commercial fishermen in St. Thomas/St. John and 141 licensed commercial fishermen in St. Croix (Kojis et al. 2017), and each of those fishermen represent a small commercial fishing business. Kojis et al. (2017) found that 14.8% of licensed fishermen in St. Thomas/St. John and 52.3% of licensed fishermen in St. Croix harvest deep-water snapper. However, not all licensed fishermen are actively fishing in any given year. For example, in 2016 at least 23 (19.3%) of the 119 licensed fishermen in St. Thomas/St. John and 67 (47.5%) of the 141 licensed commercial fishermen in St. Croix were not active (Kojis et al. 2017). If the above Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 79
percentages of licensed fishermen that harvest deep-water snapper apply to active fishermen that operate in the EEZ, an estimated 14 small commercial fishing businesses in St. Thomas/St. John and an estimated 39 small commercial fishing businesses in St. Croix would be directly affected by the proposed rule.
6.5
Description and economic impacts of the compliance requirements of the proposed rule
This proposed rule would modify the definition of buoy gear as it applies to the commercial sector harvesting reef fish and other Council-managed species in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Currently, buoy gear is defined as gear that fishes vertically in the water column and consists of a single drop line suspended from a float, from which no more than 10 hooks can be connected between the buoy and the terminal end, and the terminal end contains a weight that is no more than 10 lb (See full definition in Section 1.1). The proposed rule would change the definition to allow the use of up to 25 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. It is common practice to assume full regulatory compliance when establishing the baseline; however, anecdotal evidence indicates that buoy gear traditionally used in the U.S. Caribbean does not comply with current regulation. For that reason, the following sensitivity analysis examines the economic impacts of the proposed action with varying rates of baseline compliance: full (100%), half (50%), and none (0%). Under Preferred Alternative 2 of Action 1 with full compliance, NMFS expects all of the small businesses that deploy buoy gear in the EEZ could increase the numbers of hooks they use, which could increase landings and dockside revenues from those landings. However, there is insufficient information to quantify either the numbers of small businesses that would increase the number of hooks they use or the changes in the numbers of hooks deployed. Using more hooks increases effort-related trip costs, and a commercial fishing business would not increase the number of hooks used if the increase in costs reduced its profit. Nonetheless, NMFS expects at least some of the small businesses would increase the number of hooks they use. Under Preferred Alternative 2 of Action 1 with 50% compliance, NMFS expects half of the small businesses that currently use buoy gear in the EEZ could increase the numbers of hooks used, which could increase landings and dockside revenues from those landings, but not as much as if there were full compliance. There is insufficient information to quantify either the numbers of small businesses that would increase the number of hooks they use or the changes in the
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 80
numbers of hooks deployed. Nonetheless, NMFS expects some small businesses would increase the number of hooks they use, which would increase their landings and dockside revenues. Under Preferred Alternative 2 of Action 1 with no compliance, NMFS expects none of the small businesses that currently use buoy gear in the EEZ could increase the number of hooks used (because they currently use 25 hooks per drop line), and there would be no changes in landings and dockside revenues from those landings. Hence, with 0% compliance, the economic effects of Preferred Alternative 2 could be the same as those of Alternative 1. However, even with 0% compliance, there could be small businesses that currently use more than 10, but less than 25, hooks, and an unknown number of those small businesses could increase the number of hooks they use, which would increase their landings and dockside revenues. Summary There would be no adverse economic impact on any small businesses. The lower the rate of baseline compliance, the smaller the beneficial economic impact of Preferred Alternative 2. Hence, there would be no beneficial economic impact if there is currently no compliance and none of the small businesses can increase the number of hooks they presently deploy. However, NMFS expects at least some small businesses would increase the number of hooks they use, which would increase their landings of deep-water reef fish and dockside revenues from those landings.
Significance of economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities The proposed action would not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small commercial fishing businesses of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John or St. Croix. Therefore, an initial regulatory act analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 81
Chapter 7. List of Preparers Table 7.1. List of Interdisciplinary Plan Team (IPT) Members Name
Agency
Title
Maria del Mar LópezMercer
NMFS/SFD
IPT Co-Lead / Fishery Biologist
Graciela García-Moliner
CFMC
IPT Co-Lead /
Sarah Stephenson
NMFS/SF
Fishery Biologist
John McGovern
NMFS/SF
SFD Assistant Regional Administrator
Denise Johnson
NMFS/SF
Economist
Edward Glazier
NMFS/SF
Social Scientist
Jocelyn D’Ambrosio
NOAA/GC
Attorney
Scott Sandorf
NMFS/SF
Technical Writer
Patrick O’Pay
NMFS/PR
Fishery Biologist
Michael Larkin
NMFS/SF
Data Analyst
Nancy Cummings
NMFS/SEFSC Fishery Biologist
Loren Remsberg
NOAA/GC
Brent Stoffle
NMFS/SEFSC Anthropologist
Miguel Borges
NMFS/OLE
Assistant Special Agent
Mike Jepson
NMFS/SF
Social Sciences Branch Chief
Jose Rivera
NMFS/HCD
Fishery Biologist
Enforcement Attorney
CFMC = Caribbean Fishery Management Council, GC = General Counsel, HC = Habitat Conservation Division, NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act, NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, OLE= Office of Law Enforcement, PR = Protected Resources Division, SERO = Southeast Regional Office, SER = Southeast Region, SF = Sustainable Fisheries Division, SEFSC = Southeast Fisheries Science Center
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 7. List of Preparers 82
Chapter 8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted Department of Commerce Office of General Counsel National Marine Fisheries Service Office of General Counsel National Marine Fisheries Service Office of General Counsel Southeast Region National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service Silver Spring Office National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Law Enforcement Southeast Division United States Coast Guard United States Department of the Interior U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources Puerto Rico Junta de Calidad Ambiental (Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board)
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 8. List of Agencies, Organizations 83
Chapter 9. References Acosta, R. J., N. Kishore, R. A. Irizarry, and C. O. Buckee. 2020. Quantifying the dynamics of migration after Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Volume 117, Number 51. Available here. Agar, J. J. and M. Shivlani. 2016. Socio-economic study of the hook and line fishery in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (2014). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-700. 34 p. doi:10.7289/V5/TM-SEFSC-700This report will appear on the SEFSC website at URL: http:// www.sefsc.noaa.gov/ Agar, J. J., M. Shivlani, and D. Matos-Caraballo. 2020. The aftermath of Hurricane María on Puerto Rican small-scale fisheries. Coastal Management. Volume 48, Number 5, pp. 378-397. Available here. Austin, D. A. 2018. Economic and Fiscal Conditions in the U.S. Virgin Islands. U.S. Congressional Research Service. CRS Report R45235. Available here. Ayala, H. 2017. “How Puerto Rico’s Food Industry Is Picking Up the Pieces After Hurricane Maria” (December 8, 2017). Available at https://www.eater.com/2017/12/8/16739310/puertorico-restaurant-industry-farmers-hurricane-maria. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2021. National Income and Product Accounts. Price indexes for Gross Domestic Product. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2021. GDP for the U.S. Virgin Islands. Available at https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-us-virgin-islands-usvi. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2020. Prototype Gross Domestic Product for Puerto Rico, 2012–2018. Available at https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/prototype-gross-domestic-productpuerto-rico-2012-2018. Cangialosi, J.P., A. S. Latto, and R. Berg. 2018. Hurricane Irma. (AL112017). National Hurricane Tropical Cyclone Report. June 30. NOAA, National Weather Service. Miami. Available here. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 1985. Fishery management plan, final environmental impact statement, and draft regulatory impact review for the shallow-water reef Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 9. References 84
fish fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 69pp. + Appendices. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2019a. Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan for the Puerto Rico Exclusive Economic Zone, environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and fishery impact statement. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 637 pp. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2019b. Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan for the St. Thomas/ St. John Exclusive Economic Zone, environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and fishery impact statement. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 507 pp. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2019c. Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan for the St. Croix Exclusive Economic Zone, environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and fishery impact statement. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 509 pp. CFMC. 2020a. 170th Meeting Verbatim Transcripts. August 11-12, 2020. https://caribbeanfmc.com/meetings/CFMC%20MEETINGS/170_CFMC_Regular_Virtual_Meeti ng_August_2020/170th_CFMC_Verbatim_Transcripts_August_2020.pdf CFMC. 2020b. After the meeting documents, Font translated letter. 170th Caribbean Fishery Management Council Regular Meeting. August 11-12, 2020. https://caribbeanfmc.com/After_the_Meeting_Documents/170_After_the_Meet_Docs/Traduccio n_carta_pescador_ago2020.pdf Colburn L. L., M. Jepson, Changhua Weng, T. Seara, J. Weiss, and J. A. Hare. Indicators of climate change and social vulnerability in fishing dependent communities along the Eastern and Gulf Coasts of the United States. Marine Policy. Volume 74, pp. 323-333. Available here. Colburn, L. L., P. M. Clay, T. Seara, C. Weng, and A. Silva. 2015. Social and economic impacts of hurricane/post tropical cyclone sandy on the commercial and recreational fishing industries: New York and New Jersey one year later. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSF/SPO-157, 68. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA. Silver Spring.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 9. References 85
Coleman, J. 2021. Puerto Rico debt restructure plan threatens public pensions (March 9, 2021). The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/542318-puerto-rico-debt-restructure-planthreatens-public-pensions. Congressional Research Service. 2018/2020. Economic and fiscal conditions in the U.S. Virgin Islands. EveryCRSReport.com. Coto, D. 2020. New Project to Probe Hurricane Maria Deaths in Puerto Rico. September 9. AP News. Available here. Crosson, S. 2018. Hurricanes Irma and Maria Damage Assessment: Provisional Results for the U.S. Virgin Islands Commercial and For-Hire Fisheries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 60-day Interim Report. In cooperation with the USVI Department Planning and Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Available here. Dorell, O. 2017. “Puerto Rico's farmers face near total loss from Hurricane Maria” (October 7, 2017). Available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/10/07/puerto-ricosfarmers-face-near-total-loss-hurricane-maria/736372001/. Duany, J. 2002. Mobile livelihoods: the sociocultural practices of circular migrants between Puerto Rico and the United States. Research Article. International Migration Review. Volume 36, Issue 2, pp. 355-388. Estudios Técnicos Inc. 2017. Preliminary Estimate: Cost of damages by hurricane María in Puerto Rico. https://estadisticas.pr/files/inlinefiles/Preliminary%20Estimate%20Cost%20of%20Maria-1.pdf. Goenaga, C. and R. H. Boulon, Jr. 1992. The State of Puerto Rican and U.S. Virgin Islands Corals. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. 66 pp. Glassman, B. 2019. A Third of Movers from Puerto Rico to the Mainland United States Relocated to Florida in 2018. September 26. Poverty Statistics Branch, Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau. Available here. Griffith, D. and M. Valdés-Pizzini. 2002. Fishermen at Work, Workers at Sea: a Puerto Rican Journey through Labor and Refuge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Griffith, D., M. Valdés-Pizzini, and C. Garcia-Quijano. 2007. Entangled Communities: Socioeconomic Profiles of Fishermen, Their Communities and Their Responses to Marine Protective Measures in Puerto Rico. NOAA Series on U.S. Caribbean Fishing Communities, NMFS-SEFSC-556. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 9. References 86
Griffith, D., C. García-Quijano, and M. Pizzini. 2013. A fresh defense: a cultural biography of quality in Puerto Rican fishing. American Anthropologist. Volume 115, Number 1, pp. 17-28. Guzman, G. G. Household Income: 2016, American Community Survey Briefs. U.S. Census Bureau, September 2017. Available here. Hsiang, S. and T. Houser. 2017. “Don’t Let Puerto Rico Fall into an Economic Abyss” in New York Times Op-Ed (September 29, 2017). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/puertorico-hurricane-maria.html. IAI. 2006. Community Profiles and Socioeconomic Evaluation of Marine Conservation Districts: St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Glazier, E.W. and M. Jepson (authors). Prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Fisheries Science Center under Contract WC133F-03-SE-1150. Miami. IAI. 2007. Community Profiles and Socioeconomic Evaluations of Marine Conservation Districts: St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. NOAA Series on U.S. Caribbean Fishing Communities. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-557, 123 p. Agar, J. J. and B. Stoffle (editors). Available here. Jepson. M. 2008. Social Indicators and Measurements of Vulnerability for Gulf Coast Fishing Communities. National Association of Practicing Anthropologists (NAPA) Bulletin. Volume 28, Issue 1, pp. 57-68. Available here. Jepson, M. and L. L. Colburn. 2013. Development of Social Indicators of Fishing Community Vulnerability and Resilience in the U.S. Southeast and Northeast Regions. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-129. Silver Spring. Available here. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2017a. Analysis of the 2015 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates. Available here. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2017b. Analysis of the 2015 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates. Available here. Kaske, M. and J. Levin. 2020. “Puerto Rico Board Releases Emergency Funds After Earthquake” in Bloomberg.com (January 7, 2020). Available at Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 9. References 87
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-07/puerto-rico-board-releases-emergencyfunds-after-earthquake. Kojis, B. 2004. Census of the Marine Commercial Fishers of the U. S. Virgin Islands July 2004. Kojis, B., N. Quinn, and J. Agar. 2017. Census of Licensed Fishers of the U.S. Virgin Islands (2016). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-715, 160 pp. Available here. Lloréns Vélez, E. 2018. “Puerto Rico Planning Board: Hurricane Maria had an economic impact of $43 billion” (December 5, 2018). Available at https://caribbeanbusiness.com/puerto-ricoplanning-board-hurricane-maria-had-an-economic-impact-of-43-billion/?cn-reloaded=1. Matos-Caraballo, D and Z. Torres-Rosado. 1989. Censo comprensivo de pesquería comercial de Puerto Rico, 1988. (comprehensive census of the fishery of puerto rico, 1988). Vol 1. Num. 3. Matos-Caraballo, D., and J. Agar. 2011a. Census of Active Commercial Fishermen in Puerto Rico: 2008. Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, Final Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 39 pp. Matos-Caraballo, D., and J. Agar. 2011b. Comprehensive Census of the Marine Commercial Fishery of Puerto Rico, 2008. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 63:99112. Matos-Caraballo, D., and J. Agar. 2011c. Census of Active Commercial Fishermen in Puerto Rico: 2008. Marine Fisheries Review. Volume 73, Number 1, pp. 13-27. Milken Institute School of Public Health. 2018. Ascertainment of the Estimated Excess Mortality from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Project Report. Developed in Collaboration with the University of Puerto Rico Graduate School of Public Health. George Washington University. Washington, D.C. Available here. Miller, R.T. 2020. “Puerto Rico's Big Pharma Push” in IndustryWeek.com (June 01, 2020). Available at https://news.pda.org/en/article/138737/puerto-ricos-big-pharma-push. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2019. Accumulated landings system. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/about/southeast-fisheries-science-center. Accessed November 15, 2019. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries. Silver Spring.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 9. References 88
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2020. Fisheries of the United States, 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2018 Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/commercial-fishing/fisheries-united-states-2018 NOAA. 2017. Extremely Active 2017 Atlantic Hurricane Season Finally Ends - Investments in Forecasting and Research Yield More Accurate Predictions. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, D.C. Available here. New York Times. September 27, 2019. Updated June 1, 2020. $129 billion Puerto Rico bankruptcy plan could be model for states. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/business/puerto-rico-bankruptcy-promesa.html. NOAA Fisheries. 2021. NOAA Fisheries Updated Impact Assessment of the COVID-19 Crisis on the U.S. Commercial Seafood and Recreational For-Hire/Charter Industries. Updated Snapshot: January-July 2020. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries. Available here. NOAA Fisheries. 2017. Accumulated Landings System database [online database]. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring. Available here. Olsen, D.A., A. E. Dammann, and D. Neal. A vertical longline for red snapper fishing. Marine Fisheries Review, Volume 36, Number 1. Paper 1027. Olwig, K. F. 1993. Cultural Adaptation and Resistance on St. John: Three Centuries of AfroCaribbean Life. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Overly, K. 2020. Essential Fish Habitat Classification and Age & Growth of Deepwater Snappers in Puerto Rico Using Remote Video Camera’s Tethered to Deep Drop Fishing Gear EFP F/SER28:SS Final Report Pasch, R. J., A. B. Penny, and R. Berg. 2019. Hurricane Maria (AL152017). National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report. 14 February. Tropical Cyclone Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center. Miami. Available here. Puerto Rico Tourism Company. 2021. Statistics. Available at www.prtourism.com. Reichard, R. 2020. Why Young Diasporicans Have Decided to Repatriate Puerto Rico. Remezcla. October 7, 2020. Available here.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 9. References 89
Reuters. 2021. Far from White House, Caribbean refinery to test Biden's promises on poverty and pollution (March 8, 2021). Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-caribbeanrefinery-environment-in/far-from-white-house-caribbean-refinery-to-test-bidens-promises-onpoverty-and-pollution-idUSKBN2B00DA Rivera-Collazo, I. C. 2011. Paleoecology and Human Occupation During the mid-Holocene in Puerto Rico: the Case of Angostura. In Communities in Contact—Essays in Archaeology, Ethnohistory & Ethnography of the Amerindian Circum-Caribbean. Edited by Corinne L. Hofman and Anne van Duijvenbode. Sidestone Press. Leiden. Available here. Robles, F. and L. Ferré-Sadurní. 2017. “Puerto Rico’s Agriculture and Farmers Decimated by Maria” in New York Times (September 24, 2017). Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/us/puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-agriculture-.html. Rogozinski, J. 1994. A Brief History of the Caribbean - from the Arawak and the Carib to the Present. New York: Meridian Books. SEDAR 26 Assessment Report. U.S. Caribbean Queen Snapper. December 2011. Stoffle, B., J. Contillo, C. Grace, and D. Snodgrass. 2011. The Socioeconomic Importance of Fishing in St. Thomas, USVI: An Examination of Fishing Community Designation. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-623. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries. Silver Spring. Available here. Stoffle, B., J. R. Waters, S. Abbott-Jamieson, S. Kelley, D. Grasso, J. Freibaum, S. Koestner, N. O’Meara, S. Davis, M. Stekedee, and J. Agar. 2009. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-593. Silver Spring. Available here. Stoffle (pers. comm., 2021). Interview data generated by B. Stoffle, social scientist, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Fisheries Science Center. Miami. Stoffle, B., A. Stoltz, S. Crosson, and J. S. Tookes. 2020. In the Wake of Two Storms: An Impact Assessment of Hurricane Maria on the St. Croix and St. Thomas Fisheries, USVI. The Applied Anthropologist, Volume 40, Number Two. The High Plains Society for Applied Anthropology. Available here.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 9. References 90
Sullivan, B. K. and E. Fieser. 2017. Maria latest threat to Puerto Rico after $1 billion Irma hit. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-19/hurricane-maria-heads-forpuerto-rico-after-dominica-strike. U.S. Census Bureau. Puerto Rico Community Survey. 2005-2018. Available here. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Island Areas – U.S. Virgin Islands Dataset. Available here. U.S. Census Bureau 2016. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table DP03; using American FactFinder. U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Estimating Puerto Rico’s Population After Hurricane Maria: Revising Methods to Better Reflect the Impact of Disaster. Available at https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/08/estimating-puerto-rico-population-afterhurricane-maria.html U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. U.S. international trade data. Available at https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/data/index.html.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), National Resources Conservation Service, Caribbean Area. www.nrcs.usda.gov. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), Farm Service Agency. 2017. USDA provides support for hurricane-impacted dairies in Puerto Rico. News Release No. 0135.17. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/10/19/usda-provides-support-hurricaneimpacted-dairies-puerto-rico USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2020. Census of Agriculture. Available at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Outlying_Areas/Puerto_Ri co/prv1.pdf and https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Outlying_Areas/usvi.pdf. USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy), Energy Information Administration. Puerto Rico Territory Energy Profile. Updated November 19, 2020 and February 18, 2021.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 9. References 91
USDOL (U.S. Department of Labor), Bureau of Labor Statistics. National and State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. USVI BER (Bureau of Economic Research). November 2020. Selected Economic Indicators Review & Outlook. Fiscal Year-to-Date September 2020. USVI BER (Bureau of Economic Research). 2020. Review of the USVI Territorial Economy 2019. Available at http://usviber.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Review-of-the-Virgin-IslandsEconomy-Final-March-25-2020.pdf. Valdés-Pizzini, M., J. Agar, K. Kitner, C. Garcia Quijano, M. Tust, and F. Forrestal. 2010. Cruzan Fisheries: A Rapid Assessment of the Historical, Social, Cultural and Economic Processes that Shaped Coastal Communities’ Dependence and Engagement in Fishing in the Island of St. Croix, USVI. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-597. Available here. Valentin Ortiz, L. 2020. Power back on, but thousands still homeless, in quake-hit Puerto Rico. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N29I0GA. Valle-Esquivel, M., M. Shivlani, D. Matos-Caraballo, and D. J. Die. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Puerto Rico. Pages 285–313 in S. Salas, R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles and J.C. Seijo, editors. Coastal Fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 544. Rome, FAO. Available here.
van der Elst, N.J., Hardebeck, J.L., and Michael, A.J., 2020, Potential duration of aftershocks of the 2020 southwestern Puerto Rico earthquake: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020– 1009, 5 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201009. Westlund, L., F. Poulain, H. Båge, and R. van Anrooy. 2007. Disaster Response and Risk Management in the Fisheries Sector. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 479. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. Available here. Yong, E. 2019. How Ancient DNA Can Help Recast Colonial History. The Atlantic. Science section. September 18, 2019. Available here.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Chapter 9. References 92
Appendix A. List of Managed Reef Fish and Pelagic Stocks Included in Each of the Island-based FMPs
St. Croix Reef Fish •
• • • • • • •
Snappers: black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, queen, lane, gray, mutton, schoolmaster, yellowtail Groupers: Nassau, goliath, graysby, coney, red hind, rock hind, black, red, tiger, yellowfin, misty Parrotfishes: blue, midnight, rainbow, queen, princess, redtail, stoplight, redband, striped, redfin Surgeonfishes: blue tang, ocean surgeonfish, doctorfish Triggerfishes: queen Angelfishes: queen, grey, French Grunts: white grunt, bluestriped Squirrelfish: longspine squirrelfish
St. Croix Pelagics *All new to management
• •
Dolphinfish: dolphin, pompano dolphin Mackerels and Tunas (Scombridae): wahoo
St. Thomas/St John Reef Fish • •
Snappers: black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, queen, lane, mutton, yellowtail
•
Parrotfishes: blue, midnight, rainbow, queen, princess, redtail, stoplight, redband, striped, redfin
• • •
Groupers: Nassau, goliath, coney, red hind, black, red, tiger, yellowfin, yellowmouth*, yellowedge, misty
Surgeonfishes: blue tang, ocean surgeonfish, doctorfish Triggerfishes: queen Wrasses: hogfish
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Appendix A 93
• • • •
Angelfishes: queen, grey, French Grunts: white grunt, bluestriped, margate Jacks: Blue runner
Porgies: jolthead, saucereye, sheepshead, sea bream * New to management
St. Thomas/St. John Pelagics *All new to management
• •
Dolphinfish: dolphin, pompano dolphin Mackerels and Tunas (Scombridae): wahoo
Puerto Rico Reef Fish • • • • • • • • •
Snappers: black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, wenchman, cardinal, queen, lane, mutton, dog, schoolmaster, yellowtail, cubera* Groupers: Nassau, goliath, coney, graysby, black, red, tiger, yellowfin, yellowmouth*, yellowedge, misty, red hind, rock hind Parrotfishes: blue, midnight, rainbow, queen, princess, redtail, stoplight, redband, striped Surgeonfishes: blue tang, ocean surgeonfish, doctorfish Triggerfishes: ocean, queen, gray* Wrasses: hogfish, puddingwife, Spanish hogfish Angelfishes: queen, grey, French Grunts: white grunt
Jacks: crevalle jack*, African pompano*, rainbow runner* * New to management
Puerto Rico Pelagics *All new to management
•
Tripletail: tripletail
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Appendix A 94
• •
Dolphinfish: dolphin, pompano dolphin
•
Barracudas: great barracuda
Mackerels and Tunas (Scombridae): little tunny, blackfin tuna, king mackerel, cero mackerel, wahoo
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Appendix A 95
Appendix B. List of Species Identified in the Literature as Incidental Catch in the Deep-water Snapper/Grouper Fishery of Puerto Rico Ault et al. (2018) identified the following species: lionfish (Pterois volitans), Jacks (Seriola rivoliana and S. dumerili), Atlantic scombrops (Scombrops oculatus), tilefishes (Caulolatilus spp.), Longfin Bulleye (Cookeolus japonicus), American sackfish (Neoepinnula americana), Oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus), red hogfish (Decodon puellaris), beardfishes (Polymixia spp.), Spanish flag (Gonioplectrus hispanus), yellow flagfin (Aulopus filamentosus), pomfret (Taractichthys longipinnis), cornetfish (Fistularia petimba), grunt (Pomadasys sp.), groupers (Hyporthodus spp.) and various species of sharks (Squalus cubensis, Ginglymostoma cirratum, Carcharhinus perezii, Mustelus spp., Scyliorhinus sp. and Hexanchus spp.). Reference: Ault, H.S, Smith, S.G., Apperldoorn, R, Lylestrom, C, Peña, N., Cass-Calay, S., Ruiz, H. Extending Fishery-Independent Surveys for Reef-fishes in Puerto Rico to Mid-Depth and Deep Reefs – Progress Report 2018 DNER. Scharer-Umpierre et al. (2019) list the following species as caught in the Puerto Rico deep-water fishery: Aulopidae Aulopus filamentosus; Holocentridae Ostichthys trachypoma; Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus perezi; Scyliorhinidae Scyliorhinus sp.; Triakidae Mustelus canis; Hexanchidae Heptranchias perlo; Hexanchidae Hexanchus nakamurai; Ginglymostomatidae Ginglymostoma cirratum; Bramidae Taractichthys longipinnis; Caproidae Antigonia capros; Carangidae Caranx crysos; Carangidae Caranx lugubris; Carangidae Decapterus tabl; Carangidae Seriola dumerili; Carangidae Seriola rivoliana; Echeneidae Echeneis naucrates; Emmelichthyidae Erythrocles monodi; Gempylidae Neoepinnula americana; Gempylidae Ruvettus pretiosus; Haemulidae Pomadasys sp.; Labridae Decodon puellaris; Lutjanidae Apsilus dentatus; Lutjanidae Etelis oculatus; Lutjanidae Lutjanus buccanella; Lutjanidae Lutjanus vivanus; Lutjanidae Pristipomoides aquilonaris; Lutjanidae Pristipomoides macrophthalmus; Lutjanidae Rhomboplites aurorubens; Malacanthidae Caulolatilus dooleyi; Malacanthidae Caulolatilus cyanops; Priacanthidae Cookeolus japonicus; Scombropidae Scombrops oculatus; Serranidae Cephalopholis fulva; Serranidae Epinephelus guttatus; Serranidae Gonioplectrus hispanus; Serranidae Hyporthodus flavolimbatus; Serranidae Hyporthodus mystacinus; Serranidae Hyporthodus nigritus; Serranidae Hyporthodus niveatus; Serranidae Serranus notospilus/phoebe; Polymixiidae Polymixia loweii; Polymixiidae Polymixia nobilis; Scorpaenidae Pontinus castor; Scorpaenidae Pterois volitans; Dalatiidae Dalatias licha; Etmopteridae Etmopterus hillianus; Squalidae Squalus cubensis; Fistulariidae Fistularia petimba. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Appendix A 96
Reference: Scharer-Umpierre, M.T., Peña-Alvarado, N., Smith, St. G., Appeldoorn R., Ault, J.S. 2019. Deeper water fauna caught incidentally in the Puerto Rico fishery. La fauna de aguas profundas capturada incidentalmente en la pesquería de Puerto Rico. Le faune plus profonde capturée accidentellement dans la pêcherie de Porto Rico. GCFI 71. Overly (2020) identified bycatch species from the deep-water snapper grouper fishery including: jacks (Caranx lugubris, Seriola dumerili), Altantic scombrops (Scombrops oculatus), tilefishes (Caulolatilus williamsi, C. sp.), lionfish (Pterois volitans), beardfishes (Polymixia lowei, P. nobilis), Tattler (Serranus phoebe), King snake eels (Ophichthus rex), New Granada drum (Protosciaena trewavasae), Three-spine bass (Synagrops trispinosus), and several shark species (Squalus cubensis, S. clarkae, Mustelus canis). Reference: Overly, K. 2020. Essential Fish Habitat Classification and Age & Growth of Deepwater Snappers in Puerto Rico Using Remote Video Camera’s Tethered to Deep Drop Fishing Gear. SEFSC. EFP F/SER28:SS Final Report.
Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification
Appendix A 97
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 2. In § 622.440, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: § 622.440 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs). * * * * * (c) Spiny lobster--(1) For the 2021 through 2023 fishing years, the ACL is 369,313 lb (167,517 kg), round weight. For the 2024 and subsequent fishing years, the ACL is 366,965 lb (166,452 kg), round weight.
* * * * * 3. In § 622.480, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: § 622.480 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs). * * * * * 1
(c) Spiny lobster--(1) For the 2021 through 2023 fishing years, the ACL is 140,667 lb (63,805 kg), round weight. For the 2024 and subsequent fishing years, the ACL is 120,830 lb (54,807 kg), round weight. * * * * * 4. In § 622.515, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: § 622.515 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs). * * * * * (c) Spiny lobster--(1) For the 2021 through 2023 fishing years, the ACL is 142,636 lb (64,698 kg), round weight. For the 2024 and subsequent fishing years, the ACL is 126,089 lb (57,193 kg), round weight. * * * * *
2
Generic Framework Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification of Spiny Lobster Management Reference Points Based on SEDAR 57 Stock Assessments
Including Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Version 3.0, August 2021
Environmental Assessment Cover Sheet Name of Action Generic Framework Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification of Spiny Lobster Management Reference Points Based on SEDAR 57 Stock Assessments including Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. Responsible Agencies and Contact Persons Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) 270 Muñoz Rivera Ave., Suite 401 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903 (787) 766-5926 Graciela García-Moliner (graciela_cfmc@yahoo.com) Caribbean Council website National Marine Fisheries Service (Lead Agency) Southeast Regional Office (SERO) 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 (727) 824-5305 Sarah Stephenson (sarah.stephenson@noaa.gov) SERO Website Type of Action ( ) Administrative ( ) Draft
( ) Legislative (X) Final
This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared using the 2020 CEQ NEPA Regulations. The effective date of the 2020 Council on Environmental Quality National Environmental Policy Act Regulations was September 14, 2020, and reviews begun after this date are required to apply the 2020 regulations unless there is a clear and fundamental conflict with an applicable statute. 85 Federal Register at 43372-73 (§§ 1506.13, 1507.3(a)). This EA began on December 8, 2020, and accordingly proceeds under the 2020 regulations.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
II
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Document ABC ACL AM CEA CFMC EA EBFM EEZ EIS FMP FMSY MFMT MSA MSST MSY NEPA NMFS OFL OY SDC SEDAR SEFSC SSC SYL USVI
acceptable biological catch annual catch limit accountability measure cumulative effects analysis (Council); Caribbean Fishery Management Council environmental assessment ecosystem-based fishery management exclusive economic zone environmental impact statement fishery management plan fishing mortality rate yielding maximum sustainable yield maximum fishing mortality threshold (Magnuson-Stevens Act); Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act minimum stock size threshold maximum sustainable yield National Environmental Policy Act National Marine Fisheries Service overfishing limit optimum yield status determination criteria Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (stock assessment) Southeast Fisheries Science Center Scientific and Statistical Committee sustainable yield level United States Virgin Islands
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Abbreviations and Acronyms III
Table of Contents for the Environmental Assessment Table of Contents for the Framework Amendment Statement of Purpose and Need Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives Chapter 3. Affected Environment Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences List of Preparers List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Table of Contents for the EA IV
Table of Contents Environmental Assessment Cover Sheet ........................................................................................ II Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Document .................................................................. III Table of Contents for the Environmental Assessment .................................................................. IV Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... V List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. VIII List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... XI Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2
What Action is Proposed? ................................................................................................ 1 Why is the Council Considering Action? ......................................................................... 2
1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.3 1.4
Spiny Lobster Stock Assessments ............................................................................ 3 Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule ............................................................... 3 Statement of Purpose and Need ................................................................................ 5
Where Will the Action Have an Effect?........................................................................... 6 History of Federal Fisheries Management ....................................................................... 6
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives .............................................................................. 8 2.1
Action 1: Spiny Lobster OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs .......................................................... 8
2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2
Proposed Alternatives for Action 1........................................................................... 9 Discussion of Action 1 Alternatives ....................................................................... 11
Action 2: Spiny Lobster Accountability Measure Trigger ............................................ 14
2.2.1 2.2.2
Proposed Alternatives for Action 2......................................................................... 14 Discussion of Action 2 Alternatives ....................................................................... 15
Chapter 3. Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 19 3.1
Description of the Fishery .............................................................................................. 19
3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2
Description of the Physical Environment....................................................................... 30
3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.3
Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 20 St. Thomas and St. John.......................................................................................... 24 St. Croix .................................................................................................................. 27 Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 31 St. Thomas and St. John.......................................................................................... 31 St. Croix .................................................................................................................. 32 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) .................................................................................. 32
Description of the Biological and Ecological Environments ......................................... 33
3.3.1 3.3.2
Description of the Species ...................................................................................... 33 Bycatch ................................................................................................................... 35
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Table of Contents V
3.3.3 3.4
Description of the Economic Environment .................................................................... 37
3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 37 Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 38 St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John ................................................................... 48
Description of the Social Environment .......................................................................... 58
3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.6
Protected Species .................................................................................................... 35
Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 58 St. Thomas and St. John.......................................................................................... 60 St. Croix .................................................................................................................. 61 Environmental Justice (EJ) Considerations ............................................................ 63
Description of the Administrative Environment ............................................................ 66
3.6.1 3.6.2
Federal Fishery Management .................................................................................. 66 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Fisheries Management.................................. 67
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 69 4.1 Action 1: Spiny Lobster Overfishing Limit (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), and Annual Catch Limit (ACL) ................................................................................... 69 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.2
Action 2: Spiny Lobster Accountability Measure (AM) Trigger .................................. 81
4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.3
Effects on the Physical Environment ...................................................................... 69 Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment................................................. 71 Effects on the Economic Environment ................................................................... 73 Effects on the Social Environment ......................................................................... 78 Effects on the Administrative Environment ........................................................... 80 Effects on the Physical Environment ...................................................................... 81 Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment................................................. 83 Effects on the Economic Environment ................................................................... 85 Effects on the Social Environment ......................................................................... 86 Effects on the Administrative Environment ........................................................... 86
Cumulative Effects Analysis .......................................................................................... 87
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review ......................................................................................... 93 5.1 5.2 5.3. 5.4
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 93 Problems and Objectives ................................................................................................ 93 Description of the Fishery .............................................................................................. 93 Impacts of Management Measures ................................................................................. 93
5.4.1 Action 1: Spiny lobster Overfishing Limit (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), and Annual Catch Limit (ACL) ............................................................................... 93 5.4.2 Action 2: Spiny Lobster Accountability Measure (AM) Trigger .......................... 94 Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Table of Contents VI
5.5 5.6
Public and Private Costs of Regulations ........................................................................ 95 Determination of Significant Regulatory Action ........................................................... 95
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis ........................................................................... 96 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 96 6.2 Statement of the need for, objective of, and legal basis for the proposed rule .............. 96 6.3 Identification of federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule ............................................................................................................................. 96 6.4 Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed action would apply............................................................................................................................... 96 6.5 Description and economic impacts of the compliance requirements of the proposed rule 97 6.6 Significance of economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities .............. 105 Chapter 7. List of Preparers ....................................................................................................... 107 Chapter 8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted......................................... 108 Chapter 9. References ................................................................................................................ 109 Appendix A. Island-based Fishery Management Plans Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule ............................................................................................................................................. 116 Appendix B. Other Applicable Law .......................................................................................... 117
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Table of Contents VII
List of Tables Table 1.1. Spiny lobster SYL, ABC, and ACL specified for federal waters under the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP. Values are in pounds whole weight.............................................................................................................................................. 4 Table 2.1. Management reference points from SEDAR 57 spiny lobster stock assessments for each island/island group.................................................................................................................. 8 Table 2.2. Variable-catch OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster for each island/island group, based on SEDAR 57 stock assessments and Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule included in each islandbased FMP. All values are in pounds whole weight. ..................................................................... 9 Table 2.3. Constant-catch OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster for each island/island group, based on SEDAR 57 stock assessments and Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule included in each islandbased FMP. All values are in pounds whole weight. ..................................................................... 9 Table 2.4. Variable-catch ACLs for spiny lobster for each island/island group based on the variable-catch ABCs recommended by the SSC as reduced by the Council’s management uncertainty buffer (Alternative 2, Sub-alternatives 2a-2c). .......................................................... 10 Table 2.5. Constant-catch ACLs for spiny lobster for each island/island group based on the constant-catch ABC recommended by the SSC as reduced by the Council’s management uncertainty buffer (Alternative 3, Sub-alternatives 3a-3c). .......................................................... 11 Table 2.6. Years of spiny lobster landings that would be used to trigger an AM under the Action 2 alternatives, assuming that the island-based FMPs and the Spiny Lobster Framework Amendment are both implemented in 2022. ................................................................................. 17 Table 3.1.1. Landings of spiny lobster (in pounds) in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019 with the percent reported from state waters (0-9 nautical miles), federal waters (9-200 nautical miles), or unknown location. ......................................................................................................................... 21 Table 3.1.2. Percent of spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019 reported by gear type................................................................................................................................................ 21 Table 3.1.3. Landings (in pounds) of spiny lobster and co-occurring species landed and number of trip tickets that reported spiny lobster and co-occurring species in Puerto Rico in 2018 and 2019............................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 3.1.4. Landings of spiny lobster (in pounds) in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019 with the percent reported from state waters (0-3 nautical miles), federal waters (3-200 nautical miles), or unknown location. ........................................................................................................ 24 Table 3.1.5. Percent of spiny lobster landings in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019 reported by gear type. ................................................................................................................... 25 Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
List of Tables VIII
Table 3.1.6. Landings (in pounds) of spiny lobster and co-occurring species landed and number of trip tickets that reported spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Thomas and St. John in 2018 and 2019. .............................................................................................................................. 25 Table 3.1.7. Landings of spiny lobster (in pounds) in St. Croix for 2012-2019 with the percent reported from state waters (0-3 nautical miles), federal waters (3-200 nautical miles), or unknown location. ......................................................................................................................... 28 Table 3.1.8. Percent of spiny lobster landings in St. Croix for 2012-2019 reported by gear type. ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 3.1.9. Landings (in pounds) of spiny lobster and co-occurring species landed and number of trip tickets that reported spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Croix in 2018 and 2019. ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 3.4.1. Number of farms, total amount of farmland, and number of farms by land size, 2012 and 2018. .............................................................................................................................. 39 Table 3.4.2. Ex-vessel value and average price of spiny lobster per pound in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019. .................................................................................................................................... 44 Table 3.4.3. Ex-vessel value and price per pound co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019. ...................................................................................................... 45 Table 3.4.4. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019. ...................................................................................................................... 46 Table 3.4.5. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species by area fished in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019............................................................................................. 47 Table 3.4.6. Landings, value, and price of spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John for 20122019............................................................................................................................................... 53 Table 3.4.7. Landings, value, and price of spiny lobster in St. Croix for 2012-2019. ................ 54 Table 3.4.8. Ex-vessel value and price of co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019. ............................................................................................ 55 Table 3.4.9. Ex-vessel value and price of co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in St. Croix, 2012-2019. ......................................................................................................................... 55 Table 3.4.10. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Thomas and St. John, 2012-2019.................................................................................................. 56 Table 3.4.11. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Croix, 2012-2019. ......................................................................................................................... 56 Table 3.4.12. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species by area fished in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019. ........................................................................ 57 Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
List of Tables IX
Table 3.4.13. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species by area fished in St. Croix for 2012-2019. ................................................................................................ 58 Table 4.1. Maximum revenue losses associated with revising island/island group spiny lobster ACLs. ............................................................................................................................................ 75 Table 6.1. Spiny Lobster ACLs under Alternative 1 (no-action) and Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b of Action 1. .............................................................................................................................. 98 Table 6.2. Decreases in spiny lobster ACLs under Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b by island area..................................................................................................................... 98 Table 6.3. Comparison of Action 2, Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 sequences of landings used to estimate landings for comparison with the ACL. .............................................. 99 Table 6.4. Maximum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for Puerto Rico, 2021 - 2025. ......................................................................................................................................... 101 Table 6.5. Minimum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for Puerto Rico, 2021 - 2025. ......................................................................................................................................... 101 Table 6.6. Range of impacts in Puerto Rico, 2021 – 2025. ....................................................... 102 Table 6.7. Maximum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Thomas and St. John, 2021 - 2025. ....................................................................................................................... 103 Table 6.8. Minimum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Thomas and St. John, 2021 - 2025. ....................................................................................................................... 103 Table 6.9. Maximum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Croix, 2021 2025............................................................................................................................................. 104 Table 6.10. Minimum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Croix, 2021 2025............................................................................................................................................. 104 Table 6.11. Comparison of reductions of spiny lobster ACL (lb) for Puerto Rico by alternative, Action 1....................................................................................................................................... 105 Table 7.1. List of interdisciplinary plan team members and other contributors. ...................... 107
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
List of Tables X
List of Figures Figure 1.1. U.S. Caribbean region with boundaries between the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix management areas. .......................................................................................... 6 Figure 3.4.1. Labor force and unemployment rate in Puerto Rico, 2012 – 2020........................ 38 Figure 3.4.2. Puerto Rico real GDP (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2020. ....................... 40 Figure 3.4.3. Puerto Rico’s GNI per capita (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2019............. 40 Figure 3.4.4. Arrival guests through August of each year, 2017 – 2020. .................................... 42 Figure 3.4.5. Monthly labor force, January 2019 – December 2020. ......................................... 43 Figure 3.4.6. Construction jobs in USVI, January 2017 – September 2019. .............................. 48 Figure 3.4.7. Employees in construction, mining and logging sector in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. ................................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 3.4.8. Employees in the leisure and hospitality, manufacturing, and trade, transportation and utilities sectors in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. ...................................................... 50 Figure 3.4.9. Total USVI visitor arrivals, 2016 – 2020. ............................................................. 51 Figure 3.4.10. Annual change in real GDP, 2016 – 2020. .......................................................... 51 Figure 3.4.11. Annual change in rum exports to U.S.................................................................. 52 Figure 3.5.1. Puerto Rico coastal communities with villas pesqueras. ....................................... 59 Figure 3.5.2. St. Thomas and St. John coastal communities and subdistricts.............................. 61 Figure 3.5.3. St. Croix coastal communities and subdistricts. .................................................... 62 Figure 3.5.4. Social vulnerability indices for Puerto Rico coastal municipalities. ..................... 64 Figure 3.5.5. Social vulnerability indices for St. Thomas (STT) and St. John (STJ) coastal subdistricts. ................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 3.5.6. Social vulnerability indices for St. Croix coastal subdistricts. .............................. 66 Figure 6.1. Range of annual landings and baseline ACL, Puerto Rico..................................... 100 Figure 6.2. Range of annual landings and baseline ACL, St. Thomas and St. John. ................ 102 Figure 6.3. Range of annual landings and baseline ACL, St. Croix. ........................................ 104
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
List of Figures XI
Chapter 1. Introduction The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) is one of eight regional fishery management councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Council prepares fishery management plans (FMP) and amendments to those FMPs that are designed to manage fishery resources within the federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean, which includes waters off Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for the stewardship of the nation's ocean resources and their habitat. Specifically, NMFS is responsible for the collection of data and for conducting stock assessments in support of science-based fishery management to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished fish stocks. The Council develops a framework amendment and sends it to NMFS, which implements the measures in the amendment on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce through the development of regulations. NMFS’s Southeast Regional Office is responsible for implementing and enforcing management measures based on the U.S. Caribbean FMPs and amendments.
1.1 What Action is Proposed? The Generic Framework Amendment to the Comprehensive FMP for the Puerto Rico Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (Puerto Rico FMP), the Comprehensive FMP for the St. Thomas and St. John EEZ (St. Thomas and St. John FMP), and the Comprehensive FMP for the St. Croix EEZ (St. Croix FMP) includes an action to update the status determination criteria (SDC) and other management reference points for spiny lobster under each FMP based on the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 57 (SEDAR 57) stock assessments. The Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP are collectively referred to as the island-based FMPs throughout this Framework Amendment. Status determination criteria are the measurable and objective factors, maximum Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Status Determination Criteria and Definitions Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold (MFMT) – The level of fishing mortality (F), on an annual basis, above which overfishing is occurring. The MFMT or reasonable proxy may be expressed either as a single number (a fishing mortality rate or F value), or as a function of spawning biomass or other measure of reproductive potential. Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) – The biomass level below which the capacity of the stock to produce MSY on a continuing basis has been jeopardized. A stock or stock complex is considered overfished when its biomass has declined below MSST. Overfishing Limit (OFL) – The annual amount of catch that corresponds to the estimate of MFMT applied to a stock or stock complex’s abundance and is expressed in terms of numbers or weight of fish. Overfishing occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is subjected to a level of fishing mortality or total catch that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis. Overfished. A stock or stock complex is considered “overfished” when its biomass has declined below the MSST.
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), minimum stock size threshold (MSST), and overfishing limit (OFL), or their proxies, that are used to determine if overfishing has occurred, or if the stock or stock complex is overfished. 50 C.F.R. 600.310(e)(2)(i)(A). Under the National Standard 1 guidelines, SDC, maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), acceptable biological catch (ABC), and annual catch limit (ACL) are collectively referred to as “reference points,” 50 C.F.R. 600.310(b)(2)(iv). The SDC and other reference points are collectively referred to as management reference points throughout this Framework Amendment.
Other Management Reference Points Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) – The largest long-term average catch or yield that can be taken from a stock or stock complex under prevailing ecological, environmental conditions and fishing technology characteristics (e.g., gear characteristics) and the distribution of catch among fleets. Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) – The catch level recommended by the SSC and set at or below OFL to account for scientific uncertainty. Annual Catch Limit (ACL) – The limit of total annual catch for a stock or stock complex that serves as the basis for invoking accountability measures. The ACL cannot exceed the ABC. Optimum Yield (OY) – The amount of fish that provides the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems.
The SDC to be updated for spiny lobster under this Framework Amendment to the island-based FMPs (Framework Amendment) include the MFMT, the MSST, and the OFL. Other spiny lobster management reference points to be updated include the MSY, or MSY proxy, ABC, OY, and ACL. The Framework Amendment includes a second action that would revise the accountability measure (AM) trigger for spiny lobster in each island/island group from the AM trigger described in the island-based FMPs.
1.2 Why is the Council Considering Action? The Council is considering action to update management reference points to incorporate information from the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 57 U.S. Caribbean Spiny Lobster stock assessments, which are considered best scientific information available for the U.S. Caribbean spiny lobster stocks. Following the SEDAR assessments, the spiny lobster stock in each island-based FMP would change from Tier 4a (data limited, no accepted assessment available) to Tier 3 (data limited, accepted assessment available) in the Council’s ABC Control Rule, which is included in each island-based FMP. The Council is also considering revising the AM trigger for spiny lobster to (1) respond to landings information available since the AM trigger was developed under the island-based FMPs and (2) anticipate changes to the spiny lobster ACLs moving forward, following the spiny lobster stock assessments. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 1. Introduction 2
1.2.1
Spiny Lobster Stock Assessments
In 2019, SEDAR completed three stock assessments for spiny lobster, one for the Puerto Rico spiny lobster stock, one for the St. Thomas and St. John spiny lobster stock, and one for the St. Croix spiny lobster stock (SEDAR 57 2019; http://sedarweb.org/sedar-57). Due to the lack of an estimable spawner-recruit relationship, MSY could not be reliably estimated for the three spiny lobster stocks. Therefore, the stock status, OFL, and projected landings were presented relative to a provisional MSY proxy of FSPR30%. 1 SEDAR 57 used management threshold definitions of FSPR30% for the MFMT and 75% of SSPR30% for the MSST. The assessments estimated that the fishing mortality was below MFMT and the spawning output was above MSST. Thus, each spiny lobster stock was determined to be not undergoing overfishing and not overfished. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed results from SEDAR 57 and determined that the stock assessments are suitable for management advice. Specifically, the SSC (1) supported the three island-based spiny lobster stock assessments (statistical catch at age models) as providing the best scientific information available relative to the SDC of overfishing status and overfished status; (2) accepted the FSPR30% as an MSY proxy; (3) supported the outcome of the SEDAR 57 that overfishing is not occurring relative to the recommended MFMT and that the populations are not overfished relative to the recommended MSST; and (4) supported and recommended the use of the assessments to update the values for management reference points and SDC in each of the island-based FMPs, using the Council’s ABC Control Rule included in each the island-based FMPs as described below. The Council requested that the SSC coordinate with the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) to provide OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster for each island/island group, based on SEDAR 57, for 2021 to 2023. Council intent would be to request the SEFSC provide an interim assessment 2 by 2023 to update OFL projections and set catch levels for 2024 and later years.
1.2.2
Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule
The ABC is a level of annual catch recommended by the Council’s SSC, which accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of the OFL, any other scientific uncertainty, and the Council’s risk policy (50 CFR 600.310(f)(1)(ii)). The Council’s risk policy could be based on an acceptable probability (at least 50%) that catch equal to the stock’s ABC will not result in overfishing. The Council’s choice of a risk policy cannot result in an ABC that exceeds the OFL (50 CFR 600.310(f)(2)(i)). Councils and their SSC should develop a process by which the SSC 1 The FMSY proxy of FSPR30% is calculated from spawning-stock-biomass-per-recruit (SPR) analyses. Under conditions of no fishing mortality, 100% of a stock’s spawning potential is obtained. A fishing mortality rate, denoted by FSPR30% would allow the stock to attain 30% of the maximum spawning potential, which would have been obtained under conditions of no fishing mortality. 2 An interim assessment would update the model projections used in the SEDAR 57 stock assessments with more recent commercial landings and length-composition data, as available, for each island/island group.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 1. Introduction 3
can access the best scientific information available when implementing the ABC Control Rule (i.e., specifying the ABC) (50 CFR 600.310(f)(3). The SSC must recommend the ABC to the Council. Each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs adopt and apply a newly devised, four-tiered ABC Control Rule to specify SDC (i.e., MFMT, MSST, and OFL or OFL proxy) and other management reference points (i.e., MSY or MSY proxy and ABC), depending on differing levels of data availability (see Appendix A). In each FMP, spiny lobster was considered a Tier 4a stock (data limited with no accepted assessment, with relatively low vulnerability to fishing pressure). 3 In the FMPs, the MSY proxy, MFMT, and MSST for Tier 4a stocks were defined (see Appendix A), but due to data limitations, were not quantified. Similarly, under Tier 4a, the OFL could not be quantified. Thus, a new reference point, the sustainable yield level (SYL), which is a level of landings that can be sustained over the longterm, was quantified and used as the OFL proxy and an additional MSY proxy. 4 Under the island-based FMPs, the SSC recommended ABCs, which were derived from the spiny lobster SYLs, and the Council set each spiny lobster ACL at 95% of the respective island’s ABC (Table 1.1). Table 1.1. Spiny lobster SYL, ABC, and ACL specified for federal waters under the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP. Values are in pounds whole weight. Fishery Management Plan Puerto Rico St. Thomas and St. John St. Croix
Spiny Lobster SYL* 924,968 367,035 346,541
Spiny Lobster ABC 554,981 220,221 207,925
Spiny Lobster ACL 527,232 209,210 197,528
* Under Tier 4 of the ABC Control Rule included in each FMP, the SYL was quantified and used as the OFL proxy.
Based on the uncertainty in the data used in the SEDAR 57 stock assessment models, the SSC in consultation with the SEFSC recommended that spiny lobster be classified as a Tier 3 stock (data limited, accepted assessment available) under the ABC Control Rule for each FMP. Under Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule, if the biomass of the stock falls below MSST, which would be set equal to 75% of the long-term spawning stock biomass at MFMT (SSBMFMT), the stock would be determined to be overfished (i.e., if B/MSST <1) and the Council would then need to develop a rebuilding plan capable of returning the stock to a level that allows the stock to achieve MSY on Spiny lobster was considered to be a Tier 4a stock in each FMP due in part to recruitment (the species is found throughout the Caribbean and the duration of the larval stage is several months) and sizes of spiny lobsters that are harvested compared to the minimum size limit in place (average carapace lengths observed were greater than the minimum size limit of 3.5 inches carapace length). 4 The SYL is intended to be used when the information or resources needed to produce a quantitative stock assessment are not available to determine the MSY or corresponding reference point such as the OFL, and therefore it is specific to Tier 4. 3
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 1. Introduction 4
a continuing basis. Additionally, under Tier 3, in years when there is a stock assessment, if fishing mortality (F) exceeds the MFMT, the stock is considered to be undergoing overfishing (i.e., if F/MFMT >1), because this level of fishing mortality, if continued, would reduce the stock biomass to an overfished condition. In years in which there is no assessment, overfishing would occur if landings exceed the OFL. 5 Under Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule, the ABC is derived from the OFL, reduced by the SSC’s scientific uncertainty 6 buffer (sigma; for spiny lobster stocks sigma = 1.0) and reflecting the acceptable probability of overfishing determined by the Council (P*; for spiny lobster stocks P* = 0.45). 7 The ACL would then be derived from the ABC, reduced by the Council’s management uncertainty 8 buffer (Action 1).
1.2.3
Statement of Purpose and Need
The purpose of this framework amendment is to update management reference points for spiny lobster under the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs to account for the SEDAR 57 spiny lobster stock assessments and application of the Council’s ABC Control Rule and to revise the AM trigger for spiny lobster stocks. The need for this framework amendment is to update management measures for spiny lobster stocks based on best scientific information available to prevent overfishing and achieve OY, consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Under Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule, overfishing would be determined to be occurring if one year of landings exceeds the annual OFL for the stock. 6 Scientific uncertainty takes into account the deficiencies in and vagaries of reporting, which includes potential biases (over reporting, underreporting, trends), changes in reporting forms, changes in fisher behavior, the contribution of unspecified landings, expansion factors and validation capacity, availability of recreational data (quantity and quality), availability of ancillary data, and life history parameters, focusing on how these deficiencies affected data quality. 7 The SSC set a sigma value of 1.0 at their May 2020 meeting and the Council set a P* value of 0.45 at their June 2020 meeting. 8 Management uncertainty refers to uncertainty in the ability of managers to constrain catch so the ACL is not exceeded, and the uncertainty in quantifying the true catch amounts (i.e., estimation errors). 5
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 1. Introduction 5
1.3 Where Will the Action Have an Effect? Under the Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c), the Council is responsible for managing fishery resources, including spiny lobster, in federal waters in the U.S. Caribbean region (Figure 1.1). The EEZ around each island/island group was discussed in detail in the respective FMP, and is incorporated herein by reference. The EEZ around Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico EEZ) ranges from 9-200 nautical miles (17-370 kilometers) from the shore of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the outer boundary of the EEZ. The EEZ around St. Thomas and St. John (St. Thomas and St. John EEZ) and around St. Croix (St. Croix EEZ) ranges 3-200 nautical miles (6-370 kilometers) from the shore of the respective USVI island/island group to the outer boundary of the EEZ.
Figure 1.1. U.S. Caribbean region with boundaries between the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix management areas.
1.4 History of Federal Fisheries Management The island-based FMPs established management measures for the EEZ around each respective island. The island-based FMPs updated the list of species included for federal management and how those species would be grouped into stocks or stock complexes; specified management reference points for managed stocks and stock complexes; updated accountability measures; described essential fish habitat for managed species; and updated the FMP framework procedures. The island-based FMPs retained other management measures established under the U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs that apply to the respective island management area (e.g., seasonal and area closures, minimum size limits, recreational bag limits). The Secretary of Commerce approved the island-based FMPs on September 22, 2020.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 1. Introduction 6
Prior to the development of the island-based FMPs, spiny lobster was managed throughout the U.S. Caribbean EEZ under the Spiny Lobster FMP of Puerto Rico and the USVI (CFMC 1981), as amended. The history of management actions under the Spiny Lobster FMP are summarized in Appendix C of each island-based FMP. Below is an annotated list of fishery management actions implemented under the island-based FMPs and the Spiny Lobster FMP and its amendments that are specifically related management reference points and AMs for spiny lobster. Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c) The FMPs included a new four-tiered ABC Control Rule to define management reference points for spiny lobster. Each FMP updated the AM trigger for spiny lobster. Spiny Lobster FMP (49 FR 50049 December 26, 1984) The Spiny Lobster FMP defined MSY and OY for spiny lobster. Under the FMP, MSY was estimated for the three island areas (Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, St. Croix) and then summed to provide an estimate for the entire management area (U.S. Caribbean EEZ). Amendment 1 (56 FR 19098 April 25, 1991) Amendment 1 implemented definitions for overfished and overfishing and outlined framework actions that could be taken by the Council should overfishing occur. Amendment 2 (70 FR 62073 October 28, 2005) Amendment 2, part of the Caribbean Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment, redefined MSY and OY and defined the MSST and MFMT for spiny lobster. Amendment 5 (76 FR 82414 December 30, 2011) Amendment 5, part of the 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment, revised the management reference points and status determination criteria established in Amendment 2 and established ACLs (specified for each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix) and AMs for spiny lobster. Amendment 6 (81 FR 29166 May 11, 2016) Amendment 6 revised the language within the FMP to be consistent with language in the implementing regulations at 50 CFR Part 622 describing the application of AMs in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 1. Introduction 7
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives Framework procedures included in the Puerto Rico Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP allow the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) to modify management measures in certain situations, including when a new stock assessment indicates changes should be made to management reference points and status determination criteria (SDC), and to revise accountability measures (AM) (e.g., change AM trigger and AM application) (See Table 5.12.1 in each FMP). Based on Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 57, this Framework Amendment to the island-based FMPs would update values for the following management reference points for the spiny lobster stock in each FMP: maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or MSY proxy, maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), and minimum stock size threshold (MSST) using definitions specified in the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rule included in the island-based FMPs. Under this Framework Amendment, the MSY proxy, MFMT, and MSST for spiny lobster in each island/island group would be as specified in Table 2.1. Table 2.1. Management reference points from SEDAR 57 spiny lobster stock assessments for each island/island group. Management Reference Point MSY proxy* MFMT (FSPR30) MSST (0.75*SSBMFMT) (1,000 eggs)
Puerto Rico 432,501
St. Thomas/St. John 133,601
St. Croix 127,742
0.197
0.244
0.203
8.48 E+07
2.13 E+07
2.30 E+07
* Values are in pounds whole weight.
Additionally, the Council would take action to update the overfishing limit (OFL), ABC, and annual catch limit (ACL) for spiny lobster in each FMP (Action 1) and to revise the AM trigger for spiny lobster (Action 2).
2.1 Action 1: Spiny Lobster OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended both a variable-catch approach and a constant-catch approach for updating spiny lobster OFLs and ABCs for the period of 2021-2023 under each FMP. Both approaches use the island-specific OFLs projected from the stock assessment model and the ABC estimates determined by applying Tier 3 of the Council’s ABC Control Rule. For the variable-catch approach, the SSC recommended spiny lobster OFLs and ABCs for 2021 to 2023 for each island/island group that would change each year (Table 2.2). For the constantGeneric Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 8
catch approach, the SSC recommended a constant-catch ABC derived from a constant-catch OFL that was set equal to the average of the 2021-2023 OFLs (Table 2.3). For both the variablecatch and constant-catch approaches, the SSC recommended the spiny lobster OFLs/ABCs for 2024 and subsequent years be set equal to the OFL and ABC values specified for 2023 under the variable-catch approach, until modified by a subsequent amendment. Through Action 1, the Council would select the process for determining the ACL(s) from the ABC(s) recommended by the SSC for spiny lobster in each island/island group based on the Council’s preferred approach for determining OFLs and ABCs (i.e., variable-catch or constantcatch approach). The Council would also select the level of management uncertainty to derive the ACLs from the ABCs. The ACL would be set equal to OY for the stock. The Council could select a different alternative and sub-alternative for each island or island group. Table 2.2. Variable-catch OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster for each island/island group, based on SEDAR 57 stock assessments and Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule included in each islandbased FMP. All values are in pounds whole weight. Year 2021 2022 2023 2024+1
Puerto Rico OFL 444,020 440,387
Puerto Rico ABC 391,587 388,383
438,001 438,001
386,279 386,279
St. Thomas/ St. John OFL 195,223 165,021 150,497 150,497
St. Thomas/ St. John ABC 172,170 145,534 132,725 132,725
St. Croix OFL 200,020 159,452 144,219 144,219
St. Croix ABC 176,400 140,623 127,189 127,189
If subsequent assessments are not completed and an amendment is not implemented by 2024, the OFLs and ABCs would be equal to the values specified for 2023.
1
Table 2.3. Constant-catch OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster for each island/island group, based on SEDAR 57 stock assessments and Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule included in each islandbased FMP. All values are in pounds whole weight. Year 20212023 2024+1
Puerto Rico OFL
Puerto Rico ABC
St. Thomas/ St. John OFL
St. Thomas/ St. John ABC
St. Croix OFL
St. Croix ABC
440,803
388,750
170,247
150,143
167,897
148,071
438,001
386,279
150,497
132,725
144,219
127,189
If subsequent assessments are not completed and an amendment is not implemented by 2024, the OFLs and ABCs under the constant-catch approach would be set equal to the values specified for 2023 under the variable-catch approach (Table 2.2).
1
2.1.1
Proposed Alternatives for Action 1
Alternative 1. No Action. The OFL proxy, ABC, and ACL (which equals OY) for spiny lobster would remain as specified under the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP (Table 1.1). Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 9
Alternative 2. Select the variable-catch approach for specifying OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster (Table 2.2), and use the variable-catch ABCs to derive the spiny lobster variable-catch ACLs (which equals OY) (Table 2.4), under one of the sub-alternatives listed below. Sub-alternative 2a. OY = ACL = ABC Sub-alternative 2b. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.95 Sub-alternative 2c. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.90 Preferred Alternative 3. Select the constant-catch approach for specifying the OFL and ABC for spiny lobster (Table 2.3), and use the constant-catch ABC to derive the spiny lobster constant-catch ACL (which equals OY) (Table 2.5), under one of the sub-alternatives listed below. Sub-alternative 3a. OY = ACL = ABC Preferred Sub-alternative 3b. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.95 Sub-alternative 3c. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.90 Table 2.4. Variable-catch ACLs for spiny lobster for each island/island group based on the variable-catch ABCs recommended by the SSC as reduced by the Council’s management uncertainty buffer (Alternative 2, Sub-alternatives 2a-2c). Island/Island Group Puerto Rico St. Thomas/ St. John St. Croix
Year 2021 2022 2023+1 2021 2022 2023+1 2021 2022 2023+1
Sub-alternative 2a (ACL = ABC) 391,587 388,383 386,279 172,170 145,534 132,725 176,400 140,623 127,189
Sub-alternative 2b Sub-alternative 2c (ACL = ABC * 0.95) (ACL = ABC * 0.90) 372,008 352,428 368,964 349,545 366,965 347,651 163,562 154,953 138,257 130,981 126,089 119,453 167,580 158,760 133,592 126,561 120,830 114,470
If subsequent assessments are not completed and an amendment is not implemented by 2024, the ACLs would be equal to the values specified for 2023.
1
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 10
Table 2.5. Constant-catch ACLs for spiny lobster for each island/island group based on the constant-catch ABC recommended by the SSC as reduced by the Council’s management uncertainty buffer (Alternative 3, Sub-alternatives 3a-3c). Island/Island Group Puerto Rico St. Thomas/ St. John St. Croix
Year 2021-2023 2024+1 2021-2023 2024+1 2021-2023 2024+1
Sub-alternative 3a (ACL = ABC) 388,750 386,279 150,143 132,725 148,071 127,189
Preferred Sub-alternative 3b (ACL = ABC * 0.95) 369,313 366,965 142,636 126,089 140,667 120,830
Sub-alternative 3c (ACL = ABC * 0.90) 349,875 347,651 135,129 119,453 133,264 114,470
If subsequent assessments are not completed and an amendment is not implemented by 2024, the ACLs under the constant-catch approach would be set equal to the values specified for 2023 under the variable-catch approach (Table 2.4). 1
2.1.2
Discussion of Action 1 Alternatives
As stated above, the Council could select a different alternative for specifying OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for spiny lobster under each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, or St. Croix FMPs. Alternative 1 would not update spiny lobster OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs following the SSC accepted SEDAR 57 stock assessments, and thus would not be based on the best scientific information available, even if it was the best scientific information available at the time the island-based FMPs were developed. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) states “conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.” 50 C.F.R. 600.315(a). Under Alternative 1, the ACLs specified for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix would exceed the variable-catch and constant-catch ABCs recommended by the SSC (as based on the SEDAR 57 stock assessments and application of Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule). The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies that ACLs cannot exceed the ABC recommended by the Council’s SSC. MSA § 302(h)(6); 50 C.F.R. 600.310(f)(1)(iii). Alternative 1 would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 2 Guidelines. Contrary to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3, discussed below, would set the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for spiny lobster in each island/island group using the best scientific information available (i.e., SEDAR 57, Tier 3 of the ABC Control Rule, and SSC recommendations). Applying the best scientific information available would ensure that federally managed stocks are harvested sustainably while protecting reproductive capacity and maintaining effective ecological contributions. Under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3, if an interim assessment is not completed and an amendment is not implemented by 2024, Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 11
under both the variable-catch and constant-catch approaches the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for 2024 and later would be set equal to the values specified for 2023 under the variable-catch approach (Tables 2.2 and 2.4). Alternative 2, the variable-catch approach, would specify OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for spiny lobster for 2021-2023, and the values would change each year (Tables 2.2 and 2.4). Under Alternative 2, the OFLs for all three islands/island groups would be set at a level above the MSY proxy and would decrease each year from 2021 to 2023, converging down towards the respective MSY proxy (Table 2.1). For each spiny lobster stock, SEDAR 57 stated that the current spawning stock biomass is above the level that produces MSY. So long as a stock’s biomass remains above the level that produces MSY, fishing at the estimated harvest rate that produces the longer term MSY can result in catch levels that are higher than the stock’s MSY. Thus, the stock assessment model initially allows for a higher level of catch that in time decreases towards the MSY proxy and so no negative effects to each stock’s ability to produce its MSY would be expected from the 2021-2023 OFLs being above the MSY proxy. The ABCs, derived from the OFLs, and the ACLs, derived from the ABCs, would also decrease each year from 2021 to 2023. The variable OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs specified for 2021-2023 under Alternative 2 would be less than the values specified under Alternative 1. However, under Alternative 2 the updated management reference points would be expected to better protect against overfishing in relation to those included in the island-based FMPs, thus ensuring, to the best extent practicable, continued access to the resource in future years. Under Sub-alternatives 2a-2c, the Council would apply a reduction buffer to the ABC to account for their level of management uncertainty for spiny lobster in each island-specific fishery. Sub-alternative 2a (no reduction) would set the ACL equal to the ABC, resulting in the greatest harvest allowed of the sub-alternatives (Table 2.4). Sub-alternative 2b (5% reduction buffer) and Sub-alternative 2c (10% reduction buffer) would result in more conservative ACLs for spiny lobster when compared to Sub-alternative 2a, with Sub-alternative 2c allowing for the least amount of harvest of the sub-alternatives. As under Alternative 2, Preferred Alternative 3 would update OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for spiny lobster in each island/island group. For each island/island group the total harvest allowed under Preferred Alternative 3 would be equal to the total harvest allowed under Alternative 2, but Preferred Alternative 3 would specify a constant-value OFL, ABC, and ACL for spiny lobster for each island/island group for 2021-2023 (Tables 2.3 and 2.5) based on the OFL and ABC recommendations from the Council’s SSC. Under Preferred Alternative 3, the OFL for each island/island group would be greater than the MSY proxy, but would not converge towards the respective MSY proxy (Table 2.1). As mentioned above for Alternative 2, for each island/island group, the current spiny lobster spawning stock biomass is above the level that produces MSY and no negative effects to each stock’s ability to produce its MSY would be Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 12
expected from the 2021-2023 OFLs being above the MSY proxy. For years 2024 and later, the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs under Preferred Alternative 3 would be equal to the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs set for year 2023 and later under Alternative 2. Under both alternatives, those values would remain in place until amended. The sub-alternatives under Preferred Alternative 3 would set the ACL from the ABC using the same management uncertainty reduction buffers specified in the sub-alternatives under Alternative 2, described above. The Council selected Sub-alternative 3b as their preferred sub-alternative. Preferred Sub-alternative 3b has a 5% reduction buffer from the ABC to ACL to account for management uncertainty. Summary Managing based on best scientific information available better ensures the spiny lobster stocks are harvested sustainably. For all three island management areas, Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 have a smaller buffer between the OFL and the ABC 9 when compared to the buffer between the OFL proxy (SYL) and ABC under Alternative 1. 10 In general, a smaller buffer would increase the likelihood that OFL could be exceeded if catch rates or effort is higher than expected. If the OFL is exceeded, this would indicate that the stock is experiencing overfishing and would require immediate action to end overfishing. However, the overfishing SDC under Alternative 1 do not reflect the best scientific information available for spiny lobster and the higher ACLs under Alternative 1 could lead to overfishing as defined under SEDAR 57. The ACLs for spiny lobster under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 are less than the ACLs under Alternative 1. However, under all alternatives, exceeding the ACL could require AM-based closures in subsequent fishing years to prevent repeated ACL overages and protect against overfishing. In Puerto Rico, the most recent and complete (i.e., landings adjusted using coast-specific expansion factors) post-hurricane landings for spiny lobster (years 2018 and 2019) were at a level above the proposed OFLs and ACLs under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3, but under the OFL proxy (SYL) and ACL specified under Alternative 1. If future spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico are at the 2018 or 2019 levels, then the AM could be triggered and management actions, including reductions to the fishing season, would be required under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 but not under Alternative 1. Landings of spiny lobster in both St. Thomas and St. John and St. Croix in 2018 and 2019 have been below the proposed OFLs and ACLs under all alternatives, and thus would not be expected to trigger AMs and any management actions such as fishing season reductions if landings remain at that level.
The ABC for spiny lobster under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 is 88% of the OFL for each island/island group, providing a 12% buffer between the two reference points. 10 The ABC for spiny lobster under Alternative 1 is 60% of the OFL proxy (i.e., the SYL) for each island/island group, providing a 40% buffer between the two reference points. 9
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 13
2.2 Action 2: Spiny Lobster Accountability Measure Trigger Through Action 2, the Council would revise the AM trigger for the spiny lobster stock under each FMP. The process for applying an AM would remain as described in each FMP, and reproduced below: Process for Applying an AM for Spiny Lobster: If an AM is triggered, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would reduce the length of the spiny lobster fishing season following the overage determination by the amount necessary to ensure (to the greatest practicable extent) landings do not again exceed the ACL in the year of application. Any fishing season reduction would be applied from September 30 and moving toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the required length of the fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction would be applied from October 1 and moving toward the end of the fishing year. The Council could select a different alternative for each island or island group.
2.2.1
Proposed Alternatives for Action 2
Alternative 1. No Action. Use the AM trigger described for spiny lobster in the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, or St. Croix FMP, as follows: An AM would be triggered if spiny lobster landings exceed the spiny lobster ACL, unless NMFS’ Southeast Fisheries Science Center determines the overage occurred because data collection or monitoring improved rather than because landings increased. Landings from the following years, in order, would be used to evaluate an exceedance of the spiny lobster ACL. (1) Landings from 2018 (2) Landings from 2019 (3) Two-year average of landings from 2019 and 2020 (4) Three-year average of landings from 2019, 2020, and 2021 (5) Thereafter, a progressive running three-year average (2020-2022, 2021-2023, etc.). The NMFS Southeast Regional Administrator in consultation with the Council may deviate from the specific time sequences used to determine if the ACL was exceeded based on data availability. 11 Preferred Alternative 2. Use the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to evaluate whether an AM is triggered. An AM is triggered if average landings
The RA may update the years specified for triggering an AM for spiny lobster, beginning with landings from the most recent year available. If the island-based FMPs take effect in 2022, the most recent year of available landings likely would be 2020.
11
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 14
exceeded average ACLs in place during those years. The years of landings used to trigger an AM can be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available. Alternative 3. Use the most recent single year of spiny lobster landings to evaluate whether an AM is triggered. An AM is triggered if landings exceeded the ACL in place during that year. The years of landings used to trigger an AM can be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available.
2.2.2
Discussion of Action 2 Alternatives
The National Standard Guidelines describe two general types of AMs, in-season AMs and AMs for when the ACL is exceeded (50 CFR 600.310(g)). Caribbean stocks are managed using the latter, AMs for when the ACL is exceeded. The guidelines state that “as soon as possible after the fishing year,” on an annual basis, the AMs will evaluate whether an ACL was exceeded and take action to correct the issue that caused the ACL overage and remedy any biological consequences, once known. Landings for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) are generally available one to two years after the fishing year, thus, all AMs are applied post-season. In general, using a multi-year average of landings to trigger an AM would be expected to account for any biological (e.g., year-class variability) and economic (e.g., market demand) variability in the landings, thereby reducing the probability that an AM would be triggered. However, if landings in a particular year are very high, when using a multi-year average as the AM trigger, that year of high landings could be used in the AM trigger analysis up to three times, potentially triggering AMs in three consecutive years. Spiny lobster continues to be a highly targeted species in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, though spiny lobster landings have fluctuated from island to island following the disastrous 2017 hurricane season. Although landings for 2020 are not available at this time, it is expected that these landings would be less than the previous years’ landings due to the reduced fishing effort in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alternative 1 (No Action) would continue to use the stepwise comparison of landings (i.e., single year, subsequent single year, two-year average, three-year average) specified in the islandbased FMPs as the AM trigger for spiny lobster. Alternative 1 would not use a multi-year average as the AM trigger until the third year after the amendment was implemented, and would not use a three-year average until the fourth year (Table 2.6). Under Alternative 1, AMs for spiny lobster could be triggered more frequently in the initial two years, which compare a single year of landings to the ACL, when compared to years 3 and 4, which compare a multi-year average of landings to the spiny lobster ACL(s) in place during those years. Using a multi-year average could dampen the variability of a high landings year and avoid an AM being triggered. Using a single year would only use that one year of high landings when evaluating the AM Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 15
trigger. Under Alternative 1, the years of landings used to evaluate whether an AM is triggered may be adjusted “based on data availability.” Preferred Alternative 2 would compare the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings, as estimated by NMFS and based on best scientific information available, to the average of the ACLs for those years to determine if an AM is triggered. Preferred Alternative 2 states that the years of landings used to evaluate whether an AM is triggered may be adjusted based on the “best scientific information available,” which better defines when NMFS in consultation with the Council may deviate from the specific years of landings used as the AM trigger under Alternative 1. The language in Preferred Alternative 2 makes it clearer that if landings for a given year are available, but there are concerns with the reliability (e.g., concerns with quality of data and expansion factors in Puerto Rico) of that data, then NMFS may use different data to evaluate the AM trigger. Both Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 use a multi-year average of landings as the AM trigger, thus accounting for any variability in the landings. However, Alternative 1 uses a prescribed process to build up to a three year average, starting with a single year of landings, then another single year, then a two-year average, then a three-year average. Because Preferred Alternative 2 immediately uses a three-year average as the AM trigger, and three-year averages can dampen variability, Preferred Alternative 2 would potentially trigger AMs less frequently in the initial years following amendment implementation than Alternative 1. With regard to triggering an AM, the effects of Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 would be the same beginning in the fourth year, when they both use three-year averages. Unlike Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2, which use an average of landings to trigger an AM, Alternative 3 would compare the most recent single year of spiny lobster landings, based on best scientific information available, to the ACL for that year to determine if an AM is triggered. Alternative 3 would be the most straightforward approach to ACL monitoring in that a single year of landings would be compared to the ACL in place during that year (i.e., an additional step to determine average landings and average ACLs would be needed). If the level of spiny lobster harvest was much greater than the ACL in a given year, and triggered an AM, that year of high landings would only be used once in the ACL monitoring process. This contrasts with the multi-year approach in Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2, where a year with extremely high landings could be incorporated into the average landings for comparison to the ACL up to three times, potentially resulting in an AM triggered each time. For example, under Preferred Alternative 2, if the 2022 landings of spiny lobster were abnormally high, then that year of landings would be used in the 2020-2022 average, the 20212023 average, and the 2022-2024 average, potentially exceeding the average ACLs and triggering an AM each time. As a result, a fishing season reduction could be triggered over multiple fishing seasons given a single year of high landings. But, as explained above, using a Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 16
three-year average of landings as in Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 could dampen (i.e., reduce) any variability in landings that may occur. As in Preferred Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would also use the best scientific information available when comparing landings to the ACL in place. Under Alternative 3, if the most recent year of data (e.g., 2022) were determined to be incomplete, then NMFS could use the previous year of landings (e.g., 2021) that were considered to be the best scientific information available for comparison to the ACL in place during that year (e.g., 2021). Table 2.6. Years of spiny lobster landings that would be used to trigger an AM under the Action 2 alternatives, assuming that the island-based FMPs and the Spiny Lobster Framework Amendment are both implemented in 2022. Year Fishing Amendment Year Implemented
Most Recent Landings Available*
AM Trigger under Alternative 1**
1
2022
2020
Single year (2020)
2
2023
2021
Single year (2021)
3
2024
2022
4
2025
2023
5
2026
2024
Two-year average (2021-2022) Three-year average (2021-2023) Three-year average (2022-2024)
AM Trigger under Preferred Alternative 2 Three-year average (2018-2020) Three-year average (2019-2021) Three-year average (2020-2022) Three-year average (2021-2023) Three-year average (2022-2024)
AM Trigger under Alternative 3 Single year (2020) Single year (2021) Single year (2022) Single year (2023) Single year (2024)
* For the U.S. Caribbean region, landings are generally available two years after when the fishing occurred (i.e., the fishing year). Data availability may be additionally delayed by rare events such as hurricanes. ** Alternative 1 (No Action) identifies a different sequence of years for triggering the spiny lobster AM than the years included in the island-based FMPs. The dates in Table 2.6 reflect the expectation that the Regional Administrator would deviate from that specific time sequence to account for more recent, available data (i.e., start with 2020 as the first, single year of landings assuming amendment implementation date in 2022), as authorized in the FMP.
Summary The choice of alternatives under Action 2 could influence the frequency with which an AM is triggered, and thus could affect the frequency with which an AM-based fishing season reduction is applied for spiny lobster. The frequency of AMs triggered and applied under Action 2 would depend on the magnitude of future landings, which are difficult to predict. For example spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico in 2018 and 2019 were above the MSY proxy specified in SEDAR 57 (432,501 pounds [lb]), but preliminary landings reported 12 for 2020 are much lower (~150,000 lb). If future spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico recover to the 2018 and 2019 Puerto Rico landings are adjusted each year using an expansion factor determined by DNER staff at the Fisheries Research Laboratory, which is based on intercept sampling of commercial fishermen. Expansion factors for 2020 are not available at this time.
12
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 17
levels, then AMs would likely be triggered every year, regardless of the alternative selected. Similarly, the spiny lobster landings in St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix have been substantially less than the landings before the 2017 hurricane season, and well below the ACLs proposed under the Action 1 alternatives, and would thus likely not trigger an AM under any of the Action 2 alternatives. Under the Action 2 alternatives, if an AM was triggered NMFS might determine that corrective action is not needed to prevent a future ACL exceedance given differences in the observed fishing effort in the year(s) the landings occurred (the year[s] of landings used to trigger an AM) and the year in which the AM application would occur.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 2. Proposed Actions and Alternatives 18
Chapter 3. Affected Environment This section describes the environment and resources included within federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix that would be affected by the proposed actions. Additional information on the physical, biological/ecological, economic, social, and administrative environments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) have been described in detail in the Puerto Rico Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (CFMC 2019a), the St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c). These are incorporated herein by reference and summarized below.
3.1 Description of the Fishery The fisheries of the U.S. Caribbean region provide food, livelihoods, and income to residents and visitors alike. The region’s fisheries (federal and state 13) can be divided into commercial, recreational, and subsistence sectors. Commercial fishermen pursue multiple species using multiple gear types and are characterized as “artisanal” because their fishing vessels tend to be less than 45 feet (ft) (13.7 meters [m]) long, have small crews, yield small revenues (when compared to revenues from commercial fishing in the continental U.S.), and their seafood processors are small-scale producers. In the Caribbean Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) Amendment (CFMC 2005), fishable habitat was defined as those waters less than or equal to 100 fathoms (183 m). The majority of fishing activity for Council-managed species occurs in that area. The total area of fishable habitat (less or equal to 100 fathoms) in the U.S. Caribbean is estimated to be approximately 2,932 square miles (mi2) (7,594 square kilometers [km2]), of which only 13.7% (403 mi2 [1,045 km2]) is in the U.S. Caribbean Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Spiny lobster, managed in U.S. Caribbean federal waters since 1985, are targeted by commercial and recreational fishermen in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, although recreational data (i.e., pounds landed) are not available for spiny lobster. Spiny lobster accounted for 29% of the total dollar amount of commercial landings reported in 2018 for both Puerto Rico and the USVI (NMFS 2020a). Annual catch limits (ACL) for spiny lobster were established for each island/island group in 2011, based on commercial landings, and revised under the island-based FMPs. For each island/island group, in the event that spiny lobster commercial landings exceed the ACL set for the stock, an accountability measure (AM) would be triggered and would apply to both fishing State means each of the several states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other Commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States (50 CFR 600.10).
13
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 19
sectors (i.e., commercial and recreational fishing sectors). Additionally, recreational fishermen are limited to a daily bag limit of three spiny lobster per person per day, with no more than 10 spiny lobster per vessel per day. The minimum size limit for spiny lobster in the U.S. Caribbean region is 3.5 inches (8.9 centimeters) carapace length. In 2017, Hurricanes Irma and Maria devastated the islands of the U.S. Caribbean as well as their fisheries. Many fishermen who fished for spiny lobster switched over to targeting other species providing food fish for local residents rather than high-valued spiny lobster for tourists. Reported landings of spiny lobster since that time have been greatly reduced for the USVI fisheries, which are still recovering. In Puerto Rico, spiny lobster landings decreased in 2017, but have since recovered to pre-hurricane levels. In 2020, the fisheries were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely reduced fishing effort. Ninety-four percent of Puerto Rico commercial fishermen and 81% of USVI fishermen stopped fishing for some period in the first half of 2020 (NMFS 2021a).
3.1.1
Puerto Rico
Landings of spiny lobster are available from self-reported commercial fishermen logbooks since 1983, and include information on fishing gear type and location where the catch was landed. Commercial fishermen target multiple species using multiple gear types during the same fishing trip, with 63.2% of fishermen using at three gear types during a fishing trip (Griffith et al. 2007). Approximately half of the commercial fishermen target spiny lobster (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011). Commercial divers selectively target a diverse group of highly valued species including spiny lobster (Agar and Shivlani 2016) and fishermen using trap gear target reef fish, deep-water snappers, and spiny lobster. Fish traps are used to catch spiny lobster and various reef fish, such as silk snapper, mutton snapper, lane snapper, hogfish, yellowtail snapper, white grunt, red hind, and parrotfish species, while lobster traps mainly catch spiny lobster (Agar et al. 2017). Fish traps are more common than lobster traps because of their versatility in catch, with 66% of commercial fishermen using fish traps and 20% using a combination of fish and lobster traps (Agar et al. 2017). Landings of spiny lobster in Puerto Rico have generally increased each year since ACLs were established in 2012, with a brief decline in 2017 when Hurricanes Irma and Maria hit the region (Table 3.1.1). Reporting of harvest location from unknown areas has improved since 2012, with the majority of the spiny lobster landings since 2013 reported from state waters (0-9 nautical miles). In Puerto Rico, more than half of the spiny lobster landings were reported as harvested using dive gear, followed by trap gear, and then net gear (Table 3.1.2).
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 20
Table 3.1.1. Landings of spiny lobster (in pounds) in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019 with the percent reported from state waters (0-9 nautical miles), federal waters (9-200 nautical miles), or unknown location. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Landings (lb)* 385,811 275,424 376,779 418,273 449,233 283,221 520,829 488,968
Percent from State Waters 26% 71% 77% 78% 87% 91% 93% 90%
Percent from Federal Waters 11% 8% 8% 9% 7% 7% 5% 8%
Percent from Unknown Area 63% 21% 15% 13% 5% 3% 3% 2%
* Puerto Rico landings are adjusted using an expansion factor determined by DNER staff at the Fisheries Research Laboratory, which is based on intercept sampling of commercial fishermen. (Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
Table 3.1.2. Percent of spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019 reported by gear type. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Diving 58% 64% 59% 57% 53% 58% 62% 57%
Traps 39% 30% 35% 38% 41% 37% 34% 37%
Nets* 3% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% 4% 6%
* Gill nets and trammel nets are prohibited gear types in federal waters for the harvest of spiny lobster. (Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
In 2018, 10,964 of the total 26,372 trips reported by commercial fishermen included landings of spiny lobster. Of those 10,964 trips, the most commonly caught species during the same trip included queen conch, hogfish, and queen triggerfish, among others (Table 3.1.3). In 2019, 12,366 of the total 30,731 trips reported by commercial fishermen included landings of spiny lobster. The same species were the most commonly co-occurring catch in 2019, both in pounds and frequency of trips.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 21
Table 3.1.3. Landings (in pounds) of spiny lobster and co-occurring species landed and number of trip tickets that reported spiny lobster and co-occurring species in Puerto Rico in 2018 and 2019. Species Lobster Spiny Conch Queen Hogfish Triggerfish Queen Boxfish Unspecified Grouper Red Hind Octopus Unspecified Parrotfishes Unspecified Snapper Mutton Snapper Lane Snapper Unspecified Porgy Unspecified Snapper Yellowtail Grunt Unspecified Lionfish Snapper Cubera Goatfish Spotted Crab Unspecified Jack Bar Grouper Unspecified Squirrelfish Snapper Silk Grouper Coney Mackerel Cero Snook Common Snapper Vermilion Grunt White Goatfish Yellow Mackerel King Lobster Ridged Slipper Crab Coral Shark Tiger Sharks Requiem Unspecified Shellfish Unspecified Stingrays Unspecified Grouper Yellowfin Jacks
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
2018 Landings 520,829 172,718 62,939 44,933 31,144 26,422 15,833 23,518 21,327 18,856 14,068 11,325 11,551 14,606 3,883 4,186 4,483 657 3,639 3,321 1,896 5,673 1,755 628 292 937 484 749 1,031 200 186 3,667 2,050 1,112 404 897 1,581
2018 Trips 10,964 3,520 2,841 2,279 1,975 1,387 989 868 944 623 615 498 530 262 225 206 172 156 124 155 123 111 81 27 13 44 20 48 49 18 21 53 40 64 23 39 18
2019 Landings 488,734 100,809 52,893 45,646 33,562 23,117 14,238 25,508 18,782 21,595 14,351 9,437 10,836 15,788 4,698 3,742 3,374 1,036 3,332 2,862 1,844 3,952 1,629 1,221 2,704 2,287 1,437 450 1,036 300 235 3,899 2,269 758 1,615 747 2,038
2019 Trips 12,365 3,485 3,131 2,925 2,305 1,460 1,305 1,231 1,168 1,031 835 735 713 529 291 280 205 196 165 161 159 154 123 81 71 69 50 49 49 46 45 43 42 41 39 26 25
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 22
Species Tunny Little Mojarras Unspecified Shark Lemon Drummer Whitemouth Herring Sardinella Mullet White Snapper Blackfin Ballyhoo Grouper Misty Jack Horse-Eye Fishes Bony Unspecified Barracuda Crab Blue Land Tuna Skipjack Wahoo Snapper Queen Tuna And Mackerels Unspecified Tuna Albacore Tuna Blackfin Dolphinfish Snapper Black Lobster Spanish Slipper Eel Moray Green Shark Reef Snapper Cardinal Snapper Schoolmaster Squids Unspecified Surgeonfish Doctorfish Topsnail West Indian Tuna Yellowfin Grunt Bluestriped Shark Hammerhead Great Shark Sharpnose Sevengill Shrimp Penaeus Unspecified Conf = Confidential data (Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
2018 Landings 1,433 Conf 225 330 92 259 1,832 855 48 563 75 290 Conf 736 309 Conf 140 278 1,231 180 85 Conf Conf Conf -
2018 Trips 18 Conf 12 9 5 12 23 12 6 12 5 9 Conf 8 7 Conf 5 6 6 5 13 Conf Conf Conf -
2019 Landings 1,661 310 476 662 146 134 701 589 494 133 335 125 187 160 169 321 173 391 95 Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf
2019 Trips 16 15 15 13 13 12 12 11 11 11 10 8 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 23
3.1.2
St. Thomas and St. John
Landings of spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John are available from self-reported commercial fishermen logbooks since 1974, and include information on fishing gear type and location where the catch was landed. In the USVI landings are assumed to be fully reported and correction factors are not used. Commercial fishermen target a variety of species using multiple gear types, with 80.8% using more than one method of fishing (e.g., trap fishing, line fishing, net fishing, or diving) (Kojis et al. 2017). Approximately 44% of the commercial fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John target spiny lobster (Kojis et al. 2017). In St. Thomas and St. John, fish traps are used to catch spiny lobster and various reef fish, such as queen triggerfish, red hind, gray angelfish, doctorfish, white grunt, saucereye porgy, mutton snapper, and parrotfish species, while lobster traps primarily catch spiny lobster. Kojis et al. (2017) found that roughly 40% of commercial fishermen used fish traps and 11-12% of commercial fishermen used plastic or wire lobster traps. Only 32% commercial fishermen fished by diving and most skin and SCUBA divers used snares for catching spiny lobster (Kojis et al. 2017). Landings of spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John have remained fairly stable since ACLs were established in 2012, peaking in 2016 (Table 3.1.4). Reporting of harvest location from unknown areas has remained constant since 2012, albeit at low levels (less than 5%). The majority of spiny lobster are reported from federal waters (3-200 nautical miles) (Table 3.1.4). In St. Thomas and St. John, the majority of spiny lobster are harvested using trap gear, with a small percentage harvested using dive gear (Table 3.1.5). Table 3.1.4. Landings of spiny lobster (in pounds) in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019 with the percent reported from state waters (0-3 nautical miles), federal waters (3-200 nautical miles), or unknown location. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Landings (lb) 83,157 84,513 92,261 109,455 121,695 91,911 86,708 88,100
(Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Percent from State Waters 24% 16% 18% 29% 34% 41% 55% 46%
Percent from Federal Waters 76% 79% 81% 69% 61% 59% 45% 54%
Percent from Unknown Area 0% 5% 1% 3% 5% 0% 0% 0%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 24
Table 3.1.5. Percent of spiny lobster landings in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019 reported by gear type. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Diving 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 6% 7% 1%
(Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
Traps 98% 99% 99% 99% 98% 94% 93% 99%
In 2018, 806 of the total 1,756 trips reported by commercial fishermen included landings of spiny lobster. Of those 806 trips, the most commonly caught species during the same trip included, queen triggerfish, red hind grouper, and gray angelfish, among others (Table 3.1.6). In 2019, 755 of the total 1,471 trips reported by commercial fishermen included landings of spiny lobster. The same species were generally the most commonly co-occurring catch in 2019, both in pounds and frequency of trips. Table 3.1.6. Landings (in pounds) of spiny lobster and co-occurring species landed and number of trip tickets that reported spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Thomas and St. John in 2018 and 2019. Species Lobster, Spiny Triggerfish, Queen Grouper, Red Hind Angelfish, Gray Cowfish, Scrawled Surgeonfish, Doctorfish Snapper, Yellowtail Grunt, White Squirrelfish Triggerfish, Unspecified Porgy, Saucereye Grouper, Coney Grunt, Bluestriped Surgeonfish, Blue Tang Parrotfish, Stoplight Angelfish, French
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
2018 Landings
2018 Trips
2019 Landings
2019 Trips
86,708 20,587 13,538 7,543 4,603 3,708 2,850 6,248 2,837 4,721 3,714 2,089 3,584 2,484 3,048 3,411
806 438 433 418 385 359 359 354 353 351 347 323 320 313 309 302
86,869 14,746 12,869 5,744 3,447 3,603 2,347 5,955 2,608 2,847 2,919 1,967 3,551 2,135 3,141 2,465
755 362 336 300 310 295 281 315 311 226 270 257 274 248 263 209
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 25
Species Parrotfish, Redtail Grunt, Cottonwick Hogfish Grunt, Margate Snapper, Mutton Angelfish, Queen Crab, Unspecified Lionfish Snapper, Lane Porgy, Jolthead Grouper, Yellowfin Grouper, Red Snapper, Blackfin Blue Runner Parrotfish, Redfin Snapper, Silk Grunt, Tomtate Parrotfish, Redband Mackerel, King Jack, Bar Nassau Grouper Jack, Almaco Snapper, Vermilion Porgy, Sheepshead (Calamus) Parrotfish, Princess Grouper, Tiger Parrotfish, Queen Schoolmaster Grouper, Graysby Wahoo Surgeonfish, Ocean Jacks Spadefish Snapper, Queen Octopus, Unspecified Lobster, Spanish Slipper Conch, Queen Needlefish, Unspecified Grouper, Black Dolphinfish
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
2018 Landings
2018 Trips
2019 Landings
2019 Trips
2,207 1,743 2,180 2,279 2,663 1,330 1,417 1,940 2,036 592 1,270 1,075 1,828 598 181 1,344 110 201 311 204 610 570 88 77 196 209 202 195 9 300 44 250 18 117 20 19 1,383 Conf Conf
255 253 222 189 183 178 136 128 122 75 69 53 50 47 27 22 20 17 16 16 11 11 11 10 9 8 8 8 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 18 Conf Conf
2,467 1,128 1,862 2,131 1,289 1,429 863 1,884 457 247 850 864 2,138 107 216 1,335 157 182 97 82 41 237 Conf 231 Conf Conf 68 Conf Conf 186 Conf Conf
257 194 171 143 115 182 120 114 57 28 44 40 72 9 28 8 23 14 5 6 7 10 Conf 11 Conf Conf 7 Conf Conf 23 Conf Conf
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 26
Species
2018 Landings
2018 Trips
2019 Landings
2019 Trips
Grouper, Misty Rainbow Runner Grouper, Yellowmouth Topsnail, West Indian Snapper, Black Barracuda Sharks, Requiem, Unspecified Herrings Tuna, Blackfin Bream, Sea Grouper, Yellowedge Tuna And Mackerels, Unspecifi Pompano, Florida Shark, Reef Tunny, Little Hind, Rock
Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf -
Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf -
Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf
Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf
Conf = Confidential data (Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
3.1.3
St. Croix
Landings of spiny lobster in St. Croix are available from self-reported commercial fishermen logbooks since 1975, and include information on fishing gear type and location where the catch was landed. In the USVI, landings are assumed to be fully reported and correction factors are not used. Commercial fishermen target a variety of species using multiple gear types, with 70% using more than one method of fishing (e.g., diving, line fishing, trap fishing) (Kojis et al. 2017). Kojis et al. (2017) found that 59.6% of the commercial fishermen in St. Croix targeted spiny lobster. In St. Croix, commercial landings reported using dive gear have consistently been greater than landings reported for hook-and-line or trap gear. Half of the fishermen surveyed in St. Croix reported owning their own SCUBA gear, and almost all reported using snares (to target spiny lobster) or spears (to target reef fish) during diving operations (Kojis et al. 2017). In St. Croix, fish traps are used to catch spiny lobster and various reef fish, such as blackfin snapper, silk snapper, schoolmaster, red hind grouper, and queen triggerfish, while lobster traps primarily catch spiny lobster, although only one fishermen reported using lobster traps. Landings of spiny lobster in St. Croix have generally decreased each year since ACLs were established in 2012 (Table 3.1.7). Reporting of harvest location from unknown areas has fluctuated since 2012, generally occurring at low levels (less than 10%). The majority of spiny Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 27
lobster are reported from state waters (0-3 nautical miles) each year (Table 3.1.7). In St. Croix, the majority of spiny lobster are harvested using dive gear, followed by trap gear (Table 3.1.8). Table 3.1.7. Landings of spiny lobster (in pounds) in St. Croix for 2012-2019 with the percent reported from state waters (0-3 nautical miles), federal waters (3-200 nautical miles), or unknown location. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Landings (lb) 87,073 59,398 39,724 44,963 31,582 26,193 10,970 15,721
(Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
Percent from State Waters 51% 57% 64% 55% 63% 65% 59% 59%
Percent from Federal Waters 49% 41% 30% 38% 31% 29% 39% 30%
Percent from Unknown Area 0% 2% 5% 7% 7% 6% 2% 11%
Table 3.1.8. Percent of spiny lobster landings in St. Croix for 2012-2019 reported by gear type. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
(Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
Diving 82% 90% 94% 87% 97% 89% 94% 92%
Traps 18% 10% 6% 13% 3% 11% 6% 8%
In 2018, 313 of the total 804 trips reported by commercial fishermen included landings of spiny lobster. Of those 313 trips, the most commonly caught species during the same trip included, stoplight parrotfish, queen triggerfish, and queen conch, among others (Table 3.1.9). In 2019, 384 of the total 939 trips reported by commercial fishermen included landings of spiny lobster. The same species were generally the most commonly co-occurring catch in 2019, both in pounds and frequency of trips, although in a different order of importance.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 28
Table 3.1.9. Landings (in pounds) of spiny lobster and co-occurring species landed and number of trip tickets that reported spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Croix in 2018 and 2019. Species Lobsters, Spiny Parrotfish, Stoplight Triggerfish, Queen Conch, Queen Grouper, Red Hind Schoolmaster Grunt, Bluestriped Grouper, Coney Parrotfish, Redtail Parrotfish, Redfin Snapper, Mutton Surgeonfish, Doctorfish Angelfish, French Angelfish, Gray Goatfish, Unspecified Snapper, Gray Parrotfish, Queen Parrotfish, Redband Surgeonfish, Blue Tang Hind, Rock Blue Runner Surgeonfish, Ocean Snapper, Lane Grunt, Tomtate Snapper, Queen Grunt, Cottonwick Porgy, Saucereye Porgy, Jolthead Grunt, White Snapper, Yellowtail Cowfish, Scrawled Lionfish Angelfish, Queen Parrotfish, Princess Squirrelfish Jack, Bar Grunt, Margate Triggerfish, Unspecified
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
2018 Landings
2018 Trips
2019 Landings
2019 Trips
10,970 6,020 2,977 6,466 893 1,163 844 666 1,864 1,128 493 667 594 516 509 427 707 371 194 268 455 410 370 470 377 373 34 28 65 39 43 65 70 102 41 Conf Conf Conf
313 159 146 105 90 84 77 77 74 65 63 59 59 54 49 48 42 38 37 32 29 29 28 28 27 26 18 13 10 9 9 9 8 6 5 Conf Conf Conf
15,325 3,813 2,137 7,950 1,510 1,867 673 830 3,421 934 410 803 64 375 52 308 326 625 810 327 164 275 234 207 Conf 24 19 917 62 143 37 266 331 168 40 146 107
384 105 137 114 110 113 65 62 112 71 40 57 21 45 15 38 22 59 62 28 9 15 11 19 Conf 11 10 59 19 11 8 17 23 13 4 24 9
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 29
Species
2018 Landings
2018 Trips
2019 Landings
2019 Trips
Barracuda Snapper, Blackfin Snapper, Vermilion Grouper, Yellowfin Grouper, Red Grouper, Tiger Grunt, Unspecified Snapper, Mahogany Crab, Unspecified Hogfish Snapper, Silk Bream, Sea Snapper, Black Sharks, Requiem, Unspecified Rainbow Runner Tuna, Unspecified Tunny, Little
Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf -
Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf -
Conf Conf Conf 48 6 31 Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf
Conf Conf Conf 9 5 12 Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf Conf
Conf = Confidential data (Source: NMFS SERO 2021)
3.2 Description of the Physical Environment The physical (including geology and climate) and habitat environments of the U.S. Caribbean were described in detail in the Generic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment to the FMPs of the U.S. Caribbean, the EFH Final Environmental Impact Statement (EFH-FEIS), and the Fiveyear Review of EFH in the U.S. Caribbean, Vols.1 and 2 (CFMC 1998, CFMC 2004, CFMC 2011c). The most recent descriptions of the physical environment can be found in the islandbased FMPs (CFMC 2019a, CFMC 2019b, CFMC 2019c). These documents are incorporated herein by reference and are summarized below. The U.S. Caribbean is located in the eastern portion of the Caribbean archipelago, about 1,100 miles (mi) (1,770 kilometers) east-southeast of Miami, Florida (Olcott 1999). The region is composed of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the Greater Antilles and the USVI in the Lesser Antilles island chains, both of which separate the Caribbean Sea from the western central Atlantic Ocean. The USVI are part of the Virgin Islands chain, which lies in the northeastern Caribbean about 50 mi (80 km) east of Puerto Rico’s main island, and consists of four major islands: St. Thomas, St. John, St. Croix, and Water Island (DPNR 2005). The U.S. Caribbean EEZ covers an area of approximately 75,687 mi2 (196,029 km2), which, for management purposes, is divided into the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix management areas (see Figure 1.1). Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 30
The coastal marine environments of Puerto Rico and the USVI are characterized by a wide variety of habitat types, with 21 distinct benthic habitats types delineated (Kendall et al. 2001). The EFH-FEIS (CFMC 2004) summarized the percent distribution for all habitats in the U.S. Caribbean from the 2,121 mi2 (5,494 km2) of total bottom area mapped from aerial photographs. This total included both Puerto Rico (1,934 mi2 [5,009 km2]) and the USVI (187 mi2 [485 km2]), and covered from the shoreline to about 66 ft (20 m) depth.
3.2.1
Puerto Rico
The Puerto Rico EEZ is located 9 - 200 nautical miles (17 - 370 km) from the shoreline and covers approximately 65,368 mi2 (169,303 km2). Puerto Rico approximately 110 by 35 mi (177 by 56 km), and is the smallest and the most eastern island of the Greater Antilles (CFMC 1998). Puerto Rico includes the adjacent inhabited islands of Vieques and Culebra as well as various other isolated islands without permanent populations including Mona, Monito, and Desecheo. Puerto Rico is surrounded on three sides by deep ocean waters: the Mona Passage to the west (> 3,300 ft [1,000 m] deep); the Puerto Rico Trench to the north (~28,000 ft [8,500 m] deep); and the Venezuelan Basin of the Caribbean Sea to the south (~16,400 ft [5,000 m] deep). To the east, Puerto Rico shares the shallow-water shelf platform with St. Thomas and St. John, USVI. For Puerto Rico, the following areas have been designated as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) by the Council for coral and/ reef fish species, which are managed with seasonal closures that are also applicable to spiny lobster: • Tourmaline Bank - closed December 1 through the last day of February, each year, to all fishing, including spiny lobster; and • Abrir la Sierra Bank - closed December 1 through the last day of February, each year, to all fishing, including spiny lobster.
3.2.2
St. Thomas and St. John
The St. Thomas and St. John EEZ is located 3 - 200 nautical miles (6 – 370 km) from the shoreline and covers approximately 1,103 mi2 (2,856 km2). The islands of St. Thomas and St. John are bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the north and the Caribbean Sea to the south. The island of St. Thomas is bordered to the west by the Puerto Rico islands of Vieques and Culebra, and to the east by St. John, which is bordered on the east by the British Virgin Islands. The shelf shared by the islands of St. Thomas and St. John is about 8 mi (12.9 km) wide on the south and 20 mi (32.2 km) wide on the north (Goenaga and Boulon 1992) with an area of approximately 510 nm2 (1751 km2). Most of the shelf area is greater than 80 ft (24.4 m) deep (Kojis and Quinn 2011).
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 31
For St. Thomas and St. John, the following areas are managed with year-round or seasonal closures that are applicable to spiny lobster: • Hind Bank Marine Conservation District - closed year-round to all fishing, including spiny lobster; and • Grammanik Bank - closed February 1 through April 30, each year, to all fishing, including spiny lobster.
3.2.3
St. Croix
The St. Croix EEZ is located 3 - 200 nautical miles (6 – 370 km) from the shoreline and covers approximately 9,216 mi2 (23,870 km2). The island of St. Croix is surrounded by the Caribbean Sea. St. Croix is located about 46 mi (74 km) south of St. Thomas and St. John and lies on a different geological platform than Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, and St. John. St. Croix is separated from those islands by a 2.5 mi (4 km) deep trench (CFMC 2004). The St. Croix shelf is much narrower and shallower than that of the northern islands (Goenaga and Boulon 1992), and has a total area of approximately 99 nm2 (343 km2) (Gordon 2010). Most of the shelf area is less than 80 ft (24.4 m) deep (Kojis and Quinn 2011). For St. Croix, the following areas have been designated as HAPC by the Council for coral and/ reef fish species, which are managed with seasonal closures that are also applicable to spiny lobster: • Red Hind Spawning Aggregation Area (Lang Bank) - closed December 1 through the last day of February, each year, to all fishing, including spiny lobster; and • Mutton Snapper Spawning Aggregation Area - closed March 1 through June 30, each year, to all fishing, including spiny lobster.
3.2.4
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
EFH is defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) as “those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (16 U.S. C. 1802(10)). EFH for life stages of species that were managed under the U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs and would continue to be managed under the island-based FMPs was identified in the Caribbean SFA Amendment (CFMC 2005) and mapped in the EFH-FEIS (CFMC 2004). EFH for life stages of species new to management was identified in the island-based FMPs (CFMC 2019a, CFMC 2019b, CFMC 2019c). The habitats described for the species new to management overlap with and occur within the same geographic extent as the habitats previously described for species managed under the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, Queen Conch, and Coral FMPs.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 32
Specific EFH identified for all species in the island-based FMPs include both estuarine/inshore (e.g., estuarine emergent and mangrove wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, intertidal flats, palustrine emergent and forested systems, and estuarine water column) and marine/offshore (e.g., live/hard bottom habitats, coral and coral reefs, seagrass and algal plains, sand and shell substrate, and the marine water column) areas. Essential fish habitat includes the spawning area in the water column above the adult habitat and the highest degree of overlap occurs in the pelagic environment (i.e., the water column), because most of the managed use this habitat as eggs, larvae, juveniles, or adults. In Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, EFH for spiny lobster consists of all waters from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by phyllosome larvae) and seagrass, benthic algae, mangrove, coral, and live/hard bottom substrates from mean high water to 100 fathoms depth (habitats used by other life stages).
3.3 Description of the Biological and Ecological Environments The Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c) include a description of the biological and ecological environments for the species managed in federal waters in the respective island/island group, including spiny lobster, which is incorporated herein by reference and summarized below.
3.3.1
Description of the Species
The species directly affected by actions proposed in this framework amendment is spiny lobster. 3.3.1.1
Life History
The Caribbean spiny lobster, Panulirus argus (hereafter referred to as spiny lobster), occurs in the Western Central and South Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, ranging from North Carolina in the north to Brazil in the south. The spiny lobster occurs from the extreme shallows of the littoral fringe to depths exceeding 328 ft (100 m) (Kanciruk 1980; Munro 1974). The distribution of spiny lobster extends to the edge of the shelf, which is described as the 100-fathom contour (183 m) (CFMC 1981). Shallow-water areas with mangroves and seagrass (Thalassia testudinum) beds serve as nursery areas (Munro 1974), with the spiny lobsters generally moving offshore when they reach reproductive size (Phillips et al. 1980). Adult spiny lobsters are found on shelf areas that offer adequate shelter in the form of reefs, wrecks or other forms of cover (Munro 1974). Spiny lobsters are primarily carnivores, feeding upon smaller crustaceans, molluscs, and annelids (Cobb and Wang 1985). This species shelters communally by day and emerge to feed at night (Munro 1974). Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 33
3.3.1.2
Status of the Stock
Previous stock assessments for spiny lobster in the U.S. Caribbean have attempted to quantify stock status using both traditional as well as data-limited stock assessment procedures (SEDAR 57 2019). SEDAR 8 (2016) was the most recent data-limited assessment (e.g. mean-length, indicator-based control rules) prior to the SEDAR 57 stock assessments. Prior to the current assessment (SEDAR 57), nearly all evaluations have resulted in unsatisfactory determination of stock status. The SEDAR 57 assessment applied an integrated statistical catch-at-age (Stock Synthesis version 3.30) model using data through 2016. Stocks in both St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John approached the levels corresponding to FSPR30% and SSPR30% during the mid to late 2000s. Since that time, a reduction in fishing mortality has allowed the stock spawning output to increase. In Puerto Rico, the stocks were already exploited when the time series began (1983). Fishing mortality was initially above FSPR30%, but declined and remained below that threshold after 1986, with exceptions, particularly during the period 1999-2005. Spawning output remained below SSPR30% from the initial year through 1992, but has since remained above SSPR30%, except between 2000 and 2007. Based on the management thresholds (i.e., MSST and MFMT) from in SEDAR 57, the spiny lobster stocks in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix were not considered overfished and were not undergoing overfishing. 3.3.1.3
Responses to Climate Change
There is a lack of research and long-term data on the impacts of climate change on Caribbean marine ecosystems and fishery resources (Oxenford 2017). The majority of the research to date has been outside of the Caribbean. Those research efforts mainly examined the effects of one or two stressors over short-term laboratory experiments, which is unlikely to accurately reflect the real complexity of long-term climate change effects on U.S. Caribbean reef ecosystems. Additionally, climate change research and data efforts need to consider cumulative effects of stressors on individual species and on ecosystems as a whole, while also considering other anthropogenic stressors that chronically occur in the region. Climate change can affect spiny lobster populations as the coral reef ecosystems in which they reside shift due to increases in water temperatures and extreme weather events (e.g., hurricanes). These climate change-related shifts can also affect the food chain that the spiny lobsters rely on. Additionally, the extended larval phase of spiny lobsters makes them particularly vulnerable to climate variability, specifically the warming of surface temperatures. 14 Ross and Behringer (2019) found that in addition to affecting the survival and size at metamorphosis of spiny lobsters, especially post-larval and juvenile lobsters, changes in temperature and salinity also 14
http://www.fao.org/fi/static-media/MeetingDocuments/WECAFC/WECAFC2019/17/Ref.35e.pdf
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 34
altered the spiny lobsters ability to identify chemosensory cues, such as selecting suitable shelters, which may result in decreased survivorship due to impaired behaviors.
3.3.2
Bycatch
Each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs include a bycatch practicability analysis for the species managed under each FMP, which is incorporated herein by reference, and pertinent portions are summarized below. Fisheries that are noted for producing large amounts of bycatch (e.g., trawling) are essentially absent from the U.S. Caribbean. Thus, bycatch is not as significant an issue in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, compared to other regions. What little bycatch that does occur is generally confined to regulatory discards. Under the island-based management approach, regulatory discards specific to spiny lobster include: • •
Sublegal lobsters: federal laws prohibit the harvest of spiny lobster under 3.5 inches (8.9 cm) in carapace length; and Egg-bearing female spiny lobsters (i.e., berried).
In Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, spiny lobster are harvested commercially in federal waters using trap gear (both fish trap and spiny lobster trap) and by hand or snare collection while diving. Recreational harvest of spiny lobster in federal waters is thought to mostly be conducted while diving, though recreational data are not available at this time. All legal spiny lobsters caught by commercial fishermen in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries are assumed to be retained and assumed discards include sublegal and berried spiny lobsters (SEDAR 57 2019). Consensus opinion during the SEDAR 57 data workshop was that discard mortality of spiny lobsters was negligible. The actions in this framework amendment are not expected to significantly increase or decrease the magnitude of bycatch or bycatch mortality in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries that target spiny lobster. Additionally, since fishermen in the U.S. Caribbean region traditionally utilize most resources harvested, and the amount of bycatch from the fisheries targeting spiny lobster are minimal and are not expected to change under this amendment, little to no affect to mammals or birds would be expected.
3.3.3
Protected Species
Within the U.S. Caribbean, some species and their habitats are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or both. At least 17 species of whales and dolphins have been reported in or near U.S. waters in the northeastern Caribbean (Mignucci-Giannoni 1998), including waters around Puerto Rico. All 17 species are protected under the MMPA. Three of these species (i.e., sperm, sei, and fin whales) are also Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 35
listed as endangered under the ESA. 15 In addition to these three marine mammals, five species or distinct population segments (DPS) of sea turtles (green - North Atlantic DPS and the South Atlantic DPS; hawksbill; leatherback; loggerhead - Northwest Atlantic DPS); four species or DPSs of fish (Nassau grouper; scalloped hammerhead shark - Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS; oceanic whitetip shark; giant manta ray); and seven species of coral (elkhorn coral, staghorn coral, rough cactus coral, pillar coral, lobed star coral, mountainous star coral, and boulder coral) occur in the U.S. Caribbean and are also protected under the ESA. ESA designated critical habitat for the green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and Acropora corals also occur within the Council’s jurisdiction. Critical habitat for green and hawksbill sea turtles occurs entirely within Puerto Rico state waters, and over 99% of the critical habitat for leatherback sea turtles around St. Croix occurs within USVI state waters. Designated critical habitat of Acropora corals in Puerto Rico and the USVI extended from the mean low water line seaward to the 98 foot (30 meter) depth contour (73 FR 72209), the majority of which occur in state waters. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) completed a biological opinion on September 21, 2020, evaluating the impacts of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species that occur in the U.S. Caribbean region (NMFS 2020b). In the biological opinion, NMFS determined that the authorization of the fisheries conducted under each of the island-based FMPs is not likely to adversely affect sperm, sei, and fin whales; the Northwest Atlantic DPS of loggerhead sea turtle; giant manta rays; or critical habitat of green, hawksbill, or leatherback sea turtles. The biological opinion also determined that the authorization of the island-based fisheries is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the North Atlantic distinct population segment (DPS) of green sea turtle, South Atlantic DPS of green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, Nassau grouper, oceanic whitetip shark, Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead shark, elkhorn coral, staghorn coral, rough cactus coral, pillar coral, lobed star coral, mountainous star coral, or boulder star coral, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated Acropora critical habitat. An incidental take statement for select ESA species was included in the biological opinion, and reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impact of the incidental takes were specified, along with terms and conditions to implement them. The actions contained in this Framework Amendment are not anticipated to modify the operation of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, or St. Croix fisheries in a manner that would cause effects to ESA-listed species or critical habitat that were not considered in the 2020 biological opinion. Five DPSs of humpback whales are listed under the ESA; however, the West Indies DPS, which is the only DPS present in the U.S. Caribbean, is not listed as endangered or threatened (81 FR 62259).
15
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 36
3.4 Description of the Economic Environment 3.4.1
Introduction
The 2017 hurricane season was disastrous for both the Puerto Rico and USVI economies. In a span of a few weeks in September, Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria devastated the island areas. Irma was estimated to have caused $1 billion in damages in Puerto Rico (Sullivan and Fieser 2017). Hsiang and Houser (2017) from the Climate Impact Lab estimated the impact of Hurricane Maria using an econometric model of the costs of cyclones over the past 60 years and applied it to the characteristics of Hurricane Maria and the economic conditions before the hurricane in Puerto Rico. They found that Maria could lower Puerto Rican incomes by 21% over a 15-year period - a cumulative $180 billion in lost economic output. They concluded that it could take 26 years for Puerto Rico to return to its pre-Maria economic conditions. The Puerto Rican consulting firm Estudios Técnicos (2017) estimated the capital loss from Hurricane Maria in the range of $16 to $20 billion. Damages to the island’s electric and communication infrastructures were estimated to be as high as $1.6 billion and $567 million, respectively. Estudios Técnicos also estimated a loss of income by employees of at least $1 billion. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information estimated damages caused by Hurricane Maria of $90.0 billion in Puerto Rico. 16 The USVI economy is small and extremely vulnerable to natural disasters - windstorms, earthquakes, tsunamis - as well as external economic shocks due to the high degree of trade dependence and lack of economic diversification (USVI Bureau of Economic Research [BER] 2020). Hurricane Irma passed over St. Thomas as a Category 5 storm on September 6, 2017, with peak winds of 178 miles per hour. Two weeks later, on September 20, Hurricane Maria hit St. Croix, to the southeast, as a Category 5 storm. Damages from Irma exceeded $2.4 billion in the USVI (USDA National Resources Conservation Service Caribbean Area). 17 Maria damaged or destroyed 70% of the buildings on St. Croix, including schools and the island’s only hospital. Public revenues, according to estimates based on USVI fiscal data, were halved after the two hurricanes (Congressional Research Service 2018/2020). The USVI government borrowed funds to cover some budget deficits, which raised concerns over levels of public debt and unfunded pension liabilities. Local policymakers proposed tax increases and austerity measures.
16 17
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.pdf https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/pr/newsroom/features/?cid=nrcseprd1420889
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 37
Descriptions of the economies of the island areas (Puerto Rico, St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John) prior to the 2017 hurricanes are found in the Environmental Assessments for the Comprehensive Fishery Management Plans and are incorporated by reference. The remainder of this section focuses on the post-hurricane economies of the island areas.
3.4.2
Puerto Rico
3.4.2.1
General Economic Conditions
The number of Puerto Ricans leaving for the mainland increased to 301,304 in 2017; however, many returned later. Net out migration in 2017 was 77,321 persons, meaning 223,983 persons migrated to the island that year (U.S. Census Bureau 2020).
1,250,000
16.0 14.0
1,200,000
12.0
1,150,000
10.0
1,100,000
8.0 6.0
1,050,000
4.0
1,000,000 950,000
2.0 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Labor Force
2017
2018
2019
2020
Unemployment Rate
Labor Force (Number Employed & Unemployed)
Despite the adverse impacts of the 2017 hurricane season, the annual unemployment rate fell in 2018 and 2019, but it rose again in 2020. However, the labor force continued its general declining trend after 2017 despite the bump in 2019 (Figure 3.4.1). Note that the unemployment rate in 2020 was substantially lower than it had been from 2012 through 2016, when it was never fell below 11.8% (U.S. Department of Labor [USDOL] Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS]).
0.0
Unemp Rate
Figure 3.4.1. Labor force and unemployment rate in Puerto Rico, 2012 – 2020. (Source: USDOL BLS)
Most of Puerto Rico’s farms are located in the central and western municipalities, and Hurricane Maria’s path took it through much of the island’s prime farmland. Puerto Rico’s Secretary of Agriculture stated to the New York Times that 80% of the island’s crops with a preliminary estimated value of $780 million were wiped out by the hurricane (Robles and Ferré-Sadurní 2017). Plantain, banana, and coffee crops were hit the hardest. Approximately half of the coffee plants were lost (Ayala 2017).
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 38
The chicken and egg industry lost 60% of its production (Ayala 2017). Approximately 2 million of the island’s 2.6 million chickens were killed, many of them drowned, and poultry housing and processing equipment were destroyed (Dorell 2017). Dairy cows died and surviving cows have been less productive than before. Communities and households lost gardens and family livestock. The federal government’s response to the losses incurred by dairy farm operations included $12 million to the island’s 253 licensed dairy operations to purchase feed for their estimated combined 94,000 cows for 30 days (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Farm Service Agency [FSA] 2017). The 2018 Puerto Rico USDA Census of Agriculture (USDA 2020) shows a sharp decline in the number of farms and their land (cuerdas) from 2012 to 2018. The sharpest decline in the number of farms were those with one to nine cuerdas (Table 3.4.1). Table 3.4.1. Number of farms, total amount of farmland, and number of farms by land size, 2012 and 2018.
Year
Number of Farms
Total Amount of Farm Land
Number Farms with 1-9 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 10 - 19 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 20 - 49 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 50 - 99 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 100 - 175 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 175 - 259 Cuerdas
Number Farms with 260 or more Cuerdas
2012
13,159
584,988
5,129
2,859
2,872
940
563
401
395
2018
8,230
487,775
2,213
1,853
1,950
952
579
330
353
Change
-37.46%
-16.62%
-56.85%
-35.19%
-32.10%
1.28%
2.84%
-17.71%
-10.63%
(Source: Puerto Rico USDA 2018 Census of Agriculture)
The Puerto Rico Planning Board estimated that Hurricane Maria had a $43.1 billion impact on the island’s economy as of October 12, 2018 (Lloréns Vélez 2018). The Planning Board said losses for the private sector alone totaled $30 billion, with manufacturing reporting the highest loss of income and agriculture among the highest damage to infrastructure and equipment. After taking Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and private insurer disbursements into account, the net adverse impact to the economy was $30.3 billion. Hurricane Maria did not cause damages to the territory’s pharmaceutical industry. In 2018, five of the world’s top ten selling drugs (Humira, Eliquis, Opdivo, Enbrel and Xarelto) were manufactured there, and internationally, eight of the 15 top-selling pharmaceutical products are made in Puerto Rico (Miller 2020). In 2019, nine out of Puerto Rico’s top 10 commodity exports to the rest of the world were pharmaceutical or medical device products (Census U.S. International Trade Data). In 2020, there were 50 pharmaceutical and 30 medical-device manufacturing sites dotted throughout the island. In 2019, pharmaceutical exports totaled more than $44 billion, and, of that, $30.89 billion of that total was exported to the U.S. market. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 39
Puerto Rico’s real gross domestic product (GDP) declined in 2019 and 2020 (Figure 3.4.2), which is consistent with its declining trend since 2006. Real GDP in 2019 was 12% lower than it was in 2016, and in 2020, it was 7.5% less than it was in 2019 due in part to a series of earthquakes and the COVID-19 pandemic. Public debt represented 59% of GDP in 2019 and 65% of GDP in 2020. Gross national income (GNI) per capita declined by 8.35% from 2016 through 2019 (Figure 3.4.3). The World Bank has not yet reported a 2020 estimate of GNI per capita.
Real GDP (millions of 2020$)
$21,000.00 $20,000.00 $19,000.00 $18,000.00 $17,000.00 $16,000.00 $15,000.00
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Figure 3.4.2. Puerto Rico real GDP (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2020.
(Source: World Bank for GDP 2016 – 2019, Knoema for GDP for 2020, and BEA for implicit price deflator)
$20,500.00 $20,000.00 $19,500.00 $19,000.00 $18,500.00 $18,000.00 $17,500.00
2016
2017
2018
2019
Figure 3.4.3. Puerto Rico’s GNI per capita (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2019. (Source: World Bank for GNI per capita and BEA for implicit price deflator)
Because Puerto Rico lies on the boundary between the North American and Caribbean plates, the archipelago is prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. There were three significant earthquakes in January 2020 and each had many strong aftershocks. On January 6, 2020, there was a 5.8 Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 40
magnitude earthquake, followed the next day by a 6.4 magnitude earthquake, which was centered off the southern coast, 6 miles south of Indios. It knocked out all power and caused at least $110 million in damages according to Reuters (Valentin Ortiz 2020). Another estimate put that figure at $3.1 billion (Kaske and Levin 2020). More than 600 homes and other buildings were destroyed, one person died, and there were damages to bridges and roads. Also, thousands of homes and other buildings were damaged. The iconic Punta Ventana, a natural formation that is a popular destination for tourists, collapsed. Approximately 70% of Puerto Rico’s power is generated along the south coast, while approximately 70% of its demand is along the north coast. The territory’s largest power plant, the Costa Sur power plant with a capacity of 970 megawatts, was knocked out of service from cracked foundations, ruptured pipes, split water tanks, a damaged turbine and damages to the plant’s control room. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) shut down the power grid as a safety precaution, and two-thirds of the utility’s 1.4 million customers were without power for days. The Costa Sur plant was not back online until August 2020. On January 11, there was an aftershock that registered at 5.9 magnitude. Many of these aftershocks were of significant magnitude and made relief and recovery difficult. Over two dozen quakes had a magnitude of 4.5 or more. On January 15, there was a 5.2 earthquake and ten days later, a 5.0 magnitude earthquake hit near Guayanilla. On 14 January, PREPA said service had been restored for 99% of its customers. On May 2, 2020, the same area was rocked by a magnitude 5.4 earthquake that caused new damage in Ponce. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) stated that it was an aftershock of the January 7 magnitude 6.4 earthquake, and USGS included it in the earthquake swarm that they had been tracking since January. Another magnitude 4.8 aftershock struck the area at the beginning of August, causing further damage and slowing repairs. A USGS report predicts that the aftershocks could continue for a decade (van der Elst et al. 2020). The continuance of aftershocks and damages from the aftershocks complicates estimates of the economic impacts of the damages in 2020. Most renewable energy-generating facilities survived Hurricane Maria with modest amounts of damage, but a solar photovoltaic farm at Humacao and the Punta Lima wind farm at Naguabo both on Puerto Rico's east coast where the eye of the storm came ashore - were badly damaged. The solar photovoltaic farm was rebuilt, while the Punta Lima wind farm remained nonoperational as of May 2020 (U.S. Energy Information Administration [USEIA]). The earthquakes in early 2020 did not damage any renewable generating facilities. The solar micro grids using rooftop solar panels that were installed primarily by private, federal, and non-profit organizations after the hurricanes in 2017, were able to maintain power supply in some communities following the earthquakes.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 41
Although Puerto Rico has, on average, more than 65% sunny hours per day and 22 miles per hour winds year-round, less than 3% of all the energy produced there is through renewable energy. Under the Puerto Rico Energy Public Policy Act, which was signed into law in May 2019, that has to change. PREPA must obtain 40% of its electricity from renewable resources by 2025, 60% by 2040, and 100% by 2050 (USEIA). The territory’s renewable resources include wind, hydropower, and solar energy. For fiscal year 2020, 2.5% of PREPA's electricity came from renewable energy, with solar photovoltaic accounting for half and wind accounting for onethird of total renewable generation. The remainder came from hydroelectric and landfill gas facilities (USEIA). Tourism’s contribution to GDP fell from 5.68% in 2016 to 5.50% in 2017 and 4.82% in 2018 (Puerto Rico Tourism Company). Both the earthquakes and SARS pandemic (COVID-19) of 2020 (and that continues into 2021) has greatly affected island tourism. In 2019, there were approximately 1.11 million tourist arrivals; however, that fell to approximately 0.523 million in 2020. Figure 3.4.4 shows the number of arrival guests through August of each year since 2017 and note the sharp declines in 2018 and 2020.
2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0
2017
2018
2019
2020
Figure 3.4.4. Arrival guests through August of each year, 2017 – 2020. (Source: Puerto Rico Tourism Company, Registrations and Occupancy Report)
The labor force continues to shrink as shown in Figure 3.4.5. Note that there is no data for the size of the labor force in March or April 2020.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 42
Dec-20
Nov-20
Oct-20
Sep-20
Aug-20
Jul-20
Jun-20
May-20
Apr-20
Mar-20
Feb-20
Jan-20
Dec-19
Nov-19
Oct-19
Sep-19
Aug-19
Jul-19
Jun-19
May-19
Apr-19
Mar-19
Feb-19
Jan-19
1,120,000 1,110,000 1,100,000 1,090,000 1,080,000 1,070,000 1,060,000 1,050,000 1,040,000 1,030,000 1,020,000
Labor Force
Figure 3.4.5. Monthly labor force, January 2019 – December 2020. (Source: USDOL BLS)
After years of wrangling with its creditors, the territory disclosed a plan in September 2019 for resolving the biggest governmental bankruptcy in United States history, by cutting $129 billion in debts to about $86 billion - a reduction of 33 percent (New York Times September 27, 2019). In June 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the financial oversight board, which was established by Congress to oversee Puerto Rico's finances after the 2014 bankruptcy, was constitutional (Coleman 2021). In February 2021, the board announced that it has reached an agreement in principal with creditors to reduce a portion of the U.S. territory’s more than $70 billion public debt load. However, Governor Pedro Pierluisi rejected the agreement for reasons that it overburdened pensioners. The board responded with a revised plan in March that includes a proposed cut of up to 8.5% to monthly pensions of at least $1,500. That has long been a point of contention between the board and the governor, who has repeatedly said he would not approve such cuts. Ultimately, the plan also has to be approved by a judge overseeing Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy-like process. If that occurs, the plan would reduce Puerto Rico’s outstanding debt from $35 billion to $7.4 billion, an 80% cut. Among other things, it also would cut total debt service payments by more than 60%, which the board said would save the government nearly $60 billion in debt service payments. Governor Pierluisi who has previously said he would reject any plan with high pension cuts, said the government will declare in court that it does not fully support the plan, but still, he called the proposal a step in the right direction.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 43
3.4.2.2
Economic Description of the Fishery
Estimated annual landings of spiny lobster, as noted in Section 3.1.1, have gradually been increasing since ACLs were established in 2012. 18 Commensurate with this increase, the dockside value of these landings has also been gradually increasing peaking at almost $3.5 million in 2018, before falling marginally to $3.33 million in 2019 (Table 3.4.2). The increased value is somewhat less pronounced when expressed on a deflated basis as a result of a relatively stable deflated per pound price which changed little during the eight-year period ending in 2019. 19 Table 3.4.2. Ex-vessel value and average price of spiny lobster per pound in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019.
a
Value ($)
Year
Landings (Pounds)
Current
Deflated
2012
385,811
2,429,083
2013
275,412
2014
Price ($/lb) Current
Deflated
2,703,569
6.30
7.01
1,747,305
1,918,540
6.34
6.97
376,779
2,414,956
2,608,152
6.41
6.92
2015
418,273
2,681,686
2,893,539
6.41
6.92
2016
449,233
2,920,828
3,110,681
6.50
6.92
2017
283,221
1,909,666
1,999,781
6.74
7.06
2018
519,864
3,470,626
3,533,097
6.67
6.79
2019
488,316
3,333,652
3,333,652
6.83
6.83
a
Values and prices are deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
The information presented in Section 3.1 also indicates that approximately 40% of the trips reported by commercial fishermen in in 2019 included landings of spiny lobster (12,366 of the total 30,731 trips). These trips frequently harvest species co-occurring with the harvest of spiny lobster. 20 Estimated annual revenues generated from the landing of these co-occurring species are presented in Table 3.4.3. As indicated, estimated annual revenues associated with the cooccurring harvests have ranged from about $1.35 million in 2013, to about $2.0 million in 2018. The price per pound of these co-occurring species gradually increased over the 2012-2019 period approaching $4.00 in the more recent years. The increase was somewhat less when inflation is removed, but still substantially larger than that observed for spiny lobster. The increasing These landings are considered ‘estimates’ because, as discussed in Section 3.1.1, all landings are not reported and landings that are reported are thus adjusted using an expansion factor determined by DNER staff at the Fisheries Research Laboratory. 19 Specifically, the difference between the highest observed annual deflated price ($7.06 in 2017) and the lowest observed annual deflated price ($6.79 in 2018) was only about four percent. 20 A detailed listing of the co-occurrence species as well as the number of trips in which they were landed is presented in Table 3.1.3 18
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 44
deflated annual price trend observed for the co-occurring species may reflect a changing species composition, a change in demand/supply of the co-occurring species, or some amalgam. Table 3.4.3. Ex-vessel value and price per pound co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019.
a
Value ($)
Price ($/lb)
Year
Landings (Pounds)
Current
Deflateda
Current
Deflated
2012
507,310
1,608,715
1,790,500
3.17
3.53
2013
402,243
1,353,258
1,485,877
3.36
3.69
2014
466,076
1,537,349
1,660,337
3.30
3.56
2015
482,078
1,606,366
1,733,269
3.33
3.33
2016
475,793
1,628,102
1,733,928
3.42
3.64
2017
353,569
1,406,567
1,467,049
3.98
4.15
2018
521,953
2,043,477
2,080,259
3.92
3.99
2019
441,983
1,734,545
1,734,545
3.92
3.92
Values and prices are deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
A comparison of the information in Tables 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 provides insight to several features. First, landings of the co-occurring species, expressed on a poundage basis, exceeded landings of spiny lobster by a significant margin in the earlier years of analysis. However, this margin declined over time and by 2018 spiny lobster landings approached the landings of co-occurring species while 2019 spiny lobster landings exceeded the landings of co-occurring species (by almost 50,000 pounds). Second, while landings of co-occurring species, expressed on a poundage basis, tended to exceed spiny lobster landings during the earlier years, the value of spiny lobster landings consistently exceeded the value of co-occurring species; often by more than $1.0 million. This reflects the significantly higher per pound price received by fishermen for spiny lobster. This price differential, however, appears to have narrowed in more recent years. A comparison of the information in Tables 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 also highlights the fact that landings of both spiny lobsters and co-occurring species were both abnormally low in 2017; undoubtedly reflecting the impact from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Of greater interest, however, is the fact that 2018 landings of both spiny lobsters and co-occurring species were the highest on record during the eight-year period of analysis. This may suggest some ‘surplus’ stocks harvested in 2018 that evaded harvest in 2017. Revenues per trip can be ascertained based on those trips where a trip ticket is submitted. Based on these trips, total revenues per trip (i.e., spiny lobsters and co-occurring species) averaged Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 45
about $240 during the eight-year period of analysis with an increasing trend during the later years (Table 3.4.4). Revenues from the landing of spiny lobsters ranged from a low of 56% of total trip revenues in 2013, to a high of 66% in 2019. Despite a significant decline in estimated industry-wide landings of spiny lobsters and co-occurring species in 2017 (see Tables 3.4.2 and 3.4.3), estimated spiny lobster catch per trip in 2017 approximated the eight-year average while the landings of co-occurring species were the highest observed during the eight-year period. This would suggest the decline in industry-wide 2017 landings reflect a decline in number of trips as opposed to a decline in harvest per trip. Table 3.4.4. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019. Year
a
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Revenues Current Deflateda 120 133 114 125 136 146 145 157 159 170 153 160 173 176 182 182
Revenues From Co-occurring Species Current Deflated 83 93 89 97 88 95 88 95 89 95 111 115 98 100 95 95
Total Revenues Current Deflated 203 226 202 222 224 242 234 252 248 264 264 275 271 275 277 277
Based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
As noted in Section 3.1.1, the harvest of spiny lobsters in Puerto Rico occurs in both state waters (0-9 nautical miles) and federal waters (9-200 nautical miles) with harvests from state waters dominating the catch. Estimated per trip revenues (spiny lobster and co-occurring species) from both state and federal waters for the 2012-2019 period are presented in Table 3.4.5. Since 2016, revenues (unweighted) from the harvest of spiny lobsters in state waters have averaged $167 per trip compared to $186 in federal waters. 21 Similarly, revenues generated from the harvest of cooccurring species in state waters since 2016 averaged $99 per trip compared to $97 in federal waters. Total (unweighted) revenues from state waters averaged $266 per trip compared to $283 in federal waters. This relatively small differential in per trip revenues (about six percent) in conjunction with a multitude of other factors (e.g., rougher sea conditions in a small boat and the higher fuel costs associated with an increased travelling distance) may help to explain the relatively small percentage of trips occurring in federal waters (see Table 3.1.1). 22 Furthermore, while not shown in Table 3.4.5, calculated prices between spiny lobsters reported to be harvested The starting point of 2016 was selected because that was the first year where landings from ‘unknown area’ was less than 10% (see Table 3.1.1). 22 While there appears to be little difference in average trip revenues from harvests in state waters vis-à-vis federal waters, revenues from ‘unknown area’ are consistently less than either revenues from state or federal waters. 21
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 46
in state waters were not found to be significantly different from those lobsters reported to be harvested from federal waters. Table 3.4.5. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species by area fished in Puerto Rico for 2012-2019. Spiny Lobster Revenues From Total Revenues Co-occurring Species Revenues Year State Federal Unknown State Federal Unknown State Federal Unknown Waters Waters Area Waters Waters Area Waters Waters Area 2012 122 126 117 76 127 79 199 254 197 2013 117 133 99 88 124 80 205 256 179 2014 140 144 117 89 99 80 229 243 197 2015 151 149 118 89 99 79 240 248 197 2016 162 155 133 91 90 60 253 245 193 2017 151 192 139 110 113 130 261 306 269 2018 173 211 133 99 89 81 272 299 214 2019 183 185 138 96 97 62 279 281 200
As discussed in Section 3.1.1, traps and diving have represented in excess of 90% of the commercial harvest of spiny lobster in Puerto Rico since 2012 (Table 3.1.2) with reported harvests from diving consistently exceeding reported harvests from traps. Approximately 70% of trips reporting the harvest of spiny lobster from federal waters indicate that the harvest was taken via diving with the figure approaching 80% in 2019. While important to the Island’s economy, economic analysis of Puerto Rico’s commercial fishing industry is limited. With respect to the Island’s commercial diving sector, the most comprehensive study is that conducted by Agar and Shivlani (2016) who interviewed ‘active’ divers between March 2014 and March 2015 in an effort to ascertain characteristics of the fishermen and their fishing practices. The researchers found that the commercial divers had various economic objectives associated with their fishing trips with about two-thirds of the fishermen reporting having a ‘target’ (e.g., catch and/or income) that that he hoped to achieve. About a quarter of the interviewees reported maximizing benefits (i.e., catching as much as possible) as their trip objective. Gross returns per trip among diving operations according to Agar and Shivlani (2016) ranged from $75 to $700 and averaged $251. 23 Total variable costs per trip, according to Agar and Shivlani (2016) averaged $81 resulting in net earnings per trip of about $170. The crew size
This number compares favorably to the revenue figures (for all trips reporting the harvest of spiny lobster) presented in Table 3.4.14. Specifically, 2014 estimated per trip revenues based on trip tickets equaled $224 or about 90% of that reported by Agar and Shivlani (2016).
23
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 47
(including the captain) averaged 2.4 indicating per trip net earnings per person of about $70 (with owner-captains generally receiving somewhat more than crew members). Agar et al. (2017) also examined the commercial Puerto Rico trap fishery with data for the analysis coming from active trap fishermen. Interviews were conducted between June 2014 and January 2016. The average boat length among participants was 20 feet. About two-thirds of the participants reported fishing exclusively with fish traps while another 20% reported fishing with both fish traps and lobster traps. Among survey participants, about 40% reported a trip objective of maximizing landings while about 30% had an objective of covering costs. On average, respondents reported making an average of 2.3 trips per week with average landings per trip being 57 pounds. Gross revenues per trip were estimated to equal $290 (a median of $207) with total variable costs per trip equaling $57. This resulted in estimated net earnings of $232 per trip.
3.4.3
St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John
3.4.3.1
General Economic Conditions
Since after the devastating twin hurricanes of 2017, the most dynamic sector of the USVI economy has been construction. Federal disaster assistance is spurring reconstruction, infrastructure repair, and several hazard mitigation activities, resulting in high demand for construction workers. As shown in Figure 3.4.6, the number of jobs in construction more than doubled from 2017 to 2019: 1,618 in August 2017 and 4,076 in August 2019. However, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a decline in construction in 2020 and early 2021. Employees in the construction, mining and logging sector, which are essentially all in construction (96%) in the USVI, declined in 2020 and early 2021, but stayed above the numbers prior to the hurricanes as seen in Figure 3.4.7. 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Aug-16
Mar-17
Sep-17
Apr-18
Oct-18
May-19
Dec-19
Figure 3.4.6. Construction jobs in USVI, January 2017 – September 2019. (Source: USVI DOL, Labor Market Basket)
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 48
Thousands of Employees
6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Dec-14
May-16
Sep-17
Feb-19
Jun-20
Oct-21
Figure 3.4.7. Employees in construction, mining and logging sector in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. (Source: U.S. BLS)
In March 13, 2020, Governor Bryan issued an Executive Order and Proclamation declaring a State of Emergency in response to the pandemic. Ten days later the Governor issued a “stay-athome” order and ordered all non-essential businesses to remain closed, beginning March 25. The order also officially limited gatherings to 10 persons or fewer, closed all bars, prohibited restaurants from offering dining room service, and limited taxis and safaris to half-capacity passenger loads. 24 On April 6, Governor Bryan ordered the closure of all beaches through April 20. On April 13, 2020, the Governor announced that the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Insular Affairs has given the U.S. Virgin Islands $7,863,776 in funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Federal COVID-19 stimulus bill. Also on that day, the Federal Aviation Administration awarded the USVI $41,145,247 to maintain the territory’s airports as part of the CARES Act Federal stimulus bill. On May 4, the USVI began to allow some non-essential businesses to reopen; however, the State of Emergency was extended on May 7 for another 60 days, which meant it would not expire until July 12. On May 21, 2020, Governor Bryan announced he was easing restrictions on bars and restaurants, allowing bars to reopen and restaurants to serve dine-in customers beginning the Tuesday after Memorial Day. Seven days later the Governor announced that the USVI would move to the “Open Doors” phase, which would allow all business to reopen. With that, hotels, villas and Airbnb vendors were able to begin taking reservations and hospitality-related businesses had restrictions lifted. Thermal scanners were installed at the airports and other measures were put into place to track visitors and their health. On July 9, 2020, Governor Bryan tightened restrictions on travelers and set a 10% positivity rate as the threshold, affecting visitors from any state at that rate or higher, which at that date were: Alabama; Arizona; Florida; Georgia; Idaho; Kansas; Mississippi; Nevada; South Carolina; and Texas.
On April 2, 2020, the U.S. President declared that a major disaster existed in the USVI based on COVID-19, which opened the door to getting Federal assistance to mitigate the virus. 24
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 49
10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0
Jan-16 Mar-16 May-16 Jul-16 Sep-16 Nov-16 Jan-17 Mar-17 May-17 Jul-17 Sep-17 Nov-17 Jan-18 Mar-18 May-18 Jul-18 Sep-18 Nov-18 Jan-19 Mar-19 May-19 Jul-19 Sep-19 Nov-19 Jan-20 Mar-20 May-20 Jul-20 Sep-20 Nov-20 Jan-21
Thousands of Employees
Even before the pandemic affected travel and tourism, Hurricanes Irma and Maria were disastrous to USVI tourism. Not only were Hurricanes Irma and Maria disastrous for tourism but also they had a tremendous impact on both commercial and recreational fishing (Stoffle et al. 2020). In the immediate aftermath of the hurricanes, the number of stay-over tourist arrivals declined, and employment in the leisure and hospitality sector plummeted, as several large hotel properties closed for renovations. The number of employees in the leisure and hospitality and trade, transportation and utilities sectors began to recover in 2019, but they declined again in 2020 (Figure 3.4.8). Employment in the manufacturing sector was not similarly affected, and it rose from 566 employees in August 2017 to 760 in August 2019 and has stayed relatively constant since then despite the pandemic.
Leisure & Hospitality
Manufacturing
Trade, Transporation & Utilities
Figure 3.4.8. Employees in the leisure and hospitality, manufacturing, and trade, transportation and utilities sectors in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. (Source: U.S. BLS)
Charlotte Amalie in St. Thomas, which is one of the most popular cruise destinations in the Caribbean, suffered severe damage, and two cruise ports were closed for weeks. From 2014 through 2016, an average of 23 ships made call in September and another 29 in October. There were only two cruise ship calls to St. Thomas in September and none in October of 2017. The peak cruise season runs from December through April. Although the numbers of monthly cruise passenger arrivals and ship calls rebounded in December 2017, the numbers of passengers and ship calls from January through April of 2018 were less than they had been the previous four years. Total annual visitor arrivals declined in 2018, but rebounded in 2019 and forecasts for 2020 were optimistic; however, that optimism was short-lived and visitor arrivals declined dramatically in 2020 25 (Figure 3.4.9).
25
In 2016, there were approximately 2.57 million visitor arrivals, in 2020 there were approximately 0.86 million.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 50
3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Figure 3.4.9. Total USVI visitor arrivals, 2016 – 2020. (Source: USVI BER)
Real GDP grew by 1.5% in 2018 and then by 1.7% in 2019, which generated optimism for the USVI economy in 2020, but that was before the pandemic. Real GDP fell by 14.2% in 2020 (USVI BER) (Figure 3.4.10).
5.0 0.0
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
-5.0 -10.0 -15.0
Figure 3.4.10. Annual change in real GDP, 2016 – 2020. (Source: USVI BER, November 2020)
Petroleum products account for 42% of total exports in 2018. However, that was largely a reexport business, and little value was added in the territory. That is expected to change since St. Croix’s long-idled refinery, now the Limetree Refinery, restarted in February 2021. Although it has brought back jobs, it is also bringing back memories of the pollution produced by the former HOVENSA refinery. According to Reuters (March 8, 2021), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants the refinery’s owners, Limetree Bay Ventures, to increase its monitoring of air quality due to emissions affecting the nearby neighborhoods, but the owners have so far balked.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 51
After tourism and petroleum, the next most important sector is the production and export of rum. Rum constituted 41% of total exports in 2018 by value. Rum exports to the mainland increased from 2017 to 2019 (Figure 3.4.11).
Thousands of Proof Liters
66,000.0 64,000.0 62,000.0 60,000.0 58,000.0 56,000.0 54,000.0 52,000.0 50,000.0
2016
2017
2018
2019
Figure 3.4.11. Annual change in rum exports to U.S.
(Source: USVI BER, Annual Economic Indicators, May 20, 2020)
The USVI economy performed better in 2018 and 2019, exhibiting positive real economic growth, higher revenues, decreasing unemployment, and improving fiscal balances and liquidity positions for the central government. However, the improvement in economic performance was primarily due to an infusion of Federal disaster relief assistance that is helping rebuild the economy. Despite the positive achievements and progress on reconstruction, the economy still faces many weaknesses and vulnerabilities that could result in the return of significant deficits and financial distress, namely the pending insolvency of Government Employee Retirement System (GERS) and the mounting liquidity issues at Water and Power Authority (WAPA), a semi-autonomous government-owned electric, water, and sewer utility. To minimize these risks, the quality of financial management and governance has to improve across the public sector, new economic growth needs to be stimulated, tourism products need to be revitalized and differentiated, and credible plans shaped to stabilize GERS and improve the management and financial performance of WAPA. The main internal threats to the USVI economy are the massive unfunded liabilities of the GERS and the illiquidity of WAPA. The likely consequences of the dire financial situations of these two entities would be a reduction in the benefits paid to retirees after 2023 in the case of GERS and demands for more transfers from the central government in the case of WAPA. In 2019, the main driver in the economy was government spending. Government spending increased dramatically after 2017, with an influx of federal disaster assistance. In 2018, Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 52
government spending was estimated to be 42% of GDP, when for the decade before the hurricanes (2007-2016), the average government share of GDP was 26.36%. 26 Although the official GDP for 2019 has not yet been calculated, the expected 2019 government spending as a share of GDP is likely to be in the 30% range (USVI BER March 25, 2020). 3.4.3.2
Description of the Fishery
As noted in Section 3.1.2, the vast majority of spiny lobster landings in St. Thomas and St. John are taken by trap and these landings have remained relatively stable since ACLs were established in 2012. By comparison, the majority of spiny lobster landings in St. Croix are taken by diving and harvests from waters off this island have declined steadily and significantly since 2012 (see Section 3.1.3). Annual dockside values of spiny lobster harvests from St. Thomas and St. John for the 20122019 period are given in Table 3.4.6. During this period, annual spiny lobster revenues averaged $843,000 and ranged from a low of $665,000 in 2012 to a high of $1.1 million in 2016. The annual price of the landed spiny lobster, with the exception of 2012, consistently fluctuated around $9.00 per pound. 27 Table 3.4.6. Landings, value, and price of spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John for 20122019.
a
Value ($)
Price ($/lb)
Year
Landings (Pounds)
Current
Deflated
2012
83,157
665,254
2013
84,513
2014
Current
Deflated
740,428
8.00
8.90
769,064
844,432
9.10
9.99
92,261
839,571
906,737
9.10
9.83
2015
109,455
985,095
1,049,126
9.00
9.58
2016
121,695
1,095,255
1,142,351
9.00
9.39
2017
91,911
829,795
865,476
9.03
9.42
2018
86,708
777,361
791,353
8.97
9.13
2019
86,869
781,817
781,817
9.00
9.00
a
Values and prices are deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
In 2018, the USVI’s commercial fishing fleet landed 445,184 pounds of finfish and shellfish, generating approximately $2.96 million in commercial value (NMFS 2020a), which in turn generated approximately $15.2 million in total value added that accounted for approximately 0.38% of GDP, whereas it accounted for approximately 0.64% of GDP in 2014. 27 It should be noted that the price information for the USVI is somewhat questionable in that prices appear to rarely change. It is not known whether this reflects the ‘true’ situation (i.e., fishermen may not adjust price based on demand) or is an artifact of the method used to ascribe a price to the harvested product. In addition, very few prices were given in 2019 and the prices used in this analysis were based on those few prices. Thus, values as well as prices in St. Thomas and St. John as well as St. Croix should be viewed with some caution. 26
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 53
Annual values associated with spiny lobster harvests from St. Croix for the 2012-2019 period are given in Table 3.4.7. Spiny lobster revenues averaged $307,000 per year during the eight-year period ending in 2019. In conjunction with the steady and significant decline in pounds landed, the annual value of spiny lobster landings fell from about $700,000 in 2012 to less than $150,000 in 2019. The decline in both pounds landed and the value of these landings reflects, in part, a sharp decline in number of trips. In 2012, for instance, the number of trips was in excess of 2,000. By 2015 the number of trips had fallen to about 1,000 and continued to fall to 313 in 2018, before increasing to almost 400 in 2019. The annual price of the landed spiny lobster ranged from approximately $7.50 per pound to $9.00 per pound. Little to no trend in the price is evident after removing the influence of inflation. Table 3.4.7. Landings, value, and price of spiny lobster in St. Croix for 2012-2019.
a
Year
Landings (Pounds)
2012
Value ($)
Price ($/lb)
87,073
Current 696,586
Deflateda 775,300
Current 8.00
Deflated 8.90
2013
59,398
440,139
483,273
7.41
8.14
2014
39,724
294,355
317,903
7.41
8.00
2015
44,963
337,228
363,869
7.50
8.09
2016
31,582
237,048
252,456
7.51
7.99
2017
26,193
225,267
234,953
8.60
8.97
2018
10,970
86,540
88,098
7.89
8.03
2019
15,325
137,925
137,925
9.00
9.00
Values and prices are deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
Relevant revenue and price information for co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John for the 2012-2019 period is given in Table 3.4.8. The value of these cooccurring species averaged about $670,000 during the period and ranged from a low of about $530,000 in 2019, to a high of $800,000 in 2016. A comparison of the information in Tables 3.4.6 and 3.4.8 indicates that landings of these co-occurring species accounted for about 45% of total revenues during the period with annual values falling in the narrow range of 40% to 48%.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 54
Table 3.4.8. Ex-vessel value and price of co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019.
a
Value ($)
Price ($/lb)
Year
Landings (Pounds)
Current
Deflateda
Current
Deflated
2012
104,100
603,218
671,382
5.79
6.45
2013
109,216
633,148
695,197
5.79
6.37
2014
128,886
746,088
805,775
5.79
6.20
2015
114,844
660,047
712,191
5.75
6.20
2016
138,566
800,601
852,460
5.78
6.15
2017
121,835
703,934
734,203
5.78
6.03
2018
115,120
667,822
679,843
5.80
5.91
2019
91,308
529,814
529,814
5.80
5.80
Values and prices are deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
Relevant revenue and price information for co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in St. Croix for the 2012-2019 period is given in Table 3.4.9. The value of these co-occurring species averaged about $600,000 annually during the period and ranged from high of about $1 million annually in the earlier years to a less than $200,000 in the later years. Table 3.4.9. Ex-vessel value and price of co-occurring species landed with spiny lobster in St. Croix, 2012-2019.
a
Year
Landings (Pounds)
2012
Value ($)
Price ($/lb)
221,580
Current 1,285,871
Deflateda 1,431,174
Current 5.80
Deflated 6.46
2013
161,941
939,949
1,032,064
5.80
6.37
2014
99,134
575,344
621,372
5,80
6.27
2015
92,167
535,304
577,593
5.81
6.27
2016
70,955
413,399
440,270
5.83
6.20
2017
63,835
370,320
386,244
5.80
6.05
2018
29,873
173,309
176,429
5,80
5.91
2019
30,804
178,667
178,667
5.80
5.80
Values and prices are deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
Fishermen in the USVI contend that, given the lack of an export market for their product, the quantity of fish they harvest on any given trip is determined strictly by local market conditions Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 55
(i.e., what they believe they can sell in the local market at some established price). 28 Given the well-established economic issues associated with the islands, particularly St. Croix, the large decline in landings (both spiny lobster and co-occurring species) is not unexpected. Total revenues per trip (i.e., spiny lobsters and co-occurring species) among St. Thomas and St. John commercial fishermen for the 2012-2019 period are presented in Table 3.4.10. These revenues averaged about $1,560 per trip ($1,650 per trip after adjusting for inflation) during the eight-year period of analysis and exhibited stability. Table 3.4.10. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Thomas and St. John, 2012-2019. Year
a
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Revenues Current 617 754 892 954 957 845 965 981
Deflateda 686 828 964 1,016 999 881 982 981
Revenues From Co-occurring Species Current Deflated 559 622 621 682 793 856 639 689 700 765 719 748 829 843 665 665
Total Revenues Current Deflated 1,176 1,308 1,375 1,509 1,685 1,820 1,593 1,705 1,657 1,764 1,564 1,629 1,793 1,825 1,646 1,646
Values and prices deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
Total revenues per trip (i.e., spiny lobsters and co-occurring species) among St. Croix commercial fishermen for the 2012-2019 period are presented in Table 3.4.11. These revenues averaged about $845 per trip ($900 per trip after adjusting for inflation) during the eight-year period of analysis and exhibited stability. Thus, it appears as though all of the sharp decline in the aggregate St. Croix landings (both spiny lobster and co-occurring species) reflects a reduction in trips rather than any significant change in catch per trip. Table 3.4.11. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Croix, 2012-2019. Year 2012 2013 2014
Spiny Lobster Revenues Current 341 278 275
Deflateda 379 305 297
Revenues From Co-occurring Species Current Deflated 629 700 593 652 538 581
Total Revenues Current Deflated 969 1,079 871 957 813 879
The argument often made by these fishermen is that annual changes in landings do not reflect changes in stock status but rather changes in market forces.
28
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 56
Year
a
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Revenues Current 335 284 318 277 349
Deflateda 361 303 332 282 349
Revenues From Co-occurring Species Current Deflated 531 573 496 528 523 546 554 564 452 452
Total Revenues Current Deflated 866 934 780 831 841 877 830 845 802 802
Values and prices deflated based on the 2019 Consumer Price Index.
Estimated per trip revenues (spiny lobster and co-occurring species) from both state and federal waters for St. Thomas and St. John are presented in Table 3.4.12. Total revenues per trip among the St. Thomas and St. John fishermen are relatively high averaging well in excess of $1,100. The average per trip revenues from federal waters tend to exceed comparable statistics from the state waters by a sizeable margin (generally $500 to $800) and surpassing the $1,000 threshold in 2019. Table 3.4.12. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species by area fished in St. Thomas and St. John for 2012-2019. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Revenues State Federal Waters Waters 515 675 618 821 887 902 870 1,018 784 1,075 679 1,018 975 952 1,048 1,028
Revenues From Co-occurring Species State Federal Waters Waters 379 648 417 682 283 902 290 765 499 874 565 864 510 1,214 279 1,065
Total Revenues State Federal Waters Waters 894 1,323 1,035 1,503 1,170 1,804 1,160 1,783 1,283 1,949 1,244 1,882 1,485 2,166 1,327 2,355
Estimated per trip revenues (spiny lobster and co-occurring species) from both state and federal waters for St. Croix are presented in Table 3.4.13. In general, revenues from the harvest of spiny lobster in federal waters contributes a smaller proportion of total revenues than that observed in St. Thomas and Puerto Rico. In St. Thomas/St. John, for example, the contribution of spiny lobster to total revenues (from federal waters) rarely fell below 50% while the proportion in Puerto Rico was even higher.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 57
Table 3.4.13. Average revenues per trip ($) from spiny lobster and co-occurring species by area fished in St. Croix for 2012-2019. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Spiny Lobster Revenues State Federal Waters Waters 306 386 248 339 254 232 315 409 262 361 299 370 252 329 316 464
Revenues From Co-occurring Species State Federal Waters Waters 564 715 593 591 492 466 416 732 354 807 406 753 417 853 360 771
Total Revenues State Federal Waters Waters 870 1,101 841 930 746 698 731 1,141 616 1,168 705 1,123 669 1,182 676 1,235
3.5 Description of the Social Environment The social environments of Puerto Rico and the USVI have been described in detail in the Puerto Rico Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (CFMC 2019a), the St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c), and are summarized below.
3.5.1
Puerto Rico
There is insufficient data to isolate specific communities where lobster fishing is important for Puerto Rico and the USVI. This description of the social environment will be more general in its description of fishing overall and will provide specific detail about lobster fishing where possible. In Figure 3.5.1 a number of Puerto Rico communities are identified that have “villa pesqueras” located within or near the community. These organizations provide infrastructure, such as docking facilities and other resources to assist fishermen with their fishing business and activities. Not all fishermen belong to these organizations, but majority of them do according to Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011. The majority of fishermen in Puerto Rico sell most of their catch but do reserve a small quantity for household consumption (Griffith et al. 2007).
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 58
Figure 3.5.1. Puerto Rico coastal communities with villas pesqueras.
(Source: SERO Social Science Branch/U.S. Census Bureau Tigerline Shapefiles 2018)
Fishermen in Puerto Rico are older with an average age of 50 and have long tenures in commercial fishing with an average of 29 years. Fishermen were also highly dependent upon fishing as a source of household income with those in the western region most dependent (83%), those in the east (78%), south (77%) and north (55%) (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011). Lobster fishermen in Puerto Rico are likely spread throughout many of the communities in Figure 3.5.1. A little over 49% of fishermen in Puerto Rico fished for lobster according to Matos Caraballo and Agar (2011) with the highest percentages on the South and East coasts. The number of traps fished follows the number of fishermen reporting fishing for lobster with the highest average number of traps being fished in the South and East coasts (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011). Fishermen overall sell their fish through multiple avenues with a little over a third peddling their catch themselves, a third sold to wholesalers and a little less than a third sold to fishing associations. Few fishermen sell their catch directly to fish stores or restaurants. Lobster is not Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 59
likely to be peddled as much as other species as it is most likely targeted for the tourist market, which is likely through restaurant sales (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011). Certainly, several events that are more recent have had significant impacts on the fishermen of Puerto Rico since the Census of 2008 has occurred. Both hurricanes Maria and Irma and the more recent COVID-19 pandemic have affected the livelihoods of fishermen and their families. The economic loss, including damages, from Hurricane Maria to Puerto Rico fishermen was estimated to be in the range of $20 million and a loss of jobs at the time close to 146 (J. Agar, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, personal communication). There was some concern as to whether the fishing industry would be able to recover to pre-storm levels. In their study one year later, Agar et al. 2020 found that fishery landings did improve and that landings had contracted by $1.4 million in value over the last quarter of 2017, however, losses did vary considerably. Spiny lobster had accounted for close to 14% of those losses, yet fish and lobster traps accounted for most of the revenue losses during that time and the east coast was hit the hardest losing nearly 55% of the total of 6,700 traps reported being lost. Employment losses did seem to recover, as after about 6 months, a large majority of fishermen reported returning to pre Maria workforce levels (Agar et al. 2020). COVID-19 Pandemic While there has been some recovery from hurricanes, the most recent disaster is concerning as the COVID-19 pandemic has now compounded the impacts of previous disasters and has imposed a significant economic hardship on fishermen from the island. A survey conducted by NOAA (2021) found that of the 318 commercial fishermen who responded, 96 % reported that they had suffered impacts to their fishing operations as a result of the pandemic during the first six months of 2020. Loss of revenue was reported by 87% of those who responded when compared to the first six months of last year as more than 90% stopped fishing operations for a period of time. Many lost crew as a result with approximately 25 % reporting some reduction in the number of helpers. Seafood dealers also suffered impacts from the pandemic with 98% reporting impacts from the pandemic. Revenues were decreased by an average of 56% by over 90% of those reporting and at the time of the survey were operating at about 33% of capacity.
3.5.2
St. Thomas and St. John
Commercial fishing St. Thomas and St. John is relatively small scale with vessels averaging approximately 25 ft. in length. Most vessels are fiberglass or fiberglass and wood with outboard motors. More vessels have inboard motors than in the past and are more likely to have more horsepower (Kojis et al. 2017). In the most recent census for St. Thomas and St. John, fishermen targeted lobster with about 30% of the time with shellfish only accounting for approximately 23% of the overall landings. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 60
Fishermen used traps and SCUBA gear to catch lobster and most sales were to hotels and restaurants (Kojis et al. 2017).
Figure 3.5.2. St. Thomas and St. John coastal communities and subdistricts. (Source: SERO Social Science Branch/US Census Tigerline Shapefiles 2018)
The majority of fishermen keep their vessels moored along the coast, both on the Northside and Southside of St. Thomas, and the east end of St. John and near Cruz Bay (Figure 3.5.2). Frenchtown on the Southside was the most popular location to moor vessels on St. Thomas (Kojis et al. 2017). Fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John live in 37 different estates on the two islands; however, there were two primary locations that fishers lived: Frenchtown and St. Peter.
3.5.3
St. Croix
Fishing on St. Croix is also smaller in scale like the other islands. Vessels are small and most fishermen own one boat with only a few owning more than one. The average vessel size in St. Croix was less than 22 ft. with the longest being 45 ft in length. Engines are primarily outboards and may be used on several different vessels if a fisherman owns more than one (Kojis et al. 2017). Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 61
Fishermen of St. Croix resided in three primary zip codes corresponding to the following areas on the island: Christiansted, Fredricksted and Kingshill, but were scattered over 50 different estates (Figure 3.5.3). The two estates with the most fishermen were Frederikstead and Clifton Hill, which is more southcentral. Another docking facility often used was at Gallows Bay near Christiansted (Kojis et al. 2017).
Figure 3.5.3. St. Croix coastal communities and subdistricts.
Source: SERO Social Science Branch/US Census Tigerline Shapefiles 2018
Fishermen of St. Croix also had a higher average age at 57, with the average age of active fishermen slightly lower at 55. Their average tenure in fishing was also high with an average of 27 years and the majority of fishermen identified themselves as Hispanic with another large percentage identifying as West Indian (Kojis et al. 2017). Most fishermen used several types of gear to fish with, although trap fishermen were more dependent on one type of gear. Trap fishing was the third most common type of fishing gear used by fishermen on St. Croix with fewer than one third using traps. However, close to 60% of Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 62
fishermen in St. Croix said that spiny lobster was an important species. Lobster ranked 2nd in importance to reef fish which is ranked 1st on all the USVI islands (Kojis et al. 2017). Because tourists and visitors prefer lobster, commercial fishermen find ready customers in hotels and restaurants catering to tourists (Valdes Pizzini et al., 2010; Stoffle et al., 2009). COVID-19 Pandemic To understand the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, NOAA Fisheries (NMFS 2021b) social scientists conducted phone surveys with 87 commercial and charter fishermen on the islands of St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John. Of those that responded, 87% reported revenue losses during the first six months of 2020. Approximately 30% of fishermen reported losing some crew members. When comparing their fishing activity to the first six months of 2019, they reported on average operating at about 48% if capacity at the time of the survey.
3.5.4
Environmental Justice (EJ) Considerations
In order to assess whether a community may be experiencing EJ issues, a suite of Community Social Vulnerability Indices (CSVI) created to examine the social vulnerability of coastal communities was developed for the majority fishing communities in the U.S (Colburn and Jepson 2012). Using a unit of analysis at the county rather than census designated places a viable suite of social vulnerability indices were successfully created using the same methodology for all counties within the coastal Southeast including Puerto Rico and the USVI. Using the same variables with minor adjustments, a principal component factor analysis was conducted with results meeting the same criteria used previously in creating the CSVIs. The resulting index factor scores for each community will be reported here. The three indices reported most often in the Southeast Region are poverty, population composition, and personal disruptions. The variables included in each of these indices have been identified through the literature as being important components that contribute to an individual’s or community’s vulnerability. Indicators such as increased poverty rates for different groups, more single female-headed households and children under the age of 5, disruptions such as higher separation rates, and unemployment all are signs of vulnerable populations. These indicators are closely aligned to previously used measures of EJ, which used thresholds for the number of minorities and those in poverty, but are more comprehensive in their assessment. For those municipalities (Puerto Rico) or subdistricts (USVI) that exceed the threshold it would be expected that they would exhibit vulnerabilities to sudden changes or social disruption that might accrue from regulatory change. 3.5.4.1
Puerto Rico
As is evident in Figure 3.5.4, the majority of municipalities show substantial vulnerabilities with most exceeding both thresholds of ½ and 1 standard deviation for two of the indices and some Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 63
exceeding both thresholds for all indices. Cabo Rojo, Aricebo and San Juan are the only municipalities that do not exceed the ½ standard deviation for personal disruption. However, these vulnerabilities do not take into consideration the recent devastation from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. It is expected that even though these municipalities have high vulnerabilities depicted here, they could now have even higher vulnerability scores as a result of the impacts from recent hurricanes.
Figure 3.5.4. Social vulnerability indices for Puerto Rico coastal municipalities. (Source: SERO County Social Vulnerability Indicators database (ACS 2010) 2018)
The vulnerabilities that are depicted here do not mean that any actions within this amendment will have negative impacts, only that if there are any negative effects most municipalities may have a difficult time absorbing the impacts and their recovery may be hindered. 3.5.4.2
St. Thomas and St. John
As is evident in Figure 3.5.5, the majority of subdistricts for St. Thomas and St. John show few vulnerabilities with only one exceeding both thresholds of ½ and 1 standard deviation for at least two of the indices. Charlotte Amalie is the only subdistrict that has two indices exceeding both thresholds. Most other communities show few if any vulnerabilities. Several communities do exceed the threshold for population composition, which is likely a reflection of a higher population of minorities. However, these vulnerabilities do not take into consideration the devastation from Hurricanes Irma and Maria and the recent COVID-19 pandemic. It is expected that even though these municipalities have high vulnerabilities depicted here, they could now Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 64
have higher vulnerability scores as a result of the impacts from the disasters that have occurred recently. The vulnerabilities depicted here do not mean that any actions within this amendment will have negative impacts, only that if there are any negative effects many communities that are experiencing high vulnerabilities may have a difficult time absorbing the impacts and their recovery may be hindered.
Figure 3.5.5. Social vulnerability indices for St. Thomas (STT) and St. John (STJ) coastal subdistricts. (Source: SERO County Social Vulnerability Indicators database (ACS 2014) 2018)
3.5.4.3
St. Croix
As is evident in Figure 3.5.6, the majority of subdivisions show vulnerabilities with most exceeding both thresholds of ½ and 1 standard deviation for at least two of the indices. Northcentral, East End and Anna’s Hope are the only subdistricts that have fewer than two indices exceeding the thresholds. However, these vulnerabilities do not take into consideration the devastation from Hurricanes Irma and Maria or the recent COVID-19 pandemic. It is expected that even though these municipalities have high vulnerabilities depicted here, they Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 65
could now have even higher vulnerability scores as a result of the impacts from recent hurricanes. The vulnerabilities depicted here do not mean that any actions within this amendment will have negative impacts, only that if there are any negative effects that those communities experiencing high vulnerabilities may have a difficult time absorbing the impacts and their recovery may be hindered.
Figure 3.5.6. Social vulnerability indices for St. Croix coastal subdistricts. (Source: SERO County Social Vulnerability Indicators database (ACS 2014) 2018)
3.6 Description of the Administrative Environment The administrative environment was discussed in detail in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs, which is incorporated herein by reference and summarized below.
3.6.1
Federal Fishery Management
Federal fishery management is conducted under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), originally enacted in 1976 as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act claims sovereign rights and exclusive fishery management authority over most fishery resources within the U.S. EEZ, an area extending from the seaward Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 66
boundary of each coastal state to 200 nm from shore, as well as authority over U.S. anadromous species and continental shelf resources that occur beyond the EEZ. Responsibility for federal fishery management decision-making is divided between the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and eight regional Fishery Management Councils that represent the expertise and interests of constituent states. Regional Fishery Management Councils are responsible for preparing, monitoring, and revising management plans for fisheries needing management within their jurisdiction. The Secretary is responsible for promulgating regulations to implement proposed plans and amendments after ensuring that management measures are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and with other applicable laws summarized in Appendix B. In most cases, the Secretary has delegated this authority to NMFS. The Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (Council) is responsible for the conservation and management of fishery stocks within federal waters surrounding Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John (USVI), and St. Croix (USVI). These waters extend to 200 nautical miles offshore from the seaward boundaries of Puerto Rico (9 nm from shore) and the USVI (3 nm from shore). The Council consists of seven voting members: four members appointed by the Secretary, at least one of whom is appointed from each of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the USVI; the principal officials with marine fishery management responsibility and expertise for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the USVI, who are designated as such by their Governors; and the Regional Administrator of NMFS for the Southeast Region. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee reviews the data and science used in assessments, FMPs, and amendments. Regulations implementing the FMPs are enforced through actions of the NOAA’s Office for Law Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, and various state authorities. The public is involved in the fishery management process through participation at public meetings, on advisory panels and through council meetings that, with few exceptions for discussing personnel matters, are open to the public. The regulatory process is in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, in the form of “notice and comment” rulemaking, which provides extensive opportunity for public scrutiny and comment, and requires consideration of and response to those comments.
3.6.2 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Fisheries Management The purpose of state representation at the Council level is to ensure state participation in federal fishery management decision-making and to promote the development of compatible regulations in state and federal waters. The state governments have the authority to manage their respective fisheries including enforcement of fishing regulations, and exercises legislative and regulatory authority over their states’ natural resources through discrete administrative units. Although Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 67
each agency listed below is the primary administrative body with respect to the state’s natural resources, all states cooperate with numerous state and federal regulatory agencies when managing marine resources. 3.6.2.1
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has jurisdiction over fisheries in state waters extending up to 9 nm from shore. Those fisheries are managed by Puerto Rico's Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) per Puerto Rico Law 278 of November 29, 1998 as amended, known as Puerto Rico’s Fisheries Law, which establishes public policy regarding fisheries. Section 19 of Article VI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico provides the foundation for the fishery rules and regulations. Puerto Rico Fishing Regulations 6902, implemented in 2004, included regulations for the management of marine managed areas for fisheries purposes and imposed regulations for the protection of several species such as the Nassau grouper and the red hind. Puerto Rico Regulations 7949, implemented in 2010, is the current regulatory mechanism for management of fishery resources in Puerto Rico state waters as well as for those resources and areas with shared jurisdiction with the U.S. government through the Council. 3.6.2.2
U.S. Virgin Islands
The USVI has jurisdiction over fisheries in state waters extending up to 3 nm from shore. The USVI’s Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) is responsible for the conservation and management of USVI fisheries and enforcement of boating and fishing regulations. The DPNR’s Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) is responsible for data collection pertaining to the fisheries of the USVI. The DFW monitors commercial and recreational fisheries and provides recommendations to the DPNR Commissioner on matters relating to fisheries management. Rules and regulations for the USVI fisheries are codified in the Virgin Islands Code, primarily within Title 48 Chapter 12. More information about these agencies can be found from the following web pages: Puerto Rico DNER: https://www.drna.pr.gov/ USVI DPNR: https://dpp.vi.gov/agency/department-planning-and-natural-resources
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 68
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4.1 Action 1: Spiny Lobster Overfishing Limit (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), and Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Summary of Management Alternatives Alternative 1. No Action. The OFL proxy, ABC, and ACL (which equals optimum yield [OY]) for spiny lobster would remain as specified under the Puerto Rico FMP (Fishery Management Plan), St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP. Alternative 2. Select the variable-catch approach for specifying OFLs and ABCs for spiny lobster, and use the variable-catch ABCs to derive the spiny lobster variable-catch ACLs (which equals OY), under one of the subalternatives listed below. Sub-alternative 2a. OY = ACL = ABC Sub-alternative 2b. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.95 Sub-alternative 2c. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.90 Alternative 3 (Preferred for all three island-based FMPs). Select the constant-catch approach for specifying the OFL and ABC for spiny lobster, and use the constant-catch ABC to derive the spiny lobster constant-catch ACL (which equals OY), under one of the sub-alternatives listed below. Sub-alternative 3a. OY = ACL = ABC Sub-alternative 3b (Preferred). OY = ACL = ABC x 0.95 Sub-alternative 3c. OY = ACL = ABC x 0.90
4.1.1
Effects on the Physical Environment
Effects on the physical environment generally occur from fishing effort associated with interactions between fishing gear (e.g., fish traps and spiny lobster traps) and the bottom substrate or from anchoring. As mentioned in Chapter 3, spiny lobster are predominately harvested via diving methods (e.g., using snares) in Puerto Rico and St. Croix and by trap gear in St. Thomas and St. John. Recreational data are not available for spiny lobster in any of the three islands/island groups, but anecdotal information suggests that the majority of recreational harvest of spiny lobster occurs via diving. Of these gear types/methods, traps are most likely to cause direct damage to the physical environment (i.e., benthic habitat) from setting and retrieval of traps, and dragging, which could cause damage to corals and habitat. Through this action, the Council could reduce the ACLs for spiny lobster from those specified in the island-based FMPs. The analysis below assumes for the alternatives that would reduce the ACLs, harvest would be constrained to those lower ACLs, which would in turn reduce the amount of trips taken or gear retrieved and deployed when fishing for spiny lobster and effects to the physical environment. That reduction in harvest relative to the current level would correlate to fewer interactions between fishing gear and anchors with the bottom, which would benefit the Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 69
physical environment. However, as noted above, for the Puerto Rico and St. Croix fisheries, which predominantly use diving methods to harvest spiny lobster, the reduction in allowable harvest would not likely result in fewer gear-bottom interactions. Alternative 1 (No Action) would retain the OFL proxy, ABC, and ACL for spiny lobster specified under the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP. No effects on the physical environment would be expected as the catch levels would not change (no changes in fishing effort from the baseline), thus current interactions with the substrate from gear and anchors would not change. Under Alternative 2, the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs specified for spiny lobster for each island/island group would be less than those specified under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would be expected to decrease any potential negative effects to the physical environment by decreasing the harvest levels allowed for spiny lobster (assuming harvest is constrained to these lower allowable levels). The reference point values set under Alternative 2 would decrease each year from 2021 to 2023, translating into potentially less harvest through time, thus providing greater benefits to the physical environment through time from fewer interactions between fishing gear or anchors and the bottom. Additionally, the management uncertainty buffer used to set the ACL from the ABC would increase from Sub-alternative 2a (no buffer) to Sub-alternative 2c (10% buffer). Thus, more benefits to the physical environment would be expected under Subalternative 2c, as it sets the lowest harvest level of the three sub-alternatives. Similar to Alternative 2, Preferred Alternative 3 could decrease negative effects to the physical environment through lower harvest levels (assuming harvest is limited to these allowable levels). Under Preferred Alternative 3, the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs specified for spiny lobster for each island/island group would also be less than those specified under Alternative 1, but unlike Alternative 2, the values set under Preferred Alternative 3 would be set at constant levels from 2021 to 2023. However, the total amount of harvest allowed under Preferred Alternative 3 would be equal to the total amount of harvest allowed under Alternative 2, and so total effects to the physical environment under the two alternatives would be expected to be the same. The sub-alternatives under Preferred Alternative 3 would set the ACL from the ABC using the same management uncertainty reduction buffers specified in the Alternative 2 sub-alternatives and physical effects would vary when compared to Alternative 1. The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) chose Sub-alternative 3b (5% buffer from ABC to ACL) as their preferred. Both Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 would be expected to provide greater benefits to the physical environment than Alternative 1 through fewer impacts to the bottom from fishing gear and anchors. However, in a multi-species fishery, where fish and spiny lobster are often caught together in trap gear (e.g., in the St. Thomas and St. John fishery and a small percentage of the Puerto Rico Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 70
fishery), reducing harvest of one stock but allowing harvest of others may not reduce overall trips taken or gear hauled and generate associated positive effects to the physical environment. The above discussion would represent the greatest potential benefits to the physical environment. This benefit could be reduced depending on the extent to which fishermen fish for other species with the same or more damaging gear to offset the lower ACL, which in turn depends on market conditions and other factors affecting the ability to alter fishing practices. Those factors are difficult to predict. However, even under the discussion of Alternative 2 or Preferred Alternative 3 above, which assumes lower harvest levels reduce effort, benefits to the physical environment would be minimal in St. Croix and Puerto Rico due to the primary methods used to harvest spiny lobster (i.e., diving) and higher in St. Thomas and St. John due to the potential reduction in the use of trap gear.
4.1.2
Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment
Management actions that affect the biological and ecological environment mostly relate to the impacts of fishing on a species’ population size, life history, and the role of the species within its habitat. Removal of the species from the population through fishing reduces the overall population size. Fishing gear have different selectivity patterns that refer to a fishing method’s ability to target and capture organisms by size and species. This would include the number of discards, mostly sublegal sized individuals or species caught during seasonal closures, and the mortality associated with releasing these species. As described in Chapter 3, spiny lobster are targeted by commercial and recreational fishermen in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The majority of harvest occurs through diving gear, with trap gear predominantly used by commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico and St. Thomas and St. John. Diving is considered a highly selective fishing method and all legal-sized spiny lobster caught by divers are assumed to be retained (SEDAR 57 2019). Similarly, the only spiny lobsters discarded from traps would include sublegal individuals and berried females. Although these retention levels of spiny lobster from the fisheries are high, the SEDAR 57 stock assessments for Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John determined each spiny lobster stock was not undergoing overfishing and not overfished. Alternative 1 (No Action) would maintain the OFL proxy (sustainable yield level), ABC, and ACL for spiny lobster set under the island-based FMPs. Those OFL proxies and ABCs were set using definitions under Tier 4 of the ABC Control Rule included in each of the island-based FMPs, for which the spiny lobster stocks were considered to be data limited with no acceptable assessment available. Following the accepted stock assessments for spiny lobster, the management reference points under Alternative 1 do not reflect the best scientific information available and if future harvest of spiny lobster is landed at or near at the allowable harvest levels under Alternative 1, then overfishing as defined under SEDAR 57 could be occurring. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 71
Contrary to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 (described below) would set OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs following the accepted SEDAR 57 spiny lobster stock assessments using Tier 3 definitions for OFL and ABC, which are considered to be data limited but with an accepted assessment available. Applying the best scientific information available would ensure that federally managed stocks are harvested sustainably while protecting reproductive capacity and maintaining effective ecological contributions. The OFLs and ABCs under Alternative 2 would be substantially less that the OFL proxies and ABCs under Alternative 1, providing increased benefits to the biological/ecological environment for the spiny lobster stocks through the increased conservation of the stocks when compared to the status quo. As mentioned in Chapter 2, although the OFLs specified under Alternative 2 for each island/island group would be set at a level above the SEDAR 57 maximum sustainable yield (MSY) proxy, the OFL projections corresponded to a surplus in the spiny lobster biomass that allow for a higher level of catch that decreases each year towards the respective MSY proxy. The ACLs under Alternative 2 would also be less than the ACLs under Alternative 1, with the greatest decrease in allowable harvest occurring in Puerto Rico (a difference of 135,645 to 179,581 pounds [lb], depending on Sub-alternative and year). The decrease in the spiny lobster ACL in St. Thomas and St. John (37,040 to 89,757 lb) would be similar to the decrease in St. Croix (21,128 to 83,058 lb). For each island/island group, the greatest biological benefits (i.e., the greatest reduction in allowable harvest) would occur for the ACLs specified under Sub-alternative 2c, which sets the ACL at 90% of the ABC. The total harvest allowed under Preferred Alternative 3 would be equal to the total harvest allowed under Alternative 2, so total benefits to the biological/ecological environment would be expected to be the same under the two alternatives. However, the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs set under Preferred Alternative 3 would be constant for 2021-2023, and would not converge in time towards the respective MSY proxy set for spiny lobster under SEDAR 57. As mentioned above in the discussion of Alternative 2, the current spiny lobster spawning stock biomass is above the level that produces MSY and no negative effects to the stocks would be expected from the OFLs being above the MSY proxy. The ACLs under Preferred Alternative 3 would be less than the ACLs under Alternative 1, again with the greatest decrease in allowable harvest occurring under Sub-alternative 3c (i.e., ACL = ABC * 0.90). Preferred Sub-alternative 3b, which would set the ACL at 95% of the ABC for each island/island group, would result in a reduction of harvest for 2021-2023 of 157,919 lb for Puerto Rico, 66,574 lb for St. Thomas and St. John, and 56,861 lb for St. Croix from the ACLs under Alternative 1. Under Preferred Alternative 3 and Alternative 2 the ACLs for 2024 and later would be the same, in both instances reflecting the value specified under the variable catch approach for the year 2023. Benefits to the biological/ecological environment would be expected to be the same under the two alternatives. Preferred Sub-alternative 3b, which allows for a 5% buffer from the ABC to
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 72
ACL, would be expected to have a greater biological effect than Sub-alternative 3a (no buffer) but less than Sub-alternative 3c (10% buffer). The benefits discussed above for Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 would represent the greatest potential benefits to the biological/ecological environment, because it assumes the greatest potential reduction in harvest. Similar to the analysis of effects to the physical environment, this benefit could be reduced depending on the extent to which fishermen fish for other species, or shift effort to fish in state waters. Shifting effort from federal waters to state waters would likely negate much, if not most, of the benefits that might otherwise be forthcoming from revision of the ACLs under Alternative 2 or Preferred Alternative 3. The extent of that change in fishing behavior is difficult to predict. However, assuming that the lower harvest levels equate to fewer spiny lobster removals, it is anticipated that benefits to the biological/ecological environment would occur under Alternative 2 or Preferred Alternative 3 (e.g., reduction in fishing mortality) compared to Alternative 1, but would be minimal. The gear types used to harvest spiny lobster could affect species outside of the fisheries, such as Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species that occur in the action area (e.g., sea turtles and corals). The gear types used to harvest spiny lobster by the island-based fisheries are the same as those analyzed in the biological opinion for the island-based FMPs. With respect to those ESAlisted species (see Section 3.3.3), similar effects to those described in the biological opinion for each species could be expected depending on the extent to which the reduction in the harvest levels results in a reduction in the amount of gear deployed and interactions between that gear and the listed species. However, at this time it is uncertain how fishing under the ACLs proposed under Alternative 2 or Preferred Alternative 3 would impact ESA-listed species compared to the status quo (under Alternative 1). Overall, it is expected that the decreases in ACLs under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 from the ACLs set under the islandbased FMPs (i.e., the ACLs under Alternative 1) would reduce the potential interactions between fishing related activities (e.g., interactions with gear, vessels, anchors) and ESA-listed species.
4.1.3
Effects on the Economic Environment
Alternative 1 (No Action) would maintain the OFL proxy, ABC, and ACL for spiny lobster set under the island-based FMPs (Table 1.1). Thus, the ACL for the Puerto Rico spiny lobster fishery would be maintained at 527,232 lb, the ACL for the St. Thomas and St. John spiny lobster fishery would be maintained at 209,210 lb, and the ACL for the St. Croix spiny lobster fishery would be maintained at 197,528 lb. Given the status quo nature of Alternative 1, there would be no direct economic effects associated with the no action alternative. There could, however, be indirect effects associated with maintaining the status quo. Specifically, results from the SEDAR 57 island-based stock Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 73
assessments concluded that the ACLs specified in the island-based FMPs may provide insufficient protection of the island-based spiny lobster stocks at levels of effort in excess of those needed to harvest OFL on an annual basis. Thus, maintaining the status quo could, at some point in time, result in overfishing and/or overfished stocks. This, in turn, would translate to a long-run loss in revenue, income, and, potentially, fishing-related jobs. Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 would set OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs based on the accepted SEDAR 57 stock assessments using Tier 3 definitions for OFL and ABC. The OFLs and ABCs under both Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 are substantially lower than those under Alternative 1 (status quo) with Preferred Sub-alternative 3b (OY =ACL = ABC x .95) being lower than the status quo (Alternative 1) but larger than those under Sub-alternative 2c or Sub-alternative 3c . Maximum reductions in annual harvests, expressed in pounds (whole weight) can be calculated by subtracting the variable-catch or constant-catch ACLs recommended by the Scientific and Statistical Committee as reduced by the Council’s management uncertainty buffer (given in Table 2.4) from the ACLs given in the respective FMPs. The maximum reduction in pounds can then be converted to maximum losses in revenues by multiplying by the respective island prices. 29 Maximum first year and cumulative five-year reduction in revenues under each of the Subalternatives of Alternative 2 for each of the island platforms are presented in Table 4.1. For all islands/island groups, the maximum reduction in revenues, based on 2019 prices given in Section 3.4.2.2, increases as one moves from Alternative 2 Sub-alternative 2a to Alternative 2 Subalternative 2c. These increasing maximum losses in revenues as one moves from Alternative 2 Sub-alternative 2a to Alternative 2 Sub-alternative 2c reflect the reductions in the spiny lobster ACL for each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix as the management uncertainty buffers are increased. Note that in the first year of analysis (i.e., maximum first-year losses), revenue losses associated with the variable-catch ACL exceed the corresponding losses associated with the constant-catch ACLs for any given management uncertainty buffer. 30 Looking at longer-term losses, however, paints a different picture. For any given management uncertainty buffer, specifically, maximum revenue losses associated with either the variable-catch ACLs or the constant-catch ACLs would be equal. For Puerto Rico, for example, the maximum first year loss in revenues associated with the variable-catch ACL with a moderate amount of management uncertainty buffer (e.g., Subalternative 2b) was found to equal about $1.060 million, while the loss for same constant-catch ACL scenario (Preferred Sub-alternative 3b) was found to be $1.079 million. Yet the Consideration was not given to how prices may increase as restrictions (i.e., fishing season reductions) become more onerous. The limited price data that are available for the respective islands (Table 3.4.2, Puerto Rico; Table 3.4.6, St. Thomas and St. John; Table 3.4.7, St. Croix) give no indication of significant price changes associated with a change in landings. 30 It is important to keep in mind that these revenue losses are measured in relation to maintaining the status quo. 29
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 74
cumulative five-year losses were identical under the two scenarios ($5.425 million). This reflects the fact that larger losses (reduction in harvests) are incurred in the upfront years under the variable-catch ACL scenarios vis-à-vis constant-catch ACL scenarios but the converse is true in the later years (i.e., larger losses would be incurred under the constant-catch ACL scenarios vis-à-vis the variable-catch ACL scenarios). With respect to the constant-catch scenarios, furthermore, lost revenues associated with any given scenario would remain constant for three years before increasing in year four. Table 4.1. Maximum revenue losses associated with revising island/island group spiny lobster ACLs. Island/Island Group Puerto Rico St. Thomas/St. John St. Croix Puerto Rico St. Thomas/ St. John St. Croix
Preferred Sub-alt. 3b
Sub-alt 3c
1,079
1,211
599.2
666.7
190.2 269.5 348.9 445.1 Maximum Cumulative Five-Year Losses ($1,000s) 0 4,763 5,425 6,087 4,763
511.7
578.4
5,425
6,087
0
2,971
3,294
3,616
2,971
3,294
3,616
0
2,601
2,916
3,230
2,601
2,916
3,230
Alt 1
Sub-alt. 2a
Sub-alt. 2b
Sub alt. 2c
Sub-alt. 3a
0
Maximum First-Year Losses ($1,000s) 926 1,060 1,195 946
0
333.4
410.8
488.3
531.6
0
It is important to recognize that revenue losses reported in Table 4.1 for the alternative variablecatch ACL and constant-catch ACL scenarios should be considered ‘upper-bound’ estimates with actual losses being less - and potentially significantly less. There are several reasons for making this, one of them being enforcement. If enforcement is inadequate, a certain (potentially large) amount of spiny lobster harvest from federal waters may continue even after the triggering and application of AMs (which would be fishing season reductions in federal waters). 31 A second reason for asserting that the actual revenue losses under the various alternatives may be significantly less than those provided in Table 4.1 reflects the actions taken by fishermen in response to the triggering and application of AMs (in this case fishing season reductions in federal waters). Take, for example, Puerto Rico. As documented in Section 3.1.1, only a small share of the Puerto Rico annual harvest of spiny lobster is taken from federal waters; about 7% to 8% since 2016. This equates to about 35,000 lb per year based on total annual landings averaging 435,000 lb. Per trip spiny lobster revenues derived from fishing in federal waters Enforcement of the prohibition of fishing specific to only one species (i.e., spiny lobster in this case) via fishing season reductions would almost certainly be exceedingly difficult since the fisherman would need to be observed in the act of taking spiny lobster from federal waters, or law enforcement would otherwise need to be able to prove the harvest occurred in or from federal waters.
31
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 75
since 2016 averaged about $185 (Table 4.3.5). The information in conjunction with price information (Table 3.4.1) allows one to estimate the average lobster harvest per trip in federal waters during the 2016-2019 period (27 lb) indicating that spiny lobster was taken on about 1,300 trips annually in federal waters during 2016-2019. 32 What would be the outcome if triggering and the application of AMs result in the closure of federal waters to the harvest of spiny lobster? If the AMs require a year-round closure of federal waters to spiny lobster harvesting, what would happen to these 1,300 trips? First, they could continue to fish in federal waters as before with the exception that they would not be allowed to take spiny lobster. Thus, these 1,300 trips would continue to be taken in federal waters but spiny lobster cannot be retained. 33 As indicated in Table 3.4.5, however, spiny lobster constitutes the majority of revenues derived from federal waters and precluding spiny lobster from the catch would likely make an otherwise profitable trip unprofitable unless they can compensate for the loss in spiny lobster revenues with an increased harvest of other species. Second, and more likely, fishermen could respond to the triggering and application of AMs (closure of federal waters to spiny lobster fishing) by increasing the number of trips taken in state waters. As suggested by the information in Table 3.4.5, there has been little difference between average trip revenues in federal versus state waters since 2016 (total average per trip revenues equaling about $283 in federal waters versus $266 in state waters). Increasing trips in state waters would result in an increased harvest of spiny lobsters from state waters (as indicated in Table 3.4.5, since 2016 average per trip revenues from the harvest of spiny lobster in federal waters have exceeded comparable figures from state waters by only about 10%; $185 versus $167). This shift in effort (i.e., trips) from federal to state waters provides a second explanation as to why the estimates of lost revenues presented in Table 4.1 should be considered maximums. Furthermore, the shifting of effort from federal waters to state waters would likely negate much, if not most, of the benefits (i.e., protection of the spiny lobster resource from overfishing conditions and subsequent consequences) that might otherwise be forthcoming from implementation of Preferred Alternative 3 or, for that matter, Alternative 2. 34 A third reason why the numbers presented in Table 4.1 should be considered as ‘upper bound’ estimates is that they do not consider the fact that AMs would relate only to the harvest of spiny lobster in federal waters. Estimated spiny lobster landings from federal waters off Puerto Rico since 2016, as noted, have averaged only about 35,000 lb per year, which is considerably less than any decreases in allowable harvest under Alternative 2 (135,645 lb to 179,581 lb depending
As noted, the great majority of spiny lobster fishing activities in the federal waters off Puerto Rico entail diving activities. Based on cost estimates provided by Agar and Shivlani (2016), a quasi producer surplus estimate of approximately $100 per trip can be derived. This would suggest total quasi producer surplus from trips in federal waters (where lobster is included in the catch) of $130,000. 33 Since most of the trips are diving related, it may be preferable to state that lobster cannot be targeted while diving. 34 This assertion, as will be considered shortly, pertains primarily to Puerto Rico. 32
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 76
on the sub-alternative and year) as well as Preferred Alternative 3 (138,482 lb to 179,581 lb depending upon the sub-alternative and the year). While the discussion to point has primarily centered on Puerto Rico’s commercial spiny lobster fishery, the same general observations would likely hold to a lesser extent for St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John. With respect to St. Croix, more than one-half of annual spiny lobster harvests have historically occurred in state waters. Spiny lobster revenues from federal waters, expressed on a per trip basis, have tended to exceed the comparable figure from state waters by a significant amount, which is also the situation with respect to average total revenues per trip (Table 3.4.12). However, triggering and the application of AMs that result in the closure of federal waters to the harvest of spiny lobster in St. Croix would certainly result in some increased effort in state waters the extent of which, however, is unknown. Since diving is the primary method for taking spiny lobster in St. Croix, there may be some ability of fishers fishing in federal waters to recoup some of the revenue losses (from regulations restricting the harvest of spiny lobster in federal waters) by targeting other species. 35 This would likely mitigate some of the effort (i.e., trip) movement from federal to state waters. Revenue losses would, ultimately, be correlated with the length of the closure. An overwhelming proportion of spiny lobster harvests in St. Thomas and St. John are taken by trap (Table 3.1.4). This being a relatively non-selective gear, there is probably only limited ability among fishermen harvesting spiny lobsters in federal waters to recoup some of the revenue losses that would be forthcoming from a triggering of an AM (fishing season reductions for spiny lobster in federal waters). 36 As indicated in Table 3.4.12, average per trip revenues from spiny lobster and co-occurring species in St. Thomas and St. John are relatively large with revenues from federal waters exceeding those from state waters by a relatively large margin (generally in the $600 to $800 range). However, if one subtracts spiny lobster revenues generated from federal waters from total revenues generated from federal waters, one finds that the remaining revenues are generally substantially less than total revenues generated from fishing in state waters. This would suggest that trip migration from federal waters to state waters may be relatively large (with the extent of
Movement of effort from federal waters to state waters would likely be less in St. Croix than in Puerto Rico because the difference between per trip average revenues between federal and state waters in St. Croix is significantly larger than that for Puerto Rico. 36 It is assumed that fishermen would not make any significant changes in the gear employed in response to a seasonal closure in federal waters. Given that traps have historically accounted for more than 90% of spiny lobster landings in St. Thomas and St. John (see Table 3.1.5), one can surmise that the trap is by far the most efficient gear for harvesting spiny lobster on these islands. As such, it would appear to be unlikely that any significant proportion of fishermen would change gear in response to a seasonal closure. 35
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 77
it being dependent on the length of the fishing season reduction). The migration of effort to state waters could lead to higher harvests of lobsters in state waters. 37 Overall, the review of the alternatives in Action 1 yields somewhat mixed results. Both Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 are believed to yield some protection (i.e., prevention from overfishing) of the spiny lobster stocks in St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John with a lower level of protection in Puerto Rico. The amount of protection and related benefits would largely depend on the susceptibility of spiny lobster to overfishing and the amount of migration of effort into state waters as a result of triggering an AM. While there are likely benefits associated with the revised ACLs resulting from the SEDAR 57 island-based stock assessments, which suggest that the ACLs specified in the island-based FMPs may provide insufficient protection of the island-based stocks (e.g., the ACLs specified in the island-based FMPs are greater than the majority of the OFLs derived from the stock assessments), it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty that the benefits of the added stock protection for each of the island-based stocks offset adverse economic effects. Thus, it cannot be stated with any certainty that Alternative 2 or Preferred Alternative 3 outperforms the status quo (Alternative 1) from an efficiency (i.e., benefit/cost) perspective. Given this to be the case, one cannot state that the Preferred Sub-alternative 3b maximizes benefits vis-à-vis other nonstatus quo alternatives considered in the amendment. It can be stated with certainty that the long-run adverse effects associated with Sub-alternative 2a and Sub-alternative 3a would have the least (and identical) adverse economic effects, outside the Status Quo (Alternative 1), while Sub-alternative 2c and Sub-alternative 3c would have the largest (and identical) long-run adverse effects. The long-run adverse effects associated with Preferred Sub-alternative 3b would fall in between Sub-alternative 2a (Sub-alternative 3a) and Sub-alternative 2c (Subalternative 3c). However, the alternatives associated with the lowest long-run adverse impacts may inadequately account for management uncertainty so the lower long-run adverse effects may come at the cost of reduced benefits (i.e., associated with adequate protection of the island-based stocks).
4.1.4
Effects on the Social Environment
Setting management reference points such as OFL, ABC, ACL and OY can impose social effects. Those impacts may be recognized after the catch limits are implemented and subsequent actions, such as AMs, follow to ensure compliance with those limits. The social effects of While it is believed that the migration from federal to state waters would be relatively high in response to a seasonal closure in federal waters, it may be less than 100%; particularly if the seasonal closure is relatively limited in time duration. As such, NMFS could try to fashion the federal closure period to account for a migration assuming NMFS was able to predict this migration. This, however, creates an additional management issue. Specifically, accounting for the migration from federal to state waters would necessitate a time-extension of the seasonal closure in federal waters. This time extension, in turn, would lead to a higher proportion of effort moving from federal to state waters (with the fishermen always having the final move).
37
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 78
retaining reference points for lobster under Alternative 1 may be negative because those reference points may not reflect the most recent information on stock status that was generated from SEDAR 57 stock assessments. Although Alternative 1 would have few short term negative social impacts, there may be longer term impacts that need consideration. Current reference points may have longer term negative effects on the stock, which would in turn have negative impacts upon the fishery and fishermen as the possibility of overfishing as determined under the SEDAR 57 assessments may increase. Alternative 2 would use a variable-catch approach that decreases harvest over time that would be expected to have benefits for the stock but may increase the negative social impacts in the short term from decreased income opportunities. Under Preferred Alternative 3, the ACLs for spiny lobster would decrease in 2021 from the levels as specified in the island-based FMPs, decline again in 2024 and then remain constant. Again, there may be negative social impacts from the decreasing catch levels, but the magnitude of those negative impacts would depend on the degree to which fishermen were able to modify their fishing activities (e.g., shift fishing activities from federal to state waters). Under Action 1, Alternative 1 would have the least adverse social effects. The sub-alternatives for Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 would have slightly more negative social effects with Sub-alternatives 2a and 3a, Sub-alternative 2b and Preferred Sub-alternative 3b having more negative social effects respectively. Sub-alternatives 2c and 3c, could have the largest adverse social effects. Those effects come primarily from decreasing catch levels, which, if there are few or no substitutes for lobster, or if effort does not shift to state waters, could have negative economic impacts that would lead to negative social effects. Furthermore, Alternative 2 (i.e., ACLs change each year from 2021-2023) would be expected to have greater negative social effects than Preferred Alternative 3 (i.e., ACLs remain the same for 2021-2023) given the fishermen’s preference for ACLs that do not change. Of course, the social effects can also be affected by outside influences on the fishery, the fishermen and their communities. Recent events, e.g. natural disasters, economic turmoil, pandemic, etc., have had impacts that are difficult to measure. Recent assessments noted in Section 3.5 have been able to give some indication of the impacts, but in the short term, such social disruptions and their longer term impacts are not completely known. This is of special concern since many of the communities identified, especially in Puerto Rico demonstrate vulnerabilities as measured by social indicators. Negative economic impacts from decreasing catches may be mitigated by a number of strategies, such as substituting other species, but also seeking alternative sources of income. Some of those strategies would depend upon the state of the larger economy which may or may not have recovered from the outside influences mentioned above.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 79
4.1.5
Effects on the Administrative Environment
Modifying management reference points including the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs does not typically result in substantial effects on the administrative environment. Alternative 1 is not expected to impact the administrative environment because it would not change the current management reference points. Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 would result in a short-term increased burden on the administrative environment through the need to take administrative action to specify new management reference points, including catch limits, and the required rulemaking to implement this management change. Once these changes to catch levels are implemented, the type of regulations needed to manage the fisheries that target spiny lobster would remain unchanged, regardless of the harvest levels set. The lower catch levels under Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative 3 could result in more accountability measures triggered and applied, which would have more administrative burden (discussed under Action 2 below). Some administrative burden is anticipated with respect to outreach as it relates to notifying stakeholders of the changes to harvest levels.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 80
4.2 Action 2: Spiny Lobster Accountability Measure (AM) Trigger Summary of Management Alternatives Alternative 1. No Action. Use the AM trigger described in the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP for spiny lobster, as follows: an AM would be triggered if spiny lobster landings exceed the spiny lobster ACL, unless NMFS’ SEFSC determines the overage occurred because data collection/monitoring improved rather than because landings increased. Landings from the following years, in order, would be used to evaluate an exceedance of the spiny lobster ACL. (1) Landings from 2018 (2) Landings from 2019 (3) Two-year average of landings from 2019 and 2020 (4) Three-year average of landings from 2019, 2020, and 2021 (5) Thereafter, a progressive running three-year average (2020-2022, 2021-2023, etc.). The NMFS Southeast Regional Administrator in consultation with the Council may deviate from the specific time sequences based on data availability. Alternative 2 (Preferred for all three island-based FMPs). Use the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM. An AM is triggered if average landings exceeded average ACLs in place during those years. The years of landings used to trigger an AM can be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available. Alternative 3. Use the most recent single year of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM. An AM is triggered if landings exceeded the ACL in place during that year. The years of landings used to trigger an AM can be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available.
4.2.1
Effects on the Physical Environment
For Action 2, effects to the physical environment would depend on the degree to which the AMs limit the number of days available for fishing activities targeting spiny lobster during the fishing season (i.e., the length of the fishing season reduction). Analysis of effects for Action 2 contains multiple assumptions: (1) landings of spiny lobster each year are at or near the applicable ACL; thus, the variability in landings is minimal; (2) if an AM is triggered the AM (i.e., fishing season reduction) is applied; (3) when the AM is applied fishermen stop fishing for spiny lobster in federal waters and do not shift effort to state waters; (4) spiny lobster fishermen only fish for spiny lobster (i.e., they would not target another species with the same gear when spiny lobster season is closed); and (5) fishermen do not increase effort in federal waters during the open part of the season to offset the closure, and the AM limits harvest to the ACL. Based on those assumptions, when an AM is triggered and applied, the shortened fishing season would correlate to fewer interactions between fishing gear and anchors and the bottom, which in turn would benefit the physical environment. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 81
Alternative 1 (No Action) would not revise the sequence of years of landings specified in the island-based FMPs in order to evaluate whether an AM is triggered (and subsequently applied). No additional benefits or costs to the physical environment would be expected under this alternative from those described in the island-based FMPs. Alternative 1 would use a combination of a single year of landings and multi-year average of landings to evaluate if an AM for spiny lobster is triggered. In general, using a multi-year average of landings to trigger an AM would dampen variability in the landings. Where there is minimal variability in the landings around the ACL, using an average would reduce the probability that an AM would be triggered and applied. For example, if one year of annual landings was minimally above the ACL and the other two years of annual landings were minimally below the ACL, then the three-year average would likely be below the ACL and would not trigger an AM. If not using an average, an AM would be triggered and may be applied in the year with the overage. Alternative 1 would not have the benefit of using average landings until the third year of implementation, increasing the likelihood that AMs would be triggered in the first two years after implementation. Thus, in the first two years following implementation, Alternative 1 would provide greater benefits to the physical environment than the subsequent years through the increased probability that an AM is triggered and applied and the length of the fishing season for spiny lobster, and thus the fishing effort and gear use, is reduced. Preferred Alternative 2 would compare a three-year average of landings to the average ACL during that time period to determine if an AM is triggered for spiny lobster. As explained above, using a multi-year average would be expected to dampen variability in the landings and trigger an AM-based closure less frequently. Therefore, Preferred Alternative 2 would be expected to provide fewer benefits to the physical environment expected through fishing season closures and the associated reduction in gear-bottom interactions when compared to the first two years of Alternative 1, which compare a single year of landings to the ACL. However, by the fourth year of implementation, Alternative 1 would also use a three-year average of landings as the AM trigger, and the effects of Preferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 from that time and later would be the same. Alternative 3 would potentially trigger an AM more often than Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2, as it compares a single year of landings to the ACL and would not be able to account for variability in annual landings in any year. Thus, Alternative 3 would be expected to provide the greatest benefits to the physical environment, followed by Alternative 1 and then Preferred Alternative 2. However, it is recognized that while landings of spiny lobster are generally harvested at a consistent level through time, the amount of landings could increase based on biological and economic factors (e.g., increased recruitment or market demand). If future landings of spiny lobster occur above the specified ACL on a consistent basis, or at a exponentially high level in a Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 82
single year, then the benefits of using a multi-year average to dampen variability in the landings would be reduced because that average could be above the ACL for multiple years. In those instances of high landings, using a single year of landings would also result in an AM triggered and applied in that single year, though AMs would not be triggered in later years when landings are reduced. In a three-year average scenario, however, averaging a single, very high year of landings could result in multi-years of average landings in excess of the ACL. If landings were well below the specified ACLs, then an AM would not be triggered and applied under the three alternatives. These scenarios would provide the upper and lower thresholds for benefits to the physical environment. Since future landings are difficult to predict, effects from this action to the physical environment are expected somewhere between the upper and lower bounds. In the event that AMs are frequently triggered and applied, and gear use and effort are reduced, benefits to the physical environment would be minimal in St. Croix and Puerto Rico due to the primary methods used to harvest spiny lobster (i.e., diving), and higher in St. Thomas and St. John due to the potential reduction in the use of trap gear.
4.2.2
Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment
The triggering and application of AMs (i.e., fishing season reductions) would be expected to result in positive biological/ecological effects through a reduction in fishing effort on the stock. Reduced fishing effort could result in a more natural size distribution of individuals and an increase in the abundance of individuals in the population, thus increasing the reproductive potential of the stock. Although negative effects could occur through the potential increase in regulatory discards caught during a closure, the discard mortality of spiny in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries was deemed negligible (SEDAR 57 2019). Under Alternative 1, which uses a prescribed sequence of years of landings to evaluate if an AM is triggered, AMs are more likely to be triggered in the first two years after implementation, as they compare a single year of landings to the ACL instead of using a multi-year average of landings. After the initial two years, a multi-year average of landings would be compared to the ACL, and AMs would be less likely to be triggered. Thus, in the first two years after implementation, if an AM is triggered and applied, resulting in a shortened fishing season, Alternative 1 would provide some benefits to the biological/ecological environment by reducing fishing effort for the species. These benefits may decline over time if the multi-year averages of landings used reduce the likelihood that an AM is triggered and applied. Preferred Alternative 2 would be expected to trigger an AM less frequently than Alternative 1, since it compares a three-year average of landings to the ACL, which would dampen the variability that may occur in the annual landings. This alternative would be expected to provide the least amount of benefits to the biological/ecological environment through the triggering and application of AMs. However, effects under Preferred Alternative 2 would be the same as Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 83
under Alternative 1 in the fourth year of implementation, as they would use the same three-year average of landings to evaluate whether an AM is be triggered. Alternative 3 compares a single year of landings to the ACL each year and would be expected to trigger and apply an AM more frequently when compared to Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2, which use a multi-year average of landings. Therefore, Alternative 3 would be expected to provide the greatest benefits to the biological/ecological environment through more frequent application of AMs and reductions in fishing effort on the spiny lobster stocks. The benefits to the biological/ecological environment discussed above were based on the likelihood of the AM being triggered and applied using alternative configurations of years of spiny lobster landings, with the main assumptions that landings occur at or near the specified ACL each year (i.e., they are not highly variable). If future landings are much lower than the ACLs, then an AM would not be triggered and applied under any of the alternatives, but maintaining harvest at or under the established harvest levels would be beneficial to the species. If future landings increase substantially above the specified ACLs, an AM would likely be triggered and applied under all alternatives, and benefits to the stock from the fishing season reduction would help offset the costs of harvesting above the ACL. It should also be noted that the extent of the biological benefits from an AM-based closure would depend on the degree that fishermen shift harvest of spiny lobster to state waters, or for those fishermen that use trap gear, they continue using traps to harvest other species (e.g., reef fish), during a spiny lobster fishing season reduction. If this shift happens, and harvest of lobster continues regardless of AMs triggered and applied, then there would be no benefits to the biological/ecological environment under any of the alternatives. However, that extreme scenario is not anticipated to occur, and it is expected that any AMs triggered and applied would equate to reduced effort and protections to the stock. When an AM is triggered and applied, the reduction in the length of the fishing season would potentially result in a decrease of interactions between the ESA-listed species in the action area (e.g., sea turtles, finfish, and corals) and the gear types and fishing methods used to harvest spiny lobster (e.g., trap gear, diving, and vessel anchors). The magnitude of those benefits would depend on the length of the season reduction, which are dependent on future landings and difficult to predict. As described above, more frequent AMs would be expected under alternatives that compare a single year of landings to the ACL (Alternative 3 and years 1 and 2 following implementation of Alternative 1) compared to alternatives that use a multi-year average of landings (Preferred Alternative 2 and years 3 and later following implementation of Alternative 1). Therefore, Alternative 3 would likely provide greater benefits to the ESA-listed species in the action area when compared to Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 84
4.2.3
Effects on the Economic Environment
The AMs outlined in Action 2 are meant to provide some measure of protection to the respective spiny lobster stocks in the unforeseen situation that harvests exceed ACLs. This protection comes about via subsequent application of AMs (which would be fishing season reductions in federal waters). Two types of costs are associated with the triggering and application of AMs. First, there are costs to the fishermen through increased uncertainty regarding future fishing practices and thus the inability to adequately plan. Business practices are most efficient when uncertainties are held to a minimum. Increasing the applications of AMs leads to greater planning uncertainty by the commercial fishing sector and may also result in greater costs associated with, say, movement of traps from federal waters to state waters. Frequent applications of AMs also impose greater costs to the federal government than when applications of AMs are less frequent. Under Action 2, Preferred Alternative 2 would use the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM where an AM is triggered if average landings exceeded average ACLs in place during those years. Only the most recent single year of spiny lobster landings would be used to trigger an AM under Alternative 3 in which case an AM is triggered if landings exceeded the ACL in place during that year. Under Alternative 1 (the status quo alternative) a multi-year sequence (one year, one year, two years, and finally a three-year average) would continue to be used to estimate landings in relation to the ACL. The most frequent triggers and application of AMs are expected to occur under Alternative 3. Frequent triggers and application of AMs may simply represent large external recruitment to the local fisheries or, in the case of Puerto Rico, use of an expansion factor that may inaccurately expand the sample of trips and landings to the population of trips and landings. Thus, Alternative 3 would generate the greatest adverse economic effects with benefits not significantly greater than those which would be provided under Alternative 1 or Preferred Alternative 2. The benefit, of course, would be protection of the stock but this must be weighed against the probability that a single year of an abnormally high harvest (i.e., a harvest exceeding the ACL) could be the result of a (previous) favorable external recruitment versus excess fishing on the local stock which, in turn, could lead to future local recruitment problems. Alternative 1 is a hybrid of Preferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Given that it uses only a single year for triggering the application of AMs during the first two years of the program, it initially suffers from the same shortcoming as that discussed with respect to Alternative 3. This shortcoming though is temporary in that the effects of Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 would be the same once they use the same three-year moving average.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 85
4.2.4
Effects on the Social Environment
Accountability measures provide some fail safe for management in case unforeseen overages occur in harvesting a resource. The AM revisions proposed in Action 2 are an attempt to capture some variability that occurs with the landings over time while also providing for the delayed landings data that occur for the Caribbean by proposing multi-year averages. With Alternative 1, there would initially be the possibility that AMs would be triggered more frequently with single years being used until a time series is established. This may produce short term negative social impacts if they are indeed triggered and applied annually, but at the same time would have longer term benefits by protecting the resource. Again, the severity of the social impacts would depend upon whether fishermen can find suitable substitutes for spiny lobster in terms of markets and their annual fishing round. In contrast, Preferred Alternative 2 uses a three-year average from the beginning, so is an attempt to take into consider variability of landings over time. The proposed AM in Alternative 3 uses a single year as the measure to trigger an AM, but does not take into consideration of the variability of landings over time or how the fishery may be impacted by outside influences that were mentioned in Action 1. Which of these alternatives would have the least negative social effects is difficult to determine. The alternative that best reflects fishing trends and prevents overages from occurring is the more desirable. Those that incorporate running averages, and allow flexibility based on data availability, like the Preferred Alternative 2, may be more in tune with fishing practices at the time considered and what may occur in the future, and thereby be the more desirable in terms of reducing negative social impacts.
4.2.5
Effects on the Administrative Environment
Alternative 1 (No Action) would not require additional rulemaking and would therefore have no additional effects on the administrative environment. Preferred Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would both have minor, short-term administrative effects as they would require rulemaking to modify the AM trigger for spiny lobster under the three island-based FMPs. Under all alternatives, if an AM was triggered and applied, a temporary rule to implement an AM-based closure would be published by the agency as necessary. However, under Preferred Alternative 2, AMs may not be triggered and applied as often as under Alternative 1 or Alternative 3, thus reducing the administrative burden from the temporary rule process.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 86
4.3 Cumulative Effects Analysis While this environmental assessment (EA) is being prepared using the 2020 Council on Environmental Quality National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, the cumulative effects discussed in this section meet the two-part standard for “reasonable foreseeability” and “reasonably close causal connection” required by the new definition of effects or impacts. Below is the five-step cumulative effects analysis that identifies criteria that must be considered in an EA. 1. The area in which the effects of the proposed action will occur – The affected area of this proposed action encompasses the state and federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean and includes the communities of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix that fish for spiny lobster. For more information about the area in which the effects of this proposed action will occur, please see Chapter 3, Affected Environment, which describes these resources as well as other relevant features of the human environment. 2. The impacts that are expected in that area from the proposed action – The proposed action would (1) update management reference points for the spiny lobster stock in each island-based FMP including the MSY or MSY proxy, maximum fishing mortality threshold, and minimum stock size threshold following the accepted stock assessments (SEDAR 57 2019); (2) set OFLs, and ABCs for spiny lobster using definitions specified in the ABC Control Rule included in each island-based FMP and set ACLs from those ABCs, reducing those values from the OFL proxies, ABCs, and ACLs specified in the island-based FMPs; and (3) revise the spiny lobster AM so that the AM would be triggered if the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings exceeds the average ACLs in place during those years. The environmental consequences of the proposed action are analyzed in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2. Spiny lobster are primarily harvested via diving methods in Puerto Rico and St. Croix, which has minimal impacts to the benthic environment, and via trap gear in St. Thomas and St. John. Generally the decrease in the OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs (Action 1) from the status quo should provide benefits to the physical environment through fewer gear-bottom interactions, assuming harvest is constrained to these lower levels. Due to the methods primarily used to harvest spiny lobster, those benefits would be expected to be minimal in Puerto Rico and St. Croix (i.e., spiny lobster primarily harvested via diving methods) and higher in St. Thomas and St. John (i.e., spiny lobster primarily harvested via trap gear) (Section 4.1.1). Fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John use trap gear to target multiple species , so changing fishing limits for one stock would not automatically change overall fishing effort. Setting OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs based on best scientific information available (i.e., SEDAR 57 and Tier 3 of the ABC Control) would be expected to provide increased benefits to the biological/ecological environment for spiny lobster through the increased conservation of the stocks (Section 4.1.2). Negative economic and social Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 87
effects short-term could occur from the decreasing catch levels (Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4), but those effects would be mitigated by the fishermen’s ability to shift fishing activities to other species (a higher probability in multi-species fisheries) or to state waters. In addition, long-term economic and social benefits could be expected, because managing based on best scientific information available better protects against the risk of overfishing and is more likely to provide for long-term use of the resource. Modifying management reference points is not expected to substantially affect the administrative environment, either adversely or beneficially (Section 4.1.5) because once the changes are implemented, the type of regulations needed to manage the fisheries that target spiny lobster would remain unchanged. Revising the AM trigger for spiny lobster to compare a three-year average of landings to the average ACLs during those years (Action 2) would increase the likelihood that an AM is not triggered and applied. Fewer AMs triggered and applied could result in more effects to the physical environment if more interactions between fishing gear and the bottom occur. However, due to the fishing methods primarily used to harvest spiny lobster in Puerto Rico and St. Croix (i.e., diving) few interactions would be expected to occur (Section 4.2.1). In St. Thomas and St. John, where the majority of spiny lobster are harvested using trap gear, fewer AMs could correspond to more effects to the physical environment. Similarly, fewer AMs triggered and applied would be expected to provide fewer benefits to the biological/ecological environment (Section 4.2.2). Revising the AM trigger, resulting in fewer AMs triggered and applied, would reduce negative economic and social impacts associated with AM-based closures in the shortterm (Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4). Long-term effects would depend on the extent to which AMs are necessary to protect and ensure the long-term access to the resource. Revising the AM trigger would have minor, short-term effects to the administrative environment through the rulemaking required to modify the AMs for spiny lobster, but would potentially have beneficial longer-term effects through fewer temporary rules required to announce AM-based closures (Section 4.2.5). 3. Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have or are expected to have impacts in the area – Listed are actions under development in the U.S. Caribbean that would be expected to have impacts associated with them. Other fishery related actions – The island-based FMPs were approved by the Secretary of Commerce on September 22, 2020, and reorganized management measures from the U.S. Caribbean-wide level to each island management area. The cumulative effects associated with the island-based FMPs were analyzed in the EAs for the Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), St. Thomas and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c). Those cumulative effects analyses (CEA) are incorporated here by reference. The majority of the management measures included in the U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs remained substantively unchanged under each island-based FMP, as the island-based FMPs incorporated most of those Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 88
management measures that applied within each island area. The EAs in the island-based FMPs analyzed cumulative effects of the actions included in the FMPs that modified management measures including: listing the species to be managed in federal waters; organizing how those species would be managed (as single stocks, in stock complexes, and with indicator stocks); revising or establishing (for species new to federal management) reference points (e.g., ACLs) and AMs; and updating framework procedures available for future management actions. The CEAs described how transitioning from U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs to island-based FMPs only rearranged past Council actions and would not affect past actions taken by federal or non-federal entities. Specific to spiny lobster, each island-based FMP retained management measures such as size limits and recreational bag limits and revised the management reference points, classifying spiny lobster as a Tier 4a stock (data limited with no accepted assessment, but the stock has relatively low vulnerability to fishing pressure) under the newly established ABC Control Rule. The CEA found that the overall impacts of the actions included in the islandbased FMPs would be minimal. Following the accepted SEDAR 57 stock assessments, spiny lobster would now be classified as a Tier 3 stock (data limited with an accepted assessment) under the ABC Control rule, and this action would revise the reference points specified for spiny lobster under the island-based FMPs. A goal of establishing the island-based FMPs was to ensure the continued health of fishery resources occurring in the exclusive economic zone surrounding each island/island group within the context of the unique biological, ecological, economic, and cultural characteristics of those resources and the communities dependent upon them. The island-based FMPs established a place-based framework designed to provide the foundation for conserving and managing the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries within an integrative, ecosystembased approach. The Council, in partnership with NMFS and other regional constituencies, is in the process of moving towards implementation of ecosystem-based fishery management (EBFM) in the U.S. Caribbean. EBFM enables a more holistic approach to decision-making by considering trade-offs among fisheries, aquaculture, protected species, biodiversity, habitats, and the human community, within the context of climate, habitat, ecological, and other environmental change. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Council would likely request the SEFSC provide an interim assessment for spiny lobster by 2023 to update OFL projections and set catch levels for 2024 and later years. That interim assessment would update the model projections used in the SEDAR 57 stock assessments with more recent commercial landings and length-composition data, as available, for each island/island group. Following that interim assessment, subsequent amendment and rulemaking would likely occur to update, at minimum, spiny lobster OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs. It is also anticipated that the Council would request that a future stock assessment for spiny lobster in each island/island group through the SEDAR process be planned
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 89
for a future date (see http://sedarweb.org/ for the SEDAR Assessment Schedule for the Southeast Region). Non-fishery related actions – Actions affecting the U.S. Caribbean fisheries, including effects of global climate change, were included in the CEAs for the island-based FMPs. Other issues affecting human communities (e.g., high fuel costs, increased seafood imports, restricted access to fishing grounds, regional economies) were considered in the island-based FMPs. Emerging information sheds light on how global climate change would affect, and is already affecting, fishery resources and the habitats upon which they depend. Impacts commonly mentioned are sea level rise, increased frequency of severe weather events, and change in air and water temperatures. In the U.S. Caribbean region, major climate-induced concerns include: (1) threats to coral reef ecosystems - coral bleaching, disease, and ocean acidification; (2) threats to habitats from sea level rise – loss of essential fish habitat; (3) climate-induced changes to species phenology and distribution, (4) changes in resource composition in fishing areas, (5) rise in temperature including ocean temperatures and their relationship to more severe and frequent storms, (6) droughts, and (7) effects on environmental justice. Climate change may impact spiny lobster stocks in the future (see Section 3.3.1.3), but the level of impacts cannot be quantified at this time, nor is the time frame known in which these impacts would occur. The proposed action is not expected to significantly contribute to climate change through the increase or decrease in the carbon footprint from fishing, as this action would not be expected to change how the fishery is prosecuted. In 2017, Hurricanes Maria and Irma severely affected all islands in the U.S. Caribbean region. Stresses to the social structures and economies of the islands caused by the hurricanes are discussed in detail in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. Socially and economically, impacts to gear and infrastructure were substantial, which prevented fishing in the short-term and caused some fishermen to modify their fishing methods, gear, or target species to adapt to new environmental conditions. Additional constraints occurred from loss of market demand due to increased emigration and reduced tourism. Tropical weather events would continue to be a certainty for the region, and experts predict that climate change would increase the frequency and severity of the tropical events. U.S. Caribbean fisheries experienced broad declines in both effort and harvest in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 public health crisis. Global protective measures (e.g., restaurant closures, social distancing protocols) instituted in March 2020 contributed to an almost-immediate impact on commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishermen. On March 15, 2020, the Governor or Puerto Rico instituted a 2-week closure (curfew) for the majority of businesses on the island of Puerto Rico. Although commercial fishermen were exempt from the curfew, 96% of those surveyed reported that COVID-19 related factors had affected their fishing operations and Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 90
resulted in decreased revenues (NMFS 2021a). In early 2020, many fishermen in USVI were still struggling to recover from the 2017 hurricanes, with charter fishermen just starting to recover from the decline in tourism related to hotel closures and infrastructure damage related to the storms. In mid-March 2020, the Governor of the USVI announced the closure of USVI to all tourists, which lasted until mid-July. After a brief reopening to tourism, the USVI was closed again once the COVID-19 threshold was exceeded. Of those surveyed, 87% of commercial fishermen in the USVI reported revenue losses (NMFS 2021a). COVID-19 significantly altered the environment related to the management of the nation’s fisheries and effects of the pandemic would be expected to continue in the U.S. Caribbean region, at least in the short-term. 4. The impacts or expected impacts from these other actions - The cumulative effects from managing fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean, including spiny lobster, have been analyzed in other actions as listed in part three of this section. They include detailed analysis of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries, effects on non-targeted and protected species, and habitats in the U.S. Caribbean. The effects of this action would be expected to be positive in the long term, as they ultimately act to maintain the spiny lobster stocks at a level that would allow the maximum benefits in yield and increased fishing opportunities to be achieved. Some short-term negative impacts on the social and economic environments could occur due to the lower ACLs when compared to the status quo and if AM-based closures related to those revised ACLs occur in the future. However, these effects would be reduced, compared to taking no action, as the stocks would be managed based on the best scientific information available. 5. The overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate – Cumulative effects resulting from the revision of spiny lobster management reference points and AMs, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would be expected to be minimal in each island-management area. Some minor short-term negative effects to the social and economic environments would result from the decrease in ACLs and any increase in associated AMs that are triggered and applied, although long-term positive effects would be expected through the increased conservation and continued access to the spiny lobster stocks. Conversely, positive effects to the physical and biological/ecological environments would be expected from decreased ACLs and increased AMs. No significant overall impacts to the biological/ecological environment, to protected species occurring within that environment, to the habitats constituting and supporting that environment, or to the dependent socio-economic environment would be expected from the cumulative past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions as it would not be expected to significantly affect current fishing practices (i.e., U.S. Caribbean fisheries would continue to target multiple species using multiple gear types; see Section 3.1). Similarly, no significant cumulative effects would be expected to result from reasonably foreseeable future actions that may be taken, by other federal or non-federal agencies in combination with this action. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 91
6. Summary - The proposed action is not expected to have significant effects to the physical, biological, economic, social, or administrative environments. Any effects of the proposed action, when combined with other past actions, present actions, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not expected to be significant. The effects of the proposed action are, and will continue to be, monitored through collection of data by NMFS, individual state programs, stock assessments and stock assessment updates, life history studies, economic and social analyses, and other scientific observations.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 92
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 5.1 Introduction The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for all regulatory actions that are of public interest. The RIR does three things: (1) it provides a comprehensive review of the level and incidence of impacts associated with a proposed or final regulatory action; (2) it provides a review of the problems and policy objectives promoting the regulatory proposals and an evaluation of the major alternatives that could be used to solve the problem; and (3) it ensures that the regulatory agency systematically and comprehensively considers all available alternatives so that the public welfare can be enhanced in the most efficient and cost-effective way. The RIR also serves as the basis for determining whether the regulations are a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria provided in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This RIR analyzes the impacts this action would be expected to have on the spiny lobster fishery of the U.S. Caribbean.
5.2 Problems and Objectives The problems and objectives addressed by this action are discussed in Section 1.2.
5.3. Description of the Fishery A description of the U.S. Caribbean spiny lobster fishery is provided in Section 3.1.
5.4 Impacts of Management Measures 5.4.1
Action 1: Spiny lobster Overfishing Limit (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), and Annual Catch Limit (ACL)
A detailed analysis of the economic effects expected to result from this action is provided in Section 4.1.3. The following discussion summarizes the expected economic effects of the preferred alternative. Preferred Alternative 3 selects a constant-catch approach for specifying the OFL and ABC for spiny lobster, and use the constant-catch ABC to derive the spiny lobster ACL (which equals OY). The analysis concluded that there are likely to be benefits from Preferred Alternative 3 in terms of enhanced stock protection associated with reduced risk of overfishing or venturing toward an overfished status. Preferred Sub-alternative 3b recognizes that that there is uncertainty in the management process and takes this uncertainty into account via providing an extra buffer between the ABC and ACL. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 93
These benefits, which cannot be quantified, likely differ by island (island group) with benefits to protection of the Puerto Rico stock being less than the benefits to the St. Croix stock and the St. Thomas and St. John stock. The analysis concluded that benefits are likely to be limited due to the fact that any action taken to protect the island-based stocks (i.e., accountability measures by way of fishing season reductions) are limited to federal waters. Given this to be the case, a certain segment of the commercial fishing population is likely to respond to fishing season reductions by migrating their fishing practices from federal waters to state waters. If the response to fishing season restrictions is significant (i.e., movement of fishing practices from federal waters to state waters) the Preferred Sub-alternative3b may fail to meet its objective (i.e., sufficient protection of the respective island spiny lobster stocks). While the focus of this discussion is on the outcome of the preferred alternative, it should be noted that all of the alternatives considered in the amendment suffer from the same shortcomings. Given that benefits cannot be adequately determined but may well dissipate due to response by fishermen to fishing season restrictions, one cannot conclude that the Preferred Alternative 3b outperforms the status quo (Alternative 1) from an efficiency (i.e., benefit/cost) perspective. Nor can it be asserted that the Preferred Sub-alternative 3b maximizes benefits vis-à-vis other non-status quo-considered alternatives in the amendment. Finally, it is noted that there are alternatives that would have lower long-run adverse effects associated with Preferred Subalternative 3b. However, these alternatives may inadequately account for management uncertainty so the lower long-run adverse effects may come at the cost of reduced benefits (i.e., associated with protection of the island-based stocks).
5.4.2
Action 2: Spiny Lobster Accountability Measure (AM) Trigger
A detailed analysis of the economic effects expected to result from this action is provided in Section 4.2.3. The following discussion summarizes the expected economic effects of the preferred alternative. Preferred Alternative 2 uses the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to trigger an AM. The AM is triggered if average landings exceeded average ACLs in place during those years. Two types of costs were identified with the triggering and application of AMs. First, there are costs to the fishermen through increased uncertainty regarding future fishing practices. Business practices are most efficient when uncertainties are held to a minimum. Increasing the applications of AMs leads to greater planning uncertainty by the commercial fishing sector and may also result in greater costs associated with, say, movement of traps from federal waters to state waters. Frequent applications of AMs also impose greater costs to the federal government than when applications of AMs are less frequent. Preferred Alternative 2 was found to minimize these costs vis-à-vis other alternatives. While the benefits of Alternative 3 (which would use the most recent single year of spiny lobster landings to Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 94
trigger an AM, where the AM is triggered if landings exceeded the ACL in place during the year), were found to exceed those of Preferred Alternative 2, it was concluded that these provided benefits did not outweigh the added cost.
5.5 Public and Private Costs of Regulations The preparation, implementation, enforcement, and monitoring of this or any federal action involves the expenditure of public and private resources which can be expressed as costs associated with the regulations. Estimated costs associated with this action include: Council costs of document preparation, meetings, public hearings, and information dissemination NMFS administrative costs of document preparation, meetings, and review TOTAL
$TBD $120,000 $TBD
The estimate provided here does not include any law enforcement costs.
5.6 Determination of Significant Regulatory Action Pursuant to E. O. 12866, a regulation is considered a “significant regulatory action” if it is likely to result in: (1) an annual effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action take or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O. Based on the information provided above, this action has been determined to not be economically significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 95
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 6.1 Introduction The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is to establish a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA does not contain any decision criteria; instead, the purpose of the RFA is to inform the agency, as well as the public, of the expected economic impacts of the alternatives contained in the fishery management plan (FMP) or amendment (including framework management measures and other regulatory actions) and to ensure that the agency considers alternatives that minimize the expected impacts while meeting the goals and objectives of the FMP and applicable statutes. With certain exceptions, the RFA requires agencies to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for each proposed rule. The regulatory flexibility analysis is designed to assess the impacts various regulatory alternatives would have on small entities, including small businesses, and to determine ways to minimize those impacts. The following regulatory flexibility analysis was conducted to determine if the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or not.
6.2 Statement of the need for, objective of, and legal basis for the proposed rule The primary purpose and need, issues, problems, and objectives of the proposed action are presented in Chapter 1 and are incorporated herein by reference.
6.3 Identification of federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule No federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.
6.4 Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed action would apply The rule concerns recreational and commercial fishing for spiny lobster in federal waters in the U.S. Caribbean. Recreational fishermen (anglers) who fish for spiny lobster or any species are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6), whether fishing from forGeneric Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 96
hire fishing, private or leased vessels. Therefore, estimates of the number of anglers directly affected by the rule and any impacts on them are not assessed here. The rule would apply to businesses that operate in the commercial fishing industry and particularly, those that operate commercial fishing vessels that harvest spiny lobster in federal waters off Puerto Rico and the USVI. A business in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS code 11411) is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and its combined annual receipts that are no more than $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. The Puerto Rico fishery as a whole is estimated to generate direct revenues of $6.06 million (2020 dollars) annually, assuming current landings have fully recovered from the 2017 hurricane season (NMFS 2017), and the USVI fishery as a whole is estimated to generate direct revenues of $5.48 million (2020 dollars) annually, assuming full recovery from the 2017 hurricane season (Mapp 2017). 38 Therefore, all commercial fishing businesses in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix are small. In 2016, there were 1,074 licensed commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico (CFMC 2019a), and each of those licensed commercial fishermen represent a small commercial fishing business. In 2016, 811 of those commercial fishermen submitted catch reports and 383 of them submitted reports operated in federal waters (SERO Caribbean Branch logbook data 2020). Hence, it is estimated that 383 small commercial fishing businesses operate in federal waters off of Puerto Rico and up to that number may be directly affected the proposed rule. The most recent Census of Licensed Fishers of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) reported 119 licensed commercial fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John and 141 licensed commercial fishermen in St. Croix (Kojis et al. 2017), and each of those fishermen represent a small commercial fishing business. In 2011, 29.5% of licensed commercial fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John and 57.8% of commercial fishermen in St. Croix reported that they fished for spiny lobster. If those figures currently apply in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the USVI, then an estimated 35 small commercial fishing businesses in St. Thomas and St. John and 81 small commercial fishing businesses in St. Croix target spiny lobster and may be directly affected by the proposed rule.
6.5 Description and economic impacts of the compliance requirements of the proposed rule Action 1, Preferred Alternative 3, would use the constant-catch approach for specifying the overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) for spiny lobster, and use the constant-catch ABC to derive the spiny lobster constant-catch annual catch limit (ACL) (which equals optimum yield [OY]). Preferred Alternative 3b would set the OY and ACL equal to 38
This also assumes no reductions in landings and associated revenues due to COVID-19.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 97
95% of the ABC. Action 1, Alternative 1 (no-action alternative), would retain the OFL proxy, ABC, and ACL (which equals OY) for spiny lobster as specified under the Puerto Rico FMP, St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and St. Croix FMP for years 2021 and later while for earlier years, the OFL, ABC and ACL would be as specified under the Comprehensive ACL Amendment (CFMC 2011) (Table 6.1). Under Action 1, Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b, the ACLs 39 for spiny lobster would decrease in 2021 from the levels as specified in the island-based FMPs, decline again in 2024 and then remain constant at the 2024 figure (Table 6.1). Those decreases and the percent decreases from the current (baseline) ACL are stated in Table 6.2. Table 6.1. Spiny Lobster ACLs under Alternative 1 (no-action) and Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b of Action 1. Island Area Puerto Rico St. Thomas and St. John St. Croix
Relevant Fishing Seasons 2021-2023 2024+ 2021-2023 2024+ 2021-2023 2024+
Alt. 1 (Baseline) ACL (lb ww) 527,232 527,232 209,210 209,210 197,528 197,528
Preferred Alts. 3 and 3b ACL (lb ww) 369,313 366,965 142,636 126,089 140,667 120,830
Table 6.2. Decreases in spiny lobster ACLs under Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b by island area. Island Area Puerto Rico St. Thomas and St. John St. Croix
Changes in ACL (Alt. 1) (lb ww) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fishing Season 2021-2023 2024+ 2021-2023 2024+ 2021-2023 2024+
Changes in ACL (lb ww) (Preferred Alts. 3 & 3b) -157,919 (-42.76%) -160,267 (-43.67%) -66,574 (-46.67% -83,121 (-65.92%) -56,861 (-40.42%) -76,698 (-63.48%)
Table 6.2 above shows the maximum adverse impact on commercial landings (by weight) of small commercial fishing businesses, assuming commercial landings of spiny lobster would reach or surpass the baseline ACLs for all island areas each and every year, 100% of those landings are of spiny lobster from the EEZ, and there are accountability measures (AM) in place to keep those landings from exceeding the ACLs. These ACLs are for combined commercial and recreational landings; however, no recreational landings data are collected for spiny lobster in the U.S. Caribbean. Hence, the ACLs are determined using commercial landings data only. 39
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 98
The actual magnitude of the economic impact of Action 1, Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b, if any, on small businesses that harvest spiny lobster in federal waters is dependent on both the AM and AM trigger used to determine if the federal season should be closed early or not and the level of spiny lobster fishing effort in the EEZ. For example, there would be no actual adverse impact if there were no AM to limit landings to the ACL, no landings were from the EEZ, or if the AM trigger always generated an estimate of landings that is less than the baseline or proposed ACLs. Because the impacts of Action 1 are dependent on Action 2, the impacts of Actions 1 and 2 are evaluated jointly after the following description of Action 2. Action 2, Preferred Alternative 2, would revise the sequence of years of landings data that would be compared to the ACL(s) for triggering an AM for the spiny lobster stock under each FMP. The process for triggering an AM and the process for applying an AM would remain as described in each FMP. The revised sequence would apply to all three island areas. Under Action 2, Alternative 1 (no action), the sequence of landings used to estimate of spiny lobster landings in comparison to the ACL is as follows for fishing year beginning in 2021: single year’s landings in 2019, single year’s landings in 2020, 2-year average of landings from 2020 and 2021, 3-year average of landings from 2020 – 2022, and thereafter a running 3-year average of landings (2021-2023, 2022-2024, etc.). However, the Regional Administrator in consultation with the Council may deviate from the specific time sequences based on data availability. Under Action 2, Preferred Alternative 2 the sequence would be the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings, as estimated by NMFS and based on best scientific information available, and that 3-year average would be compared to the average of the ACLs for those years to determine if an AM is triggered. Preferred Alternative 2 bases the AM trigger on “best scientific information available,” which better defines when NMFS in consultation with the Council may deviate from the specific years of landings used as the AM trigger than the language “based on data availability” as under Alternative 1. Table 6.3 compares the sequences of landings under Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2. Table 6.3. Comparison of Action 2, Alternative 1 and Preferred Alternative 2 sequences of landings used to estimate landings for comparison with the ACL.
1
Fishing Season 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Alternative 1 (No-Action) Landings compared to ACL1 1-year (2019) 1-year (2020) 2-year average (2020 & 2021) 3-year average (2020 – 2022) 3-year average (2021 – 2023)
Preferred Alternative 2 Landings Compared to ACL 3-year average (2017 – 2019) 3-year average (2018 – 2020) 3-year average (2019 – 2021) 3-year average (2020 – 2022) 3-year average (2021 – 2023)
Assuming island-based FMPs are implemented in 2021, and there is two-year lag on data availability.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 99
Implementation of the island-based FMPs will change the baseline estimates and ACLs in 2021. Consequently, baseline estimates and ACLs prior to 2021 are not relevant for evaluating the impacts of baseline estimates and ACLs after 2020. However, annual landings of spiny lobster during the period from 2012 through 2019 are highly relevant and represent the expected range of landings from 2021 and later. Puerto Rico There were no single year of annual landings in Puerto Rico from 2012 through 2019 that would exceed the baseline ACL of 527,232 lb (Alternative 1 of Action 1). 40 Annual landings during that 8-year period range from 275,424 to 520,829 lb (Figure 6.1). Consequently, it is expected that there would be no overages under the baseline ACL and baseline estimates (Alternative 1 of Action 2) from 2021 through 2025 in Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0
1
2
3
4
5
Landings
6
7
8
Baseline ACL
Figure 6.1. Range of annual landings and baseline ACL, Puerto Rico. (Source: NMFS SERO 2021).
For Puerto Rico, the preferred ACL (Preferred Alternatives 3 and 3b of Action 1) would be less than the preferred estimate (Preferred Alternative 2 of Action 2) for 2021 and there would be an overage of 61,693 lb (Table 6.4). If NMFS reduces the 2021 season because NMFS expects 2021 landings are at the rate to duplicate that overage, there would be an associated reduction of dockside revenue of $442,339 (2020 dollars), 41 which represents approximately 7% of the value of Puerto Rico’s commercial sector from all landings. However, if NMFS expects For the purpose of this analysis, the baseline ACL is the ACL established under the Puerto Rico FMP. The Puerto Rico FMP has been approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and NMFS is in the process of developing a proposed rule to implement the Puerto Rico FMP. The Puerto Rico FMP will replace the aspects of the Spiny Lobster FMP that apply to Puerto Rico, and therefore we are not considering whether landings would exceed the ACL under the Spiny Lobster FMP. In the past, landings have exceeded the ACL under the Spiny Lobster FMP (327,920 lb), and AMs have been triggered and applied (see, e.g., 86 FR 40787, July 29, 2021). 41 Using an average price per pound of $7.17 (2020 dollars). Matos-Caraballo et al (SEDAR57-RD-21) report an average price of $6.42 in 2013. That price is adjusted to 2020 dollars using the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s (BEA’s) GDP deflator as of May 27, 2021. 40
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 100
2021 landings are not at the rate to exceed the proposed ACL because of COVID-19 and/or other factors, there would be no shortening of the 2021 season in the EEZ off Puerto Rico. Therefore, the economic impact of the proposed rule on Puerto Rico small commercial fishing businesses could range from $0 to $442,339 (2020 dollars) in 2021. The highest and lowest 3-year averages of landings in Puerto Rico from 2012 through 2019 are used to evaluate a range of the impact from 2022 through 2025. The highest 3-year average is 486,343 lb, which is greater than the proposed ACL (Table 6.4), and the lowest 3-year average is 311,808 lb, which is lower than the proposed ACL (Table 6.5). If NMFS expects the rates of landings during those four years to be on pace with the highest 3-year average, there would be overage determinations and the seasons would be shortened to reduce landings and associated dockside revenues ranging from 117,030 to 119,378 lb and $839,107 to $855,942 (2020 dollars) per season (Table 6.6). However, if NMFS expects the rates of landings during those years to be on pace with the lowest 3-year average, there would be no overage determination, no shortening of the seasons, and no reduction/loss of dockside revenue in Puerto Rico (Table 6.5). Over the 5year period from 2021 through 2025, the maximum average annual impact would be a reduction of combined annual revenues of $766,486 (2020 dollars), which represents approximately 13% of the average annual dockside revenue from all commercial landings in Puerto Rico. Table 6.4. Maximum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for Puerto Rico, 2021 - 2025. Fishing Season
Landings Estimate (lb)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
431,006 (Ave. 2017-2019) 486,343 486,343 486,343 486,343
Proposed ACL (lb) 369,313 369,313 369,313 366,965 366,965
Overage (lb) 61,693 117,030 117,030 119,378 119,378
Table 6.5. Minimum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for Puerto Rico, 2021 - 2025. Fishing Season
Landings Estimate (lb)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
431,006 (Ave. 2017-2019) 311,808 311,808 311,808 311,808
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Proposed ACL (lb) 369,313 369,313 369,313 366,965 366,965
Overage (lb) 61,693 None None None None
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 101
Table 6.6. Range of impacts in Puerto Rico, 2021 – 2025. Fishing Season 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Overage (lb) 0 to 61,693 0 to 117,030 0 to 117,030 0 to 119,378 0 to 119,378
Loss of Dockside Revenue $0 to $442,339 $0 to $839,105 $0 to $839,105 $0 to $855,940 $0 to $855,940
St. Thomas and St. John There were no single year of annual landings in St. Thomas and St. John from 2012 through 2019 that would exceed the baseline ACL of 209,201 lb (Alternative 1 of Action 1). 42 Annual landings during that 8-year period range from 83,157 to 121,695 lb (Figure 6.2). Consequently, it is expected that there would be no overage determinations and no shortenings of the seasons under the baseline ACL and baseline estimates (Alternative 1 of Action 2) from 2021 through 2025.
St. Thomas/St. John 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0
1
2
3
4
5
Landings
6
7
8
Baseline ACL
Figure 6.2. Range of annual landings and baseline ACL, St. Thomas and St. John. (Source: NMFS SERO 2021).
Preferred alternatives of Actions 1 and 2 would not result in an overage determination in St. Thomas and St. John in 2021 (Table 6.7). The highest and lowest 3-year averages of landings in St. Thomas and St. John from 2012 through 2019 are used to evaluate a range of the impact from 2022 through 2025. The highest 3-year average is 107,804 lb and the lowest is 84,793 lb, and For the purpose of this analysis, the baseline ACL is the ACL established under the St. Thomas and St. John FMP. The St. Thomas and St. John FMP has been approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and NMFS is in the process of developing a proposed rule to implement the St. Thomas and St. John FMP. The St. Thomas and St. John FMP will replace the aspects of the Spiny Lobster FMP that apply to St. Thomas and St. John, and therefore we are not considering whether landings would exceed the ACL under the Spiny Lobster FMP. Landings have not exceeded the ACL under the Spiny Lobster FMP for St. Thomas and St, John (104,199 lb), and AMs have not been triggered and applied.
42
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 102
both are lower than the proposed ACL (Tables 6.7 and 6.8). Consequently, the proposed rule is expected to have no adverse (or beneficial) impact on small commercial fishing businesses of St. Thomas and St. John. Table 6.7. Maximum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Thomas and St. John, 2021 - 2025. Fishing Season
Landings Estimate (lb)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
88,906 (Ave. 2017 – 2019 107,804 107,804 107,804 107,804
Proposed ACL (lb) 142,636 142,636 142,636 126,089 126,089
Overage (lb) None None None None None
Table 6.8. Minimum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Thomas and St. John, 2021 - 2025. Fishing Season
Landings Estimate (lb)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
88,906 (Ave. 2017 – 2019 84,793 84,793 84,793 84,793
Proposed ACL (lb) 142,636 142,636 142,636 126,089 126,089
Overage (lb) None None None None None
St. Croix There were no single year of annual landings in St. Croix from 2012 through 2019 that would exceed the baseline ACL of 197,528 lb (Alternative 1 of Action 1). 43 Annual landings during that 8-year period range from 10,970 to 87,073 lb (Figure 6.3). Consequently, it is expected that there would be no overage determinations and no shortenings of the seasons in the EEZ off St. Croix under the baseline ACL and baseline estimates (Alternative 1 of Action 2) from 2021 through 2025.
For the purpose of this analysis, the baseline ACL is the ACL established under the St. Croix FMP. The St. Croix FMP has been approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and NMFS is in the process of developing a proposed rule to implement the St. Croix FMP. The St. Croix FMP will replace the aspects of the Spiny Lobster FMP that apply to St. Croix, and therefore we are not considering whether landings would exceed the ACL under the Spiny Lobster FMP. In 2013, NMFS determined that landings exceeded the ACL under the Spiny Lobster FMP for St, Croix, (107,307 lb), and that the exceedance was not due to enhanced reporting, and an AM was triggered and applied (78 FR 18247, March 26, 2013).
43
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 103
St. Croix 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0
1
2
3
4 Landings
5
6
7
8
Baseline ACL
Figure 6.3. Range of annual landings and baseline ACL, St. Croix. (Source: NMFS SERO 2021).
The preferred alternatives of Actions 1 and 2 would not result in an overage determination in St. Croix in 2021 (Table 6.9). The highest and lowest 3-year averages of landings in St. Croix from 2012 through 2019 are used to evaluate a range of the impact from 2022 through 2025. The highest 3-year average is 63,811 lb and the lowest is 17,628 lb, and both are lower than the proposed ACL (Tables 6.9 and 6.10). Consequently, the proposed rule is expected to have no adverse (or beneficial) impact on small commercial fishing businesses of St. Croix. Table 6.9. Maximum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Croix, 2021 2025. Fishing Season
Landings Estimate (lb)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
17,628 (Ave. 2017 – 2019 63,811 63,811 63,811 63,811
Proposed ACL (lb) 140,667 140,667 140,667 120,830 120,830
Overage (lb) None None None None None
Table 6.10. Minimum estimates, proposed ACLs, and maximum overages for St. Croix, 2021 2025. Fishing Season
Landings Estimate (lb)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
17,628 (Ave. 2017 – 2019 17,628 17,628 17,628 17,628
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Proposed ACL (lb) 140,667 140,667 140,667 120,830 120,830
Overage (lb) None None None None None
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 104
Conclusion The proposed rule would have no adverse (or beneficial) impacts on small commercial fishing businesses of St. Thomas and St. John or St. Croix. The proposed rule would have an adverse impact on small commercial fishing businesses of Puerto Rico that could range from $0 to $766,486 (2020 dollars), which represents approximately 13% of the average annual dockside revenue from all commercial landings in Puerto Rico. An estimated 383 small businesses fish in the EEZ off Puerto Rico and may harvest spiny lobster. The average annual loss per small business would range from $0 to $2,001 (2020 dollars).
6.6 Significance of economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities There would be no significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses in either St. Thomas and St. John or St. Croix. However, there could be from no adverse impact to a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small commercial fishing businesses in Puerto Rico. As stated above, the average annual loss of annual dockside revenue from spiny lobster landings could range from 0% to 13%. Spiny lobster is a highly valued species, and it is the highest valued shellfish, with an estimated average price of $7.49 in 2019 dollars (MatosCaraballo 2006 for 2004 price and BEA GDP deflator issued July 29, 2021, for 2019 price). An estimated 49% of Puerto Rico’s active commercial fishermen target spiny lobster (Agar and Matos-Caraballo 2012). Description of significant alternatives Considered, but not selected, alternatives to Action 1 would have higher or lower ACLs than the preferred alternative. All, but the no-action alternative (Alternative 1), would reduce the ACL from its baseline and the amounts of those reductions for Puerto Rico are shown in Table 6.11. Generally the more the ACL is reduced, the larger the potential adverse impact because associated dockside revenues is similarly reduced. Hence, Alternatives 2c and 3c of Action 1 would have larger maximum adverse impacts than Preferred Alternative 3b, assuming the same baseline landings, while Alternatives 2a and 3a would have smaller maximum adverse impact than the preferred alternative. Table 6.11. Comparison of reductions of spiny lobster ACL (lb) for Puerto Rico by alternative, Action 1. Year
2a (lb)
2b (lb)
2c (lb)
3a (lb)
3c (lb)
Preferred 3b (lb)
2021
-135,645
-155,224
-174,804
-138,482
-177,357
-157,919
2022
-138,849
-158,268
-177,687
-138,482
-177,357
-157,919
2023
-140,953
-160,267
-179,581
-138,482
-177,357
-157,919
2024
-140,953
-160,267
-179,581
-140,953
-179,581
-160,267
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 105
Year
2a (lb)
2b (lb)
2c (lb)
3a (lb)
3c (lb)
Preferred 3b (lb)
2025
-140,953
-160,267
-179,581
-140,953
-179,581
-160,267
Average
-139,471
-158,859
-178,247
-139,470
-178,247
-158,858
A considered, but not selected, alternative (Alternative 3) to Action 2 would have the estimate of landings based on the most recent single year’s landings. Such an estimate is vulnerable to atypical fluctuations, and, consequently, that alternative would likely result in more seasons being shortened than the preferred alternative (Preferred Alternative 2). Hence, the adverse impact on small businesses, especially in Puerto Rico, would likely be greater under Alternative 3 than the preferred alternative.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 106
Chapter 7. List of Preparers List of personnel that assisted with development of the Generic Framework Amendment and Environmental Assessment. Table 7.1. List of interdisciplinary plan team members and other contributors. Name
Agency
Title
Graciela García-Moliner
CFMC
IPT Co-lead / Fishery Biologist
Liajay Rivera
CFMC
Technical Assistant for Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management
Sarah Stephenson
NMFS/SFD
IPT Co-lead / Fishery Biologist
María del Mar López
NMFS/SFD
Caribbean Operations Branch Lead / Fishery Biologist
Michael Jepson
NMFS/SFD
Anthropologist
Denise Johnson
NMFS/SFD
Economist
Ed Glazer
NMFS/SFD
Fisheries Social Scientist
Adam Bailey
NMFS/SFD
Technical Writer
Michael Larkin
NMFS/SFD
Data Analyst
Patrick O’Pay
NMFS/PRD
Fishery Biologist
Adyan Rios
NMFS/SEFSC
Biologist
Brent Stoffle
NMFS/SEFSC
Anthropologist
Noah Silverman
NMFS/SERO
Regional NEPA Coordinator
Jocelyn D’Ambrosio
NOAA/GC
Attorney
Miguel Borges
NOAA/OLE
Enforcement Officer
CFMC = Caribbean Fishery Management Council, NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service, SFD = Sustainable Fisheries Division, PRD = Protected Resources Division, SEFSC = Southeast Fisheries Science Center, SERO = Southeast Regional Office, GC = General Counsel, OLE= Office of Law Enforcement
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 7. List of Preparers 107
Chapter 8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted Department of Commerce Office of General Counsel National Marine Fisheries Service Office of General Counsel National Marine Fisheries Service Office of General Counsel Southeast Region National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service Silver Spring Office National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Law Enforcement Southeast Division United States Coast Guard United States Department of the Interior U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources Puerto Rico Junta de Calidad Ambiental (Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board)
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
108
Chapter 8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted
Chapter 9. References Agar, J. J.,and M. Shivlani. 2016. Socio-economic study of the hook and line fishery in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (2014). Marine Fisheries Review. 78(3-4): 12-21. Agar, J. J., M. Shivlani, and D. Solis. 2017. The Commercial Trap Fishery in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico: an Economic, Social, and Technological Profile. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Vol. 37(4):778-788. https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2017.1317678. Agar, J. J., M. Shivlani, and D. Matos-Caraballo. 2020. The aftermath of Hurricane María on Puerto Rican small-scale fisheries. Coastal Management. Volume 48, Number 5, pp. 378-397. Ayala, H. 2017. “How Puerto Rico’s Food Industry Is Picking Up the Pieces After Hurricane Maria” (December 8, 2017). Available at https://www.eater.com/2017/12/8/16739310/puertorico-restaurant-industry-farmers-hurricane-maria. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2021. National Income and Product Accounts. Price indexes for Gross Domestic Product. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2021. GDP for the U.S. Virgin Islands. Available at https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-us-virgin-islands-usvi. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2020. Prototype Gross Domestic Product for Puerto Rico, 2012–2018. Available at https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/prototype-gross-domestic-productpuerto-rico-2012-2018. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 1981. Fishery management plan, final environmental impact statement, and regulatory impact review for the spiny lobster fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 1998. Essential fish habitat (EFH) generic amendment to the fishery management plans of the U.S. Caribbean including a draft environmental assessment. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 169 pp + Appendices. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2004. Final environmental impact statement for the generic essential fish habitat amendment to: Spiny lobster Fishery Management Plan (FMP), Queen Conch FMP, Reef Fish FMP, and Coral FMP for the U.S. Caribbean, Vols. I and II. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 109
CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2005. Comprehensive amendment to the fishery management plans (FMPs) of the U.S. Caribbean to address required provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment). Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 533 pp + Appendices. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2011a. Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Queen Conch Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and Amendment 5 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. September 22, 2011. 523 pp + Appendices. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2011b. Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Amendment for the Fishery Management Plans of the U.S. Caribbean. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 407 pp. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2019a. Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan for the Puerto Rico Exclusive Economic Zone, environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and fishery impact statement. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 637 pp. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2019b. Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan for the St. Thomas/ St. John Exclusive Economic Zone, environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and fishery impact statement. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 507 pp. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 2019c. Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan for the St. Croix Exclusive Economic Zone, environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and fishery impact statement. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 509 pp. Cobb, J. S. and D. Wang. 1985. Fisheries biology of lobsters and crayfish. In: Provenzano, A. J. (ed.) The biology of Crustacea, Vol. 10. Academic Press, New York, p. 167-247. Colburn, L.L. and M. Jepson. 2012. Social Indicators of Gentrification Pressure in Fishing Communities: A Context for Social Impact Assessment. Coastal Management 40(3): 289-300. Coleman, J. 2021. Puerto Rico debt restructure plan threatens public pensions (March 9, 2021). The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/542318-puerto-rico-debt-restructure-planthreatens-public-pensions. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 110
Congressional Research Service. 2018/2020. Economic and fiscal conditions in the U.S. Virgin Islands. EveryCRSReport.com. Crosson, S. 2018. Hurricanes Irma and Maria Damage Assessment: Provisional Results for the U.S. Virgin Islands Commercial and For-Hire Fisheries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 60-day Interim Report. In cooperation with the USVI Department Planning and Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Dorell, O. 2017. “Puerto Rico's farmers face near total loss from Hurricane Maria” (October 7, 2017). Available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/10/07/puerto-ricosfarmers-face-near-total-loss-hurricane-maria/736372001/. DPNR (Department of Planning and Natural Resources). 2005. United States Virgin Islands Marine Resources And Fisheries Strategic And Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 567 pp. Estudios Técnicos Inc. 2017. Preliminary Estimate: Cost of damages by hurricane María in Puerto Rico. https://estadisticas.pr/files/inlinefiles/Preliminary%20Estimate%20Cost%20of%20Maria-1.pdf. Goenaga, C. and R. H. Boulon, Jr. 1992. The State of Puerto Rican and U.S. Virgin Islands Corals. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. 66 pp. Hsiang, S. and T. Houser. 2017. “Don’t Let Puerto Rico Fall into an Economic Abyss” in New York Times Op-Ed (September 29, 2017). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/puertorico-hurricane-maria.html. Kaske, M. and J. Levin. 2020. “Puerto Rico Board Releases Emergency Funds After Earthquake” in Bloomberg.com (January 7, 2020). Available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-07/puerto-rico-board-releases-emergencyfunds-after-earthquake. Kendall, M. S., M. E. Monaco, K. R. Buja, J. D. Christensen, C. R. Kruer, M. Finkbeiner, and R. A. Warner. 2001. Methods used to map the benthic habitats of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Kanciruk, P. 1980. Ecology of juvenile and adult Palinuridae (spiny lobsters). Pages 59-96 In: J. S. Cobb and B. F. Phillips, eds. The Biology and Management of Lobsters, Vol. II, Ecology and management. Academic Press, New York. 390 pp.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 111
Kojis, B. and N. J. Quinn. 2011. Census of the marine commercial fishermen of the U.S. Virgin Islands (pp. 126): Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, US Virgin Islands. Kojis, B., N. Quinn, and J. Agar. 2017. Census of Licensed Fishers of the U.S. Virgin Islands (2016). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-715, 160 pp. Lloréns Vélez, E. 2018. “Puerto Rico Planning Board: Hurricane Maria had an economic impact of $43 billion” (December 5, 2018). Available at https://caribbeanbusiness.com/puerto-ricoplanning-board-hurricane-maria-had-an-economic-impact-of-43-billion/?cn-reloaded=1. Mapp, K.E. 2017. Written Testimony of Governor Kenneth E. Mapp of the United States Virgin Islands Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (November 14, 2017). https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=A2538A49-2953-4BA18C94-0807E62050A5 Matos-Caraballo, D., and J. Agar. 2011. Census of Active Commercial Fishermen in Puerto Rico: 2008. Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, Final Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 39 pp. Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A. 1998. Analysis of marine mammal strandings in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Pages 91-92 in The World Marine Mammal Science Conference, Monaco. Miller, R.T. 2020. “Puerto Rico's Big Pharma Push” in IndustryWeek.com (June 01, 2020). Available at https://news.pda.org/en/article/138737/puerto-ricos-big-pharma-push. Munroe, J.L. 1974. The biology, ecology, exploitation and management of Caribbean reef fishes. Scientific Rep. ODA/UWI Fish. Ecol. Res. Proj., 1969-73. Pt. V. 1. The biology, ecology, and bionomics of Caribbean reef fishes: VI. Crustaceans (spiny lobsters and crabs). Univ. W. Indies 2:<101. Dep. Res. Rep. No. 3. Kingston, Jamaica, 57 pp. New York Times. September 27, 2019. Updated June 1, 2020. $129 billion Puerto Rico bankruptcy plan could be model for states. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/business/puerto-rico-bankruptcy-promesa.html. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2020a. Fisheries of the United States, 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2018 Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/commercial-fishing/fisheries-united-states-2018 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2020b. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the authorization and management of the Puerto Rico fishery under the Puerto Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 112
Rico Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the St. Thomas/St. John fishery under the St. Thomas/St. John FMP, and the St. Croix fishery under the St. Croix FMP (SERO-2019-04047). NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2021a. Southeast Fisheries Impacts from COVID-19. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS. Available at: https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-02/Updated-COVID-19-Impact-Assessment-webready.pdf NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2021b. NOAA Fisheries Updated Impact Assessment of the COVID-19 Crisis on the U.S. Commercial Seafood and Recreational ForHire/Charter Industries. Updated Snapshot: January-July 2020. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries. Olcott, P.G. 1999. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. USGS Rep. HA 730-N. Oxenford, H.A. and I. Monnereau. 2017. Impacts of Climate Change on Fish and Shellfish in the Coastal and Marine Environments of Caribbean Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Caribbean Marine Climate Change Report Card: Science Review 2017: 155–173. Phillips, B.F., J.S. Cobb, and R.W. George. 1980. “General Biology.” - In: The Biology and Management of Lobsters, Vol. I: Physiology and Behavior, pp 16-39. J.S. Cobb and B.F. Phillips, Eds. Academic Press, New York. Puerto Rico Tourism Company. 2021. Statistics. Available at www.prtourism.com. Reuters. 2021. Far from White House, Caribbean refinery to test Biden's promises on poverty and pollution (March 8, 2021). Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-caribbeanrefinery-environment-in/far-from-white-house-caribbean-refinery-to-test-bidens-promises-onpoverty-and-pollution-idUSKBN2B00DA. Robles, F. and L. Ferré-Sadurní. 2017. “Puerto Rico’s Agriculture and Farmers Decimated by Maria” in New York Times (September 24, 2017). Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/us/puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-agriculture-.html. Ross, E. and D. Behringer. 2019. Changes in temperature, pH, and salinity affect the sheltering responses of Caribbean spiny lobsters to chemosensory cues. Sci Rep 9, 4375. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40832-y SEDAR 57. 2019. Stock Assessment Report U.S. Caribbean Spiny Lobster Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review. North Charleston, South Carolina. https://sedarweb.org/sedar-57 Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 113
Sullivan, B. K. and E. Fieser. 2017. Maria latest threat to Puerto Rico after $1 billion Irma hit. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-19/hurricane-maria-heads-forpuerto-rico-after-dominica-strike. Stoffle, B., J.R. Waters, S. Abbott-Jamieson, S. Kelly, D. Grasso, J. Freibaum, S. Koestner, N. O’Meara, S. Davis, M. Stekedee, and J. Agar. 2009. Can an Island Be a Fishing Community: An Examination of St. Croix and its Fisheries. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-59. Stoffle, B., A. Stoltz, S. Crosson, and J.S. Tookes. 2020. In the Wake of Two Storms: An Impact Assessment of Hurricanes Irma and Maria on the St. Croix and St. Thomas Fisheries, USVI. The Applied Anthropologist. 40(2):23-33. U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Estimating Puerto Rico’s Population After Hurricane Maria: Revising Methods to Better Reflect the Impact of Disaster. Available at https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/08/estimating-puerto-rico-population-afterhurricane-maria.html U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. U.S. international trade data. Available at https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/data/index.html. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), National Resources Conservation Service, Caribbean Area. www.nrcs.usda.gov. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), Farm Service Agency. 2017. USDA provides support for hurricane-impacted dairies in Puerto Rico. News Release No. 0135.17. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/10/19/usda-provides-support-hurricaneimpacted-dairies-puerto-rico USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2020. Census of Agriculture. Available at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Outlying_Areas/Puerto_Ri co/prv1.pdf and https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Outlying_Areas/usvi.pdf. USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy), Energy Information Administration. Puerto Rico Territory Energy Profile. Updated November 19, 2020 and February 18, 2021. USDOL (U.S. Department of Labor), Bureau of Labor Statistics. National and State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 114
USVI BER (Bureau of Economic Research). November 2020. Selected Economic Indicators Review & Outlook. Fiscal Year-to-Date September 2020. USVI BER (Bureau of Economic Research). 2020. Review of the USVI Territorial Economy 2019. Available at http://usviber.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Review-of-the-Virgin-IslandsEconomy-Final-March-25-2020.pdf. Valdes Pizzini, M., J. Agar, K. Kitner, C. Garcia Quijano, M. Tust, and F. Forrestal. 2010. Cruzan Fisheries: A Rapid Assessment of the Historical, Social, Cultural, and Economic Processes that Shaped Coastal Communities’ Dependence and Engagement in Fishing in the Island of St. Croix, USVI. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFC-597. Valentin Ortiz, L. 2020. Power back on, but thousands still homeless, in quake-hit Puerto Rico. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N29I0GA. van der Elst, N.J., Hardebeck, J.L., and Michael, A.J., 2020, Potential duration of aftershocks of the 2020 southwestern Puerto Rico earthquake: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020– 1009, 5 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201009.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Chapter 9. References 115
Appendix A. Island-based Fishery Management Plans Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 116
Appendix B. Other Applicable Law The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) provides the authority for fishery management in federal waters of the exclusive economic zone. However, fishery management decision-making is also affected by a number of other federal statutes designed to protect the biological and human components of U.S. fisheries, as well as the ecosystems that support those fisheries. Major laws affecting federal fishery management decision-making are summarized below. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) All federal rulemaking is governed under the provisions of the APA (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II), which establishes a “notice and comment” procedure to enable public participation in the rulemaking process. Under the APA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is required to publish notification of proposed rules in the Federal Register and to solicit, consider and respond to public comment on those rules before they are finalized. The APA also establishes a 30-day wait period from the time a final rule is published until it takes effect, which can be waived in certain instances. The proposed rule associated with this framework amendment will include a request for public comment, and if approved, upon publication of the final rule, there will most likely be a 30-day wait period before the regulations are effective in compliance with the APA. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) The CZMA of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) encourages state and federal cooperation in the development of plans that manage the use of natural coastal habitats, as well as the fish and wildlife those habitats support. When proposing an action determined to directly affect coastal resources managed under an approved coastal zone management program, NMFS is required to provide the relevant State agency with a determination that the proposed action is consistent with the enforceable policies of the approved program to the maximum extent practicable at least 90 days before taking final action. NMFS may presume State agency concurrence if the State agency’s response is not received within 60 days from receipt of the agency’s consistency determination and supporting information as required by 15 C.F.R. §930.41(a). Upon submission to the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS will determine if this framework amendment is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management programs of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), to the maximum extent possible. Their determination will then be submitted to the responsible agencies under Section 307 of the CZMA administering approved Coastal Zone Management programs.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 117
Information Quality Act (IQA) The IQA (Public Law 106-443) effective October 1, 2002, requires the government to set standards for the quality of scientific information and statistics used and disseminated by federal agencies. Information includes any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts or data, in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual forms (includes web dissemination, but not hyperlinks to information that others disseminate; does not include clearly stated opinions). Specifically, the IQA directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies.” Such guidelines have been issued, directing all federal agencies to create and disseminate agency-specific standards to: (1) ensure information quality and develop a predissemination review process; (2) establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information; and (3) report periodically to OMB on the number and nature of complaints received. Scientific information and data are key components of fishery management plans (FMP) and amendments and the use of best available information is the second national standard under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. To be consistent with the IQA, FMPs and amendments must be based on the best information available. They should also properly reference all supporting materials and data, and be reviewed by technically competent individuals. With respect to original data generated for FMPs and amendments, it is important to ensure that the data are collected according to documented procedures or in a manner that reflects standard practices accepted by the relevant scientific and technical communities. Data will also undergo quality control prior to being used by the agency and a pre-dissemination review. Endangered Species Act (ESA) The ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.) requires that federal agencies must ensure actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify the habitat designated as critical habitat (habitat essential to the species’ conservation). The ESA requires NMFS to consult with the appropriate administrative agency (itself for most marine species, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for all remaining species) when proposing an action that may affect threatened or endangered species or critical habitat. Consultations are necessary to determine the potential impacts of the proposed action. They conclude informally when proposed actions may affect but are “not likely to adversely affect” threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat. Formal consultations, resulting in a biological opinion, are required when proposed actions may affect and are “likely to adversely affect” threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat. Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 118
NMFS completed a biological opinion on September 21, 2020, evaluating the impacts of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries on ESA-listed species. Refer to Section 3.2.2 for additional information. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) The MMPA established a moratorium, with certain exceptions, on the taking of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas. It also prohibits the importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the United States. Under the MMPA, the Secretary of Commerce (authority delegated to NMFS) is responsible for the conservation and management of cetaceans and pinnipeds (other than walruses). The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for walruses, sea otters, polar bears, manatees, and dugongs. In 1994, Congress amended the MMPA, to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. The MMPA requires a commercial fishery to be placed in one of three categories, based on the relative frequency of incidental serious injuries and mortalities of marine mammals. Category I designates fisheries with frequent serious injuries and mortalities incidental to commercial fishing; Category II designates fisheries with occasional serious injuries and mortalities; Category III designates fisheries with a remote likelihood or no known serious injuries or mortalities. To legally fish in a Category I and/or II fishery, a fisherman must obtain a marine mammal authorization certificate by registering with the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (50 CFR 229.4) and accommodate an observer if requested (50 CFR 229.7(c)) and they must comply with any applicable take reduction plans. NMFS has determined that fishing activities conducted under the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs will have no adverse impact on marine mammals. In the 2021 List of Fisheries published by NMFS, all gear types used to harvest spiny lobster (e.g., trap/pot, dive, hand/mechanical collection) in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries are considered Category III (86 FR 3028). This classification indicates the annual mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock resulting from any fishery is less than or equal to one percent of the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock, while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. This Framework Amendment does not change the list of authorized gear types in these fisheries and as such would not alter this determination. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) regulates the collection of public information by federal agencies to ensure that the public is not overburdened with information requests, that the federal government’s information collection procedures are efficient, and that federal agencies adhere to appropriate rules governing the confidentiality of such information. The PRA requires Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 119
NMFS to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget before requesting most types of fishery information from the public. This action does not contain a collection-ofinformation requirement for purposes of the PRA. Small Business Act The Small Business Act of 1953, as amended, Section 8(a), 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 636(j), 637(a) and (d); Public Laws 95-507 and 99-661, Section 1207; and Public Laws 100-656 and 101-37 are administered by the Small Business Administration. The objectives of the act are to foster business ownership by individuals who are both socially and economically disadvantaged; and to promote the competitive viability of such firms by providing business development assistance including, but not limited to, management and technical assistance, access to capital and other forms of financial assistance, business training and counseling, and access to sole source and limited competition federal contract opportunities, to help the firms to achieve competitive viability. Because most businesses associated with fishing are considered small businesses, NMFS, in implementing regulations, must assess how those regulations will affect small businesses. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) The Magnuson-Stevens Act includes EFH requirements, and as such, each existing and new FMPs must describe and identify EFH for the fishery, minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on that EFH caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of that EFH. The areas affected by the proposed action have been identified as EFH for managed species, as described under the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs. As specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, EFH consultation is required for federal actions, which may adversely affect EFH. Any required consultation requirements will be completed prior to implementation of any new management measures. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires federal agencies to consider the environmental and social consequences of proposed major actions, as well as alternatives to those actions, and to provide this information for public consideration and comment before selecting a final course of action. This document contains an Environmental Assessment to satisfy the NEPA requirements.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 120
Executive Orders E.O. 12630: Takings The Executive Order on Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, which became effective March 18, 1988, requires that each federal agency prepare a Takings Implication Assessment for any of its administrative, regulatory, and legislative policies and actions that affect, or may affect, the use of any real or personal property. Clearance of a regulatory action must include a takings statement and, if appropriate, a Takings Implication Assessment. The NOAA Office of General Counsel will determine whether a Takings Implication Assessment is necessary for this amendment. E.O. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Order 12866, signed in 1993, requires federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of their proposed regulations, including distributional impacts, and to select alternatives that maximize net benefits to society. To comply with E.O. 12866, NMFS prepares a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for all fishery regulatory actions that either implement a new fishery management plan or significantly amend an existing plan. RIRs provide a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits to society associated with proposed regulatory actions, the problems and policy objectives prompting the regulatory proposals, and the major alternatives that could be used to solve the problems. The reviews also serve as the basis for the agency’s determinations as to whether proposed regulations are a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria provided in E.O. 12866 and whether proposed regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E.O. 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations This Executive Order mandates that each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions. Federal agency responsibilities under this Executive Order include conducting their programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefit of, or subjecting persons to discrimination under, such, programs policies, and activities, because of their race, color, or national origin. Furthermore, each federal agency responsibility set forth under this Executive Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 121
Order shall apply equally to Native American programs. Environmental justice considerations are discussed in Chapter 3. The action in this framework amendment is not expected to negatively impact minority or lowincome populations. E.O. 12962: Recreational Fisheries This Executive Order requires federal agencies, in cooperation with states and tribes, to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities through a variety of methods including, but not limited to, developing joint partnerships; promoting the restoration of recreational fishing areas that are limited by water quality and habitat degradation; fostering sound aquatic conservation and restoration endeavors; and evaluating the effects of federally-funded, permitted, or authorized actions on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries, and documenting those effects. Additionally, it establishes a seven-member National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council responsible for, among other things, ensuring that social and economic values of healthy aquatic systems that support recreational fisheries are considered by federal agencies in the course of their actions, sharing the latest resource information and management technologies, and reducing duplicative and cost-inefficient programs among federal agencies involved in conserving or managing recreational fisheries. The Council also is responsible for developing, in cooperation with federal agencies, states and tribes, a Recreational Fishery Resource Conservation Plan, to include a five-year agenda. Finally, the Order requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a joint agency policy for administering the ESA. E.O. 13089: Coral Reef Protection The Executive Order on Coral Reef Protection (June 11, 1998) requires federal agencies whose actions may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems to identify those actions, utilize their programs and authorities to protect and enhance the conditions of such ecosystems; and, to the extent permitted by law, ensure that actions they authorize, fund or carry out not degrade the condition of that ecosystem. By definition, a U.S. coral reef ecosystem means those species, habitats, and other national resources associated with coral reefs in all maritime areas and zones subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States (e.g., federal, state, territorial, or commonwealth waters). The Comprehensive Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans (FMP) of the U.S. Caribbean (CFMC 2005) designated habitats of particular concern in Puerto Rico and St. Croix for managed corals and established management measures to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects caused by fishing on those habitats. There are no implications to coral reefs by the actions proposed in this amendment.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 122
E.O. 13132: Federalism The Executive Order on Federalism requires agencies, when formulating and implementing policies, to be guided by the fundamental Federalism principles. The Order serves to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the states that was intended by the framers of the Constitution. Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government closest to the people. This Order is relevant to FMPs and amendments given the overlapping authorities of NMFS, the states, and local authorities in managing coastal resources, including fisheries, and the need for a clear definition of responsibilities. It is important to recognize those components of the ecosystem over which fishery managers have no direct control and to develop strategies to address them in conjunction with appropriate international, state, tribal, and local entities. No federalism issues have been identified relative to the action proposed in this framework amendment. E.O. 13112: Invasive Species This Executive Order requires agencies to use their authority to prevent introduction of invasive species, respond to and control invasions in a cost effective and environmentally sound manner, and to provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded. Further, agencies shall not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere unless a determination is made that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize the risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions. This action will not introduce, authorize, fund, or carry out actions that are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere. E.O. 13158: Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Executive Order 13158 (May 26, 2000) requires federal agencies to consider whether their proposed action(s) will affect any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural or cultural resource within the protected area. This action will not affect any MPAs in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, or St. Croix.
Generic Framework Amendment Spiny Lobster Reference Points
Appendices 123
Generic Framework Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix SERO
Modification of Spiny Lobster Management Reference Points Based on SEDAR 57 Stock Assessments 175th Caribbean Fishery Management Council Meeting August 11, 2021
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 2
Review from April 2021 Council Meeting Council reviewed actions in the draft framework amendment to the island-based FMPs, which updates spiny lobster management reference points following the accepted SEDAR 57 stock assessments and the change from Tier 4 to Tier 3 under the ABC Control Rule. Action 1 - Update spiny lobster OFL/ABC/ACLs using constantcatch or variable-catch approach. Action 2 - Update accountability measure (AM) trigger for spiny lobster. The framework amendment updates the maximum sustainable yield, overfished criteria, and overfishing criteria for spiny lobster in each island area based on outcomes from the SEDAR 57 stock assessments. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 3
Action 1 – Spiny Lobster OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs Alternative 3 (Preferred for each FMP): Select the constant-catch approach for specifying the OFL and ABC for spiny lobster and use the constant-catch ABC to derive the spiny lobster constant-catch ACL. Island/Island Group Puerto Rico St. Thomas/ St. John St. Croix
Year 2021-2023 2024+ 2021 - 2023 2024+ 2021 - 2023 2024+
Preferred Sub-alternative 3b (ACL = ABC * 0.95) 369,313 366,965 142,636 126,089 140,667 120,830 U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 4
Action 2 – Spiny Lobster AM Trigger Alternative 2 (Preferred for each FMP): Use the average of the most recent three years of spiny lobster landings to evaluate whether an AM is triggered. An AM is triggered if average landings exceeded average ACLs in place during those years. The years of landings used to trigger an AM can be adjusted to account for the best scientific information available. Fishing Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Most Recent Landings Available* 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
AM Trigger Preferred Alternative 2 Three-year average (2018-2020) Three-year average (2019-2021) Three-year average (2020-2022) Three-year average (2021-2023) Three-year average (2022-2024)
* Assuming landings are available two years after when the fishing occurred (i.e., the fishing year). U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 5
Next Steps Council could vote to submit the amendment to the Secretary of Commerce for implementation. • Council give staff permission to make non-substantive, editorial changes. • Council give Chair permission to review changes and submit Rulemaking started • Proposed rule would include a 30-day public comment period • Final rule after the island-based FMPs are implemented (amendment likely effective in early 2022)
U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 6
Questions
NOAA photo library U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 7
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/southeast
08/05/2021
F/SER28:ML
Mr. Marcos Hanke, Chair Caribbean Fishery Management Council 270 Muñoz Rivera Ave Suite 401 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918 Dear Mr. Hanke, Thank you for your letter regarding the protection of Nassau grouper in the United States exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Caribbean. You have raised concerns that Nassau grouper, which is managed in federal waters under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is being harvested contrary to federal regulations. This information comes from a person in the U.S. Virgin Islands who did not provide specific details about the alleged noncompliance. Under its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) and NOAA Fisheries have prohibited harvest and possession of Nassau grouper in or from federal waters in the U.S. Caribbean. This prohibition was established under Amendment 1 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (1990) and implemented via regulations maintained by NOAA Fisheries. The prohibition is retained under each of the islandbased FMPs, and will be included in proposed regulations to implement those FMPs (currently under development). Under the regulations, it is unlawful to fish for or possess Nassau grouper in or from the EEZ (50 C.F.R. § 622.434(b)). Because the regulation applies to Nassau grouper “in or from the EEZ,” to establish a federal violation NOAA Fisheries must show that the fish was possessed in, or caught in, the EEZ. If a vessel is in possession of Nassau grouper in the EEZ, it is in violation of the federal regulation. If a vessel possessing Nassau grouper is outside the EEZ, it may still be a federal violation if NOAA Fisheries has evidence that the fish was harvested or possessed in the EEZ. Without such evidence, NOAA Fisheries may refer the violation to the appropriate territory for prosecution under its laws, if applicable. NOAA Fisheries does not have authority to enforce a territory’s laws, even if a territory’s law is compatible with the federal one. Nassau grouper also are protected under the ESA. On June 29, 2016, NOAA Fisheries issued a final rule listing Nassau grouper as threatened (81 FR 42268 (June 29 2016); 50 C.F.R. § 223.102(e)). As a threatened species, the prohibitions on “take” of the species under Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1538) do not automatically apply to Nassau grouper, and NOAA Fisheries has not taken regulatory action to extend those protections to the species. Under the ESA, take means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. § 1532(19)). Therefore, “take” of Nassau grouper is not a violation of the ESA. ESA protections for Nassau grouper include Section 7 consultations on
activities with a federal nexus that may affect Nassau grouper. For example, in a Biological Opinion issued on September 21, 2020, NOAA Fisheries evaluated the effect of the authorization and management of the fisheries under the island-based FMPs on Nassau grouper and other listed species. NOAA Fisheries concluded that authorizing the fisheries off Puerto Rico and St. Croix was not likely to adversely affect Nassau grouper, and that authorizing the fisheries off St. Thomas/St. John is likely to adversely affect, but not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of Nassau grouper. NOAA Fisheries established take limits for the St. Thomas and St. John managed fisheries, and reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions to minimize the impact of the take. These limits, however, are not individually enforceable. NOAA Fisheries encourages the Council to provide specific information about federal violations to the Office of Law Enforcement so that it may investigate them as early as possible. I look forward to working with the Council to develop strategies to protect Nassau grouper and other federally managed and protected species. Sincerely, STRELCHECK.AND Digitally signed by REW.JAMES.13658 STRELCHECK.ANDREW.JAMES .1365863152 Date: 2021.08.05 12:33:53 -04'00' 63152
Andrew J. Strelcheck Acting Regional Administrator cc:
F/SER2 - Jack McGovern F/SER28 – Maria Lopez-Mercer GCSE – Jocelyn D’Ambrosio GCES – Loren Remsberg OLE – Manny Antonaras CFMC – Miguel Rolón
2