176th CFMC Regular Meeting Documents (December 7-8, 2021)

66288

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 222 / Monday, November 22, 2021 / Notices

Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

Review (STAR) Panel meeting to review the 2021 central subpopulation of northern anchovy (CSNA) stock assessment. The meeting will be cohosted by the NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center. DATES: The online meeting will be held Tuesday, December 7, through Friday, December 10, 2021. The meeting will begin each day at 8:30 a.m. Pacific Standard Time and will continue until 5 p.m. or until business for the day has been completed. ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council’s website (see www.pcouncil.org). You may contact Mr. Dale Sweetnam (dale.sweetnam@noaa.gov; (858) 546– 7170). Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220–1384. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820–2409. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary purpose of the meeting is to provide technical review of the CSNA stock assessment. The review panel will consist of at least three members of the Pacific Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee’s Subcommittee on Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS), and at least two independent experts from the Center for Independent Experts. Representatives of the Pacific Council’s CPS Management Team and the CPS Advisory Subpanel will also participate in the review as advisers. Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Special Accommodations

risks, for standards development in the emerging technology areas. • NIST seeks information on existing standards forums in the emerging technology areas. • NIST seeks to better understand the needs of industry in future publicprivate investment partnerships to foster innovation in the emerging technology areas. • NIST seeks information on how existing legislation and/or regulations may help or hinder the maturation of the emerging technology areas in the marketplace, and any areas where new legislation and/or regulations are needed to advance the emerging technology areas in the marketplace. Technology Applications & Utilization • NIST seeks to gain greater awareness of industry’s utilization of the emerging technology areas. • NIST seeks information on strengthening regional innovation centers across the United States. • NIST seeks information regarding the current marketplace landscape and projected changes to the marketplace with the adoption of the emerging technology areas. • NIST seeks information on risks and long-term trends in the marketplace for the emerging technology areas. • NIST seeks information on risks and long-term trends in supply chains within the emerging technology areas. • NIST seeks information about how organizations identify and assess risks posed to supply chains within the emerging technology areas. • NIST seeks information regarding foreign capability and capacity within the emerging technology areas. Alicia Chambers, NIST Executive Secretariat. [FR Doc. 2021–25428 Filed 11–19–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1

[RTID 0648–XB603]

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

Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a Stock Assessment

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:30 Nov 19, 2021

Jkt 256001

Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Dale Sweetnam (dale.sweetnam@noaa.gov; (858) 546–7170) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date. (Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Dated: November 17, 2021. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2021–25398 Filed 11–19–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RTID 0648–XB600]

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

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

Management Council (CFMC) will hold the 176th hybrid (virtual/in person) public meeting to address the items contained in the tentative agenda included in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. DATES: The 176th CFMC hybrid (virtual/

in person) public meeting will be held on December 7, 2021, from 9 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. AST, and on December 8, 2021, from 9 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. AST. The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott Isla Verde Beach Resort, 7012 Boca de Cangrejos Avenue, Carolina, Puerto Rico 00979. ADDRESSES: You may join the 176th 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 =VmVsc1orSUtKck8xYk 1XOXNDY1ErZz09 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

E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM

22NON1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 222 / Monday, November 22, 2021 / Notices In case there are problems and we cannot reconnect via Zoom, the meeting will continue using GoToMeeting. You can join the meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https:// global.gotomeeting.com/join/ 971749317. You can also dial in using your phone. United States: +1 (408) 650–3123 Access Code: 971–749–317. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918–1903, telephone: (787) 398–3717. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following items included in the tentative agenda will be discussed: December 7, 2021 9 a.m.–9:45 a.m. —Call to Order —Roll Call —Adoption of Agenda Consideration of 175th Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions —Executive Director’s Report 9:45 a.m.–10:45 a.m. —Five-Year Strategic Plan Presentation for CFMC Final Action—Michelle Duval, CFMC Contractor 10:45 a.m.–11:45 a.m. —DAP Chairs Reports on DAP Meetings (STT/STJ and PR) on Compatible Regulations —St. Thomas/St. John, USVI—Julien Magras (30 minutes) —Puerto Rico—Nelson Crespo (30 minutes) 11:45 a.m.–12 p.m. —Discussion on Trawling Gear in Federal Waters 12 p.m.–1 p.m. —Lunch Break

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1

1 p.m.–1:30 p.m. —Update on Progress for Life History of Shallow-Water Reef Fishes—Virginia Shervette —Deep-Water Snapper Life History Update—Virginia Shervette 1:30 p.m.–2 p.m. —Southeast Fisheries Science Center Update—Kevin McCarthy —Report on Caribbean Projects Inventory —Report on Species Selection for Assessments (SEDAR)

18:30 Nov 19, 2021

Jkt 256001

2:45 p.m.–3 p.m.

3 p.m.–3:10 p.m. —Break

—Next CFMC Meetings in 2022

3:40 p.m.–4:10 p.m. —Discussion of Timing of Accountability Measures for Spiny Lobster in Puerto Rico—Sarah Stephenson, SERO/NOAA Fisheries 4:10 p.m.–4:30 p.m. —PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (5minute presentations) 4:30 p.m. —Adjourn for the Day 4: 45 p.m.–5:15 p.m. —Closed Session December 8, 2021 9 a.m.–10 a.m. —Outreach and Education Report— Alida Ortiz —Social Media Report—Cristina Olán 10 a.m.–10:30 a.m. —Reports by Liaison Officers (10 minutes each) —St. Thomas/St. John, USVI—Nikole Greaux —St. Croix, USVI—Mavel Maldonado —Puerto Rico—Wilson Santiago 10:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m. —Enforcement Issues (15 minutes each): —Puerto Rico—DNER —USVI—DPNR —U.S. Coast Guard —NMFS/NOAA 11:30 a.m.–12 p.m. —Microplastics in the Caribbean Sea Project Report—Dalila Aldana 12 p.m.–1 p.m. —Lunch Break

1:30 p.m.–2 p.m. —Deep-Water Squid Fishing—Marcos Hanke 2 p.m.–2:30 p.m. —CFMC Advisory Bodies Membership

Frm 00021

Fmt 4703

3 p.m.–3:15 p.m.

—Adjourn Note (1): Other than starting time and dates of the meetings, the established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. To further accommodate discussion and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice. Changes in the agenda will be posted to the CFMC website, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram as practicable. Note (2): Financial disclosure forms are available for inspection at this meeting, as per 50 CFR part 601. The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The meeting will begin on December 7, 2021, at 9 a.m. AST, and will end on December 8, 2021, at 3:15 p.m. AST. Other than the start time on the first day of the meeting, interested parties should be aware that discussions may start earlier or later than indicated in the agenda, at the discretion of the Chair. Special Accommodations Simultaneous interpretation will be provided. For simultaneous interpretation English-Spanish-English follow your Zoom screen instructions. You will be asked which language you prefer when you join the meeting. For any additional information on this public virtual meeting, please contact Diana Martino, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918–1903, telephone: (787) 226–8849. (Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) Dated: November 17, 2021. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2021–25399 Filed 11–19–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

2:30 p.m.–2:45 p.m. —Other Business

PO 00000

—PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (5 minutes presentation)

3:15 p.m.

3:10 p.m.–3:40 p.m. —Discussion of Sargassum Issues and Role as Essential Fish Habitat—SERO/ NOAA Fisheries

1 p.m.–1:30 p.m. —Dolphinfish Research Program Update —Wessly Merten

2:00 p.m.–2:30 p.m. —Island-Based FMP Update—Marı́a López-Mercer, SERO/NOAA Fisheries —Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition—Marı́a López-Mercer, SERO/NOAA Fisheries

VerDate Sep<11>2014

2:30 p.m.–3 p.m. —Timing of Red Hind Seasonal Closures in Puerto Rico Federal Waters—Marı́a López-Mercer, SERO/ NOAA Fisheries

66289

Sfmt 9990

E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM

22NON1

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .............................................. 1 Table of Motions ............................................... 2 Call to Order and Roll Call .................................... 3 Adoption of Agenda ............................................. 3 Consideration of 173rd Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions . 5 Executive Director’s Report .................................... 5 Five-Year Strategic Plan Presentation .......................... 8 Update on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan Stakeholder Engagement Workshops ..................................................... 35 SSC Report .................................................... 41 Closed Seasons for Certain Species ............................ 54 Draft Tech Memo on Managing with ACLs for Data-Limited Stocks . 78 Enforcement Issues with Nassau Grouper and Other Fish Species in St. Thomas/St. John, USVI ..................................... 88 DAP Chairs Report on Buoy Gear Federal Regulations ............ 94 Other Business ............................................... 102 Capt. Silva’s Letter on Deepwater Snapper Grouper Fishery 102 EBFM Update .............................................. 110 Spiny Lobster Discussion ................................. 118 Discussion of Forage Species ............................. 120 Public Comment Period ........................................ 122 Next Council Meeting ......................................... 123 Adjournment .................................................. 125 - - -

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

TABLE OF MOTIONS PAGE 31: Motion that the CFMC accepts and endorses the five-year strategic draft plan as modified and presented by Dr. Michelle Duval and to follow the process to present this to the general public for any comment or suggestions. The final draft document will be presented to the CFMC at the December 2021 meeting for final action. The motion carried on page 34. PAGE 72: Motion that the CFMC direct staff to prepare an options paper to modify the seasonal closures for fishing for or possession of red hind in federal waters west of 67 degrees, 10 minutes West longitude and for the Tourmaline and Abrir la Sierra Bank red hind spawning aggregation areas. The motion carried on page 78. - - -

2

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

CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 174TH REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Webinar July 21, 2021 The Caribbean Fishery Management Council convened via webinar on Wednesday morning, July 21, 2021, and was called to order at 9:00 o’clock a.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL MARCOS HANKE: Good morning, everyone. It’s 9:00 a.m. on July 21. My name is Marcos Hanke, and I’m the CFMC Chairman. We are going to start the meeting, and we’re going to start with the call to order. Miguel, is there anybody on the staff that will name who is -MIGUEL ROLON:

Christina will give the record of people present.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Christina.

CHRISTINA OLAN: I am opening the list of participants. Miguel Rolon, Graciela Garcia-Moliner, Liajay Rivera, Marcos Hanke, Christina Olan, Alida Ortiz, Andy Strelcheck, Angie de los Irizarry, Carlos Farchette, Clay Porch, Diana Martino, Edward Schuster, Guillermo Cordero, Julian Magras, Helena Antoun, Jocelyn D’Ambrosio, Kevin McCarthy, Maria Lopez, Matt Wailea, Michelle Duval, Nelson Crespo, Nicole Angeli, Rich Appeldoorn, Sarah Stephenson, Sennai Habtes, Stacy Williams, Wilson Santiago, Yaritza Rodriguez, and Yasmin Velez. MARCOS HANKE: CHRISTINA OLAN:

That is all, Christina, for now? Yes.

MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Thank you. If I didn’t mention the date, I’m going to make sure, and it’s July 21, 2021. It’s 9:03 a.m. The next item on the agenda is the roll call that we just did, and now Adoption of the Agenda. Is there any comment on the agenda adoption? Go ahead, Miguel. ADOPTION OF AGENDA MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, Graciela has a couple of items that she would like to add to Other Business. MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Graciela. 3

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

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Good morning. To add to the agenda, under Other Business probably, but that’s at the pleasure of the council, but the follow-up on the ecosystem-based fishery management plans, the fishery ecosystem plan, and so we have Sennai Habtes to have a short presentation for a follow-up on what you had decided at the last meeting. We have -- I don’t know if we’re going to discuss anything else on the ACLs, and so I’m waiting to see if that would be added to the agenda under Other Business, and those are the two things that I have for my list. MARCOS HANKE: For Other Business, and any comment from the council members? Hearing none, let’s go to Adoption of the Agenda. NELSON CRESPO: Mr. Chair, if you give me the opportunity, I want to bring to the attention, in Other Business, about the reduction of forage species in the western coast of Puerto Rico and the impact that that is causing to the coastal fishermen. MARCOS HANKE:

Okay, and your name is Nelson?

NELSON CRESPO:

Nelson Crespo.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON: Nelson, for the record, could you state what is the other business? NELSON CRESPO: I want to bring to your attention, briefly, in Other Business, about the health and decline of forage species and the negative impact that this situation is causing to the local fishing in the west of Puerto Rico. MIGUEL ROLON:

Thank you.

NELSON CRESPO:

Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE:

We took note of that.

Anybody else?

ANDY STRELCHECK: Good morning. I want to add, to Other Business, a brief discussion of the spiny lobster accountability measure. MARCOS HANKE: We have included that. Thank you, Andy. Anybody else from the council have any comment or anything else to add to Other Business? Thank you very much. We have the follow-up on the EBFM, the ACL pending, if it’s not discussed during the agenda 4

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

items, if there’s a little space for that, and then forage species by Nelson Crespo, and spiny lobster requested by Andy Strelcheck. MIGUEL ROLON:

We need a motion to adopt the agenda.

MARCOS HANKE:

Motion to adopt the agenda, can anybody help there?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

Motion to adopt the agenda as read.

Is there a second?

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Second.

CONSIDERATION OF 173RD COUNCIL MEETING VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Vanessa. Is there any opposition or any comment? Hearing none, the agenda is adopted. Now Consideration of the 173rd Council Meeting Verbatim Transcription. Any comment? We need a motion to accept that. NICOLE ANGELI:

Motion to accept it as written.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Nicole.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Is there a second?

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos. Second by Carlos Farchette. Any comment or anybody in opposition? Hearing none, the motion carries. Now the Executive Director’s Report. Miguel. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, regarding the budget matters, we are okay until the end of the year. As we speak, there are a couple of meetings going on regarding the budget for the first quarter of the Department of Commerce, and they are going to start on October 1 and December 1, and, also, they are discussing the budget situation for 2022. There is no effect, at this time, on council operations, and so we are okay. The council continues also working with the WECAFC working groups, in coordination with the Office of Seafood Inspection and International Fishery Affairs of NOAA Fisheries and the Office of Protected Resources of NOAA Fisheries Regional Office, Southeast Regional Office. We are now in the pre-planning stages of the international working groups that are going to have the two meetings this year, and, 5

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

also, the meeting in March of the following year. The council contribution is complemented by the funding this year from NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources and International Fisheries. That will be used to cover meetings and the coordination of the queen conch spawning aggregation working group and the flyingfish working group, and we will also have a coordinator for a campaign, which is an international campaign, an outreach and education campaign to prepare and distribute documents and materials and radio bits, so that people can be aware, and we want to create more awareness of the fish aggregations throughout the Caribbean, especially Nassau grouper. As you know, it’s protected under the ESA, and the mutton snapper. As we said before, a plan has been prepared already, and it is being implemented by the other countries. We believe that this is a success story by the U.S. working with the other countries and the WECAFC, which is, as you know, the FAO branch in the western Caribbean, to manage the fisheries, and it’s on a voluntary basis so far, but to manage the fisheries at the national, sub-regional, and regional levels within the Caribbean Sea. The other thing that we wanted to touch on is that the council has been talking about area-based management, and that includes -- As you know, area-based management is something that we are discussing now and that we have the Executive Order 14008 by President Biden that calls for 30 percent closure of -- Not closure, but 30 percent conservation areas to be established between here and the year 2030, and the councils created a sub-committee, and the subcommittee is meeting actually tomorrow, and we will present a report by the CCC meeting in October. The idea is to look at all the area-based management, and areabased management includes national parks, and that includes closed areas, et cetera, and we would like to, number one, define the concepts, including conservation, for example. Conservation, for some people, means you close this area, and you don’t touch it, and you don’t look at it. The conservation and management act, as you know, is sustainability of the fishery using management tools, and that includes areabased management, and that includes marine reserves, as the ones in the Caribbean, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that you exclude all fishers, commercial or recreational, for an area that you closed. We have to be mindful of the mandates of the Magnuson Act for this type of actions, and so that’s what the sub-committee is 6

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

looking at at this time. In addition, we are going to have -- Locally, in the U.S. Caribbean, we are going to have, on February 9, 2022, a workshop on research, and that workshop will invite Dr. Diana -- As you know, she gave us a presentation of the work that she did for us, and other scientists and what the council has so far, in terms of marine reserves, and we, also, Dr. Alida Ortiz is going to present the component of outreach and education and what we have for marine reserves and what we propose to have for marine reserves, or areabased management. The educational component is very important. At this meeting, we will invite all council members and the DAP chairs, and it will be virtual, or it will be hybrid, in-person or virtual, so that people that are interested to participate -- It will be a one-day meeting, and we hope that everybody will be able to participate and work on the discussion that we are going to have. The morning of the meeting, we will get a presentation, and we also will have the point of view of fishers, and I would like to get, for example, the three chairs of the DAPs to provide to us a fisherman perspective, and that should be included in what we have for marine reserves, and, for example, we have marine reserves off of Puerto Rico, and we have marine reserves off of St. Thomas and St. Croix, and, in the case of St. Thomas and St. Croix, the fishers, especially Julian Magras and others, and Tony Blanchard, met with Alida and I and others, and we are beefing up the outreach and education materials that we have for that area, and it was an initiative from fishers. At this meeting, on February 9, we would like to hear the perspective of the local fishers on what a marine reserve is. Internationally, there are some people who would like to have oceanic marine reserves. For people that don’t know what that is, there are a couple of videos on the internet about it, and, basically, what you’re doing is to create marine reserves that will ensure the spawning, feeding, et cetera, of oceanic species, such as tuna and billfish and everything, and the like. This is being done in, proposed in, the Pacific and other areas, but not in the Caribbean so far, and there are some interested people, countries, looking at this possibility. The COVID-19 control plan is still on in Puerto Rico, and so we have to follow the Governor’s indications for this plan, and that means that we have to be mindful for the December meeting, and the December meeting will be, again, a hybrid meeting. We will be in7

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

person and virtual. Those people that come into Puerto Rico, you have to be abreast of the regulations at that time. For example, if you are not vaccinated, or you don’t have a COVID-free certificate for no longer than seventy-two hours, you cannot enter Puerto Rico unless you are vaccinated. If you don’t have any of those two, you have to quarantine yourself for fourteen days at your own expense. We will have more information for you by November, but this is the situation as if now. Therefore, the meeting in August will be also virtual. The council staff also will be teleworking, and we established guidance for telework following the telework.gov of the federal government, and everybody will be required to have at least one day at the meeting present. If there’s not a meeting, the office will be open five days a week, as it is right now, but the staff will have the flexibility of prior authorization by the Executive Director to keep working remotely. We have found that the staff is doing what they are supposed to do by working remotely, and it’s a success story, but we need to keep the office open at all times, and so that’s why it is telework, and that will be included in our handbook from now on. The next meeting will be in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The next council meeting will be December 7 and 8, and it will be at the Marriott Courtyard Hotel in Isla Verde, and you are all familiar with it, and we will get lunch, so you don’t have to venture out if you don’t want to, off the premises. That’s all I have so far, Mr. Chairman, unless you have any questions at this time. MARCOS HANKE: Anybody from the council that would like to ask questions? Does anybody from the council have a question or a comment to the Executive Director’s report? Hearing none, we will move along for the next presentation, which is the five-year strategic plan, and that’s going to be presented by Dr. Michelle Duval. FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN PRESENTATION MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and council members. I am happy to be able to present to you today on the complete draft of the 2022 to 2024 strategic plan. Both a copy of this presentation as well as the complete document are posted on the council’s website, and I believe Diana emailed those to everybody as well. 8

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

I just want to start with, as usual, an overview of what I plan to cover today, and so I thought it might be useful, at this point, to just review the rationale for the strategic plan, and then we’ll do a quick review of the previous district advisory panel and council actions over the past couple of months, and then we’ll walk quickly through the vision, mission, and core values before getting into the goals and objectives, and then we’ll wrap up with questions and hopefully council approval for public input. At this point in the process, I think it’s always good to review the rationale. In other words, why did we go down the path of developing a strategic plan, and so, really -- And what are the things that a strategic plan allows the council to do, and so, primarily, and I think most importantly, it allows the council to establish priorities and future direction, and so, as I’ve mentioned in the past, the council has spent a lot of time reorganizing the management framework, through the development of the island-based fishery management plans, and is also working on the development of the fishery ecosystem plan, which will kind of serve as a roadmap, or a guide, for how to incorporate social, economic, cultural, and ecological goals within this new management framework. The strategic plan allows for the establishment of future priorities and direction for these efforts. Another thing that a strategic plan does is it can allow the council to allocate resources, the limited resources that it has, in a way that will be most effective for achieving its goals, and it can also allow the council to plan for and respond to changing conditions, whether that’s changing conditions in a fishery or it’s changing conditions in the world around us, which seems to be happening a lot these days. It also provides for transparency and accountability in decisionmaking, and so, as stakeholders are trying to understand why the council made Choice A versus Choice B, a strategic plan can help with that. It also allows for more effective communication and collaboration with both management partners and stakeholders, because people can see what the council’s priorities are. Then, finally, it allows the council to track progress of these priorities over time. Just a quick review of previous actions, back at the end of March, the district advisory panels reviewed and approved the draft island-specific objectives and provided some initial feedback on potential strategies or approaches to meet those objectives, and then, at the end of April, at your last meeting, you all reviewed and selected draft vision, mission, and goal statements and 9

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

approved and the island-specific objectives that were reviewed by the DAPs. Then the DAPs met again in June to take another look at the draft strategies, as well as make a few additional tweaks and edits to the island-specific objectives, and so our goal for today is for you all to review and approve a complete draft of the strategic plan for public input. Just a quick reminder of how the plan is set up, and so we have a unified vision and mission, and there are four different goal themes, and three of those goal themes are organized according to island-specific objectives and associated strategies, and so these are the draft vision and mission statements that you all selected at your meeting at the end of April, and recall the vision statement is really the aspirational future state, and so this is what we would like U.S. Caribbean fisheries to look like in the future. That is thriving and resilient island ecosystems, fisheries, and fishing communities that provide cultural, social, and economic benefits for all. Then the mission is really the council’s reason for being, and its mandate under the Magnuson Act, and so that is the Caribbean Fishery Management Council conserves, restores, and manages fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The council is committed to advancing the collaborative stewardship of these fisheries and supporting island ecosystems through education, outreach, and stakeholder input. If the vision is the aspirational future state, what we would like things to look like, and the mission reflects why the organization exists, then the core values really reflect what an organization stands for, and so these core values were based on all of the discussions and input from the district advisory panels and the council, as well as management partners and the public, throughout this entire process, and so they are stewardship of marine resources, collaboration with management partners and stakeholders, integrity, and so maintaining the highest professional standards of conduct in fisheries management, transparency in decision-making and ensuring clear communication, fairness in the treatment of all stakeholders, as well as in the making of decisions, and respect for the diversity and unique characteristics of island fishing communities and the needs of stakeholders. 10

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

We also have four goal themes within the strategic plan, and these represent the major areas of focus needed to achieve the council’s vision, and so the management theme is about how the council manages fishery resources to meet goals for island fisheries, as well as meeting requirements for sustainability. The ecosystem and resource health theme is focused on how the council will implement the fishery ecosystem plan, as well as address habitat conservation and ecosystem impacts. The social, cultural, and economic issues theme is focused on how the council considers fishing community and stakeholder needs as well as incorporates social and economic information into its decisions, and then the communication and outreach theme is really focused on how the council communicates with fishers and other stakeholders, as well as how it engages and educates and obtains feedback from the public and stakeholders. This led to the following draft goal statements that you all selected at your meeting in April. There’s management, which is advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners. Ecosystem and resource health is promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources. Social, cultural, and economic issues ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use. Communication and outreach is engage, education, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the council process. Now we’re going to walk through the draft objectives, goal-areaby-goal-area, and, before we do that, I just want to mention a few things that I have mentioned in the past, which is that there is a lot of overlap in the island-specific objectives, and this has to do with the priority issues that were selected by the district advisory panels as well as objectives that are contained within each of the island-based fishery management plans, as well as input from the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel. Because everyone has received a copy of the complete draft of the strategic plan, and that’s posted up on the website, I’m not going to walk through each of those strategies and draft objectives in detail, but I’m going to focus on some of the similarities and differences and just kind of highlight an example of the types of strategies that are included within each of the different island11

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

specific objectives. We will go ahead and start with Objectives 1 through 4, which are the Puerto Rico draft management objectives. Objective 1 is support the development of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs. This includes strategies such as improving fishery-independent and fishery-dependent data, both on the commercial and recreational side. Objective 2 is promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs, and so this includes strategies such as development and prioritization of a Puerto-Rico-specific list of research needs and collaborating with fishers and science partners in doing so. Objective 3 is ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement, and so this includes the review of the enforceability of management measures and the consistency of those management measures, among other things, and then Objective 4 is collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management that considers diverse community interests. This includes strategies such as development of clear management objectives, as well as things like consistency with local ecosystem productivity. Moving on to St. Thomas/St. John, Objectives 5 through 9 are the draft management objectives for St. Thomas/St. John, and you will note that the first four of these are really pretty much exactly the same as the Puerto Rico management objectives, and so, again, the specificity really comes into play with the strategies within each of these objectives. I will note that Objective 5 also includes the word “implementation”. It’s to support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection programs. For St. Thomas/St. John, this includes strategies such as improving the data collection needed to evaluate the impacts of species and area closures. Objective 6 includes strategies such as involving fishers in the assessments of the effectiveness of species -- Of closed areas and assessment of species that are impacted by those closed areas, as well as things like development of educational materials to promote fisher understanding of science needs. 12

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

Objective 7 includes strategies such as cross-training of enforcement personnel and joint enforcement efforts. Objective 8 includes strategies such as developing consistent regulations, where appropriate, and aligning management with local ecosystem capacity. Then Objective 9 is consider the potential impacts of climate change on the efficacy of management measures. This includes strategies such as evaluating existing fisheryindependent information to try to ascertain trends in that data that might be impacted by climate change, as well as soliciting fisher input on species and habitat distributions. Moving on to St. Croix, and this is Objectives -ANDY STRELCHECK: Michelle, sorry to interrupt, but I am curious, with Objective 9 -- That is specific to only St. Thomas/St. John? MICHELLE DUVAL: Yes, and so, you know, Andy, that was, again, because of the prioritization of issues, and so this rose up as a major issue that was selected by the DAP. Now, with respect to prioritization, I will say that, if you look through the complete draft of the strategic plan, you will note that the other islandspecific objectives for both Puerto Rico, as well as for St. Croix, include strategies to look at the impacts of climate change in a variety of different areas. ANDY STRELCHECK: I noticed that, and that’s why I wanted to make a note here, as you were going through the presentation, because it did seem a little bit unusual to just have a climate change objective for one island platform and not encompassing all of the island platforms. MICHELLE DUVAL: Yes, and, again, that was due to the -- We went through a pretty extensive review and discussion of a suite of different issues under each of these different goal themes, and climate change was noted as one of the top-five priority issues for St. Thomas/St. John under that management theme. Anything else? ANDY STRELCHECK:

Thank you.

MICHELLE DUVAL: No problem. Just, again, going back to St. Croix, and so Objectives 10 through 13 are the draft management objectives for St. Croix, and, again, these are very similar to the ones for Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John, with the exception of a specific objective devoted to climate change, as Andy noted. Objective 10 includes strategies such as modifications to licensing requirements to improve catch reporting. Objective 11 13

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

includes strategies such as support for joint gear selectivity studies and providing opportunities for fishers to contribute to filling data gaps. Objective 12 includes strategies such as development of compliance guides for commercial and recreational fishermen, and Objective 13 includes strategies such as support for measures that reduce bycatch and ensuring that management measures consider the impacts of climate change and invasive species. I will move on to the draft ecosystem and resource health goal, and, again, starting with the draft island-specific objectives for Puerto Rico. Objective 14 is implement the fishery ecosystem plan as a roadmap for future council actions to maintain ecological relationships, roles, and services of Puerto Rico’s island ecosystem, and so this includes strategies to -- Objective 14 includes strategies such as evaluating the contributions of existing closed areas to ecosystem integrity and collaborating with fishers and science partners to improve ecosystem information. Objective 15 is identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of Puerto Rico, and so this includes development of council habitat policies regarding things such as erosion and sedimentation and other forms of pollution. Objective 16 is collaborate with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters on ecosystem structure and function, and I will note that this was a high-priority issue for Puerto Rico, and this was one of those things, similar to climate change for St. Thomas/St. John, that really rose to the top when the Puerto Rico DAP was having their discussion back in August of last year, and so this includes strategies such as evaluating the ability of management approaches to be responsive to ecosystem impacts from natural disasters and to incorporate those impacts into ecosystem status reports. Objective 17 is collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships, and so this includes strategies such as outreach to the fishing community, as well as local agencies, on the impacts of both fishing and non-fishing-related activities. Moving on to St. Thomas/St. John, Objectives 18 through 22 are the St. Thomas/St. John draft ecosystem and resource health objectives, and, again, there are several similarities and overlaps here with the objectives we just reviewed for Puerto Rico, 14

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

including Objective 18, Objective 19, and Objective 21. Objectives 20 and 22 are a little bit different, but just to highlight a few of the strategies that are reflected here, and so, with respect to Objective 18, one of the strategies here is to consider ecosystem approaches that are responsive to climate change, and so, again, addressing climate change in a slightly different way, or in a different area. Objective 19 includes strategies such as developing outreach materials related to habitat loss and accounting for ecological roles in essential fish habitat designations. Objective 20 includes strategies such as identification of habitat enhancement opportunities, as well as funding from other federal agencies that might support habitat creation. Objective 21 includes, again, outreach with enforcement personnel, similar to Puerto Rico, and outreach to permitting agencies, with respect to the impact of illegal fishing activities on ecosystem structure and function, and then Objective 22 is collaborate with science partners to identify and address ecological data and information gaps, and so this includes collaboration with partners to prioritize ecological data needs, as well as exploring datasets, to try to fill in some of those gaps. Moving on to St. Croix, Objectives 23 through 27, and so, again, you will note that there are -- Several of these objectives are similar to those reflected in both St. Thomas/St. John as well as Puerto Rico, and that includes Objectives 23, 24, 25, and 26, and so there is that Objective 25 that is creation or rehabilitation of fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function. Objective 27 is collaborate with management partners to ensure that ecosystem approaches are responsive to climate change, environmental changes, and natural disasters, and so, again, climate change being incorporated in a slightly different way by one district advisory panel compared to others. Just a highlight under Objective 23, and this includes strategies such as, again, identifying and prioritizing ecological data needs, and Objective 24 also includes things like development of council habitat policies, as well as protection of juvenile habitats and supporting modified coastal zone regulations. Objective 25 includes additional strategies, such as investigating the use of fish aggregating devices, where appropriate. Objective 26 also includes similar types of outreach to law enforcement, 15

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

fishing communities, as well as other agencies on the impacts of non-fishing, fishing, as well as development on ecosystem structure. Then Objective 27 includes strategies such as collaborating with the broader Caribbean community to identify climate change -Impacts from climate change, as well as natural disasters. Moving on to the draft social, cultural, and economic issues goal, it’s, again, just starting with Puerto Rico, and so there are four objectives here. Objective 28 is to promote the collection of social and economic data that informs management decisions, and so this includes strategies such as engaging with multiple partners to identify and prioritize those social and economic data gaps. Objective 29 is evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions and actions across user groups, and so, for example, documenting the social and economic impacts of the existing closed seasons and areas on all stakeholders and ensuring that management measures address cultural differences. Objective 30 is promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities, and so this includes strategies such as support for a recruitment and training program for new and young fishers. Objective 31 is consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in Puerto Rico on economic opportunity and social wellbeing, and so this includes strategies such as documenting the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed fish sales. Moving to St. Thomas/St. John, the four objectives, 32 through 35, here are exactly the same as those for Puerto Rico, and so I’m just going to highlight a couple of the strategies that are included here. Under Objective 32, this also includes strategies such as incorporating social and economic data needs into funding opportunities. Objective 33 includes ensuring that management measures address fishing community differences. Objective 34 includes strategies such as support for infrastructure improvements, particularly landing and selling sites. Objective 35 includes strategies such as working with partners to determine how addressing enforcement needs might improve economic conditions, as well as trust among user groups. Similarly, for St. Croix, these four island-specific objectives are identical to those for St. Thomas and St. John, and I will note that the St. Croix District Advisory Panel added Objective 38 16

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

during their June meeting, and so just some examples of the strategies incorporated here under Objective 36, and they’re similar to some of the other strategies for Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John, but also ensuring that any social or economic studies include collaboration with the Department of Planning and Natural Resources. Objective 37 includes strategies such as providing -- Ensuring that management approaches provide equitable access for both commercial and recreational fishers. Objective 38 includes strategies such as development of outreach materials regarding social media use for marketing of locally-caught fish, and Objective 39 includes strategies such as educating hoteliers and restauranteurs on the importance of purchasing fish from licensed commercial fishers. Now I will move on to the communication and outreach goals, and so this one does not have any island-specific objectives or strategies. Recall that, during development, these were issues that were considered to be important jurisdiction-wide, equally across all of the council’s island platforms. There are three objectives here. Objective 40 is use a variety of communication tools that consider the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of target audiences, in coordination with the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel, and so there’s a lot of strategies in here that focus on tools, such as continued use of the council’s social media platforms, identifying those stakeholder groups that might still need -- That might prefer traditional communication tools, such as paper or radio. Then accounting for language-specific preferences, development of sector-specific communications, and things like that. Objective 41 is promote participation of a variety of stakeholders in the council process, and so this includes strategies such as increasing the frequency of council communications, particularly in advance of a meeting, to try to promote that participation, expanding some of the virtual opportunities, not only for participation, but also for education. Use things such as online comment forms to provide additional means for stakeholders to participate in the process. Expanding participation by experienced and young fishers, through outreach programs, and so these are just a smattering of the strategies included under that objective. Then the final objective is about the education component, and so it is improve public and stakeholder understanding and awareness of fisheries management, current issues, and the council process, 17

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

and so this includes expansion of the council’s non-traditional stakeholder outreach, continued support for the Marine Resource Education Program, development of island-specific outreach and education materials, you know continuing to try to improve the clarity and simplicity of presentations to improve public understanding, expanding the roles of the fisheries liaisons. Then coordinating territorial and council outreach, as needed, to ensure that there is a consistent message being displayed to the public. Again, those are just a few examples of the strategies contained under that particular objective. With respect to next steps, the plan is to post the draft plan on the council’s website and allow for the public to have some time to review that and provide any comments via an online comment form. The council would review that public feedback and provide approval of the final strategic plan. Then after that is development of an implementation plan for 2022, and so this would be presented at the December council meeting this year, and the implementation plan is really what includes the actions that the council will be engaged in over the upcoming year in pursuit of the strategic plan. Miguel can speak a little bit more to this, but a sub-committee of the council will be prioritizing the actions needed to implement the objectives of the strategic plan, and the intent right now is that that sub-committee would meet a couple of times a year, in both June and December, and that we review progress and then identify actions for the following year’s implementation plan. That is all I have for the presentation, and I am happy to take any questions. I do, before we get into questions, really want to extend my sincere gratitude and thanks to all members of the district advisory panels. They really had the heavy lift on this, and this plan would not be possible without their support, and especially to the DAP chairs for their leadership and reaching out to their membership, to make sure that everybody always knew when the meetings were happening and to encourage their participation, and so, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to take any questions. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Michelle. Thank you for a great job and presentation. I think this document reflects the great and hard work that you guys all performed. I just wanted to make a comment about Andy’s question. I think we have, on every island, elements that are related to climate change, and climate change, for many people, is a new concept, and the relationship with other things, and the fishing community is learning about it and feeling the effects. It’s not something 18

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

that has been with us for a long, long time, at least in a perceptible way, right, and I think Nelson Crespo wanted to add some comments to it. Nelson. NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it’s appropriate to bring to Puerto Rico the issues of climate change, too. That is some of the issues that I wanted to discuss with the forage species, and I think it’s very important, the impact of the climate change that we have during these times on the negative reduction of these species, and I think we have to put it in our list. MICHELLE DUVAL: Thanks for that, Nelson, and so you would like to go ahead and sort of like add a specific objective, similar to what St. Thomas/St. John has of considering the potential impacts of climate change on the efficacy of management measures? NELSON CRESPO: Yes, exactly, the impact of the climate change and everything related to the ecosystem and habitats and everything. MICHELLE DUVAL: MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

Great.

Thanks, Nelson.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Nelson.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Michelle, thanks for the great presentation and really great job by the DAPs and everyone that contributed to, obviously, the work you’ve been doing. It’s a very comprehensive plan, as you’ve kind of walked through it, and there’s lots of objectives and lots of strategies. I am curious to kind of hear a little bit more from the standpoint of kind of the next steps, the FY22 kind of action plan, that would be developed, because the success, in my view, with so many of these strategic plans really does come down to how they’re implemented and, essentially, how we prioritize the large number of strategies that are identified. MICHELLE DUVAL: That’s a great question, Andy, and I appreciate you asking the question. Other councils that have strategic plans, and I am thinking specifically about the Mid-Atlantic Council, as you have indicated, the implementation plan is really where the rubber meets the road, because no council can do everything at once, and not all strategies can be implemented by a council at one time. Again, this is a five-year strategic plan, and so having that annual process of development of an implementation plan I think is key, and so I’m certainly not going to be around for the next five years, every year, to help with the development of an implementation plan, but that’s part of my charge here, is to work with council staff and work with the sub-group that Miguel would 19

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

like to set up to develop this prioritized list, and I think, in doing so, it’s really critically important to have those activities for the upcoming year aligned according to the objectives that they are meant to address. They don’t necessarily have to be, I think, lined up under a specific strategy, but I think it’s really important for stakeholders and the public to understand the activities and how the activities relate to these objectives, which are important for the council to achieve its vision. I will just note that -- I will just give an example of the process that occurs in the Mid-Atlantic region, and so, beginning in October, staff works to review the activities from the previous year, it looks at how those have aligned with the strategic plan, and it develops based on the progress of those activities, and, obviously not every activity that a council undertakes is a oneyear-type of activity, but the staff then develops a draft list of activities and priorities for the upcoming year. The council reviews that, and then it has a second -- There is an opportunity for the public to provide some input on that, between October and December, and then, at its December meeting, the final implementation plan for the following year is approved. I will say that there’s always a list of items that are kind of - It’s a little bit of a wish list, and like, if it ends up that we have a little bit more time, or some more resources, here’s a list of four or five things that we might decide to tackle, and so apologies for the lengthy response, Andy, but it’s an important question, and I wanted to be thorough in my response. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, I want to say something about the next steps, but I would like to call to your attention that Vanessa, Richard Appeldoorn, and Clay Porch would like a turn to speak, in that order. MARCOS HANKE: ahead.

Thank you.

I have, on the list here, Vanessa.

Go

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really want to recognize all the great work that they have been doing with this strategic plan, especially because the objectives are very direct and easy to read, and, of course, Michelle, as you know, we’re here to work with you, and we’ll be able to make the collaborations with the fishermen, so they can participate in the public presentation of this, and, also, as always, we will ask if we can have a copy in Spanish, so that it’s more easy for them and to help them to 20

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

discuss this.

Thanks.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Vanessa, and, yes, I am working on a Spanish version as we speak, but I didn’t want to finalize it until after the council had the opportunity to review, and so thank you very much for the question, and absolutely the plan is for a copy in Spanish. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Vanessa. Richard Appeldoorn.

Next in the queue is

RICHARD APPELDOORN: Thank you, Marcos. Let me first start off reiterating what’s been said about the work by the DAPs. It’s a really tremendous job by them. My question has to do with a little bit of say organization. This is a strategic plan for the council, yet, almost immediately, it breaks down into strategic plans that seem to reflect the island-based FMPs, and, when I am reading, or listening to, the objectives, they really are the same things, slightly tweaked, for all islands, and they really should just be the objectives of the council. Where it changes, and this is significant, is the strategies that need to be followed in different islands, because that’s when you get into the different cultural administrative governance structures that exist there, and so I was wondering whether it might be better to have all your objectives stated as objectives stated by the council and not island-based, but the strategies would then break down to be island-based. This is, again, just an organizational question, and I am not, certainly questioning the work and wisdom of the others, and, as I said, that’s a really good job that everyone has done. Thank you. MIGUEL ROLON: If I may, one of the reasons that we have that is -- Because you are right, and the objectives are all the same, but we wanted to reflect the participation of the island fishers, the island communities, in the work that they did and the work that they are going to pursue, because you’re right about the objectives and strategies. If I may, Mr. Chairman, before -- I will wait, and then, when you finish the list, I can add a little bit more to what Richard just said, but this is an important point. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. I just noticed that Tony Blanchard asked for a turn to speak, but the next one on the queue is Clay Porch and then Tony Blanchard. Clay. MIGUEL ROLON:

You also have Julian, Marcos. 21

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

CLAY PORCH: Great. Thank you, first of all, Michelle, for this presentation. I think it was very well done, and I agree with all the comments before. I kind of wanted to follow-up on Andy’s comment, and I agree that, if we don’t have an implementation plan associated with this, what will inevitably happen is that this basically gets put up on a shelf somewhere, and people kind of forget about it. I think, as part of the implementation plan, it’s really key to development measurable targets that you can actually track and then have at least an annual process, if not a quarterly process, where you are actually evaluating those metrics, and those can be leading measures, looking at things that are telling you -- Are pointing towards the end result that you want, and so you look at the progress you’re making on certain things, or it could be a lagging measure, measuring the percent success that you have had in implementing that particular implementation strategy. I think it’s just really, really key to do that, and I wonder if Michelle, or anyone on the council, has any advice on how that would be accomplished. Related to that, various of us would be working with the council to implement some of those strategies and achieve those objectives. The Southeast Fisheries Science Center actually now had a working strategic plan with an implementation strategy and measurable targets and all that, and so it would behoove us to work with the council to modify our own strategic plan and incorporate some initiatives that are common goals between the council and the Southeast Center, and so I will just leave that open to comment for you, Michelle, and maybe also Miguel and anyone else on the council. Thank you. MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, if I may, to that point.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: That’s exactly why, in the last slide that Dr. Duval put on the screen, we have the sub-committee, and the way that I envision this is that the sub-committee -- If you look at the strategic plan and the objectives, you would need millions of dollars and thousands of people to work on it. Therefore, we need to land on reality here, and I believe that this committee should have a sub-committee. For example, Graciela and Richard, as Chair of the SSC, can work with the Southeast Fisheries Science Center to harmonize our strategic plan 22

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

objectives with the ones that the Southeast Fisheries Science Center has, and then we can do it on a yearly or -- I mean, we need to plan the whole thing through the budget cycle for these four years from now. We also need to be real about the things that we can do, and so the meeting in December is very important, because, at that meeting, we will decide how and when this group will meet to submit to the council the plan for the following years. In the summer, we need to check where are we, what have we done, what we said we would do in January or December. The process is dynamic, and sorry, Mr. Chairman, and I just wanted to inject that, because what Clay Porch just said is exactly what we are discussing, and, if we can separate the group at the subcommittee -- I have, for example, Alida Ortiz, who will work with the outreach and education part of the objectives and the strategies. That way, when the council meets, you will have a report from the group that is working on the strategy of let’s say science, with the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and the SSC. You will have a report from the outreach and education and so forth, and then it’s very important to have, in the committee, the three chairs of the DAPs, to look at the objectives and the strategies of each island area, and so we will concentrate on what is possible for the following year, what is possible for the next two or three years. The core of this plan, and I agree 100 percent with Clay, because I hate to have this document put on a shelf and say we did it, great, and that’s it. No, and this is a very dynamic document, and it will spell out the action of the councils to implement the MSA and everything that we do in the following years, pinpointing the priorities and also assign monies to those priorities and actions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MARCOS HANKE: Blanchard.

Thank you very much.

Next in the queue is Tony

TONY BLANCHARD: Good morning. Sorry for being late to the meeting, and I was having problems getting on. That was a good presentation, Michelle, but I have -- Not really a question, but a comment, or a comment and a question as to putting this information on the website and getting it out there to the community, and I think that’s a good idea, but I think we overemphasize that everybody does not get on the websites and look up information. Now, the question is this. Is this going to be brought in an in-person meeting before the public before any 23

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

measures are taken?

That’s a question.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Thanks for the question, Tony. I really appreciate that, and so especially the fact that not all members of the public have access to the internet, or may even think to go to the council’s website, and so I don’t know about an in-person meeting. I think that that’s something that I will leave for Miguel to address, just given the state of the world as it is right now, but, in terms of ensuring that people have opportunity to provide comment on the draft plan, I don’t think it’s any problem to send out a hard copy, along with a hard copy of a comment form, to anyone who would like to provide comments on that, and I think, if there are suggestions for how to do that -I know that, in the past, Miguel and the staff have graciously made copies of presentations related to the strategic planning process and sent them out to the list of stakeholders that they have that they send out notifications to, and so I might be speaking beyond my authority here, but I do think that is one way, sending out hard copies to folks, along with a hard copy of a comment form, to make sure that they’re able to comment. I think I will leave -- I will let Miguel comment on having an in-person meeting to present this to the public before actions are taken. MIGUEL ROLON: Between here and December, we are not going to have any in-person meetings. However, we can send the material, via regular mail, to anybody interested, and we have to engage, and we already did it, but just to reiterate for the record here, but we are engaging the liaison officers in each one of the island areas. We have Nicole Greaux, Mavel Maldonado, and Wilson Santiago, and they will be in charge of also identifying those people who would like to receive this documentation on paper, and they will have let’s say twenty sets each, so they can distribute it as needed, and then word of mouth. If you know somebody, or someone, who would like to have this on paper, and they do not have capacities or the willingness to go to the webpage, please let us know, and we will send them the documents. The other thing that we can do is to send a three-by-five postcard to everybody that we have in our mailing list, and Iris can do that, and Diana, and then announce that we have this available, and, if you want a copy, please contact so and so, and we’ll send you a copy. That way, by December we will be able to have a report 24

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

on any comments that we might receive from today until probably November. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

Tony, a follow-up?

TONY BLANCHARD: I’m going to be honest with you, Miguel, and I think sometimes we don’t really understand the people that we’re dealing with, when it comes to outreach, because -- I’m going to be quite honest with you, and there are some surveys going around that recently we found out that the surveys were being backed by the Pew Foundation, and they are going under Lenfest. Now, my question is this. You have surveys going out, and most people don’t look into these things, but, when it comes to like who is behind the surveys, how do you think that’s going to go with the fishers, number one? Number two, the other part of it is, at this point in time, when any surveys goes out, it’s going to be a question, and I don’t care who it’s coming from, if it’s even coming from the President, and it’s going to be questioned, because of the atmosphere with the fishermen and the state in which the fishermen are being looked at and handled by the government, number one, as well as other user groups, meaning anybody who is willing to use this, and there is a negative stigma towards us, and I don’t know if we’ve got a target on our backs. At the end of the day, when these guys hear “survey”, they’re going to take it and they’re going to put it in the garbage can, and so my take on having an in-person meeting, even if they could read and comprehend, because we have been accused of being illiterate, and even if they could read and comprehend the material on that document, some will not do so, and they just won’t grasp it. There needs to be an explanation behind the documents in order for this to work. Now, we could push it off any other way and downplay it, but, if you’re going to ask my opinion as to how I think this should go, knowing the type of people that we are dealing with, I think it needs to be an in-person meeting with an explanation behind any questions that they might have concerning the presentation, because what we are doing for outreach is not working, and I will get into that later, when outreach and education comes up, but that’s just my take on it. I mean, at the end of the day, this is above my paygrade, and so, whatever everybody else decides to do, go ahead. MIGUEL ROLON: Duly noted, Tony, and we will proceed with the process that we set, and we will take into consideration your 25

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

comments, and, as soon as we can do it, provided that COVID allows, we will have in-person meetings to explain this further. Remember that this document is dynamic, and so it doesn’t mean that we decide between here and December will be locked in stone and that will be it. The document is dynamic, and so, when we have the mechanism, we can have in-person meetings, and we can have workshops and continue the work, so that everybody that has an interest will be able to participate effectively. I hear what you’re saying, and we have to take it into consideration, and we have done it, Alida and I, and so, hopefully, if we are allowed, in 2022, to have more in-person meetings, we will take this into consideration and continue the conversation with the public, because the first thing that we need to do, once the plans are implemented, and I am talking about the island-based FMP and any other plan, and this is a strategic plan, and it’s not a fishery management plan, but it’s a plan, and we need to meet with the people of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and explain, very clearly, what this is all about. Then we can get the feedback from those groups and individuals present and present it to the council in due time, and so it’s a good point, and we will take it, of course, into consideration. Mr. Chairman, I believe you have Julian and a couple of others. MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, and I have Julian Magras.

JULIAN MAGRAS: Good morning to all. Thank you very much. First off, I would like to start by saying a special thank you to Dr. Duval. You did an awesome job with pushing this plan through and working with our advisory panels, and a special thank you goes out to all my members for the St. Thomas/St. John District. The way this plan was put together I thought was awesome, because, with Dr. Duval’s leading the group, it was a very easy process, and she was there to listen to what we had to say, and she took everything into consideration and worded it and made sure that we accepted the wording, and so a special thank you to everyone involved in this process. I am looking forward to where this plan is going to be implemented, like everyone else out there, and we did so much work on this, and I am looking forward to see where we’re going to go with this, and, to just chime-in with Tony, and I know my counterparts think the same way, but, as soon as possible, once COVID can ease all of this, to get this to the public in-person would be very well accepted, I believe, but, as far as how social media works, not 26

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

everyone is there as yet, but, for right now, we understand the circumstances, that we cannot do that, and so I look forward to when we can, and so let’s continue the hard work and push forward this plan as it was created. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Julian. Is there anybody else in the queue, Miguel? I don’t see anybody. MIGUEL ROLON: Helena wanted to ask a question before, but I don’t know whether she is still interested in that. MARCOS HANKE:

Helena, go ahead.

HELENA ANTOUN: Thank you, and I was just curious, regarding the objectives that were being presented. In terms of the fishermen that you want to engage in collaborative research, I was just wondering if there are any plans to include funding for those fishermen, and that’s all. MICHELLE DUVAL: Thanks for the question, Helena, and so it’s -I think that remains to be seen, and so it’s really -- The objective is about using fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting these needs, and, once those needs are identified, to see if there are funding opportunities where those needs can be included as priorities, and so I am thinking about like cooperative research programs, which is unique to the Southeast. Typically, those types of cooperative research programs include compensation for the fishers who are participating in the research, but I don’t personally have a specific funding source in mind or something like that. I think things like that will come into play with the development of the implementation plan, if that makes sense, really getting down into the weeds of the actions that would be necessary to get these things rolling. MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, if I may.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: In the case of Helena’s question, for every proposed project that we have here -- For example, we are working now with the outreach and education that we would like to have a video regarding the mutton snapper. I talked to Carlos Farchette and others, and he talked to fishers, and we can incorporate the cost of let’s say a rented fisherman’s boat, because, if you have one or two days, they will not be able to go fishing, and so you need to compensate. 27

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

The other thing is that this implementation plan doesn’t mean that the council will pay for everything and that the council will do that, or the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and it’s just that we are able to identify the different needs and prioritize them, and then we can touch base with anybody interested in pursuing that as a project. It could be an independent person, or it could be a fishermen’s association, or it could be anybody who is really interested and has the means to do it, and then we need to connect the people who are donors, the people with the money, with the people who are going to do the actions. That is the beauty of having a plan like this, because we are able to -- Probably, at the end of 2021, the only thing that we will have is the plan itself and the committee appointed. The work really starts in the first half, the first quarter, of 2022, when we are going to identify each one of the priorities. Going back to the way that we did it, the way that the DAPs were incorporated, I expect the DAPs to also be included in any prioritization that we have, and so that’s why it’s important that we have this committee, and I’m sure that, when you talk to fishers, that they will say the same thing, that I will be willing to cooperate, but, also, I need to feed my family. It’s not an easy question to address sometimes in the budget, but it’s an important one, and so that’s why we -- I am glad that Helena brought this up, because it’s the kind of thing that we need to convey to everybody that is going to be working for the next years, with the scientists and the fishers jointly working together. MARCOS HANKE: We have Michelle Duval to respond to the comments and questions, and then we have Richard Appeldoorn. Michelle. MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to circle back to a couple of the comments from Dr. Appeldoorn, as well as Dr. Porch, and so I guess, first, to Clay, with respect to the implementation plan and really the need for measurable targets for implementation, to ensure that the plan moves forward and ensuring that there’s a process that is timely with respect to how frequently the implementation plan is reviewed, I mean, I -- You’re preaching to the choir. I agree with that, and I think keeping in mind what types of metrics we will use is key in the development of the implementation 28

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

plan, and I agree that, because there are -- Because NOAA Fisheries has regional strategic plans as well, that I think are combined, both between the Regional Office and the Science Center, making sure that some of the things that are identified in the council’s plan are also aligned with the priorities of NOAA Fisheries is going to be -- It’s going to be really critical to accomplishing those things. I know that, in the Mid-Atlantic, up in the Northeast, when the Mid-Atlantic Council and New England Council review their priorities for the upcoming year, NOAA Fisheries -- The Regional Administrator and the Science Center Directors up there provide comment on those, and they are involved in that, and so I am happy to reach out to both you and Andy, offline, to get some further input on how to make that a productive and efficient process. Just with respect to Dr. Appeldoorn’s comments on the organization of the plan, I agree, Rich, that absolutely there are a lot of similarities, and a lot of overlap, with respect to the islandspecific objectives, and I think, if you guys recall, back a couple of presentations ago, I presented the tables of the different priority issues that were considered by the council, as well as the district advisory panels, and I showed a chart of where those overlaps were. I can pull that up and show it again, so that you can see how those overlaps played out, and I would also note that -- Again, there is two ways of doing this. We can have island-specific objectives, which I think allow for maybe a little bit more individualization of what the priorities are for each of the council’s districts, or, as you suggested, collapsing all of the objectives into just one set of objectives and breaking out strategies by island. Either can be done, and it was suggested to me, when I first started in this process, that I think, given the way the islandbased fishery management plans were developed, where certainly there is a lot of overlap in the objectives and the goals that were developed for each one of those plans, but there are, you know, minor -- There are tweaks to those that reflect the individual needs and priorities of each of the districts. I just wanted to have the opportunity to explain a little bit of where that came from, and I don’t necessarily think that one method of organization is better than another, and I think there are benefits to either one. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Michelle. 29

Richard.

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

RICHARD APPELDOORN: Thank you, and thank you for that answer, Michelle. I was going to speak back to the question of cooperative engagement of fishers with the research programs. One of the places where the council can help is try to push the programs that are available to facilitate this collaboration, and I will speak to one example from a proposal that Michelle Scharer and I had put forward through the Cooperative Research Program. Where it got shot down was we were going to pay the fishermen for the days that they were working on our project, which was days that they would not be fishing, and the critique was that, well, if this is a collaborative program, this should be what the fishers are putting into the program, and, therefore, they shouldn’t be charging for their time, and I thought that was, and Michelle thought, was completely wrong. If this is really a feature of the collaborative research program, that’s going to stop a lot of potential collaboration, and so, to the degree that the council can lobby those programs to amend how they view that, that is one way to facilitate increasing the collaboration with the fishers. MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, we are not allowed to use the word “lobby”, but I know what Richard is saying, and certainly Graciela and I will talk to Richard and see if we can provide information to the right people in the right places about the importance of engaging the fishery in these projects and compensating them for their time and effort. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. I share your comment and position that is expressed by Richard, and we really need to be effective in this matter. I don’t see anybody else in the queue. What do you need from the group? Do you need a motion to approve this language, what is proposed, or what is the next step, Michelle? MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what I’ve heard is that we would like to add an objective under the management goal for Puerto Rico that is similar to the objective for St. Thomas/St. John that considers the potential impacts of climate change on the efficacy of management measures, and so I can go ahead and do that, so that is part of the draft plan that would be available for review by the public. I think what I’m looking for today is approval of this draft plan for public input, as modified today, if the council is amenable to that. MARCOS HANKE: Yes. I got it. Do we have to do it through a motion, Miguel, or just ask the council on the record? 30

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

MIGUEL ROLON: In the case of this, adding this, we can just go ahead and add this line, because this is something that the DAP Puerto Rico -- We don’t have to go back to it, and so the council has the authority to include it. Then the other thing that we need is the motion to approve the document as presented by Dr. Duval and also to follow the next steps. MARCOS HANKE: me on that?

I need a motion from council members.

Who can help

MIGUEL ROLON: Well, one thing that you can do, in order to -- If nobody opposes, then the line is added to the DAP Puerto Rico. MARCOS HANKE: Is there any opposition to add the lines that were just expressed by Michelle Duval? Hearing none, this is the way it will be. Do we still need a motion, Miguel? MIGUEL ROLON: Well, the motion now is to -- Now that you have heard her presentation, Dr. Duval’s presentation, we can go back to the last steps. Michelle, can you put that on your screen again? We can have a motion to adopt the draft plan, as presented, and follow the process, as outlined by Dr. Michelle Duval. MARCOS HANKE: I need help from the council members for the meeting to move along. Go ahead, anybody. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, I propose to have the language, and Liajay can write it on the screen, and she’s an expert on writing stuff on the screen now. Liajay, are you ready? LIAJAY RIVERA:

Yes, I am.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. Liajay can share her screen, and I will propose the language, and then, please, council members, add, delete, and modify. The motion will be for the council to accept and endorse the CFMC -- The draft five-year strategic plan as presented by Dr. Michelle Duval on July 21, 2021. MARCOS HANKE:

The word “draft” is not there.

MIGUEL ROLON: Let her finish. And to follow the process to present this to the general public for any comments and suggestions. The final draft document will be presented to the CFMC at the December 2021 meeting for final action. Thank you, Liajay. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Liajay. 31

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

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, that is the proposed language, but whoever makes the motion can change it as he pleases or she pleases. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you to both for the support. Council members, any changes or to move the language, to move the meeting along? Go ahead. VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Motion presented as it is.

So moved.

Thank you.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Carlos.

Any opposition?

MIGUEL ROLON:

Before that, you need to have discussion, Marcos.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Andy.

ANDY STRELCHECK: The motion, as worded, doesn’t reflect the suggested change for the Puerto Rico objective, and so it seems like we would want to capture that in the motion. MIGUEL ROLON: We can say as modified and presented by Dr. -- As modified and presented by -- Will that do that trick, Andy? ANDY STRELCHECK: Yes, and I think Michelle certainly understands our intent, in terms of the medication, and so that will be good. MIGUEL ROLON: Vanessa, do you accept the modification of the language by Mr. Strelcheck? VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Yes, I accept.

MIGUEL ROLON: If Carlos agrees, then discussion and to vote, Mr. Chairman.

you

can

continue

the

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I can agree with what Mr. Strelcheck was saying about the objective and the change for all three islands, but I didn’t hear anything from St. Croix, but I don’t think, as a council member, that I have any right to change our objectives, but I would like to include that for St. Croix. MIGUEL ROLON: Carlos, the only thing that they are modifying is that they are to include climate change. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

That’s what I am referring to. 32

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

MIGUEL ROLON:

They don’t have it in St. Croix?

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

No.

MIGUEL ROLON: If the council agrees, then to modify will include the same as Puerto Rico for the St. Croix component of the strategic plan. Michelle, do you agree? MICHELLE DUVAL: Whatever is the pleasure of the council, Miguel, and certainly I can add that same objective as a specific objective under the St. Croix section of the management goal for climate change, just noting that there are also other climate-changerelated strategies scattered throughout the remaining pieces of the plan as well, and so I will go ahead and add that for both Puerto Rico as well as for St. Croix. MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, I believe it’s very clear, for the record, that the intent is to modify the strategic plan to include climate change concern recommendations in the three DAP subsections of the objectives and strategies. MARCOS HANKE: Carlos Farchette, are you satisfied with the clarification and the adoption of your comments? CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE: the language?

Yes.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion about Go ahead, Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: I agree with the language, except for the fact where it’s going to be a final draft in December, to be presented at the council for final action, because I don’t see this being effective as to getting out who it needs to get out to unless we have an in-person meeting, and that’s my opinion. MIGUEL ROLON: The contract that we have with Dr. Duval ends on December 31, and we have taken this to the public in many different ways, and that’s okay, but we need to finish this. Mr. Chairman. MARCOS HANKE: Tony, thank you for your position, but just be mindful of the implementation, and there will be further participation from the groups, and hopefully in-person. Any further discussion about the motion and what is going to be voted on in a few minutes? MIGUEL ROLON:

Let’s do a roll call vote by name.

MARCOS HANKE:

Miguel, just a moment, please. 33

Hearing no other

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

persons that want to make a comment during the discussion, Tony Blanchard, to vote. TONY BLANCHARD:

No.

MARCOS HANKE:

Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

Damaris.

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE:

Virgin Islands.

NICOLE ANGELI:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE: Who is representing the Virgin Islands today? cannot recognize your voice. NICOLE ANGELI:

I

Nicole Angeli

MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Thank you, Nicole. I was not sure who was on the meeting, and I’m sorry. Nicole Angeli. MIGUEL ROLON: For the Virgin Islands, the person that can vote is Dr. Angeli or the Commissioner. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, I agree, and I just didn’t recognize the voice, and that’s all. MIGUEL ROLON:

For the record, Dr. Angeli just voted.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Nicole Angeli just voted. There is no abstentions. ANDY STRELCHECK:

Marcos Hanke, yes.

I am a yes.

MARCOS HANKE: Andy, thank you. I just got lost here. Thank you, Andy, for your vote of yes. No abstentions. The motion carries. MIGUEL ROLON: The motion carries, and you have to say six in favor and one against. 34

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

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:

One against, right?

MARCOS HANKE: One against, Tony Blanchard, and the rest of the council members voted for the vote, voted yes. MIGUEL ROLON:

The motion carries.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, the motion carries. Thank you very much. That’s all, Michelle, and thank you very much for your presentation and a great discussion. We are ready for the next item on the agenda, but I would like to propose the group for a five-minute break to stretch your legs and get coffee. Five minutes. Anybody in opposition of that? MIGUEL ROLON:

You are the chairman.

MARCOS HANKE:

Hearing none, let’s come back in five minutes.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, everyone. We are back to the meeting at 10:42 a.m. We are going to restart the meeting. The next presentation is Update on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan, and Michelle Duval will be the presenter. UPDATE ON THE FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT WORKSHOPS MICHELLE DUVAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this next presentation is just an update on the stakeholder engagement workshops in support of the development of the council’s fishery ecosystem plan, and so, similar to the last presentation, I would just like to give a little overview of what I plan to cover in the presentation. First, I’ll just provide a little bit of information on the project background and purpose. Then I will review the methods and outreach, and then, after that, we’ll walk through the conceptual models and finish up with next steps for this process. I thought that I would just start with a little bit of background on fishery ecosystem plan best practices, and I know the council is probably familiar with this, but the schematic that you see up on the screen, on the right-hand side, is called the FEP loop, and this represents the best practices that were developed by the Lenfest Fishery Ecosystem Taskforce related to fishery ecosystem plan development, and that very first step is where are we now and assessing that. 35

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

In order to do that, this involves co-creation of a conceptual model amongst stakeholders, managers, and scientists to identify and inventory the components of a fishery ecosystem and how they interact. I think one of the best practices that is really highlighted, and that I would like emphasize is this quote that you see on the screen, which is that stakeholder input is central to fishery system planning, and so broad stakeholder involvement is really necessary in order to identify tradeoffs that may not necessarily be apparent to decision-makers or to scientists. Just a little bit more background on the current project, and so this is part of a larger coordinated effort to reach as many stakeholders as possible, in line with those best practices, and so the current project is a result of communication between the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Chair, and the council Executive Director regarding identification of a variety of stakeholder groups for FEP development, including local government, coastal businesses, local environmental nongovernmental organizations, scientists, and others. The Pew Charitable Trusts offered to provide support for a subset of stakeholder engagement workshops, and so I was hired as a contractor to do workshop facilitation and develop outreach materials and write up the report, once the models were developed. Pew staff provided logistical staff during the workshops, by running the Mental Modeler software that’s used to develop the conceptual models, as well as backup for the workshop recordings. Also part of this effort, as the council is well aware, is the Lenfest Ocean Program awarded a grant to several members of the council’s ecosystem-based fishery management plan technical advisory panel, and a couple of those folks are also members of the council’s SSC, and so this group of folks are leading an effort in similar engagement workshops with the science community, experts, managers, and others. I worked with the Lenfest PIs to ensure that we were all using the same type of methods with respect to these engagement workshops, and then, of course, outreach to the fishing community has been spearheaded by the council, through the district advisory panels, although the Lenfest PIs are also reaching out to fishers who may not have been involved through the DAP process. The purpose of this project, overall, is, in keeping with those best practices, really to ensure that a variety of stakeholder 36

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

viewpoints are incorporated into the development of the council’s overall conceptual model and to engage a subset of stakeholder groups that are not frequently involved in the council’s work. These are coastal businesses, such as dive shops, surf shops, hotels, guest houses, outdoor guides, as well as local environmental non-governmental organizations, or eNGOs, based in island district. The objective was to develop conceptual models for each stakeholder group in each district, and so how is this done? The first thing I did was to develop a set of outreach materials, and so this included two-page information briefs in both Spanish and English, and one of these focused on fishery ecosystem plans, and so what they were, a little bit of information on the council’s fishery ecosystem plan, and the second one was about conceptual models and how these tools are used, and these were distributed to all stakeholders who accepted the invitation to participate. Then, with respect to stakeholder contact, there was an extensive stakeholder list developed in coordination with the O&E AP chair, with support from Sea Grant staff, and so this targeted a broad range of coastal businesses and eNGOs, and separate workshops were conducted for each of these stakeholder groups in each district, and so you have two stakeholder groups, three districts, and so this was a total of six workshops. A small group approach was used for each workshop, and this was done to really ensure that all attendees were able to participate, as well as to allow for a thorough discussion of ideas, and so the maximum target size was really eight to twelve participants for each workshop, and invitation were sent out to over forth eNGOs and over eighty coastal businesses, and these invitations were sent by email, roughly four weeks in advance of the workshop, and then follow-ups were made both by email as well as phone for nonrespondents, and then an agency with the connection information and outreach materials were sent to confirmed stakeholders. Just to make sure that we maximized our participation, I sent a reminder email with the agenda and materials a couple of days prior to the workshop, and then all participants received reminder phone calls one day in advance, and so these workshops occurred in late April and then throughout May as well. The workshops were all virtual, just due to the pandemic, and so these were two-hour facilitated workshops. All of the workshops were recorded, and all participants were informed that they were being recorded, and we did -- I did use evening workshops for the 37

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

businesses, and that was done to really maximize participation, understanding that small business owners are pretty much busy all during the day, and the only time they have to participate is really in the evening, and so I do also want to note that, for the Puerto Rico workshops, simultaneous translation was used, and all workshop materials, including the presentation, were provided in Spanish. Each workshop started with a brief presentation, and so this was a little bit of review of the background information that all participants received regarding fishery ecosystem plans and conceptual models, and then I used a series of trigger questions and time for individual brainstorming to identify and develop the biological, social, and economic components of the different models, as well as to identify the relationships, or the linkages, between the different components. Then, after the workshop, I sent a thank-you email to every participant, and everyone received a link to a Google document that contained a schematic of the conceptual model, and so I allowed two weeks for participants to provide any additional feedback or relationships or linkages between components, and so this was part of the effort to just validate the model. I didn’t receive a whole lot of comments on any of the models, but the few comments that were received were incorporated into the conceptual models, and then I also reviewed the workshop recordings, just to ensure the accuracy of what was captured, to make sure that all components were captured accurately and all linkages among the components were captured accurately. Now I will just quickly walk through the conceptual models, and I am going to start with the St. Croix environmental non-governmental community, and so I just want to spend -- All of these schematics of these conceptual models look roughly the same, and so I just want to spend a couple of minutes orienting everyone to those, and so you see that there are a couple of components with green circles around them and a couple of components with pink circles around them. The components that have the green circles around them are two of the components that were most affected by other components, and so lots of relationships, or linkages, coming into those components, and so I am calling those receiver components. Then the two components that you see the pink circles around were two of the components that affected the most other components, and so lots of linkages coming out of those components, and so I am referring to those as drivers. 38

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

In full disclosure, this is different than how drivers and receivers are referenced within the Mental Modeler software, but, for illustration purposes here, this is how I am referring to those. The model developed by the St. Croix environmental nongovernmental community, two of the receiver components that were identified were water quality and coral, and then two of the driver components were anthropogenic influences and regulatory agencies. Moving on to the St. Croix coastal business community, this model is a little bit busier, but I know you all have seen these types of models many times before, and so three of the receiver components identified by the St. Croix coastal business community were water quality, reef fish, and coral reefs. Then two of the driver components were actually restoration of nursery habitats for fishes and coral species protection. Moving on St. Thomas/St. John, this was the model developed by the environmental non-governmental community in St. Thomas and St. John, and so two of those receiver components identified by this group were water quality and coral, while two of the driver components identified were land-based sources of pollution and runoff. Then the St. Thomas/St. John coastal business community -- Again, this one is a little bit busier, but two of the receiver components identified here were coral reefs and sea turtles, whereas two of the driver components identified by this group were government agencies and lack of environmental education. Moving on to Puerto Rico, the environmental non-governmental community, this is, again, a very complex, thorough model, and so two of the receiver components identified by this group were reef fish and water quality, whereas two of the driver components identified were climate change and public education. Then, finally, the Puerto Rico coastal business community conceptual model, and so this -- Two of the receiver components identified in this model were reef fish and coral reefs, and then two of the driver components were lack of management and education. I wanted to also just highlight, I think, some of the common themes among these two different types of receiver and driver components, and so, again, the receiver components were those that were affected by the most other components, and so there were three that were more common here, and these were water quality, coral or 39

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

coral reefs, and reef fish, and so water quality was identified by both of the St. Croix stakeholder groups, by the St. Thomas/St. John eNGO groups, as well as by the Puerto Rico environmental nongovernmental community, whereas coral and coral reefs also identified as receiver components by both St. Croix stakeholder groups, both St. Thomas/St. John stakeholder groups, and Puerto Rico coastal businesses. Then reef fish was identified as a receiver component by both of the Puerto Rico stakeholder groups. A similar, I guess, assessment of common themes from the conceptual models for the driver components, and so, again, these are components that affected the most other components, and these are primarily education, and then similar terms used -- Excuse me. Certainly different terms used, but for similar concepts, are government, regulatory agencies, and management, and so education was identified as a driver by both Puerto Rico stakeholder groups as well as the St. Thomas/St. John businesses, and then this government/regulatory agencies/management component was identified by the Puerto Rico businesses, St. Thomas/St. John businesses, as well as the St. Croix NGOs. Really, the next steps -- Again, this is just meant to be an update. The models have been completed, and the stakeholder workshops are done, and it’s really presentation of these conceptual models to the FEP technical advisory panel for incorporation into the overall council model, as well as some additional analysis and then completion of the project report. Just a quick update for everybody, and so, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to take any questions that folks might have. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and we’re going to open for questions, and I just want to make a comment before that. Great presentation, again, and I like very much the explanation of the receiver and the driver components, and that gives a visualization that we didn’t have before, and it’s basically simplifying everything, but, at the same time, having the detail, if it’s needed. Thank you very much, and I’m very impressed with the team of you, J.J. Motta, Graciela, Stacey Williams, and, for me, that’s assurance of quality and participative channels for this kind of work. Thank you very much, Michelle. Now it’s open for questions. Does anybody want to make a comment or a question? VANESSA RAMIREZ: Yes, Marcos. Michelle, can you say more about the distribution of the stakeholders that participate in these workshops? MICHELLE DUVAL: Thanks for the question, Vanessa. Do you mean like with respect to the coastal businesses? The two stakeholder 40

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

groups that were identified were coastal businesses, and so that included surf shops, and that included dive shops, and that included restaurants, and that included small hotels, and it included large hotels, and it included -- There was a very extensive list that was developed, as I mentioned in coordination with the O&E AP chair, as well as Sea Grant staff. The invitations were sent out to an array of coastal businesses, spanning all of those different categories, and, with respect to the environmental non-governmental organizations, these were organizations that had their place right there on each of those island districts. VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Thank you, Michelle.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Vanessa, for the question. Anybody else? Any other questions? I guess that’s it. Do you need anything else from the council, Michelle, at this time, or we are okay? MICHELLE DUVAL: No, Mr. Chairman. This was really just an update, to let you know that this work is -- The conceptual models have been done, and I will be passing those off to the EBFM Technical Advisory Panel, and the work has been completed, and so thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, again. We are ready for the next item on the agenda. Thank you to all the council members for their participation. Next is the SSC Report with Dr. Richard Appeldoorn. SSC REPORT RICHARD APPELDOORN: Thank you, Marcos. This is the report from the SSC. We met last week, on the 14th, and the issues we discussed were the new Caribbean Branch, and we had an overview of that from Kevin McCarthy, who is the Branch Chief, and I won’t say any more about that. Also, we had an update on the National SSC Meeting, but the bulk of it was on our review of the data-poor tech memo, which you’ll also be getting a presentation on, and so this is putting something a little bit before that, and the red hind spawning dynamics and closed season issues by Michelle Scharer, which you will also be hearing later about. Finally, a presentation on the Puerto Rico electronic reporting program and the potential extensions into electronic monitoring. Very briefly, the National SSC Meeting is actually called the Scientific Coordination Sub-Committee, and this is the seventh 41

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

meeting of that. It was supposed to have occurred a year ago, and it’s now been okayed to be rescheduled as an in-person meeting next year, 2022, in Alaska. The overall theme of that is going to be ecosystem-based fisheries management, with three focal areas: incorporating ecosystem indicators into stock assessment, needs for managing interacting species, and assessing species with shifting distributions, primarily due to climate change. I think our council, in particular, our SSC, will have a lot to say about the ecosystem indicators, based on the work that the TAP and Lenfest group are doing. All aspects of this meeting need to renegotiated, even who are going to be the keynote speakers, because schedules have all changed and everything, and we have a conference call next month to start rescheduling and renegotiating everything. We do expect, however, that there will be travel support for three SSC members from each council to attend the meeting, and so that’s the information that’s available, at the moment, relative to that meeting. The bulk of our time was spent looking at two things, and one of those was the tech memo on data-poor fisheries, and this is the official title of it, but I have underlined “flexibilities” and “data-limited stocks”, because this is a tech memo that addresses what to do with data-limited stocks, and it allows for new flexibilities in developing things that were not available to the councils or the SSCs before. As I state here, it’s all about flexibilities for setting OFLs and ABCs and ACLs, and this is to be applied when catch data are lacking or are insufficient. That means to say that we can use other things besides catch data to set reference points and target limits for individual stocks, and some examples of alternative reference points might be based on average length or maintaining a juvenile-adult ratio, maintaining a level of catch per unit effort, maintaining an average density. There’s a lot of things that could be used here, and so I don’t want to lock us into thinking about any one thing, and this is all new, and we’ll have to approach it with a broad mind. One of the nice things about this is that we can use multiple indicators at one time for any given stock, and so, given just the list above, we might want to have that it has to be within a range 42

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

of catch per unit effort and have an average length of some magnitude. These indicators could also be used in conjunction with numbers or weight-based reference points, as we currently have, and so we could actually enhance what we have. The tech memo gives guidance on what they’re calling the (h)(2) flexibilities, as to qualification of when can you use these, and they give some examples, as I mentioned, of alternative approaches, such as ACLs being expressed in terms of rates, and that would be a catch per unit effort example, and what stocks would qualify for the application of (h)(2) flexibility, but lack data for a ratebased, and so there will still be things that you can do besides rates. You’re going to get a presentation on this later, and so I won’t emphasize any of this, but we did look at these things and come up with a number of, I guess, statements, if you will. The SSC endorses the (h)(2) flexibilities for assessing the overfishing status of data-limited stocks presented in the draft tech memo, given that all stocks within the U.S. Caribbean would benefit, a point that has been long recognized. Nevertheless, while we see great promise with this enhanced flexibility, we anticipate that there will be operational difficulties to overcome in their application and expect a period of testing before such methods can be routinely applied. In other words, this is something we have, in the Caribbean in particular, and the Western Pacific, have been advocating for well over a decade, and so it’s great to see that this is now coming to fruition, but, as with any method, its application is going to be something that has to be worked out and make sure that the science is good and that it’s justifiable, and so there’s a lot of work to be done, and it’s just not something we’re going to plug in and all of a sudden we’re fine. Potentially, once we do have something developed, it can be updated very quickly from year to year, but that is further down the road. The SSC recognizes that there will be a substantial process involved in prioritizing which species should be addressed using this enhanced flexibility, due both because of the high number of species within the U.S. Caribbean that would benefit and the limitations within the Science Center, particularly the number of assessment staff, and so we have lots of species and stocks across the three islands that need to be addressed. We’re going to have to be strategic in how we do this, because, given the limitations 43

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

and the demands on particularly the Science Center staff, this is a process that’s going to go slowly. An additional benefit is identified in that some standard fishery management tools, such as size limits, closed areas and seasons, et cetera, more directly relate to potential reference limits that may result from these more flexible approaches, and so, if we were using a length measure, for example, to set limits, then size limits would, obviously, be a measure that would directly relate to that, much more so than size limits relate to say a catch quota. The SSC notes that the timing of this effort dovetails nicely with other efforts within the region to improve monitoring and assessment, including efforts to improve the quality, amount, and statistical validity of landings data. For example, the recent pilot study of the Puerto Rico commercial catch resulted in over 14,000 length estimates, which is a dataset that would be available, should length-based measures be one method that we want to pursue, other methods. The formation of the Caribbean Branch within the Science Center and their more targeted efforts to increase and improve available data, the initiation of electronic monitoring of catches within Puerto Rico, and the initiation of integrated stock assessments through the SEDAR process, and we recognize that, while weight and number-based OFLs are the ideal, improvements in data collection and application of the (h)(2) flexibilities create a bridge, ultimately to achieve that goal. We still have a goal out there that we would like to have, in terms of having the data to be able to apply the more rigorous models that we would do through a SEDAR process, but that will still take a long time to do that, despite all these really encouraging activities that are underway, but using the flexibilities buys us time, to where we can improve our assessment and management of species while we move to achieve that more rigorous goal. The next thing we talked about was the red hind spawning dynamics and the relationship to closed seasons, and so the SSC heard and discussed a presentation by Dr. Scharer, who is also an SSC member. As a co-investigator myself, I recused myself as Chair when this topic was discussed, and neither myself nor Dr. Scharer participated in the voting on the recommendations that follow. As a recommendation, it’s to amend the Puerto Rico FMP to modify the seasonal closure for fishing or possession of red hind in federal waters west of the 67 degree, 10 minute West longitude and for the Tourmaline and Abrir la Sierra Bank red hind spawning 44

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

aggregations to December 15 to March 15. Currently, they are the beginning of December to the end of February. The rationale for this was to reduce the impact on red hind spawning stocks at the west coast spawning aggregations on the last few days of their reproductive period, due to a shift in timing of the aggregation. A fish spawning aggregation does not form, and that is to say we have not recorded it to form, before December 15, but aggregations can remain after the March 1 opening that is currently in place, and so that’s the rationale for requesting a shift by fifteen days on either end. Another recommendation is to support the implementation of continued long-term fish spawning aggregation monitoring to determine changes in the spawning stock/populations of red hind off of western Puerto Rico. The rationale for this was that we should be measuring the benefits of management measures for red hind populations off the west coast of Puerto Rico, and so this is very similar to, I think, comments we’ve gotten from particularly the representatives in St. Thomas about the need for monitoring what’s going on and having that relayed back to the council as to the status of these measures. The committee was particularly concerned about what the population size was of red hind off of Puerto Rico, and, again, Michelle will be presenting material later that hopefully will show this. The SSC requests the council to ask the Science Center to evaluate the seasonal closure, currently February 1 to April 30, for red, black, tiger, yellowfin, and yellowedge groupers in federal waters in the U.S. Caribbean, as applicable, to ensure it coincides with the timing of spawning aggregations for these species. Our rationale for this request is that closed seasons should coincide with the spawning seasons as much as possible. Lastly, we heard a presentation by Alfredo Sfeir of ShellCatch on electronic reporting and electronic monitoring. Electronic reporting has been implemented in Puerto Rico’s commercial fishery, and that implementation is increasing as time has gone on, but recall that there are more than 700 fishers who are reporting now using the electronic reporting program, and this was freeing up staff at the Commercial Fisheries Lab to utilize their time to better monitor the quality of that data, and so it’s yielding, as a result, more and better data. A lot of the data still has to be reviewed by someone reading it, but it’s eliminating the need for manual data entry, and so that’s where the savings really come in, and so we thought this was a 45

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

very -- It’s a really very great activity that’s happening, and, as this expands, it hopefully can expand across islands and into the recreational fishery and that this will greatly enhance the amount of data and the quality of data that we’re getting, and this, of course, would be in conjunction with other activities that are happening. They have now, as was reported to us, been able to link the Puerto Rico database that is resulting from this with the database maintained by NOAA Fisheries, and so that data can be made available to NOAA on a very, very timely basis, but note that this is currently all done under a contract between ShellCatch and the DNER of Puerto Rico. We also were presented a preview of upcoming capabilities using electronic monitoring, and this is mostly in the form of boatbased video at the moment, which would be, eventually, in conjunction with artificial intelligence. That is to say that, using boat-based video, you could monitor -- I will make something up for a trap fishery, but how many traps were being set and hauled, what was being brought out of the traps, and you could even get the lengths of the fish as they are being taken out of the traps and whatnot, and so this is all possible, and he just kind of gave us a view of kind of how this would work. They have other contracts with other countries and organizations where they are trying to develop that basis, and it seems promising. However, at the moment, they are reading all the videos manually, but they are working on developing artificial intelligence capabilities that would be able to identify fish and estimate the length, et cetera, all automatically. This is an exciting capability that’s coming down the pike, and don’t expect it next year, but it’s being actively worked on, and so these kinds of capabilities are going to be available to us, and we need to think about should we apply them, how can we apply them, and there’s, obviously, going to be some issues with confidentiality that will have to be addressed, but it’s all very exciting, in terms of the technology that’s being developed. Due to time constraints, and, at this point, it was already past six o’clock in the evening, and the SSC did not consider any recommendations relative to the electronic reporting and monitoring issues. We were just kind of very interested in the capabilities that are becoming available now, and we’ll just leave it at that, and I think that’s the last slide. Thank you. Any questions? 46

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

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Richard. you have questions? Carlos, go ahead.

Council members, do

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Richard, hi. Earlier in your presentation, I saw something that I am not familiar with. It is rate-based ACL, and I’m not sure what that is. RICHARD APPELDOORN: Okay. Currently, all of our ACLs are based on weight and derived from catch data somehow, and so that’s a weight-based ACL. A rate-based ACL would be something where our target is not to maintain a certain level of catch, but to maintain a certain level of say catch per unit effort, and so maybe we can’t -- We don’t have a good handle on the total catch coming in for a species, but we do have some standardized measures of catch per unit effort for that species, and, therefore, you might want to say, okay, we want to maintain catch per unit effort at or below some level that we think will be sustainable, and so it’s no longer based on numbers of fish or weights of fish, but it’s based on a catch per unit effort, and so that’s a rate-based reference point. MARCOS HANKE:

Any other questions?

ANDY STRELCHECK: Marcos, I wanted to thank Richard for the presentation, and I really like the SSC’s suggestion for doing some pilot study work. One thing that is potentially on the horizon for the Caribbean, and a good thing, is that there is, in the President’s budget, some additional funding for territorial science, both in the U.S. Caribbean and the Western Pacific. To me, it presents a huge opportunity for us to, I think, to improve some of the data collection, and so the pilot studies, in my view, and, Rich, I would be interested in your perspective, but, in order to kind of move to these flexible management measures, we really need to then ensure that we have sufficient data collection to support that kind of underlying management. If the average length is the target, then we need to make sure that we’re collecting a sufficient number of samples to determine the average length for the fishery, and so I’m curious kind of your perspective in terms of the pilot studies and kind of where we’re at with data collection and what you would see as some of the improvements that would be needed to meet these flexibility standards. RICHARD APPELDOORN: I’m not sure I can answer that in any kind of real detail, but I can give some examples. The SSC has not heard yet the presentation by Todd Gedamke on the pilot program that he has been overlooking in Puerto Rico, but there was a presentation 47

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

given at the council meeting, at the last meeting, and Todd is now back on the SSC, and he gave us a little bit of inkling of what has come from that, and also, again, what’s coming down the pike, in terms of automating things even more, and so that figure that I gave of 14,000 length measurements is something that came out of the pilot study. If this was to be implemented fully, we would expect substantial enhancement of the number of length measurements that we being taken, and, if this can be automated, which is one of the goals that I know that Todd has, and he has people who are set up to try and develop artificial intelligence, and so something can just be passed under a video camera and moved on, and no one has to sit there and actually measure and then record the data, and it’s all being done through artificial intelligence. This can both decrease the amount of time that a port sampler is intervening with any fisherman and increase the amount of data that is coming through that, because there would also be automatic species recognition with that, and so the fish is just passed under the camera, and it moves on. If we reach that kind of level, we’re going to have length measurements galore for at least the species that are caught in abundance to give us hundreds to thousands of length measurements that we would really like to have, with really good data. One could certainly work with less data, but then the uncertainties start rising substantially, but I think that the kind of information that we’re going to be able to get, using the port sampler approach, and we’ll add in the e-reporting that Puerto Rico is doing, and that will, I think, start feeding in a lot more data that will be applicable to these more flexible alternative reference point approaches. It will really, at some point, come down to, okay, what are the key species that we want to look at, are we getting sufficient length information for them, or do we need to target some sampling for them, but, other than that, I think this is really promising, and then we’ll get down to those species which really are not amenable, and then we have to think about what are our data sources, but we have other data sources, such as the visual census surveys that NOAA Fisheries is doing in conjunction with the National Ocean Service, I think, and those also provide a lot of information on lengths and biomass that could be used for stock assessment purposes as well, and so there’s lots of different sources of data that are coming in, and so I think we’re going to have -48

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

Our data is probably going to increase faster than our ability to deal with it, in terms of the staff time that’s available, but, once we have a system set up, you can see where you could automate these data streams to have these reference points monitored on a very timely basis, once they’re set up. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you for the answer.

Next is Clay.

CLAY PORCH: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for that presentation, Rich. One, I’m very excited to see that the SSC is embracing some of these alternative techniques. I did want to mention, in terms of the artificial intelligence, the automated image analysis, we’ve actually, in several arenas, made great strides in that. For instance, with our underwater video surveys, we have now gotten to the point where we can process the videos on the ship, just after they have been collected, and we’re still working out some of the details in regarding training the software to distinguish all the species, but, for the majority of high-profile species, the recognition percentage is really high, and, like I said, it’s really fast, because, right now, reading those images manually takes an extremely long period of time. For us, it generally takes about six months to read all the underwater videos that we take, and then you’ve got to process all of that information. Once we get this automated image analysis in place, and, like I said, we’ve made great progress, I expect that we will get that time down to a month or so, and that would be really important, if we started using information like that to manage fisheries on a CPUE-type basis. I also wanted to turn to maybe ask Rich this question, if the SSC had really talked about what management measures would look like, and it’s easy to say, for instance, that we would monitor catch per unit effort, but you have to then say, okay, how do we monitor catch per unit effort, and that would probably require electronic monitoring and this automated image analysis, so that that information can be processed quickly and without error, and then you have to think about what do you do, and okay, so, if the catch per unit effort drops below a certain threshold, then that would demand stopping fishing. I am just wondering if they had much conversation about exactly what these measures would look like, and I recognize there is a lot of kinks to be worked out. Thank you. RICHARD APPELDOORN: I will say this. We recognized all the difficulties that you just mentioned, or potential difficulties, 49

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

and that’s why we have the statement that we recognize the difficulties of implementation, because, while this is allowing us a lot of flexibility, the implementation is not straightforward, and it will need to be worked out, and perhaps on a species-byspecies basis, if we need to do that. We did not have any discussion about where to go at this point, and we were putting our discussion mostly in terms of what the documentation was presenting, which was added flexibilities, and we’re embracing those added flexibilities. They’re not going to be a panacea, but we do think they’re going to be very helpful. You mentioned the one aspect about, okay, if catch per unit effort falls below some level, or goes too high, for example, what do you do, and that’s the same problems we have faced with our weightbased ACLs, and you’re going to have other issues as well, in terms of looking at length and how does recruitment affect your average length, and so there’s perhaps ways to look at that, in terms of catch per unit effort, and that’s why the ability to have multiple indicators might be the best way to view the application of these, because none is going to be perfect in their own right, but, if you can use multiple ones, they might give you a better sense of what’s happening in the fishery. We discussed these issues in very general terms, realizing that the application of these is where the rubber meets the road, and that’s where we’re going to have to spend a lot of time working it out, and we’re going to be counting on the Center to strongly help us with that. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Richard. I have a question to Clay, Richard, or maybe Andy. How do you three visualize this transition period, where we’re going to have a potential new method or a new way to do business, in terms of collecting science or collecting data, with the SEDAR process? I think, from my point of view, I think it’s important to recognize that there is capacity building already in the area of pursuing those species that are on the schedule for SEDAR, and how is this going to be addressed in the future and not to be empty handed in the near future, just to follow-up with what we have on hand already, and that’s for any of you three. Thank you. RICHARD APPELDOORN: I would just say, from the SSC’s point of view, we recognize that the SEDAR process and the types of models that we can look at that, even the data-poor ones, are where we want to work towards, and so these flexibilities that we’re getting now are kind of a bridge for what we can do in the meantime. 50

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

The potential amount of data that can come through these automated processes that are coming online will allow a lot more data to be collected in a most statistically-rigorous way, and it will help, therefore, to reduce a lot of the variability, or at least be able to measure directly the variability, and, as a consequence, more species will be able to be bumped up into the Tier 1, 2, and 3 levels of the SEDAR process. That is where we’re going, and I think we’re going to be seeing an improvement, a big improvement, as these technologies and studies come to their fruition, and so SEDAR, to me, is still going to be the way to go, and, again, another burden on the staff, Clay, but it’s the gold standard, and, in the meantime, if we can get something going with some of these flexibilities, so much the better. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Graciela, is there anybody requesting a turn to speak? Tony, go ahead. TONY BLANCHARD: I have a question for Rich. Good presentation, and, now, I am a little concerned about the catch per unit effort and how it’s being looked at, because catch per unit effort goes up and it goes down, but, at the end of the day, or, for the lack of a better description, to the end of the year, everything balances out. Now, that’s one concern. The other concern is -MARCOS HANKE: Tony, I cannot hear you. I lost you. I am going to text him that we lost him, and I’m going to give him a turn to speak again. Clay and Andy, did you want to make any comments about the question that I made earlier? CLAY PORCH: Thank you. I agree with Rich that SEDAR is the way to go on this, and I would say that we’ve actually been looking at these alternative techniques for quite some time. In fact, I would say the Southeast Center was helping to lead the curve on this, and so none of those techniques that are in the NS 1 Guidelines are new to us. We’re well prepared to execute them, and the main problem was having the data to do even most of those ideas, but, as Rich pointed out, we’re getting better and better at collecting information, but I think the real problem and challenge for the council is going to be, once you get this information, how are you going to actually implement it, and Tony was getting to one of them when you were talking about catch per unit effort, but, as Rich pointed out, if you were monitoring mean size, and the mean size falls below a certain level, what are you going to do? 51

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

It’s always easier to explain that you have exceeded a catch limit than it is to explain that you have exceeded an appropriate fishing mortality rate, and so there will be some challenges along the road, but, if you really don’t know catch, or have the ability to enforce catch, then it is appropriate to look at these other approaches. It doesn’t make them easy, but they may be the most viable alternatives, until we get, as Rich said, to those Tier 2 and Tier 1 stock assessments. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for this participation, Clay. One thing that I personally believe is the multiple factors, and not just a single one, and also having a baseline to compare to those on those catch per unit effort level, or anything that we’re going to use in the future, that we can compare to, right? This is a process that is going to keep building, and we are excited to have an opportunity to have a new tool in the toolbox to address our datapoor area. Let’s see if Tony Blanchard is back online to finish his thought. TONY BLANCHARD: Was any of the chairs of the DAPs at that meeting, the SSC meeting? RICHARD APPELDOORN:

No, not to my knowledge.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: meeting. TONY BLANCHARD: Nelson?

Okay.

Nelson Crespo was there during the SSC Did they have any input to the meeting,

MARCOS HANKE: I was at the meeting, too. Off the top of my mind, I don’t remember input or anything that he participated, and maybe I am wrong, but he was available to participate anytime and to request his participation by the chairman of the SSC. He was available there. TONY BLANCHARD: Because my take is I believe that the chair of St. Thomas especially, knowing Mr. Magras, would have some comments on what was going on through the meeting, some input to bring to the meeting, and so that was my concern, that the only DAP chair that was there was Puerto Rico. Ed wasn’t there either, to my knowledge, and so that’s the point that I am trying to bring. MARCOS HANKE: Tony, thank you for your point. Actually, it’s appropriate for Mr. Julian Magras, if he wants to say anything about the presentation on this matter, to keep advancing this discussion forward. 52

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

JULIAN MAGRAS: The question that I had was -- Well, it was a comment. Number one, I never received the information about the SSC meeting, and so I was not there. I was contacted the day after, to tell me that there was a meeting, and I found that very strange, that I didn’t know about the meeting. I called Ed, and Ed told me that he never got the login information. I called Nelson, and Nelson told me that he was on, and so that’s the past now, but I heard all of what was on the agenda, and I found it very alarming that I wasn’t able to make a lot of comments on what was taking place. I do have issues with the way that we are trying to move forward with this new data way, and there’s a lot of loops in there, and it’s creating a lot of issues. When Puerto Rico did their pilot study, it showed where they were off by thousands and thousands of pounds, and that can trigger accountability measures, and that can also trigger where fisheries completely shut down, and I think, before we move forward with any of these methods, that they need to be looked at a lot more carefully. We have been asking for more port sampling, and we still go back to a project that the Virgin Islands did not want to participate in that we are trying to move forward that project again. The best port sampling, and the best data that you can receive, is hands-on, and there are lot of people out there -- We need to go, but the answers to a lot of the other stuff that took place at that meeting -- I wasn’t there, and so I have to wait until the next meeting, and hopefully I will know about it, that I can make my comments on the record. It’s just like the conceptual models, and here is that we are going off the creation of conceptual models created by Lenfest, who is guiding us, and, come to find out, Lenfest is funded by the Pew Foundation, and we have a serious problem with that, and so you have the whole Pew that is pretty much running the whole conceptual model stuff, and so I am going to leave it at that. I hope that, at the August meeting, that I will have a presentation from the fishers of the St. Thomas/St. John District on our disappointment in how a lot of things are going on, and we need to get back on track, to where we are working together, instead of trying to get back to where we were in the past of working against each other. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for your comments, Julian. Is there anybody else would like to make a comment about the presentation? Otherwise, I have a question for the group. 53

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

RICHARD APPELDOORN: Marcos, I would just like to remind everyone that they are going to hear a presentation on the tech memo and on the red hind, and so hearing our comments before they have heard those presentations perhaps is somewhat putting the cart before the horse, but there will be a chance to hear those presentations and make comments. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, Richard, and we have also on the webpage of the council all those meetings announced, and this is how I connected, and it’s a public platform for everybody to access. I want to remind all the council members to always be connected to the best tool we have, which is our webpage. Are there any other questions to Richard? Hearing none, I would like to ask Richard about the recommendation of the SSC, and I would like especially the representatives of Puerto Rico to express about the recommendation about moving the red hind closed season fifteen days towards March, but I think it’s appropriate, Richard, and this is my point on this, to do it after -- To come back to this after the presentation of Michelle Scharer a little later on in the agenda, and do you agree with that position, with that statement? RICHARD APPELDOORN: Absolutely. I think that the council should hear the full arguments, and they would more fully understand the basis for our recommendations. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Let’s do that then, and people, especially from Puerto Rico, Nelson and Damaris, that this addresses specifically our area, and it’s another example of why we did the island-based management approach, looking for that. After, we’re going to come back to this discussion, to see what we’re going to do with the recommendation of the SSC, after Michelle Scharer’s presentation. Hearing nobody else asking for participation, we are finished with Richard’s presentation, and we are going to go now to Michelle Scharer’s presentation. CLOSED SEASONS FOR CERTAIN SPECIES MICHELLE SCHARER: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Michelle Scharer. I have been doing research in the west coast of Puerto Rico for about twenty years now, thanks to Richard Appeldoorn and other collaborators that I have named here, like Tim Rowell, Carlos Zayas, Eric Appeldoorn, Ron Hill, Hector Ruiz, and Evan Tuohy. We’ve been fortunate to work with all these organizations that I have listed here in different aspects. 54

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

Basically, today, I am hoping that this information will help us have a good discussion to inform MPA, or area-based, management in a more ecosystem-based approach, and, specifically, to address the potential for red hind fisheries to be improved by enhancing the reproduction in a critical part of their life cycle. I brought in a little bit of history. We had a SEDAR in 2014, and, at that time, the red hind was the most abundant grouper caught in Puerto Rico, and it was about 2 percent of total landings, and I believe that’s now Grouper Unit 3, and this graph demonstrates the spatial distribution around Puerto Rico of where those landings come from. Historically, we had about 100,000 pounds total being caught, and then, after 2005, we are around 40,000, or 50,000, but, in the light blue, you can see a lot of that comes from the west coast of Puerto Rico, and so, in the next slide, in the most recent time, and these are data that the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources put together for the most recent data available, we can see that a high proportion of all pounds landed of red hind is coming from the west coast, but there is a significant increase in what’s being landed from the east coast of Puerto Rico, but we don’t have any federal waters on the east coast, and so that’s why we’re focusing today on the west coast for red hind. The mean, like I said, of these past few years was around 47,000 pounds of red hind for the whole island of Puerto Rico. Before we had a closed season for red hind in the island of Puerto Rico, and that was appropriately in 2004, when the DNER put out fisheries regulations, and, before, a lot of the landings of red hind were constrained to the month of January, February, and a little bit in March, and so this is historical data of the landings of this species, mainly during the time that they aggregate to spawn, and this was work done by Ojeda et al. and working with fishermen to get information specific about spawning aggregations. Again, with the data that DNER provides, the most recent data are the years 2012 to 2007, and I tried to reconstruct these monthly landing patterns of the proportion of all the fish captured -Sorry. Of all the red hind reported, and we can also see that there is a decline now during December, January, and February, compared to the previous graph, because that’s a closed season, and we’re not supposed to be landing red hind, but there is another significant peak in August and September, except of course in 2017, when we were hit by the hurricane, Hurricane Maria. This is a summary of many efforts that have been going on on the west coast of Puerto Rico, and I just wanted to show this map of 55

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

why we’re working off the west coast of Puerto Rico, specifically in the federal jurisdiction area, because everything that you see in green is basically Puerto Rico jurisdiction, and the recommendations that come out of this research are specific for that little chunk within that red circle. Basically, these are areas where, again, fishermen reported that there were spawning aggregations for multiple species, and not only for red hind, but most of those areas are off that western shelf coast, and they are in federal waters, and so the research we’ve been doing includes different methods to try to assess the populations of red hind, but, more specifically, what’s going on when they aggregate to spawn. We’ve done diver surveys at some of these aggregation sites for red hind, and there has also been work funded by the council to look at Nassau grouper with acoustic tags at Bajo de Sico, which is that little corner up in the left part of that map. Thanks to an S-K-funded project, we were able to collect fish -Sorry. Red hind between Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, and St. Croix with the same methods, to look at size and age, their fecundity, their sex ratios, and what we’ve been doing consistently at one of these sites off the west coast, at Abrir la Sierra, is passive acoustic monitoring. It’s also going on at other sites, but not as consistently as Abrir la Sierra, and, basically, we’re listening to the courtshipassociated sounds. We record the sounds that are produced by the fish, and we convert that into sound pressure levels, which basically gives us an indication of when the fish are present. We collaborated with Laurent Cherubin from Harbor Branch, and we deployed gliders that also listened for the red hind throughout the west coast, and, more recently, we’re piloting a grouper sighting project with fishers off the west coast of Puerto Rico, so that, if they’re diving, and they see a Nassau grouper, they can provide us with the size and the coordinates and the habitats of these fish, and we can then monitor if that species is recovering off the west coast. These are some preliminary results from the collection of red hind. It’s important for everybody to understand that it’s really different when we’re looking at red hind, because they are a protogynous species, which just means that they change their sex as they grow. When red hind are small, they’re all females, and, at a certain size, which is approximately eleven inches long, then they transition to be males, and they have very complex social 56

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

structures, due to these types of aggregations. We have been able to document that the males arrive first at the aggregation sites, and some of them migrate quite a ways, and then they have to set up and defend territories between males, and they have like a harem structure when they’re aggregated, and so one male can have lots of females in his little area, but the females move in and move out of the aggregation during different lunar cycles at the aggregation site. We know that the female fecundity increases with size, and so bigger females will have more eggs, but they also need lots of males to fertilize those eggs when they spawn. We have also observed that the males and the larger-sized females are remaining at the aggregation site longer, and then, after the whole aggregation is over, that’s when they go and migrate back to their home range, and so, on this graph, I plotted preliminary results of the number of females, which is the red bar, and males, which is the blue bar, at three sites that we sampled during 2016, and the sex ratios at the west fish spawning aggregation site was seventeen females to one male, whereas, in the fishing grounds of the same area off the west coast, when they’re not spawning, the sex ratio is four females to one male. If we compare that to samples from the fishing grounds off the east coast of Puerto Rico, we can see, also, a two-to-one sex ratio, and it’s important to compare the west coast fish spawning aggregation ratio with results collected at the Red hind Bank and at Lang Bank, because these were collected during the same time, and we see the sex ratios are pretty different in the Red Hind Bank. They’re three-to-one, and, at the Lang Bank in St. Croix, they’re nine-to-one. Why is this important? Because, as I said previously, we need various males to be able to spawn with all these females and effectively fertilize those eggs, so that we have a complete life cycle and we have sufficient generations of red hind to repopulate our stock. This graph is a summary of all the diver surveys that we have made at Abrir la Sierra over the years. Unfortunately, we don’t have the same effort every year to go there and do a lot of dives, to be able to assess how many fish are there, but some years we’ve had funding to do a more specific repeated sampling on one lunar cycle, or at least two, but, in other years, we can only get there once, and so we really haven’t seen a change in the density of the red hind of the aggregation site, but this may be an artifact of 57

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

not completely sampling every aggregation with the same factors, but it is with the same method at least. This is the basis of the technology that we’re using for passive acoustic monitoring of grouper sounds. Some of you may remember the work by Carlos Sargus that was presented at the council describing the different sounds that red hind produce. We also have described the sounds of Nassau grouper, of yellowfin grouper, of black grouper, and, basically, these sounds are different between the different species, but they’re also different depending on the behavior that the fish are conducting when they are aggregated. We have these two main sounds that red hind produce when they’re aggregated, and some are during setting up their territorial defense behaviors or courtship or, in the case of Nassau grouper, we have also seen competition between males for a mate associated with sound. Peaks in sound production occur at sunset or at dawn, and so what we’ve done is we’re recording 24/7 during six months, but we extracted the 6:00 p.m. hour to calculate sound pressure levels, and this is all work that Eric Appeldoorn has been doing, and so the sound pressure levels is basically how loud it is within that frequency where we know the fish are producing sound, and, for the examples that I am going to present you, the 150 to 300 hertz frequency, it’s filtered, and so we don’t look at the other frequency bands, because we know the grouper are not making sounds in those other frequency bands, but, if you go to the next slide, I can show you better the difference between counting the sounds versus calculating the sound pressure levels. This is one of the examples that I will be showing you, but, here, we have two datasets. The gray bars are counting how many actual sounds, individual sounds, were heard within that hour, and we summed that for the hour, but, for the sound pressure levels, that calculation of sound pressure level for each file is averaged over the hour, and so, every day, you can see how the sound pressure levels increase or decrease, and that coincides pretty well with the number of sounds that we are hearing the red hind produce. All of these graphs that I am going to show you, they all have a red line, a red vertical line, and it’s been placed on March 1, because that’s the day that the closed seasons end, and, after that, it’s legal to catch red hind, but, in some cases, you will see that we can still detect the presence of the fish, because of the sounds they produce. 58

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

I am going to go pretty quickly through a time series, and I tried to show you, from the point of view of the red hind, what their aggregations look like. Every year, we have calculated these sound pressure levels for the -- I have just cut it down from December to March because this is the area of interest, because we don’t really hear them before or after making these peaks to show that they are aggregated, and the little circles on the top are the full moon, and so, if you go to the next slide, I am going to shift every time series, so that we you can see how they coincide on the red hind schedule, which is associated to the moons and not necessarily to the dates. In 2011 and 2012, I think we were pretty okay that the closed season came after the red hind were no longer present. In 2013, we noticed that the fish were present after March 1 at this site, and we were not quite sure why that was happening, but we kept on looking at the same time series, to see if it happened again. In 2014, we see presence of red hind after March 1 at the site. In 2015, it was not apparent. The two main peaks of the red hind sound production were previous to March 1, but there was a little bit after that. Then, in 2016, we can see that there’s a peak there precisely on March 1, but, when these sound peaks are just one day, we have to go back and check the record and make sure what produced the sound, but it could be other interference, or it could be whales, or it could be boats. Sometimes, when there is a strong swell, or current, we’ll see those one-day peaks. In 2017, this is the time series of the sound production levels for Abrir la Sierra, and it looks like we were okay in 2017. In 2018, we see presence of those high sound levels after March 1. Then apparently it happened again in 2019. This is the record for 2020, and we see presence of red hind sounds after March 1. Then we also see here that there was presence of red hind straddling that date of March 1, and a little bit afterwards, according to the sound levels. This is what the red hind calendar for spawning looks like, and so these two peaks, the strong two peaks, generally occur in January and February, but sometimes, due to the timing of the moon and the month, those peaks can also occur after March 1, and so the bars that I have put in here, that are either gray or green, are basically where March 1 is going to be on the red hind calendar for the following ten years, and only two of those that are in green, 2025 and 2028, can we predict that the red hind will be done with the aggregation before March 1. For all the other years, there is either going to be a coincidence with the end of the second peak on March 1 or there may be a third peak when fish will 59

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

be present after March 1. This is based on predictions that were put forth for the Virgin Islands, and so a model that was worked out on the relationship between the full moon and the winter solstice, but, in our case, in the west of Puerto Rico, the red hind are a little bit more delayed on the moon, and so this is why it’s a little bit different from the case in the Virgin Islands, and maybe the east coast of Puerto Rico. Here is a summary of the conclusions for what we’ve observed in the past and what we expect for the future, if the same patterns hold. For the few years in the past, we have four of all those years where we did not have a problem with March 1, but, the other 63 percent, we had either a peak after March 1 or the second peak occurred after March 1. That’s why we’re recommending just to shift the dates, because, if the same pattern holds in the future, 80 percent of the time, we may fall short of protecting the end of the spawning aggregation. Why this shift is occurring is still a mystery to us. There are many hypotheses that have been put forth by other researchers, and some have to do with low abundance of the aggregations. When there is not a lot of fish, the fish kind of wait and hang out, to see if more arrive, and that takes longer after the time they were supposed to spawn. There is also a concept of hyperstability, where, at the aggregation site, you see the same density, but that aggregation is actually shrinking in space, and so, in total, you have less fish. Then another possibility is that we have changes in the sea water temperature, or, actually, variations in the incidence and the strength and the direction of the currents, which we know are cues for spawning, when the fish are already aggregated, and we have seen research where they have studied shifts in the space used by fish when they are going to spawn, but we haven’t had a lot of research on shifts in the time that fish use to spawn, and so all of these things are future lines that we could look at to decipher what’s going on, but, basically, we want to recommend, to improve the grouper fishery in Puerto Rico, that these spawning aggregations complete their life cycle and that all those eggs are spawned into the water column, so that we have more red hind in future years. What we discussed at the council was to shift this ninety-day closed season when the sacrifice of not fishing red hind may be 60

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

more useful, and so that would be starting 15 December to the 15th of March. It’s really important to monitor these aggregations, because they are very variable, and they may be shifting, and these things -- We have to be there to see them on time and not after it’s too late, and so, if we ensure the closed seasons provide protection at the most vulnerable time, that would help forward the management of those species, and we would also be able to document how effective these seasonal closures are at the MPA sites and also demonstrate the benefits of not fishing for those three months. We also have data that suggests that the black grouper and the yellowfin grouper, perhaps the tiger grouper, and the Nassau grouper are using different times as historically, and so this is something that we also have some research on, but, in the case of Nassau grouper, although it is a prohibited species, the aggregation off the west coast of Puerto Rico is within a marine protected area, and the seasonal protection there ends on March 31, but we have seen activity in April, for the same reasons that I just discussed for red hind. Even though they’re not supposed to be caught, if they’re aggregated, they’re vulnerable. If they’re brought up, they could suffer barotrauma, and we would like to avoid any of that, to recover the species. Something that’s really important is that these closed seasons need to be enforced, both at-sea and on the land, throughout the supply chain, and, finally, a recommendation would be to educate the critical importance of conserving fish spawning aggregations, so that we have sustainable fisheries. That’s it, and I am happy to answer any questions. MARCOS HANKE: Before the questions, I have -- Because of the timing, I will ask Michelle and Richard, because this is related to the SSC report too, if it’s not more productive to have the sequence of questions that I already have of Tony, Virginia Shervette, and Eddie in the queue to do after lunch and not to be rushing over this. What do the presenter and Richard think about that? MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, that’s your decision. We can wait until after lunch and then start with this outline of people asking for a question, and then you can add fifteen more minutes to the discussion in the afternoon, but this is an important component of the meeting today, and the council has to make a decision as to the next steps. 61

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

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, I agree, and I was trying to be the most open to the public, but we need to be quick on this and to make the best of our time. Let’s break for lunch and discuss this, and I have Tony, Virginia, and Eddie in the queue, with a little more time to think over the presentation and to discuss this better. Let’s break for lunch and come back at 1:00. See you guys at 1:00. (Whereupon, the meeting recessed for lunch on July 21, 2021.) - - JULY 21, 2021 WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION - - The Caribbean Fishery Management Council reconvened via webinar on Wednesday afternoon, July 21, 2021, and was called to order at 1:00 o’clock p.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke. MARCOS HANKE: Let’s start. Let’s reconvene. It’s 1:03 p.m. We have, in the queue, Tony Blanchard addressing the presentation of Michelle Scharer, and maybe issues that were also touched on by Richard Appeldoorn. Tony. TONY BLANCHARD: -MARCOS HANKE: try again?

I’ve just got to ask a couple of questions and to Tony, we are having problems to hear you.

Can you

TONY BLANCHARD: First, I want to know what the Puerto Rico representation thinks about -MIGUEL ROLON: --

I believe that what Tony wants to hear is Nelson’s

TONY BLANCHARD:

Can you hear me now?

MIGUEL ROLON:

We can hear you now, Tony.

MARCOS HANKE: again.

Tony, we cannot hear you very well.

TONY BLANCHARD:

Can you hear me?

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, go ahead. 62

Go ahead, Tony. Go ahead,

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

TONY BLANCHARD: What I would like to know is, the downward spike at the end of the season, of the closed season, do we have any idea what the amount of fish that the spike represents, number one, and are we even sure that they are still spawning at that point in time, or are they just moving around the bank? The other thing is, if we are talking about closing because we are going on the idea of the full moon, the fish aggregates a certain amount of time during that period, and then we should only close on the full moon when it affects the seasonal closure as-is, and that’s my take. MARCOS HANKE: Point well taken. the queue is Virginia.

Thank you very much.

Next in

VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: Michelle, first, that was an excellent presentation, and thank you so much for providing such a thorough explanation, especially from you all’s direct research. My point was just that we actually have extensive life history data from reproductive histology and age structure, both SEAMAP samples that were collected, have been collected, during the spawning season on the west coast and then some fishery-independent and dependent sampling efforts that my lab has done. That would provide additional information that shows some different stuff than was in your presentation, and so, since I sat in on that SSC meeting, I know that that kind of information wasn’t included in your consideration, and I just wanted to throw out that those data do exist, and they might be utilized to better inform this discussion. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Virginia, for your input, and is there any way that you can not discuss the information, but to say what kind of information related to what? VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: We have data from just reproductive histology, gonad histology, that show, for Buoy 4, where that aggregation was sampled that Michelle gave some ratio data, that, in 2018 at least, when the aggregation was spawning, there was a sex ratio of one male to seven females, not one to seventeen, for 2018, at least. That’s just one example. Then we also have -- Over the years, we just have reproductive histology data showing the different locations where fish have been collected, females have been collected, that are spawning capable and then the extent of when those spawning capable females occur. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you very much for that clarification. 63

It

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

still is a higher ratio than the rest of Puerto Rico, but it’s very important feedback for the group. Thank you, Virginia. Thank you very much for your participation. If there is anything else, please let us know. Eddie. EDWARD SCHUSTER: Good afternoon. Edward Schuster, DAP Chair. Excellent presentation, and I learned about the change from male to female. My question would be, and my curiosity, is actually to find out what triggers -- The males show up first, and so what triggers them to change to finding out whether -- Like, for example, if you’ve got a hundred males that show up first, what percentage of the males change? Does 25 percent or 50 percent of them change, because there’s females there, or does the ratio have to double to 300 females to a hundred males that show up? The next thing is the fisher involvement, and maybe the fish has changed, and there is another spawning aggregation, and, along with any natural predators that show up, and I have seen this on either Blue Planet or one of those National Geographics, where the whale sharks come in. Have you seen those species around where the aggregation, or while the aggregation, is taking place? Those are the just the things on my question list here. MARCOS HANKE: Michelle, very quick, do you want to answer to that? MICHELLE SCHARER: Yes, I would be glad to. Thank you, Eddie. The sex change part of the red hind is that, when they’re all born, when they’re all small, they’re all females, and, at a certain time, after so many years, which varies, but it’s around when they’re eleven inches long, then they become males, but they can’t change back, and so, the first part of their life, they are females. There comes a time in their lives when they change to males, and, the rest of their life, they are males. When the males arrive first at the aggregation, they’re not going to change any more, because those are already males, and so, after the females come in, some of those larger females are the ones that could become males in next year’s aggregation, and so it takes some time for the physiology to work, to make them change their ovaries to testes. When I’m talking about sex ratio, it’s basically the males that were there that get inundated by a bunch of females. In one moon, the females leave. In the next moon, females come back, and those are the main spawning events that occur at night. Regarding spawning aggregation sites changing, that is a possibility, and that’s why we try to make our surveys further 64

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

from the area we’re sampling, and so these are like nuclei, where there is a higher density of red hind during the spawning aggregation, but they are spread in less density as well, and so it is possible that they move around where they make these nuclei, and that’s why it’s so important to have standardized monitoring over time, but the space that we are listening to is the same space year after year, and, with our surveys, we have seen that the fish are there and that they’re distended, that they’re ready to spawn. Regarding predators, we have seen a few hammerhead sharks during the time we’re doing the surveys, but not whale sharks, but there are other little fish that could eat the eggs once they’re released into the water column, and so you also have to think of egg predators, but those are great questions. Thank you. EDWARD SCHUSTER: Just to add to this, Marcos, I know, in St. Croix, we did this for the conch. We had a closed season of three months, and then we expanded it two months, I think one month before and one month after, and the reason being is that fishers had come to our FAC and mentioned that they have seen the conch spawning before the closed season and after, but I know this affects Puerto Rico, and so I don’t to be too influential on their decision that they make, but that’s just my input on it. Thanks for the time. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you for your participation.

Richard.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: I want to follow up on Edward’s questions. Where you see things like whale sharks, the big filter feeders coming in, are more the bigger groupers, and especially the snappers, where they will spawn in the water column much more en masse, therefore creating a high density of these particles for those filter feeders to target, whereas red hind are spawning pretty much just a little bit off the bottom, and, therefore, they’re not really launching stuff up into the water column as much, and it’s a more spread out process, because they are forming these territorial harems, as opposed to all getting together and trying to go up in several big, or one big, mass, like some of the snappers do. I wanted to mention a few other things about the state of the aggregations in Puerto Rico, and it’s really difficult to get large sample sizes for this, and that’s why Virginia has been going back and getting more. The reason that we sampled at buoy four and not where we’ve done most of our work at Abrir la Sierra is that we felt that we would basically decimate Abrir la Sierra if we were to take the fish out of the aggregation that we were closely monitoring. That gives you sort of an idea of what we thought the 65

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

state of aggregation is. One of the benefits for having that glider research done with Laurent Cherubin was that the glider could go all the way up and down the west coast, and even over to Bajo de Sico, listening for these sounds, and therefore mapping the distribution of those sounds, and pretty much what it showed was that the aggregations, or the locations of sounds, which we associate with aggregations, were only located in the areas basically that we were already familiar with, as far as the outer west coast was concerned. There are other aggregation sites in Puerto Rican waters, for example, that were not looked at, because -- Such as over near the mouth of Mayaguez Bay, and so I don’t think we’re seeing an expansion of the range of the aggregations. However, what could happen, if densities are increasing, is that the densities at these outer portions of those aggregation areas would expand, and I think that’s probably what is happening over at the MCD. The last point I wanted to make is that, in addition to the sex ratios, we also have things like age distributions, and so a comment on both of these, and these were samples that were also processed by Virginia, and so maybe she can comment on that more, but, in the initial samples that were done comparing the west coast with the Hind Bank, and also Lang Bank, we found that the mean age of fish in Puerto Rico aggregations was five, and the maximum age was nine. At the Hind Bank, the mean was eleven, and the maximum was twentytwo years old, and so a much older age distribution in that more protected area, and it’s not surprising. In terms of sex ratios and sex change, those are -- Sex change is subject to a lot of things, and so it’s subject not only to the size, but it’s the size relative to the rest of the population, and so the time or size at which sex change will take place can vary substantially, based on studies with other species, depending on the size and age structure and health of the population. That is also true with the size of the fish maturing, and therefore being present at an aggregation site, and so, if you have an older, larger, dominant population, smaller individuals that might otherwise be at the aggregation don’t go, because they haven’t matured yet, and so the age at maturation is also somewhat flexible. For example, in the same comparison, the peak size mode of red hind at Buoy 4 off the west coast of Puerto Rico was only slightly 66

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

larger than the minimum size recorded at the Hind Bank, and so, again, these are all signs that are saying that, at least at that time, that population was being fairly stressed. Now, Virginia’s data that she just mentioned comes from some years, I think, after the initial sample, and so maybe that indicates an improvement in the population, or, conversely, the problem we’ve found, and I think Michelle kind of touched on this, is that, if you don’t have a lot of samples, and I don’t mean individuals of fish, but I mean samples throughout the aggregation period, you’re unlikely to capture what the peak is, because the males are there first, and the females will arrive, but, frequently, the females are not really coming out until near sunset, and then they start really showing up, where you can start counting them. If you are taking your fish before that time, as compared to that time, you might get different answers on what your sex ratio is, even though the population is exactly the same, but it’s just what are the fish behaviors relative to your ability to catch them, and so all of these problems make it difficult to monitor the health of a particular aggregation, which is why we need long time series and why it’s important to get out there frequently during the spawning period. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for all of those good points, Richard. We have, as expected, a lot of interest. Nelson. NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Michelle, excellent presentation. Based on your presentation and what I see in the field, in my area, I think that it’s pertinent, and it’s not going to cause major -- To move from December 1 to December 15 to March 15. On the check on the next ten years, most of the time, when we’re going to have the Holy Week, it’s going to be by the end of -- That’s when the fish, especially the red hind, have a big market. Also, I know that species has to be protected, and I know that Abrir la Sierra is one of the best spawning areas, and we need to do something about it, because it’s not to cause a major socioeconomic impact, and I think we would consider to run the closed season a little bit. I don’t know if that answers Tony’s question, because I can’t hear him well, but I want to hear Vanessa’s opinion, because I really know more of the south side of the island, and that species has a really high interest on the market, but only for the holy season. When the holy season passes, the interest declines, and that doesn’t mean that the people stop catching it, but it means that 67

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

the interest to catch it and the sales lowers dramatically. That’s what I see every day, every year, in the field. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Nelson. That’s very important, Nelson, on the west coast of Puerto Rico. I have, in the queue, Damaris, Clay, and Vanessa. Damaris, go ahead. DAMARIS DELGADO: I would like to propose a motion regarding this potential change in the dates, if that’s possible. MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Vanessa first. DAMARIS DELGADO: MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Damaris.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Clay.

Let’s listen to Clay and

CLAY PORCH: Thank you, Michelle, for this presentation, and I was just wondering if we could use these passive acoustic monitoring arrays in something close to real time, and the idea being that, once the signal is gone, indicating that the fish are no longer aggregated and spawning, then you could open up the fishery, and so, that way, you would do it exactly when the fish have stopped aggregating. MARCOS HANKE:

Richard, do you want to answer?

RICHARD APPELDOORN: I read his comment, and so I had two things I could say, and then Michelle can chime in as well, and one is, yes, you could monitor it. All you would need is to have a relay up to the surface, and, using cell phones, you can listen to these things real time, or you can have some automated system counting, and we actually have algorithms that Laurent’s group has developed to try and do that. The other way would be to have a glider cruising around, and what his glider does is it listens in real time for these recorded sounds, and so, technically, you could do it. You would have to make sure that stuff doesn’t get tampered with, but the other, and perhaps more important, point is that the data show that we can actually predict when they are going to aggregate very precisely, and, therefore, I don’t think you would need the real-time monitoring. You can say, okay, this year, we expect it to go on to the 4th, and this year will be the 8th, or something like that, and be pretty close, because I think the timing of this is, in fact, quite rigorous relative to the moon. 68

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

What you would need would be a flexible mechanism that would allow you to turn on and turn off the closed season each year without having to go through some emergency measure type of process. Michelle, did you want to add something to that? MICHELLE SCHARER: I was just going to say we did do that with the glider, and it worked pretty well, but these aggregations are a little bit spread out, and they’re like along the shelf, and you have nuclei of fish that those are the ones we’re counting, and so there was a previous question by Mr. Blanchard about the number of fish, and if there were sufficient fish during that last peak, and the answer is we haven’t measured that consistently over the years, and so we can’t really answer that, and, if they’re done spawning -- Well, one issue we have with this species is that nobody has seen it spawning. We have seen them still there with distended abdomens, which means they still have their eggs in them, and they haven’t been able to spawn yet in that March peak, but we really need to be there and monitor this more closely to be able to answer all these important questions that you all are bringing up. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Michelle. Basically, what you are saying is that we need a little more time on the water and support for that to happen. Next in the queue is Vanessa. VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Practically, as we know, and Nelson is always down here, and we already know that this change is real. Since 2017, we have seen not only the red hind, but also in another species that are in high demand, and, of course, we’re going to think that this is a good action. We already know that there are going to be people that will not agree with this, especially, as Nelson says, that March 15 is very close to the holy week, and this species is very important for that sales, but I think that we need to also be responsible and be taking the action when we have to. As Damaris says, I suggest that we accept this and make a motion and move on on this, because we already know that, in the west, we have a lot of commercial fishermen, practically more than the licensed fishermen that are in here, and, for each one with a license, we have one or two without a license. We have seen this during the last years, and we have seen this during the last closed season, that there are still fishermen, and there are still fish markets that are buying this during the closure, and so, as a point in here, and I want to be on the record, we need more enforcement 69

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

on land, also. I will suggest that we take this action now, making the point also that the first one should be an orientation period for the fishermen, and we need to make a real effort to go down to the fish markets and take the action of explaining to the fishermen why is this season applied only in the west and why the importance, when it’s going to be applied, and where it’s going to applied. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Vanessa. That’s very important. Thank you very much. We have in the queue Miguel Rolon, and I would also like to, in the future, after the motion, to have the support of Jocelyn, to make sure that whatever is proposed on the motion is the most efficient way of proceeding with whatever the motion presents. Miguel. MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. A couple of things. Number one, the motion that you are considering is whether you accept or not the recommendation of the SSC. MARCOS HANKE:

Correct.

MIGUEL ROLON: There are ways of doing that, and, right now, the only way that you can do that is by amending the island-based FMPs that have been approved in September of last year, and the same way that you are working on an island-based FMPs amendment at this time, and I discussed it with Jocelyn a little bit, and she provided the clear path of what we need to do. The council also can ask for more information, because, just today, we found two sources of information that are a little bit different, or will add more to what Dr. Scharer is presenting, and that information comes from Virginia. In the queue here, in the chat here, I have some information from the local scientists also that have information that they can share with the council. If you decide to move forward with this, then you need to consider a couple of things. Number one, you have to instruct the staff to work with the Regional Office to prepare an options paper, let’s say, to start discussing the -- To put everything together, the biology and the socioeconomic information that you need. Enforcement is an issue, because most of the -- Well, all of the management measures, if you don’t have enforcement, is like just a paper regulation, and it doesn’t work. If you are going to have a change of the season, if you have a problem with enforcement now, and you think about moving that season up and down every year, 70

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

because you are looking at the temperature or whatever in the water, and so our recommendation is that, if you are going to move it, lock it into a specific time and area that is being proposed. The other issue that they’re asking me is what happened to the rest of the closed season, because it’s announced from December 1 through the end of February, to include those years where February has 29 or 28 days, and, at this time, you can even -- Don’t even talk about it, and just concentrate on the area 67, 10 west of Puerto Rico to let’s say adopt the recommendation of the SSC at this time. In summary, if you are going to adopt that recommendation, you need to amend the island-based FMPs, and it cannot be made via framework, because I asked, and a framework is when you give the authorization to the Secretary to use these parameters if something happens, for example, and he or she can modify the regulations in place, and we don’t have to amend the plan, because it’s already part of the management plan, and that’s why they call it a framework approach, but, in this case, we don’t have that. In summary, Mr. Chairman, if you are going to adopt the recommendation of the SSC, which is moving the time that you close in those three areas that have been mentioned, or the area west of the coordinates that we mentioned, the longitude that we mentioned, then it has to be done through an island-based FMP amendment, and you need to start working on that recommendation, the appropriate recommendation, that includes biological information from all the sources that have been discussed today, the socioeconomic information, and then you have to take it to public hearings, of course, to the public. That’s all I have to say at this time. If you have any questions, Jocelyn is here. If you have any questions regarding it, this is the time. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I was -- I already expressed my interest to hear the input from Jocelyn to follow the best steps and which consideration we should have in this matter. Go ahead, Jocelyn. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you. I agree with what Miguel just said, that you can decide if you want to move forward and accept the recommendation from the SSC to change the closure periods, and you could then form an IPT and begin work on an amendment, or, if there’s additional information that you want considered, you could direct staff to compile that additional information and come back to an additional meeting and discuss this again and decide if you want to move forward with an amendment. I agree with Miguel that this would be an amendment to the island71

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

based FMPs and that we can’t do it by framework. We can start working on an amendment to the island-based FMPs right now, and that’s similar to what we’re doing with spiny lobster, for example, and we’re working on an amendment to the island-based FMPs, because those have been approved. We’re still in the process of creating the rules to implement them, but we’re in an okay position to amend those plans, if that’s the choice right now. MARCOS HANKE:

Andy.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos, and I guess not commenting on Jocelyn’s statement, but more in terms of accepting the SSC recommendations, and so the SSC is being fairly explicit with regard to a December 15 through March 15 closure. I think my preference would be along the lines of what Jocelyn was saying, to kind of explore options for changing the closure dates for red hind, and that could very well end up being December 15 to March 15, but there could be other considerations. For example, Clay had mentioned, obviously, the real-time monitoring, but what immediately came to mind is, if we want to provide some flexibility, given the dates in which the closure may be needed, that we could look at different spawning closures on an annual basis and set it based on the moon phases, or you could provide NMFS, the Regional Administrator, some authority and flexibility to open or close the fishery based on certain conditions. I think it would be best to kind of keep the recommendation, the motion, for action more generic, rather than just simply adopting the SSC recommendation, which is very specific. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. One comment is I have historical knowledge about this discussion, this one and a similar discussion in the past, and that is the fishermen tend to prefer a single date, or something that we have some continuity over the time, and it doesn’t change too much, to avoid confusion. I am sorry about my English there and the pronunciation, but I think the message is there, and I would like to hear the motion that Damaris has, because we don’t have too much time, and we need to move this along, to go through the next item on the agenda and discuss the motion. Go ahead, Damaris. DAMARIS DELGADO: The motion would be the council moves to request staff to draft an amendment to the Puerto Rico FMP to modify the dates of the seasonal closure for fishing for or possession of red hind grouper in federal waters of Puerto Rico from the current 72

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

date and shift from December 15 to March 15, as requested by the SSC. MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. Damaris, for the screen, can we just copy the recommendation of the SSC, and you can look at it and see if it agrees with what you just said? DAMARIS DELGADO: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes.

Liajay, can you copy-and-paste?

LIAJAY RIVERA: Can you send it through the email, because the chat is not able to do copy-and-paste, and if you could please do so through email. MIGUEL ROLON: Liajay, wait. Just copy-and-paste the recommendation of the SSC. As we are doing this, remember that this will -- It’s giving instruction to the staff to prepare the document for further action, to see if this motion can be accepted as-is. What Andy Strelcheck is saying is that there are other options that have to be included also in the document. Although the goal could be the 15th of December to March 15, there might be -- After the information gathered by the staff, the appropriate staff, there might be other options that could be presented in the options paper, and that’s why they call it that, and the council can look at it and choose the best one for the fishery and the socioeconomics of the area. LIAJAY RIVERA:

Miguel, I have just pasted the SSC recommendation.

MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you. Damaris, can you read it and see if you agree with what you are trying to state? DAMARIS DELGADO:

Yes, that’s fine.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay, and so, if that’s the motion, Mr. Chairman, we need a second and discussion. DAMARIS DELGADO: I sent it by email to you, Miguel, and Graciela and Christina and Marcos, but that’s fine. MIGUEL ROLON: The point is the language that we have on the screen, Damaris. DAMARIS DELGADO: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes.

You agree with that one, and so we need a second. 73

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

DAMARIS DELGADO: MIGUEL ROLON:

Thank you, Damaris.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes, I agree.

Second.

Now we need the discussion.

MARCOS HANKE: On the discussion, I would like to hear from the rest of the group, especially Andy, if there is any language to be added, recommendation language, to be added to address his point earlier. ANDY STRELCHECK: Marcos, thanks. My recommendation would be to amend the motion, as written, to say something along the lines of direct staff to develop an options paper to modify the seasonal closure for fishing and possession of red hind during the red hind spawning aggregation timeframe and then leave it at that, and don’t specify dates or anything like that. We’ll have staff bring back options for consideration by the council at our next meeting, or the December meeting. MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. A point of order. That’s a substitute motion, and so if -- That’s a substitute motion, and so the -ANDY STRELCHECK:

Well, I --

MIGUEL ROLON: Wait. If the proponent of the motion and the seconder agree, then we can withdraw this language and then allow Andy to dictate to Liajay the new language, but they have to first agree on the change of the motion. MARCOS HANKE: the motion?

Damaris and Vanessa, do you agree on the change of

DAMARIS DELGADO: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes, I agree.

Vanessa, the seconder?

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Yes.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay, and so, Liajay, please erase what we have now. Get rid of the whole thing, and then wait for Andy to dictate the new language. Can you do that, Andy, please, slowly? ANDY STRELCHECK:

Can you bring the previous language back up? 74

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

LIAJAY RIVERA:

Sorry?

ANDY STRELCHECK: Can you go back and just bring the previous language -- Because I can use the previous language, if you can go back. LIAJAY RIVERA:

Okay.

ANDY STRELCHECK: My recommendation is direct staff to develop an options paper to modify -- Then I guess just restore the struckout “areas: at the end, but delete the dates, and so remove the dates, but leave “spawning aggregation areas”. MIGUEL ROLON: In this case, Mr. Chairman, Andy can then make the motion as written, and then you need a second for the discussion. MARCOS HANKE: That’s the language, Andy. with the language to request for a second? MIGUEL ROLON: Wait, wait, wait. that your motion, Andy? ANDY STRELCHECK:

Are you comfortable

Andy has to make the motion.

Yes, that’s my motion.

Is

Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON:

Okay.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, that was my question, and is there a second?

DAMARIS DELGADO: MIGUEL ROLON:

Now we need a second.

Second.

No.

Thank you, Damaris.

Any opposition?

Discussion, Marcos.

MARCOS HANKE: We are going for discussion. I think we have -- I was checking here in the chat, and we have Tony Blanchard. TONY BLANCHARD: I think we’re moving too far ahead. we need a -- What Virginia said was -- Marcos. MARCOS HANKE: TONY BLANCHARD: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes.

I don’t think

Go ahead.

I think we’re moving -Tony, we cannot hear anything that you’re saying.

TONY BLANCHARD: -- too fast. I think what she said was not taken into consideration. Can you hear me? MIGUEL ROLON:

You are back, yes. 75

Go ahead.

Quick.

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

TONY BLANCHARD: I think that should -- We are moving too fast forward, instead of taking into consideration the information from Virginia that was not looked at at the SSC meeting. MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. This motion is not to implement the measures as recommended by the SSC. The motion is to prepare an options paper, and the options paper includes all that information that has been talked about today, and so Virginia’s paper and the information from the Puerto Rico Fishery Laboratory, and that also will be included, as well as any other socioeconomic information that we may have, because, right now, the only thing that we have is the opinion of some fishers around the table that moving this will not affect their fisheries, but there might be fishermen that come to the table and say, no way, Jose, and that is when I fish, and 10 percent or 20 percent, or whatever percent, that I fish for comes from those two weeks. What Mr. Strelcheck is suggesting here is, according to the process, is to prepare that options paper, and the options paper will have all of this. Remember that the options paper also has possible other alternatives, because, for every action that you have, you need at least three alternatives, or two more alternatives, and so you have three alternatives for the council to consider. An alternative could be the floating season, like has been proposed today, and it could be also a change of those dates, from December 16 to March 16, something like that, just as an example, and so the council has to be aware of the process. If you approve this today, you are not approving the measure itself. What you are approving is to have that options paper, and the staff will look at it, and you have an IPT that has to be named at the Regional Office, and then it will be an options paper that considers a modification or amendment to the island-based FMP, applicable island-based FMP, and, in this case, it will be the Puerto Rico island-based FMP to establish this new seasonal closure. Be mindful that Mr. Strelcheck deleted the period of December 15 to March 15, because that’s deterministic, and so, if you approve this, Mr. Chairman, and Tony and all the others, you are nothing but preparing an options paper that will include all the information that you need to take care of a final -- Not a final decision, but make a decision that you will take to the public for consideration. 76

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

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Miguel.

Maria and then Vanessa.

MARIA LOPEZ: Good afternoon. This is Maria Lopez with NOAA Fisheries, and I just wanted to speak from the side of the NMFS staff. We will work with the council staff to put together an options paper that, as Miguel said, that evaluates not only the dates, but also the cumulative effects of -- Not the effects, necessarily, but analyzing the other closures that are overlapping, and the other areas as well, and we can also, if the council is interested, form an IPT to take a look at this. We will request also the researchers to send us the information that they have, so that we can incorporate it and utilize that, so that the council can make the best informed decisions. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: To that point, Maria, when you are saying the analysis, it will be based on the SSC recommendations, and this will be for Puerto Rico, correct? MARIA LOPEZ: Yes, and so it will be based on this motion that the council just put forward, and so the idea for this motion was to keep it general, and so we can look at different options that we could present to the council in December. MARCOS HANKE:

We have Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, practically, my comment is that, for the suggestion of the SSC, and the people that can attend that meeting, I think that they already have the information that they need, and, from us, the ones that are here, that are from the west and fish every day in this area, they know that this change is real, and I think that it’s better if we take an action, and it’s better if we present everything at the same time and not continue back and forth and changing things or waiting until December, and we already know that this change is real, and I think that those dates are the best ones, if you have to move something. Thanks. MIGUEL ROLON: Vanessa, a point of order, again. You cannot do that, because you have to follow the process that we have, and, although we would like to have immediate action whenever the council says something, this is the only way that we can do it, by amending the plan. Fishermen, if they also believe this is good, they voluntarily can do it, but, at this -- You also have to be mindful of the regulations in place. If I am a fisherman, and I fish, in 2022, between March 15, and there is no regulation in place, I am free, and that’s what I am going to do, and so the process calls for 77

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

this process that you have here, and this is the quickest way that you can do it and the most appropriate. Whatever we do here, remember that a management plan has to be implemented, and so we are not talking about 2022. We are talking about the season of 2023, if something goes smoothly and fast. Any further discussion? MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Thank you. Any further discussion from anybody else that wants to add to this? Hearing none, is there any person against the motion? Any abstentions? Hearing none, the motion carries. Thank you for a good participation, and I think the record is clear, and thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is the draft tech memo on managing with ACLs. MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, can you recognize Dr. Macpherson?

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I was waiting for Marian Macpherson to be ready with the presentation. Welcome to the meeting. The Caribbean Management Council floor is yours. DRAFT TECH MEMO ON MANAGING WITH ACLs FOR DATA-LIMITED STOCKS MARIAN MACPHERSON: Thank you. Thank you for having me. Hi, everybody. I am Marian Macpherson, and I work in the NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Headquarters Office, and I am here today to talk with you about this draft technical memo that we have produced, and I will note that you’ve got my name on the screen there, but there are several technical experts that have helped produce this document that are around to chime in and help answer questions. Jason Cope is here, and Patrick Lynch is here, and Skyler Sagarese is here, and I think also Kate Siegfried, and so welcome to them, and I would invite them to join in as we go. As an overview, why are we doing this, and what is this about, obviously, ACLS have worked well in a lot of situations, yet we’ve also faced challenges, and it’s been twelve years since we first implemented the MSRA requirements, and this is a good time to look back and see what’s working and what we could be doing better. In 2016, NMFS revised the National Standard 1 Guidelines pertaining to ACLs, and there is a particular paragraph that we’ll be focusing on. NMFS convened a technical working group consisting primarily of folks from S&T and all of the science centers, with a few policy people onboard, to provide guidance on these new guidelines, and Sub-Group 3 of that technical group is focusing on this particular 78

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

topic, which is managing with ACLs in the data-poor fisheries. We’ve had some progress in the last twelve years for what methods we have available for doing data-limited assessments, and, also, these regulatory changes, and so I have included the title of the draft tech memo on this slide for you, because I want to emphasize this guidance, draft guidance, is very limited. It’s very narrow in its focus, and it’s looking at this one particular paragraph in the National Standard 1 Guidelines that talks about flexibilities for data-limited stocks. The status of this paper is it’s very much a draft. We’re anticipating additional changes after we hear feedback from councils, and perhaps more internal reviews. We presented this draft to the CCC at its May meeting, and NMFS has now requested comments from you guys by October 1, and so we’re doing these discussions with councils and SSC, as you invite us, and I’m happy to be here today to talk about what this memo is. This is the general overview slide, and there are basically three main topics that are in this draft tech memo. We talk about the legal context, and we talk about the science and the assessment methods, and then we talk about management and what that means, what our interpretations mean. Just briefly, what’s in the Magnuson Act itself, what’s in the law, the statute, we must comply with. What’s in NMFS’ guidance can be -- In some cases, we have more flexibility in our interpretation, and so I will note, as a foundation for this discussion, when it comes to ACLs, the Magnuson Act does not define ACL. The Magnuson Act does not define catch. Where we get this concept of an ACL being expressed as an amount of fish, as a weight or a number of fish, comes from NMFS’ interpretation in our National Standard 1 guidance, and we still believe that’s the best way to do it, when you can, and that’s what we’re shooting for. The guidelines call that the standard approach. The standard approach means you’re expressing your ACL in terms of the weight, or number, of fish. We’ll talk more about that later, but that’s the legal context. Data-limited assessment methods, this paper, as I said, there’s been a lot of progress, in the last twelve years, of what we can do. This paper talks about two categories of data-limited assessment methods. There are some, depending on what data you can put into the model, that will get you the information you need to manage with an ACL that follows the standard approach, an ACL that’s a weight of fish, or an amount of fish. 79

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

There are other data-limited assessment methods that are giving us good information that could provide a science-based approach to do annual management and monitoring to a limit, or a level, that is not expressed in terms of an amount of fish, and so that’s what we’ve explored, in terms of could we do an ACL that’s expressed as a rate, and so I will talk about that a little bit as we go through this paper. Then the management section of the paper is where we sort of pull these concepts together, and, okay, when does this paragraph apply, and when is (h)(2) -- When can we use it? When can we have the flexibility to recommend an alternative ACL? The paper talks about that, and then it explores what might it look like and what could be an alternative ACL, and so we talk about what could it be if you had rate data. Then, finally, there is this category of stocks that maybe they qualify for alternatives, but they don’t even have rate data, and what do we do with them, and so we’ve got considerations for that category as well, and that is basically what I will be talking through, is these three main concepts. As I just mentioned, the requirements in the Magnuson Act are that the FMP specifies the annual catch limit. The annual catch limit has to prevent overfishing, and the FMP has to include accountability measures, and that’s Magnuson. NMFS’ interpretation in the guidelines, the standard approach to complying with Magnuson is to express your ACL as an amount of fish, and then we have this flexibility in Paragraph (h)(2) that says a council may recommend an alternative that standard approach, in certain situations, but the alternative still has to comply with the Magnuson Act, and so we still have to have an ACL that prevents overfishing and includes accountability measures, even if it’s not expressed as an amount of fish, and this alternative must be included in the FMP. To emphasize how this is going to be relevant for us, this is straight out of that section of the CFR, and this is what (h)(2) says for data-limited stocks, and there are limited circumstances that don’t fit a standard approach, and those circumstances include, among other things, stocks for which the data are not available, either to set the reference point or to manage to the reference point. We can’t set it reliably, or we can’t monitor and enforce it, and then a council may propose an alternative. It’s all going to get down to the data, what do you have, and that’s going to be the test, is what do you and what can you do with your data? 80

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

We have made this progress in our assessment methods, as I have said, over the last twelve hears, advances in our stock assessment methods, and we have new tools that let us do more with the data that we have, identifying manageable metrics, and we have also increased our understanding of the uncertainties. Moving on to the next slide, I’m just going to touch on this, and we have detailed questions, and I’m going to ask Jason to jump in with this later, but this is the overview of the two categories of assessment methods that I was talking about, and so the brown -Starting at the top, the brown boxes are going to pertain to what data are available, start with what you have, and then, basically, if you have the biomass information to plug into your models, you can travel down the left-hand side of your screen, and these brown circles are just questions about what you can use. Then it takes you down to what assessment methods are going to be available in the little blue boxes, and, if you’re using the ones that are on the left, and I hope I didn’t say right, and, if I said right, I used the wrong word, and I’m sorry. It’s the lefthand side of the screen. If you have the biomass information, you travel down the left-hand side of the screen, and that can produce your ACL. It can support identification of an ACL that is expressed the standard way as an amount of fish. Some of these new methods that I have been discussing, those are the ones on the right, and sorry for the confusion. If you don’t have the biomass information, but you can still measure other things, and I have heard you guys talk about length and CPUE, you can get science-based advice that you can use to manage and monitor annually with limits and accountability, but just not expressed in terms of amount of fish. If you’re finding yourself going down this right-hand side of the slide, this is when you might be thinking about the flexibilities in (h)(2), what methods you’re going to use, and then how they’re going to feed into your management, in terms of the flexibility. Before I leave this slide, I do want to highlight, going down the left-hand side, when you get to the very bottom, that little box at the bottom-middle, that says catch estimator approaches, and we’re going to talk more about those in a minute, but that’s basically, if you have limited data about removals, and that’s all you have, that may be your best scientific information available, and you may need to use it, but huge caveats about uncertainties with those approaches, and, now that we have all of these alternative methods and flexibilities -- If you have any other information to feed into a model, other than these catch estimator 81

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

methods, and we’re going to have recommendations for that in our draft technical memo. I do want to point out, and I heard you guys talking about this earlier, and I want to emphasize that this oversimplifies things a little bit, just because, in data-poor situations, you think you have information on lengths, but is it really usable to do what you want to do with it, and I am hearing you talk about that, and you know this already, but I want you to know that we realize that this is an oversimplification, and you’re going to have to ask these hard questions and explore and vet these issues of what really can you use, but this is the concept, and so just laying that out there. The draft tech memo, following the discussion of -- It discusses the methods, the assessment methods, that will get you to information for the standard ACL, and then it’s got recommendations. When you’re using those methods, they’re still data-limited, and I’m not going to read these to you, and I think you’ve got a copy of the draft tech memo that’s been posted, and you can also read this slide, but the concept here is, even when you’re using those methods, be aware of uncertainty, be clear about your uncertainties, use precautionary buffers, and then I want to highlight, here at the bottom, the discussion of using the catch estimator methods. We do recognize that this might be the best available that you have, and, if it is, you’ve got to do the best you can with what you have, but, if you’re using that method, this memo encourages you to look around and see if there’s anything new that has come down in the past twelve years that would be better and consider those, consider flexibilities under (h)(2), and, if you’re still stuck using the catch estimator method, try to make a plan to transition to a different approach. We were just talking about the methods that will get you to your standard ACL, and these are the other methods that I was mentioning that you don’t have the biomass data, but they can still provide the science-based approach. Length-based and indicator methods, and just to note about these that they are limited. They can’t define removal targets, in terms of the amount of fish, and so they don’t fit under our standard ACL guidance, but they do provide these science-based metrics and reference points, and they can support compliance with Magnuson, but just in a way alternative to that standard approach, and, again, it’s very fact-specific, but this is the concept. Here is the big question.

When do you use (h)(2)? 82

When can you

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

consider using (h)(2), the alternative method, and so the key is the data. The key is you start with what you have. If you lack the data to effectively specify or manage with an ACL expressed in the standard format, that’s when you want to consider using this flexibility in (h)(2). This little flow chart sort of encapsulates the whole premise of the tech memo in one handy spot that we wanted to sort of lead you here with some of the background information to get you here, but it starts with what you can measure, and that’s what we keep going back to, and, similarly to the methods flow chart we looked at a few minutes ago, if you have the biomass data, and those are the two questions here, is it a complete time series of removals and basic life history or these other options to get you what you need on the biomass side, and then you can proceed down the left-hand side of this chart and start heading in the direction of the standard ACL. There’s a second question that has to be asked, and that is, number one -- The first question we asked got us to the answer of can we specify an ACL, in terms of an amount of fish, but remember the language in (h)(2) says that you can’t specify or manage to it, and so the second question has to be, okay, you can specify it, but are you able to monitor and enforce that standard ACL, and if, again, the answer is yes, you proceed on down that left-hand side of the page and you use the weights/numbers-based ACL. If you get a no to either one of those first two questions, then you get into the big box there in the middle of, okay, you’re in (h)(2) now, and you should start thinking about alternatives. Just because you’re in (h)(2), it doesn’t automatically mean the ratebased alternative is right for you. That’s an alternative that our team came up with, and we’ve discussed it and described it, but, just because you’re in (h)(2), it doesn’t mean you have to use rate, or that you’re able to use rate. There is a second question, before you get into proposing a ratebased ACL, and that’s do you have information on the fishing mortality rate or a proxy for F at FMSY that you can use to get to these reference points that you’re going to need to manage with the rate-based reference points. If you do have that information, you’re going to want to consider trying out this rate-based ACL, and, again, there are lots of questions, lots of things to be vetted and considered, but that’s sort of the thought process. There are going to be some stocks where your answer is no, where we don’t feel confident with our standard ACL, and we don’t have rate data, and so what do you do with these stocks, and that’s a 83

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

tricky question, and we’ll get into that. There’s not much to say about it, but you still must comply with the Magnuson Act, and you must do something. It might be that catch scalars are all you have, but, at this point, you’re going to want to consider a transition plan. Is there some sort of cost-effective data collection project that you could do that could start moving you in the direction of managing and monitoring more effectively, and so that’s just the overview of everything, and then the paper sort of provides that all written down in more complete sentences. Now I’m going to talk a little bit about how would this work, how would this concept of a rate-based ACL look, and so, using those assessment methods that we talked about that went down the righthand side of our slide, whatever data you have to put into the data, if it’s fixed data or the CPUE data, but it’s going to give you your F, your fishing mortality rate, and your MFMT, maximum fishing mortality threshold, which is one of the ways we have of measuring overfishing, and so rate can give us the information we need to make sure that we’re not overfishing. Following the format for the standard ACL in the NS 1 Guidelines, you could take that F and MFMT and then apply buffers, as we currently do, through the SSC for scientific uncertainty and then through the council for management uncertainty, to derive an ABC and then the ACL. It would just remain expressed in terms of your fishing mortality rate instead of a weight or a number of fish, and that’s what you would start managing around. I put in a slide -- After hearing your discussion this morning, I think you all are way ahead of me on managing with indicators, but our paper does mention that this is definitely within the realm of the concept of rate-based management, would be using the indicators, and so, if you have length data, then perhaps the SSC can correlate specific lengths to specific rate targets or thresholds, so that you could use that length data, and so here’s just sort of a hypothetical of what those lengths might look like. Then you could either tie your management to that or continue running the assessment method to compare your F to MFMT. I heard you guys talking about management options, like what do you do, and I want to point out that we -- A lot of the questions for the council here, a lot of questions to be considered, and we’re aware of those, and those are going to be on the table, but the types of tools that you could use for managing to a rate are the same kind of tools you can use for managing to an amount. You have size limits, you have time/area closures, you have gear 84

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

modifications. I saw, from the SSC this morning, that, in way, these management tools directly relate, or more directly relate, to these rate-type methods than calculating back to an amount of fish, and so some of these have logical linkages, but that question of CPUE is changing, and how rapidly do we respond, how rapidly do we react, that’s going to depend on how you set it up and how the council designs its accountability measures. The FMP would need to describe how you’re going to do your monitoring, and a couple of things that we explored in the paper, two options that you might want to -- One, run your model annually, just continue collecting your data throughout the year and then run the model once a year for your accountability measure mechanism, or I heard you guys talking a lot about real-time monitoring, and that’s also an option, and that’s certainly something that the council would want to explore, but, whatever it would be, you would tie an accountability measure of some sort to your ACL. Here is just the overview, again, of what we talked about of those stocks that do qualify for alternatives, but they don’t have the rate data, and what do you do with those, and they must still comply with Magnuson, doing the best they can with what they have, the best scientific information available. For these stocks, consider whether you could start collecting data that would support a movement towards the rate-based ACL and, consistent with what I heard this morning, continue to move us forward towards our ultimate goal, which is to get all of these stocks towards the use of the standard ACL approach of using the ACL expressed as an amount of fish. That is the quick overview of what is in that paper, and I am happy to talk questions, and I am probably going to call on Jason to jump in and help me, or anybody else, with technical stuff, but that is the show. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for a great presentation, Marian. Council members, do you have any questions? MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, not a question, but to clarify, because some people are asking, okay, now this is it, and what now, and, well, the thing is that what we have heard today is it provides more flexibility, especially in data-poor areas like the one we have here, and so the councils can work in the establishment of ACLs, following these guidelines in a better, let’s say, manner. Also, if we do this, we comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and, 85

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

of course, we have to always wait for the SSC recommendations. We did something similar, or the SSC did similar, when we identified the different species that we have here, the data components that we have, and then we have -- Remember the tiers, and so the presentation today not only validates what we have done, and we can modify it a little bit, but we will be in compliance to study those ACLs in a way that we follow the Magnuson-Stevens Act and we follow the guidelines established by the National Marine Fisheries Service, in this case NOAA Fisheries. That’s where we are. Anyway, the question from the councils are open now. If you don’t have any questions, that’s fine, and we’ll move forward, but I would like to hear from Dr. Richard Appeldoorn and other technical people around the table whether they have any questions that can be addressed today, of course from the council members. MARCOS HANKE: Is there any other member of the technical group that would like to jump in? ANDY STRELCHECK: Marcos, I will jump in. Marian, it’s good to see you, and it’s good to hear your voice. It’s been a while. You might have said this, and apologies if I missed it, and it’s very much a draft plan right now that is going through review. What is the timing for finalizing the plan at this point, or the policy? MARIAN MACPHERSON: That’s a good question. I think it kind of depends on what kind of feedback we get, and someone just also asked for a reiteration of that we have requested comments from the councils by October 1, and then I think there will probably be some more discussion at the next CCC meeting, and then, depending on what the comments look like, what sorts of revisions need to be made, will affect the timing of the next steps, but we’re hoping to keep moving it along, if it’s something that’s going to be beneficial for people. ANDY STRELCHECK: Then a follow-on, and I know that, at one point, we were talking with you and others about a pilot-style project, and I think you heard that conversation this morning, or suggestion from the SSC, and I’m curious if there is any pilots ongoing at this point in other regions or any kind of efforts along that front, beyond some of the initial discussions we’ve had. MARIAN MACPHERSON: Thanks, Andy, for bringing that up. Sam Rauch encouraged us to kind of do an, I don’t know, but micro-rollout of this and reach out to the Southeast, and also the Western Pacific, 86

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

about whether there would be interest in doing a pilot project and trying this out. We have talked with the Western Pacific, and also with your region, and we don’t have a pilot project in the works yet, but I think there are a couple of things that are of interest and might be developing soon. MARCOS HANKE:

That is good news.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: MARCOS HANKE:

Anybody else?

Marcos, if I could just make a comment?

Richard, go ahead.

RICHARD APPELDOORN: I just wanted to make two points. One, the presentation that the council just had is almost exactly the same as what was presented to the SSC, although we had it presented by Jason, who is a little bit more technically savvy in some of these areas, and so I think that provides the context for which we were making our endorsements for, and there’s nothing really specific there. It’s a process, and we’re endorsing the process. Secondly, I would like Marian for explaining rate-based methods better than I did. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Richard.

Clay.

CLAY PORCH: Thank you, Marian. I just wanted to comment that, yes, we did have that conversation, and, in fact, the Southeast has been applying a variety of data-limited tools for a while, but most of them haven’t been used in management yet, and so we’re definitely primed to come up with a pilot example. In fact, we’re going to look at some with this upcoming queen triggerfish assessment, and, really, any of the assessments in the Caribbean are data-limited, and so it’s more a matter of, instead of just trying to translate the approach that we find best supported by the data into catch advice, we can use it more directly in terms of managing fishing mortality rate or some related indicator. Like, if you used a length-based approach, there’s an implied fishing mortality rate, as Marian pointed out in one of the figures, and so we would find the average size of the catch that you would expect with the target level of fishing mortality, and then you would just monitor the average size. There is lots of things we can do like that, and they’re not all as directly intuitive as just monitoring catch, but, if you don’t 87

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

have a good way to monitor catch, these are better than doing nothing or pretending that you know what the catch is. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Clay. I am looking here in the chat, and I don’t see anybody else. Thank you for a great presentation. This is the last opportunity for the council members. Hearing none, we will go for the next presentation. MARIAN MACPHERSON:

Thank you.

ENFORCEMENT ISSUES WITH NASSAU GROUPER AND OTHER FISH SPECIES IN ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN, USVI MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, the next thing in the agenda is the enforcement issues with Nassau grouper and other fish species in St. Thomas/St. John. I don’t see a presentation, but, just to give an introduction to the topic, we received a phone call at the office, to me specifically, indicating that there were some issues with the Nassau grouper in the area of St. Thomas/St. John. I talked to a couple of people, and I talked to Julian, and he’s here, and he can explain, and the situation is this. The person that called me claims that there are fishers going out, and they fish Nassau grouper and fillet the fish at-sea and then they are sold on land as other groupers or any other thing but Nassau grouper. This fisher is really upset, because he and his friends are following the law to the dot, and they believe in the process that we have to allow the Nassau grouper to recuperate, but, at the same time, they are demoralized by these people coming in, and nobody is intervening with them, and they are selling the fish. We talked to Miguel Borges and others, and they told us that, presently, they cannot intervene, because they only have authority in the EEZ and not in the local area of jurisdiction of the U.S. Virgin Islands, and so the issue is, okay, that’s the situation, and that is happening, and what can we do? Do we need a memorandum of understanding for enforcement, so that federal and local government authorities can join in efforts to stop this from happening? What can we do? Of course, all the process has to do with the present laws and regulations that we have, and so, Julian, if you’re around, can you explain a little bit more, if you know, about this issue and what is happening in St. Thomas/St. John? Marcos, Julian has his hand up. MARCOS HANKE:

Yes, and you already gave the opportunity to him. 88

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

Go ahead, Julian. JULIAN MAGRAS: Well, when I received the email about what was going on, right away, I jumped on, and I had some dialogue back and forth, and one of our biggest concerns that I don’t understand is, if you have a compatible regulation, in both federal and local waters, and an individual is caught by a federal officer, why can’t they deal with the issue, because it’s a compatible regulation? As it pertains to the Nassau grouper, that is closed all around, forever, and so what is happening is fishers are complaining about the illegal activity by other fishers, both commercial and recreational, because we don’t have any local enforcement that are out there enforcing and checking the different markets and to see what’s going on at the dockside when the boats are coming in, and nothing is being done. Even to myself, I have warned several people that we are in the closed season, and they need to follow the law, but I think something needs to be done that, if a federal officer catches someone on the shoreline with an offense that is both federal and local, that they can address it, because then compatibility would never work. We talk about doing stuff that is compatible, but the federal officers can’t comply, or they can’t do their job unless the individual is caught in federal waters, and that is a major problem, and can we address that? MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Julian. I will just check, and I think Miguel Borges is on the line, and the question, Miguel, is what can be done or what can be done to fix -- If there is any loophole or coordination with the state waters, and go ahead, Miguel. MIGUEL BORGES: Well, thank you, Julian, also, for your comments. When we received that, I contacted the council, and then I contacted our enforcement officer who is over there in St. Thomas. The main problem that we have is that, even if the regulations are compatible, that doesn’t mean that we have jurisdiction in state waters. Those are two different topics. The regulations might be the same, compatible, but that doesn’t mean that we can enforce those regulations in state waters, and so that is an issue that always happens, and I have it here in Puerto Rico as well, and in the Virgin Islands, and it’s a challenge for us to get jurisdiction sometimes. We have, for example, jurisdiction in the tunas, from the shore all the way to federal waters, but all the other species depend on a case-by-case basis, and the specific anonymous call -- We, for 89

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

the most part, do not have jurisdiction on that issue. I wish we had, and I spoke to General Counsel, to see if we could -- If we had jurisdiction, but it’s very limited in the specific issue that was brought in that call. That’s all, Marcos. MIGUEL ROLON:

So how can we fix it?

MARCOS HANKE: A specific question, from my side, is a letter of understanding, or cooperation, between the state and with you guys doesn’t fix it, and is there a way to go? MIGUEL BORGES: I believe that it has to be -- Our jurisdiction has to come from -- Directly from a CFR or federal regulation and not directly from the state. There is a process, in some cases, where the state could be preempted, and they give some jurisdiction to the federal agencies, but that is a process, a long process, that has to be done, and it’s not as easy as, okay, here you go, and here’s a letter of understanding between federal agencies and the local government and we automatically have jurisdiction. I wish we did, but we would have to ask General Counsel to see any other alternatives that we have to acquire jurisdiction if the state wants us to intervene more. As far as I know, it needs to be a federal regulation for us to have jurisdiction, and so -MIGUEL ROLON:

Marcos, if I may.

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead.

MIGUEL ROLON: I don’t understand this. The Nassau grouper is protected under the Endangered Species Act, and it’s a federal offense. You pursue the people because they are free to run billfish all the way to the shoreline, and so why in the hell can we not do the same thing with the Nassau grouper? MIGUEL BORGES: Miguel, that’s a good point, and I share your frustration as well, but even -- That’s a good point that you brought, because I discussed the billfish issue, and it’s the same thing, and I do not have jurisdiction in state waters for the majority of cases of billfish, if it’s caught in state waters. I need to prove that it was caught in federal waters. MIGUEL ROLON: No, no, no, no. The fishery management plan for billfish goes all the way to the shoreline. It’s the only species that goes all the way to the shoreline, and I -- Also, for the record, Miguel Borges is doing an excellent job here, but what he is telling us is that he needs some regulation that he can abide to, in this case. 90

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

My suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is that we write a letter to the appropriate authorities, in this case Andy Strelcheck, and they can sort this out and come up with the possible solution, because I agree with Miguel that a simple cooperative agreement won’t do anything unless we have a mandate, in this case a mandate to enforce the law all the way to the shoreline. My recommendation, in this case, is that we are not going to do anything by continuing discussing this here, but allow the staff to prepare a letter for the signature of the Chair, and we can send it to the Regional Administrator of NOAA Fisheries, to see if they can then tell us what actions can we take, or what action the action agency can take, to finish this. Also, in the case of Puerto Rico, the Rangers are deputized by the federal government to engage with the federal regulations that are -- The people that are in violation of federal regulations, and so we need to look at that, and Miguel is right that we need to also knock on the door of the legal advisors and make sure that we have the elements and the tools to close this gap, to be able to then enforce the law to protect the Nassau grouper. Right now, internationally, we are telling other countries what to do with the Nassau grouper, and then we are here in the Caribbean, and we cannot do it, and, to me, it’s more than frustrating. I have other words, but we are on the record here, and so, if we all agree, Mr. Chairman, we can do this, but I would like to hear from council members and other any persons that have something to say at this time, but I believe that, first, we will be presenting communication, official communication, to the Regional Office inquiring about what can we do in terms of alleviating this problem, because it’s really something that is affecting the fishers in the St. Thomas/St. John area especially. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Miguel.

Jocelyn.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you. I would want to speak with my colleagues in the GC Enforcement Section, but I did want to just speak briefly on this issue. Right now, as Miguel had said, there is not jurisdiction in the state waters, and so the federal law preventing any harvest or possession of the Nassau grouper would be from federal waters, and so, if they encounter someone in state waters, they don’t know if it’s breaking the federal law. There is not jurisdiction to enforce the state law, as of right now. In terms of whether that would be possible, I don’t know if it’s possible to work with the states, at least to refer any 91

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

violations or to come up with any joint enforcement agreements, and I’m not sure about that, and so I would have to check in with others, but that’s something that we could look into. I did want to speak to the Endangered Species Act issue though. Nassau grouper is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and, basically, that means that the National Marine Fisheries Service would have to put into place regulations that makes it unlawful to take, which would include like possessing it, to take the species, and so, right now, that is not necessarily a violation, unless there is some other provision that is put into place, and so that’s why the Endangered Species Act doesn’t, right now, provide a hook for certain federal actions. There is limits on the amount of species that can be taken, and so, if it was taken in the federal fishery, we are monitoring that, and there are take limits, but, again, that would be that we kind of want to know what happened, as part of the federal fishing activities, and, here, we’re talking about something in state waters. We can continue to think about if there is any potential option for what could be done in those state waters, but, right now, as Miguel Borges said, there is just a jurisdictional issue. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Jocelyn. With the idea that Miguel just mentioned before the council, does anybody from the council have any opposition to make this letter, to follow-up on this request, this issue, by the St. Thomas and St. John fishermen? Hearing none -MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, also, we need to touch base with the Commissioner of the U.S. Virgin Islands, to check on the applicable regulations regarding this issue, because, if we, let’s say, have an issue with the jurisdiction, but, if it’s adopted, and I don’t know if it has already been adopted, but, if it’s adopted as a state law violation, messing with the Nassau grouper, then you have compatible regulations, actual compatible regulations, and so the issue of jurisdiction is a little bit -- It’s still there, but at least there will be no excuse for enforcement agents to go into local waters and enforce the law. The local government will enforce the law in the three miles of the U.S. Virgin Islands, and, of course, Miguel Borges will continue doing what he is doing in the EEZ. The letter will be -- I will draft the letter and send it to Jocelyn for making sure that I am not stepping on the wrong toes or saying the wrong words, and then, once we clear that, we will send it to Marcos for review and approval, and we will send the letter then to -- One to the Virgin Islands administration -- One 92

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

to Andy Strelcheck and other one to the Commissioner of the Virgin Islands, the Department of Planning and Natural Resources. By December, maybe we will have some information to discuss this further. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. you for waiting.

I have Nicole Angeli.

Thank

NICOLE ANGELI: Thank you so much. Thank you for the discussion. One of the things that the department would very much support would be allowing federal NOAA officers to prosecute individuals if the species were landed and they believe they were caught in territorial or federal waters, and so we look forward to information from NOAA legal about a way forward, so that we can increase our capacity for law enforcement, especially in times of disasters and pandemics, when most of our enforcement staff has actually been called to our Virgin Islands Police Department to execute activities relating to the pandemic, and so, in these cases, any sort of cooperation or increased support from the federal government would be very welcome. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for your points. I have Damaris wrote in the chat about the same issue, that she has a similar situation in Puerto Rico, and to please include a similar situation in Puerto Rico, and she would like to be included in this letter, also. MIGUEL ROLON: We will not say in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, but we will say U.S. Caribbean, so we can take care of Damaris’ concern. It will be a letter addressing the U.S. Caribbean local waters. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Anybody else from the group, so that we can move along? Hearing none, thank you all for a great discussion. MIGUEL BORGES: Marcos, I just wanted to make sure that, for the record, that -- Thank you, Jocelyn, for your comments, and Miguel Rolon, and I also concur with your idea of a letter, of the idea of requesting a letter, for NOAA to hear this issue, and it’s in everybody’s benefit to sort out our jurisdiction in state and federal waters, and so I agree with that letter, and, in my heart, I do hope and wish that it was easier, the jurisdiction issue, so that we would have jurisdiction in those ESA cases, even in state waters, and so that’s all. Thank you. MIGUEL ROLON:

From Miguel to Miguel, thank you very much.

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Miguel. 93

The next item on the agenda is

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

the DAP Chairs Report.

We’re going to start with St. Thomas.

DAP CHAIRS REPORT ON BUOY GEAR REGULATIONS MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, before we start, I promised the three chairs that I was going to do a little bit of an introduction. Remember that, in the previous council meetings, we are addressing this issue of the number of hooks for buoy sets that are used for deepwater snappers. Julian, Nelson, Eddie Schuster, and I had a talk, and I prepared, based on communication with Maria Lopez, and, in this case, what we did was to share a letter that was presented by her to look at certain topics of interest in this discussion for council action, and so we met, and we have some talking points, and then the idea is for the three chairs to convey to the council what they have found, in terms of the present status of the fishery in each area using this type of gear, the buoys. The first one is Eddie Schuster, followed by Julian Magras and then Nelson Crespo. Eddie, are you available? EDWARD SCHUSTER: MIGUEL ROLON:

Yes, Miguel.

Do you want me to go ahead, first?

Yes, please.

EDWARD SCHUSTER: Okay. Good afternoon, council members and everybody present. We had this discussion, and I will just read out what I have here. There were about twelve commercial fishers and about one to two recreational fishers that both fish in local and federal waters, but this gear is not used year-round. This gear is used only when the weather permits, and it’s also used within the lunar cycle with fair conditions. This gear is used in a depth range from 400 feet to 1,200 feet, and the species that are targeted go anywhere from the blackfin snapper, silk, black snapper, the queen, the quaker, which would be the cardinal snapper, and some occasional catches of different species of grouper, along with incidental catches of sharks. Also, if the current -- While fishing in deep water for the queen snapper, you may catch incidental like oilfish and other species that I am not really too familiar with. The number of hooks varies from eighteen hooks all the way to twenty-five hooks, and along with a weight at the bottom, and there is some other trade secrets that the fishers have asked not for me to be too verbal on, too vocal, and one is also with a light that attracts the fish to the bait. 94

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

The number of the buoys that are used, it varies. This is a fish that travels at the bottom, with the current, and so what the current is at the top is not necessarily what’s at the bottom, and so the fishers might start with one buoy, all the way up to four buoys, but it’s times that they go, and the fish are there, and they are eating, and you only have time to drop one of the buoys. The reason being is that, if the bite is hot, what happens is the fish try to get away while they are hooked, and that thrashing around causes the sharks to come, and then the fisher loses the bait. The fishing days are usually anywhere from eight hours to twelve hours, and it’s not a fish that actually stays in the freezer, and these fish actually are sold before they are caught, and so, as a fisher catches a fish, if he’s not too tired, most of the fish goes that same day, or, by the next day, it’s gone. There is one other thing. That is what it is, and it’s a selfregulated fishery, and I don’t -- It’s very expensive to get into it, one, and it’s something that somebody has to have the experience, or fishing with somebody that has that years of experience, in order to go into it. The reason being is that you could lose all your gear in one set, depending on the current, and so you have to know where to set the lines and have the experience to know if the current is going inland, to the shallow, because there are deep shelf drop-offs on St. Croix, and especially -- You would have to set really deep, and you fish from the deep coming with that, and so you don’t want to set too much gear at the same time, and so you will have to start off from there, and then there is times that the current goes the opposite way, and you have to set it at 400 and then it goes out to the deep, and so it varies. It’s a fishery all due to experience, and that really summarizes what I have written down. Are there any questions? MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Eddie. The next presenter, and we will make questions to all of you later, if the group desires, is Julian. JULIAN MAGRAS: Good afternoon, everyone. Julian Magras here, for the record, DAP Chair, St. Thomas/St. John. This fishery is a very, very small fishery here in St. Thomas/St. John. Right now, presently, there are two to four guys that presently do this type of fishing, and one of the main reasons for us having such a small amount of guys doing this type of fishing is due to the fact that the distance that they have to go to the drop, where they are fishing, is pretty far, and so it’s a weather-driven fishery, like most of our fisheries, and so maybe ten miles to the south, but 95

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

twenty-something miles to the north, and so there are a couple of young guys that presently are doing this type of fishing. They are using electric reels, and they use up to ten hooks, and then we have a couple of the older guys, and some of them use traps, and that’s the Ledee brothers, who was doing that for a while, and some of the Berry guys, but they took a beating last year, with the currents and everything, and so they have backed away from that this year, and we have two other older guys that is using the buoy gear. They don’t go out that often now, and so it’s when the weather is really calm that they would go out, and they would explore -- They would do it for a couple of days, and then that’s it, and so they don’t do it again, and so it’s a fishery that is out there that has great potential, and I wouldn’t broadcast that there is a lot of potential for it, because we wouldn’t want outsiders to come in and start to harvest tons of the fish, even though they don’t have to land it here, and they can land it elsewhere, because, if they land it here, it’s required for them to have a commercial fishing license. We also have the weekend warriors that also fish in this fishery, and so, when the weather is calm, they will go out and catch some of the fish, but they keep it for themselves. There is a great, great market for it. If anyone catches that fish, it’s gone. It hits the ice while the guys are out, but, once they hit the shoreline, it’s gone. It’s sold immediately. I would like to see that maybe there could be a permitting system for the federal waters, a license for federal waters for this fishery, to try to control it for some younger fishers who are coming up or anyone who might have interest in it, that we could try to protect it, so that it’s not overharvested, and it’s a virgin fishery right now. MARCOS HANKE: Julian, I have a question, a clarifying question. You were talking about the fishery, and not necessarily specifically the buoy gear, and can you add anything about the buoys? JULIAN MAGRAS: The buoy gear, that’s what I was saying. The buoy gear is two to four fishermen that are presenting doing it, just a couple of days out of the year, and so I know of two here in St. Thomas/St. John. We have a lot of fishers that come from St. Croix, when the weather is good, and fish on the shelf of St. Thomas, but I don’t include them, because they don’t land here. They land in St. Croix, and so, presently, in St. Thomas, I know 96

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

of two guys that do the buoy gear, and, if they do it four or five times for the year, they’re doing it a lot. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you for clarifying that.

JULIAN MAGRAS: It’s very, very small, and so I think that’s what I would have to say about that. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you very much.

That’s very helpful.

Nelson.

NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The comments I’m going to make now are based on my experience as a commercial deepwater snapper -- Fishing for deepwater snapper for more than forty years and conversation with DAP members, Edwin Font and other fishermen from the west of Puerto Rico. I know there are some deepwater snapper fishermen here. If I miss something, if you allow them to -- If I miss something, I request them to remind me, because I know I have a lot of experience, but there is always something that we miss. This type of fishing is not easy at all, and, in a lot of the cases, experience makes the difference between a good or a bad trip. I am going to go over the talking points regarding the gear in federal waters. All of us agree that the use of this gear has to be in local and federal waters, as has always been used. This is the most safe and effective gear so far to develop the fishing for deepwater snapper 1 and 2 and deepwater groupers that we know to this moment. Regarding the duration of our trips, normally, we go between three to four days per week in good conditions, depending on the moon phase and the weather and current conditions. For example, you can have a flat day, but, if the currents are hard, the possibility of a bad fishing day increases. In reality, we only can be able to fish around 100 to 120 days per year, or a little more in some years. That’s what we call the natural closure for this fishery. The duration of the fishing trips is between ten to twelve hours per day from when we leave onshore and come back, and I have to clarify that the gear is used only around a maximum time of between five to six hours per day, or less, and the rest of the time is used to move from one point to another. Let me explain this to you, a better understanding about this fishery. Based on our experience, if we reach one area, and the ocean currents are strong, or not suitable to develop the fishing in the area, we have to move to another point that allows us to 97

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

fish. I must clarify that, until the currents are acceptable, and if they are not the ones which the fish eats, it’s very little or nothing, what you are going to catch, and the same happens with the moon phase. If you don’t know where to go on each moon phase, it’s the possibility to make a good catch lowers down a lot. Regarding the information of targeted species and incidental species, the targeted species are, of course, Snapper Unit 1 and 2 and Deepwater Grouper, but, in my opinion, until we know the groupers are there, the deepwater groupers, they are more a bycatch than a target. Between the incidental species harvested, I would classify them in two groups, that have some commercial value and those that do not. For example, the glasseye snapper, and I don’t know the English name, and the black cartucho, they are with the snappers. The small sharks, the spiny and the other one, because they have a limited value, most of them are returned alive to the sea, and let me make a quick aside and tell you that they are really abundant, and it would be good to take into consideration for marketing. The meat is good quality, and I think it would be a good alternative, in order to reduce the fishing pressure for other fisheries. They are a species that currently have no commercial value and are returned to the sea. They are rarely caught, and perhaps that is why they are not traded. Regarding the number of hooks, it varies, from each fisher, between twenty to forty hooks. What we have found is that twenty-five hooks is the perfect number to develop this fishery, due to some reasons. Based on our experience, between twenty-five and thirty hooks, the catch are more or less the same, and there is no reason to use more than twenty-five hooks. With twenty-five hooks, you can easily handle the gear in the boat, but I have to clarify also that, with twenty-five hooks, you save bait, and you save money on gear, when you’re going to make it, but we have to clarify that twenty-five hooks do not guarantee twenty-five fish. When the fish bite and get hooked, they shake it, trying to escape, and, generally, the bait on the upper and lower hook comes off. From the other side, using less than twenty-five hooks, we find out that the catch decrease. Because the bait increases, and more hooks means more bait, and there is no guarantee that you are going to catch more fish, and, because fishing equipment has risen dramatically, and it does not make sense to use more gear than is necessary, with the current -- With more hooks, the current moves the gear faster and doesn’t let the fish bite. With the number of the set lines, that varies from the preference 98

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

of each fisherman. Generally, we use within one to four set lines, and the number of hooks are the same, twenty-five. If the bite is low, we use four set lines, in order to find the fish, and we are just searching around the water. When the fish start biting, immediately, we start reducing the number of lines, depending on how hot is the bite. When the bite is really hot, we don’t use more than two, in order to pull the line out faster and prevent the sharks from attacking the gear, and the fish comes off from the hook. If you leave the set lines in the water with fish for a long time, there is a risk to lose the gear, due to the shark encounter increase. If the currents are strong, we only use one or two set lines, to start to slow down. Sometimes we only stay in the boat drifting, just checking the GPS, and we wait for the current to slow down. Information on how landings with this gear type are reported, we pull this gear -- We report it to the DNER reporting or the regular paper fishing trip ticket, and most of the fishermen have their own logbooks for personal use. Also, in my opinion, the DNER has been more than generous in allowing sixty days to report any catch. I think that, with the tools we have right now, more than thirty days is more than enough, without excuses, to provide the data, in order to remain proactive for the good of the fishers and the commercial fishermen. Again, I emphasize that we have to open the door and give the opportunity to the legal deepwater snapper fishermen to join us and start reporting their catches. I guarantee you, without a doubt, that there are more poachers for deepwater snapper than the ones that have the permit, at this moment, and we have to have a real idea for how healthy is our resource, and so I request this council to pay attention to this and explore a way to help to bring those guys to the table, and, as I said, it’s really important for me and for the health of the fishery. That’s all I’ve got, and, if you have some questions, I will be more than happy to answer them. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Nelson. Does anybody have questions for the chairman of the DAPs? Maria. MARIA LOPEZ: Good afternoon. This is Maria Lopez, for the record. I want to say thank you to the DAP chairs for providing this really good information that will benefit the description of the fisheries that we are including in the amendment to the island-based FMP to modify the definition of buoy gear. 99

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

I do have one question that Nelson mentioned at the end, and it’s about how the landings with this fishery are reported, and I didn’t hear that from the U.S. Virgin Island DAP Chairs, and I know that they said that there are not many fishers that are using this gear, but, if they have that information about how these landings with this particular gear are entered into their catch report forms, that would be very helpful. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Is there anybody else that would like to make a question or a comment? Hearing none, Maria, do you have all the information or any other questions, before we close? MARIA LOPEZ: I made the question about how the information is entered in the logbooks, and, if the DAP chairs have that information, they can send me an email, or communicate with me later, and that would be great. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. We are ready then to wrap up this presentation and questions and go to the next item on the agenda. Go ahead, Carlos. CARLOS FARCHETTE: I heard that there are recreational users of this gear. Is that going to be allowed in this FMP thing that they’re trying to do? MARCOS HANKE:

Maria.

MARIA LOPEZ: A buoy gear, in the Caribbean, is the gear that is only an allowable gear for commercial, commercial fishing. In federal waters, it’s not an allowed gear, how it is defined in our regulations, and so this action is only going to be modifying the definition of the buoy gear as it applies to commercial fishers. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay, and so I guess recreational fishers won’t be able to harvest that species, I guess. MARCOS HANKE: Carlos, remember that we are talking about the buoy gear itself, and that is different than fishing with an electric reel on the side of the boat or a handline on the side of the boat to catch the same species. Correct me if I’m wrong, Maria. CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARIA LOPEZ:

Gotcha.

That is correct.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Okay.

I’ve got you. 100

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

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Also, to Maria’s question as to what is recorded on the CCR, I mean, Director Angeli should be able to answer whether or not that gear is in that catch report, if they’ve got to report it as such gear being used, and I’m not sure. I have never seen it. MARCOS HANKE:

Nicole.

NICOLE ANGELI: That is not currently on, but we can revise our CCRs, in collaboration with NOAA annually. The last time that was done was 2019, and so it’s probably time for us to take a look at the CCRs. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: there now?

I didn’t understand that.

Did she say it is

MARCOS HANKE: She just said that it’s not there, and it was a little low, the volume, and it is not there, but that they are willing to revise, and it was revised last time in 2019, and it’s a work in process. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Got it.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:

Mr. Chair, if I may.

Go ahead, Graciela.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: We’ve been talking about gears here and there, but I think what is really needed is that we need to review and redescribe all the fishing gears that are being used, not only for the commercial, but also for the recreational sector, and, really, the first review that was done for Puerto Rico was in 1988 and 1989, and there is really not a one-to-one correspondence of the fishing gear that is being used to what is being reported, and this happens for many of the other gears, the nets and the other lines, et cetera. It should be put in as a priority to complete a full description of all the fishing gears being used to-date and to make that into these catch reports, so that, when we go to analyze the data, we’re speaking the same language, because, otherwise, we’ll keep running into these problems, and so just be advised that we haven’t done a review since the 1980s, or the early 1990s, and that really needs to be put in the list of priorities for the council and for the 101

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

local governments.

Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Graciela. On the same lines, I want to add that, Maria, I don’t know if it’s possible, and there is no limitation on this, but if there was a list of questions that could be circulated to the fishermen on a voluntary basis for them to provide information about the gear characterization, or description, that they have, and that will be something that will help to speed up this process and have better information. Just let us know if there is any possibility to do that. MIGUEL ROLON: If the local governments can do it, that’s fine. If we are going to make a survey, like the federal government, that’s something else. It takes about nine months just to start a survey, and that’s why we asked the chairs to talk to the people there, but, as I told Graciela, the description of the other gear is something else, and we can do it later, but we wanted to -- I asked Graciela to introduce the topic for the record, but the most important part now is to move forward with the buoy gear issue, but Graciela and I were discussing this a little bit, and we are a little bit worried, and what do you call a recreational fisher carrying three buoys? That is interesting. OTHER BUSINESS CAPTAIN SILVA’S LETTER ON DEEPWATER SNAPPER GROUPER FISHERY MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. Let’s pass to the Other Business, and we don’t want to run too late on this. Thank you very much for all the participation. Other Business, we’re going to start with the letter sent by Captain Silva and his group about the deepwater snapper grouper fishery. MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, the letter is in our briefing book, in Spanish, and the English translation was done by Diana. I believe that Mr. Silva was going to address this, and I don’t know whether he’s here. MARCOS HANKE:

Roberto Silva, are you still with us?

ROBERTO SILVA: (Mr. Roberto Silva’s presentation was in Spanish and was not transcribed.) DAMARIS DELGADO: I heard what Roberto Silva is saying, and I agree totally with him and with the comments that have been presented in the chat. We met with Roberto Silva weeks ago, as he said, and with some other representatives, and we heard his worries about this fishery, and we all agreed with him, with his arguments, and we prepared a draft administrative order to address his concern, 102

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

the concern expressed to us, and that draft administrative order has been submitted to the Legal Affairs Office, and I believe that the fishing board, advisory board, is also evaluating the administrative order. We shared it with the board, and we are waiting for their comments regarding the administrative order. We believe that order will properly address the concerns of the fishers and will make justice to many fishers, and I personally agree that there should be a way to open it, to open the fishery, to many other people, and so that’s the status that I wanted to share with you at this point. MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: Okay. A couple of things. Number one, there is not a limited entry system in place in the federal government for this fishery, and we do have an ACL. In the case of the local government of Puerto Rico, they have a proxy of a limited entry, with that executive order, and I believe that the two issues to discuss here is, number one, if Puerto Rico is inclined to go with Robert Silva and the other fishers’ suggestion, which is to open it for three to five years, full reporting by fishers, electronically or otherwise, and then assess, with the fishers, the status of the fishery, on a yearly basis, I believe, and then probably, at that time, come with a better number for the ACLs and whatever numbers we need to establish for the management of the fishery. So two questions. If the local government Puerto Rico, let’s say, has the fishery open to all, they can do it within the area of jurisdiction, starting at nine nautical miles, but then the issue of the ACL is what the federal government has to be mindful of. In this case, if that fishery in the EEZ surpasses the ACL, then you have the kick-in of the applicable measures. If the fish is caught monthly within the area of jurisdiction of Puerto Rico, meaning within the nine nautical miles, the question is then how much of that will you account to the ACL, and so Graciela and I have the answer to that, and so, for the record, the first question is, if Puerto Rico opens this, what will be the effect, and probably Jocelyn can address it, but what will be the effect, if any, on the ACLs and the applicable regulations? MARCOS HANKE:

Jocelyn.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: I was having a little bit of technical difficulty there. Would you be able to repeat the question? 103

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

MIGUEL ROLON: In the case of Roberto Silva representing the fishers in Puerto Rico, they’re asking for opening the fishery within the area of jurisdiction of Puerto Rico for three to five years, and the fishery is not closed at this time, in the case of the federal government, but they would like to open that, and they collect the information using an electronic system, or any other appropriate system, and then, at the end of that term, they will be reviewing, with the scientists, the data collected every year to assess the status of the stocks of those species. The question is what impact will that have in the regulations applicable in the EEZ? How can we monitor then the fishery caught in the EEZ that will be tallied up against the ACL established for those species? JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Okay. So, in terms of ACL monitoring, we do look at all landings of whatever species has an ACL, and then the accountability measure process sets forth how those landings will be done, and we use like a three-year average and compare it to the ACL, and then, if that’s been exceeded, then that’s triggered, and then there is action taken to try to prevent ACL exceedances, but I’m wondering -- Is the question about how do we do the monitoring, how do we get the information? Right now, in terms of that, I think maybe there’s others on the call that are more familiar with that, but I know we have like various logbook programs, and so I’m not 100 percent sure that I am following, but, just in terms of federal management, it does account for all landings of the managed stock, because we want to make sure that we’re managing the stock to prevent overfishing, while allowing for that optimum yield. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, if I may, the whole thing is this. The numbers that the Southeast Fisheries Science Center collects are provided by the local government of Puerto Rico fishery statistics program. Those numbers include everything from the shoreline to the edge of the EEZ, because, at this time, they are not discriminated to one fishery area versus the other. Therefore, if you open the fishery to everybody, and that number surpasses the ACL established, then you have an accountability measure that will kick in. Let’s say that you have a hundred fish for the ACL, a hundred pounds, for queen snapper, and now you only catch eighty pounds, but, if you open it, and you catch 200, then you have accountability measures, where you have a closure of the season, et cetera, et cetera. That is the question that we have here. 104

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

If the fishery is all done in the area of jurisdiction of Puerto Rico, still the landings are counted against the ACL established by law at this time, and so those are the issues that we have to take into consideration with this. This isn’t just a matter of opening the fishery to everybody and his brother, but it’s just what are you going to do with the ACL. In order to move from the number that you started for an ACL for any particular species, you have to convince the SSC that the best available information provided by the Center merits the revision of that ACL one way or the other, status quo or up or down, of that ACL. That is where we need to look at regarding this proposal. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Following up on that, that’s very helpful, Miguel, and I agree with what you’re saying. If there is more fishing pressure in the state waters, then that could affect the amount of landings that are expected, and we would want to maybe look at if we have the right reference points and what the stock can sustain, but, based on what we have in the law now, those ACLs and those overfishing limits, all landings would be monitored, and you would have the accountability when those measures are exceeded, and the length of the closure period, for example, if there is an accountability measure, trying to prevent an ACL exceedance, we would look at landings, if we have a sense that they’re occurring in state waters versus federal waters, and so the federal closure might need to be longer, if there would still be landings in state waters. It’s possible too, if there’s a lot of landings in state waters, that you wouldn’t be able to prevent an ACL exceedance with any length of federal closure, but I just don’t have a sense of how much fishing would occur in areas where there isn’t now and how that would play out, but those are considerations. MARCOS HANKE: Jocelyn, I have a question about it. In the past, we have talked also about the issue of data improvement and, once you have a data improvement, quality or quantity, there was some freedom that that can cause, in terms of starting to adjust to the reality, and that can be also the case, depending on the way this is implemented, and I have Andy in the queue after you, Jocelyn. Go ahead. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure, and so our accountability measures, right now, say things like -- We’re sort of looking for the trigger of has the ACL been exceeded, and then there is the response, and what do we do to prevent an ACL exceedance, and so, on that trigger question, we kind of ask, well, do we think the ACL has actually been exceeded or is it just that monitoring has improved or 105

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

reporting has improved, and so we kind of base the measures on baseline landings, with a certain understanding of reporting. If that reporting has improved, but we don’t think the underlying landings have actually gone up, it might look like there is an ACL exceedance, but we might decide that, actually, that’s just a reflection of better reporting, and so, in that way, the Regional Administrator has the ability to say, well, we don’t think that this really has been triggered and that there’s a need for a corrective action, and so the Science Center is involved in kind of helping make that determination. This might be a different issue, where we’re sort of -- There would be different entrants, potentially, or additional fishing pressure, and so we’re getting reports of that fishing pressure and just taking that into account in the normal process, but we also just -- If there’s additional landings and things like that, we might want to see what the stock can sustain, and so you might want to evaluate some of the reference points that you have and to see that we have the proper management MARCOS HANKE:

Andy.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos. I won’t repeat what Jocelyn said, and I think she’s captured it well, and well as Miguel, in terms of implications of potentially allowing additional fishing effort and harvest and what that would do, in terms of triggering accountability measures and exceedance of the annual catch limit. What I did want to comment on is, in reading the letter, it seems like there is kind of two purposes. One is, obviously, to reconcile some of the qualification criteria that were used initially to allow entry into the fishery or prohibit entry into the fishery, but then the other aspect of this is kind of the improvements in data collection that would then potentially lead to an adjustment to the catch limit, and I guess I would just want a word of caution here, in that, just because landings are increasing, it doesn’t necessarily mean that that translates into a higher catch limit. We did base, obviously, the catch limits previously on average landings history over some period of time, but we need to ensure that, obviously, the landings that are being harvested are sustainable, and there are a number of efforts with this fishery ongoing, including an exempted fishing permit collaborating with fishermen to collect additional data that the Science Center is working on. 106

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

That all has to be factored into, obviously, any kind of future decisions with changes to the catch limit beyond just potentially increases in landings associated with greater participation. MARCOS HANKE: On that same point, I would like to make this question to Andy, because it’s a follow-up on his comments. If this is well designed, and there is biological parameters and information, as was discussed for data poor in the past, on the presentation made for the -- On the tech memo that we just had a little while ago, and, if this is supported by the best technicians and people with the knowledge, don’t you see an opportunity here to pursue this willingness of the industry to help and to get information? ANDY STRELCHECK: Yes, and, I mean, obviously, any time that industry is willing to assist with data collection and enhancing the information we have to manage a fishery, that is a win for everyone, and, in terms of kind of the data-limited approaches, I guess my comment would be that that’s something that we certainly can pursue. Obviously, we haven’t made any changes to management at this point, and we’ve just heard a few presentations over the course of the last few hours, and so, if that is a direction that the Caribbean Council heads, then certainly work in this area, and in particular this fishery, potentially through some sort of pilot study and coordination with the Center and other entities, could benefit, obviously, kind of future management and shift in management potentially away from the biomass-based, or abundance-based, catch limits to some other data-poor methods. MARCOS HANKE: queue?

Thank you very much.

Is there anybody else in the

MIGUEL ROLON:

Roberto Silva wants to say something, Marcos.

MARCOS HANKE:

Roberto, go ahead.

ROBERTO SILVA: (Roberto Silva’s comments were in Spanish and we not transcribed.) MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Robert. We have three other people in the queue, and let’s start to move the meeting along, and I think this is a great discussion, and I want to add to the record that I have been talking to some commercial fishermen about the deepwater snapper, and they are aware of this process that has to be taken, that there is some scars at the beginning of the process, and they have to be patient about it, and this is just what Roberto 107

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

mentioned, and they are willing to participate and to make it better. Basically, that’s the synthesis of what I understand by talking to them. Jose Chara, go ahead. JOSE CHARA: My name is Jose Chara, and I live in Rincon, on the west side of Puerto Rico, and we’ve got some concerns about what Damaris was talking about, about the new OA that is coming out for flexible -- The issues with permits given, or the process to request that permit for the State Department, and what are we going to do with the fishermen that -- For example, myself, I have requested a permit last October, and I haven’t heard nothing. They just said that I don’t got the experience. What I am going to do, until this new OA gets signed, and what other fishermen are going to do -- You’re going to lose a lot of data, or we’re going to lose a lot of data, valuable data, and I always go the right way and do the things the right way, and a I know a lot of guys doing the same stuff, and I know a lot of guys too doing it the wrong way and fishing without a license, and we still are like losing that data each and every day that the weather allows us to go out, and this is going to affect us as a social member of the community, and in an economic way too, and I would like to have some light on it, and I don’t want to see dark in the tunnel. I just want to see a little boat, because they always say that you’re going to get it, and you’re going to get it. Maybe now with the old OA, but with the new OA, and so when this new OA is going to help. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for your participation. Sennai, and then we will wrap up.

Nelson, and then

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, you need to allow Damaris to answer Mr. Chara. It was a question to her. MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Damaris.

Very brief, please.

DAMARIS DELGADO: I think that I have explained the status, and I think that Mr. Chara understood. We are waiting, at least myself, and I am waiting for the feedback, the official feedback, and we are looking forward to finishing up this process and sign the administrative order. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Damaris.

Nelson.

NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to say thank you, Roberto, to get into this and to taking care too, and that’s what I have been saying for a long time. When this special permit was established, it was to resolve one problem that was in numbers, 108

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

and it’s not in the fishery. I think we have a great opportunity right now to step up to the plate and work together with the fishermen and bring better data, and I know that we have space to bring more guys, more fishermen, to this fishery that I am pretty confident that is healthy, and they can make a living from it, and we can -- Like I always say, we cannot be losing this important data, because we never are going to know how healthy this fishery is if we’re still falling asleep in this, and so please try to do something, and, Roberto, you’ve got my support. Anytime you need me, you can find me, and you know how to find me, and thank you, Mr. Chair. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Nelson.

Sennai, to wrap up?

SENNAI HABTES: Good afternoon. Thanks, Mr. Chair. If I could, I will just request permission to share my screen, with a quick PowerPoint, and I will try and move through it rather quickly and just get to the points that need the council’s attention. This is a quick update on what we’re working on for the EBFM. The purpose of it was to give more time -MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, we haven’t finished yet that presentation. Sennai is on the FEP. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, but I thought it was a question to the point we were discussing about the presentation of Roberto Silva. Just hold on for a second, please. SENNAI HABTES:

Okay.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, to summarize, there are two things. Puerto Rico can do whatever they want to do, because they can open the fishery to everybody and his brother if they want, and they can provide the information. If they follow, to the letter, the request presented by Mr. Silva, what they are saying is to start fishing for three to five years, and reporting every catch for the deepwater snapper commercial fisheries, in an effort to provide better data, in terms of the landings, and the objective is to provide biological information, et cetera, et cetera, and so that’s one thing that they could do. Then have new and better scientific data, in order to reevaluate the ACLs for the species, and so, in this case, the council doesn’t have to do anything, and the local government can go ahead, and, as Damaris explained, they are waiting for the fishery board, advisory board of the Department of Natural Resources, to evaluate this and to recommend to the council, to the Secretary of DNER, 109

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

what is the next steps. In terms of the action that can be taken by the council at this time, it’s just to wait, because then, when you have the information, you will be able to look at the ACL, and, as Roberto said, you can then reassess the status of that fishery and see if the ACL should be reviewed and evaluated somehow, using the process that we have in the federal government. That way, we are -- In this case, we are abreast of the issue, and we can wait for the local government to decide what are they going to do, and they can report back to us at the December meeting, to Damaris or anybody else from the department, and then we can take it from there, but one word of caution here is, when you go back to the fishers, and you tell them that, if you provide this information, then we are going to move the ACL, and that ACL doesn’t move an inch, they are going to kill Roberto or somebody. We are going to be very careful what we are going to say upfront and how we are going to present this to the fishers, and so we cannot promise that the ACL is going to be moved in any way. What we can do is what Roberto said in his letter, to have new and better scientific data in order to reevaluate the ACLs, and that is as far as we can go, in terms of what the council and NOAA Fisheries can do. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Roberto, for stepping up to the plate and to bring this to the council. This is the end of the conversation, and keep writing the right letters and touching the right channels to move any of the ideas to promote sustainable fishing in our area, and that would be welcome on this council, to have a clear and transparent discussion. Thank you. The next presentation, Sennai. EBFM TAP UPDATE SENNAI HABTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said, the purpose of this is give an update on the EBFM TAP as well as to provide some time for comments from the council, as, during the last meeting, it was requested to have a little bit more time for discussion regarding some of the issues that were brought up for the EBFM TAP, in terms of the goals, as well as the timeline, moving forward. I will move through some of the background quickly, to get to the information on those things. First off, a little bit of background as to the purpose of why the EBFM TAP was developed, and I won’t read these out. I have provided this to the council, and so, if you want more information on that, 110

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

you can always feel free to look at the report, once it’s posted, and read more on it. Basically, NOAA NMFS has supported implementation of an EBFM, or ecosystem-based fisheries management, to inform and enable better decisions, and that has led to using the EBFM Roadmap developed by NOAA to create fishery ecosystem plans at the council level among the different regions and territories in the U.S. The EBFM TAP was developed on October 23, 2019, and it included some of the pertinent information as to the purpose and justification for the EBFM TAP, and it’s to assist in the development, collection, evaluation, and peer review of statistical, biological, economic, social, and other scientific information relevant to the council’s development of the FEP and amendments. It’s composed of individuals engaged in ecosystem research who are knowledgeable, and then -GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Sennai, I hate to interrupt, but you are showing a whiteboard instead of the presentation. Sorry about that. Check to see in your view options and the share screen. SENNAI HABTES:

How about now?

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:

Perfect.

Thank you.

SENNAI HABTES: All right. Apologies. I’m not sure why that’s the case. The EBFM TAP provides expert scientific and technical advice to the council on the development of and on the preparation of fishery ecosystem plans and on the effectiveness of such a plan, once in operation. Again, the purpose of the TAP is to aid the council in this information and identifying the scientific resources available, and so that is the purpose of the TAP, and we are to support the council with our information and making recommendations in the development of the FEP. We are here to provide ongoing scientific advice on EBFM management for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for habitat status, social and economic impacts of management measures, and ecosystem-based impacts on the sustainability of fishing practices. All of these were developed under the charter for the TAP that was created by the council. What we’re doing is trying to draft a FEP, or a fishery ecosystem plan, and I posted what we have under current guidelines for us to follow to draft it out. The process that we are following is based 111

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

on the Lenfest FEP loop, which is also identified in the EBFM roadmap by NOAA, and I won’t go into too much detail on that, because Michelle has talked about it, but, really, what we are asking for the council to look at today is the draft goals and objectives, so that we can move forward, as an EBFM TAP, with drafting the FEP under the goals and objectives that we are proposing to the council. The overarching goal of the FEP is to promote ecosystem-based approaches to ensure healthy, resilient, and productive marine ecosystems and the fisheries resources dependent upon those ecosystems within the context of the unique biological, ecological, economic, social, and cultural characteristics of those fishery resources and the communities that depend on them. The corollary goal is to provide the framework that promotes the following sub-goals or objectives, to increase human community resilience within the context of changing ecosystems, promote ecosystem resilience within the context -- I apologize. That’s double, and so define present ecosystem status and functionality, understand dynamics of fisheries and ecosystem services, describe key ecosystem linkages, identify research priorities, identify additional ecosystem-essential species in need of conservation and management, understand the risk to the fishery ecosystem and tradeoffs from different management strategies, to improve the data and information needed to support marine ecosystem management, to prevent overfishing and/or ecosystem overfishing, to achieve optimum yield, to incorporate ecosystem considerations into stock assessments, to bring ecosystem considerations into the decision-making process, and to promote adaptive management policies, by reviewing MSA and National SSC and the CCC. These were the ones developed under the EBFM TAP, and this is what we’re proposing to the council for review and to allow us to move forward. I just wanted to take about two minutes to discuss what’s ongoing with the FEP development process, and these are the conceptual model stakeholder workshops that Michelle was discussing. The purpose of these are for us to reach out to stakeholders to get their input and understand their needs in drafting the FEP. I completely understand what Julian and Tony were saying, and we will listen to any recommendations that you have for better creating outreach with the fishermen. The way we had set this up, given the limited resources of the TAP, was that the conceptual model workshops were split among the different groups. The SSC and the DAPs were conducted by the CFMC, 112

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

and with help from NOAA staff, and the coastal businesses and environmental NGOs were done by Melivora Consulting. Those have all been completed. What’s underway are conceptual model workshops with the scientific community and with fishermen that are being done with ISER Caribe. I have provided the timeline of the next activity, and it is very similar to what I presented at the last meeting. However, we have changed the wording on some of the activities and the timeline objectives, based on some of the comments that we had received from the Chairman to reflect the need for the council’s informed decision on these processes. With that, I will just kind of move to the main point of this, which was to suggest that the council approves, or motions to approve, the draft goals and objectives, as presented, and, with that, I will leave it for discussion or questions or comments. If you are not interested in sending this up for a motion, we would appreciate comments on the goals and objectives, so that I can present those comments to the rest of the EBFM TAP to discuss and make recommendations to present for a motion for approval. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. I have a question to Jocelyn, just to make sure. Because it was not -- It’s in Other Business, this discussion, and is it appropriate to make a motion and vote on it, or do we have to wait for the next meeting, Jocelyn? JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thanks, Marcos. The Magnuson-Stevens Act says that the actions that the council is going to take like for final action, that those need to be specifically in the notice, so that the public has an opportunity to attend the meeting and ask questions, and so it would need to be in the agenda that was part of the notice, but I think usually that’s more referring to taking final action on an amendment or the FMP. That being said, it’s sort of like maybe a little bit more of a gray area. If you wanted to specifically notice that you were speaking about this, so that the public has an opportunity to weigh-in and see this more specifically, then you could defer it to another meeting. SENNAI HABTES: If I may, Jocelyn and Mr. Chair, we had proposed this on the agenda at the last meeting, and this was a continuation of that discussion, but it just didn’t make it onto the agenda. MARCOS HANKE: I understand, but I just want the process to run very sharp and clear, and that’s why the question, and we have 113

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

Tony Blanchard requesting a turn to speak. TONY BLANCHARD: recording.)

(Mr. Blanchard’s comment is not audible on the

CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

He needs to start over.

Tony, can you start over?

TONY BLANCHARD: I have a question for Jocelyn, whether it’s a conflict of interest that Mr. Habtes is the Chief of Fisheries for DFW, which is a regulatory agency. When he became chair of the TAP, he was working for UVI, which is another regulatory agency, and it’s just a legal question that I have. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure, and so you’re asking if there’s a conflict for Sennai to serve as the role as the chair of the TAP, or to be on the TAP? TONY BLANCHARD: DFW.

Yes, and as him being the Chief of Fisheries for

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure, and I had emailed a little bit with Miguel about this, and I think that Sennai was appointed when he serving in his personal capacity, and so I think what’s important is just to be clear about which role that he is now serving in, and so, if he’s serving still in that personal role, or if he is intending to serve in this role as affiliated with his new position within the government of the Virgin Islands. I think that’s just sort of a question that he needs to be clear about, in which role he is participating, and, with that clarity, I think we can move forward. I also think the council could consider what individuals it wants to have on this committee, and, obviously, Sennai brings various expertise, and that’s why he was appointed. He still has that expertise, and so I think, like I suggested, having a charter document that just makes clear who is on -- The number of person that are on this board and what capacities they serve, and I think we would just be more clear, but I don’t necessarily see a conflict of interest, but it’s just a question of being clear, given his change in position, how is he serving in this capacity, and then the council has the ability to discuss who serves on these boards and what the council is comfortable with, which experts it wants to have on these panels, and so that’s something that the council could discuss as well. 114

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

TONY BLANCHARD:

Okay.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Jocelyn. Thank you, Tony. We have, in the queue, Vanessa Ramirez. In the chat, she is requesting a copy of this presentation to be sent to her and to all the council members, and Graciela is saying that that will happen. Anybody else who would like to comment or make a question? GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:

Mr. Chair, if I may?

Go ahead, Graciela.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: What you had on the screen for moving forward with the FEP, the goals and objectives that you have talked about for the last year or so, and I don’t think that everything is written in stone, and so this is a draft FEP that can be changed, but the idea is to have already the information from the council members on what direction they want us to take. Then we would have to make priorities, in terms of everything that is in the FEP, and so having your guidance, in terms of what the goals and objectives are, it’s really one step forward to getting us in that direction. There are many efforts taking place at the same time, and one thing that is clear is that, once we have established goals and objectives, as I said, they are part of the draft FEP, and so this is not the final time that you will see it. It’s providing that guidance that staff needs, and the TAP needs, in order to move forward and make priorities along the way. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for the point of clarification. Is there any other council member who would like to jump in and make a comment? I don’t see anybody else here, and I just want to comment that, even though I read, and I feel that I am well informed about what Sennai presented, I think it’s pertinent to circulate the email requested by Vanessa Ramirez, for every council member to have enough time to read this and to have an opinion about it, and for the next meeting, or any other process, if there is a quicker process besides waiting for the next meeting, and, Miguel or Jocelyn, if you can help us out, to find a quicker way, or do we have to wait until August? MIGUEL ROLON:

What are you talking about?

MARCOS HANKE:

To have the input, or the approval, of this draft.

MIGUEL ROLON:

For the TAP?

MARCOS HANKE:

From the council. 115

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

MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, can you explain to me, because I am seeing two things in the chat, and I don’t know the specifics of what you are referring to. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Sennai, can you put back the last slide, the one with the motion, please? Thank you. MIGUEL ROLON:

You have to do that, but in August.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: So we will amend the agenda for the August meeting to include the EBFM TAP request for the approval of the goals and objectives. MIGUEL ROLON: In order to amend the agenda, you have to send a note to Diana, so she can send it to Vicki. If we don’t have time for that, we can put it in Other Business, but with the understanding to everybody that they have to come ready to make this decision. If Jocelyn agrees, then that’s what we need to do. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure, and so, as I said before, the MagnusonStevens Act wants the agenda to be clear about matters that are pertinent to all actions, and so, when Graciela was describing this, that these are just draft goals, I think, if we were approving the plan, we certainly would need that to be in the agenda, but, if we’re just trying to give them direction, then this looks like reasonable goals to move forward, and the council will have an opportunity to see this again, and it might be appropriate to vote on this at this meeting, but, if you’re more comfortable more specifically noticing it in the next meeting notice in the Federal Register, so that it’s very clear to the public the decisions the council is going to be making, then we could do that as well. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, if I may, from what Jocelyn is saying, there is no legal issue with having the motion now, because it suggests what you are doing, and you are not finalizing anything, but remember that this still continues to be a draft until the process is finished, and so what the council would be doing here is just to modify those goals and objectives, as per the recommendation from the TAP. MARCOS HANKE:

I have a turn to speak from Andy.

ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Marcos. Maybe a question for Miguel, and I think we might be saying something similar here, and so I’m not sure that we even need to make a motion on this at this point, given that it’s a draft, and I hear there is at least maybe some 116

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

concerns, or people want some additional time to take a look at this. I am certainly perfectly comfortable with the EBFM TAP moving forward to use these goals and objectives, with maybe some recognition from the council that we might have some additional input as this draft continues to be developed and finalized, but I am not seeing anything in the goals, sub-goals, and objectives that is of major concern to me, and maybe some refinements could be made along the way, but, to me, I think the TAP is certainly good to proceed, if that’s the preference of the council as a whole. MARCOS HANKE: I share your opinion, Andy, but I just want the council members, or you, to make a motion and to follow-up on the recommendation of Jocelyn. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, what he is saying is you don’t need a motion. Just recognize this language that you have here, and just tell the TAP to continue working on the document with these, and he’s saying that you still have a chance to modify it somehow. There is nothing here that is contrary to what you have been discussing for the last five years, and it’s just that they are putting in context the real actions that you can take, the goals and objectives, and so you can go ahead and just take note that you’ve had this report and instruct the TAP to continue working, using these goals and objectives, as Andy is suggesting. MARCOS HANKE: As the Chairman, I am hearing everything that everybody said, and, based on what I read about the document, this is the path that I recommend the council to follow, and I didn’t hear any opposition, meaningful opposition, to the comment, to what he said, and just keep the process going. That is my recommendation to the group. MIGUEL ROLON: As the Chairman, just -- It’s not a recommendation, but just instruct the staff to pursue this, and the TAP will continue. MARCOS HANKE:

This is what I am trying to say, in English.

MIGUEL ROLON: language.

Just let the TAP continue the work, using this

MARCOS HANKE: Just keep doing the great job you are doing and continue the work as it is, and we’re going to participate a little further in the process, if there is any need for any council 117

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

member.

Thank you.

MIGUEL ROLON: Mr. Chairman, I have to go to the hospital to attend an emergency of a friend of mine. Graciela will take care to finish the meeting. Thank you very much. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Miguel. I hope everything goes well. The next item on the agenda is participation requested by -- I think I have an ACL, Graciela, and can you clarify what it means for the Other Business? GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: That is really in relation to what Mr. Strelcheck was going to talk about in the spiny lobster. SPINY LOBSTER DISCUSSION ANDY STRELCHECK: Thanks, Graciela and Marcos. I just wanted to let the council know that the accountability measure for spiny lobster in Puerto Rico has been triggered, and so the catch limit is monitored and compared to the average of 2017 through 2019 landings. Based on that average time series, landings exceeded the catch limit. Right now, we are evaluating that exceedance, in light of, obviously, that timeframe, but also what occurred in 2020 and any trends in 2021, but likely we will need to implement a closure of spiny lobster in federal waters that would be announced in the coming weeks, in terms of a timeframe. I don’t have any specifics on dates, other than to remind the council that the accountability measure would result in a closure that would back up from September 30, and so the closure would be sometime between now and then end on September 30, if it’s sufficient to constrain harvest to the catch limit. More information will be coming, and we will certainly do Fishery Bulletins, and we will certainly allow fishermen the opportunity and time to remove gear from the water, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up that the accountability measure had been triggered. MARCOS HANKE: A question. Accountability measure, just to clarify to everybody, applies to the whole U.S. EEZ? ANDY STRELCHECK: MARCOS HANKE:

That is correct.

Any comments or any questions?

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

That’s for Puerto Rico only, right? 118

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

ANDY STRELCHECK: Correct. It’s just for Puerto Rico only. We have yet to implement the island-based FMPs and make the changes. MARCOS HANKE: I’m sorry, but now I am a little confused, and that was why my question, because the island-based was not implemented yet, and this applies to the U.S. Caribbean waters of St. Thomas and St. John and Puerto Rico and everybody, or is it just around Puerto Rico? ANDY STRELCHECK: It’s specific to Puerto Rico. apply in federal waters off of Puerto Rico.

The closure will

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. That’s what I really need to be very clear on the record for everybody to understand. Thank you. Any comments? GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:

Mr. Chair, if I may?

Go ahead.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: One of the requests that we have ongoing with the Puerto Rico government is to actually acquire the data from the e-reporting that has been available for 2020 and 2021, for the monthly setup, and there are issues still with the crossover from the e-reporting to the NOAA Science Center database, but the request is to specifically look at the trends from that amount of harvest that has not been accounted for from the dataset that we already have on the commercial catch. We are in ongoing conversations between the Science Center and the DNER regarding the passing of the data from the e-reporting in DNER to the actual database of NOAA, and so the request has been made, and the non-disclosure things that we have to sign have been signed, but the actual transfer of the data needs to be worked out between the DNER and the Science Center, and that is already being worked on. Kevin McCarthy sent the information regarding confidentiality of the data, and so that is working, but, in the process that it will take to get that data passed over to the Science Center, the request still stands to get aggregated data from the e-reporting of the DNER, specifically for lobster, that could help -- I am not saying that it will definitely help in the resulting accountability measure that’s been triggered, but that it could help in providing us information on the trends, the monthly trends, of the 2020 and 2021. On behalf of the acquiring the best available information that is 119

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

out there, the council would like to request that data, so that we can use it in looking at these trends for 2020 and 2021. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: A comment, a follow-up, on Graciela. This is a request to the DNER, and Damaris is on the meeting, but this an opportunity, a unique opportunity, to start to show what electronic data reporting can do to the fishing community, and this data, and this cooperation and coordination, to make this data available, is beneficial for the resource and for the fishing community, and for sure everybody will be very glad and thankful for you to followup on this and for this data to be available, because, at the end of the road, this will put us in a better position to make a decision, and I please request Damaris to follow-up internally on the DNER to expedite this process. Thank you. ANDY STRELCHECK: Marcos, just one other thing to add, real quick, and so I appreciate Graciela’s comments, and I do want to thank Puerto Rico. We, the Regional Office and the Science Center, have been receiving some of this additional data for both 2020 and 2021, for both electronic reporting as well as standard data collection, and so that has been shared with us, and it has been, obviously, part of the information that we’re looking at in determining the potential closure for spiny lobster, and so I just wanted to make the council aware of that. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I agree with you, and I am just waving the flag of priority, because I see an opportunity here for an overall benefit of coordinating the efforts, and this is my request at this time. The next item on Other Business is Forage Species by Nelson Crespo. DISCUSSION OF FORAGE SPECIES NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to be really quick. Before Hurricane Irma and Maria, the decline was beginning to be noticed in a small scale, but it has worsened it significantly. Coastal net and bait fishermen have approached me regarding this issue, and they are really concerned about. With the decrease of forage fish and the increase of predators, such as tarpon, they have been noting to the point that they compare it to an epidemic with individuals that easily can reach sixty pounds and over. The abundance of sardines and other small species that attract fish to shore has decreased considerably. Other

species,

coastal

species, 120

like

blue

runners,

jacks,

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

goldeneye, herring -- They avoid being with them for a long time, and that’s all the species that the local people eat. When we tried to fish, they got trapped on the fishing gear, breaking them, and all the other catch gets lost. Around twenty years ago, before the catch of tarpon was prohibited, this species was used on a smaller scale by small businesses, to make local dishes, and, also, its scales were used to make handicrafts. That at least created a balance between them and other species, and they could interact together. However, I want to clarify that I am not asking the local government to reopen the catch for tarpon. In my opinion, other factors, for example climate change, runoff, coastal erosion, and pollution of our coast, among others, have also contributed to the decline of forage fish, and the high amount of tarpon along the coast are one of the consequences of this. As part of the change, they also have to feed, and, with our healthy stock of forage fish, their presence increased along the coast. For these reasons, I ask this council to help to identify and correct the causes of the decline in forage fishes, which are important to the coastal fishing and the benefits of our habitats and marine ecosystems, as fast as possible, before this situation gets worse. I cannot fail to mention the coastal fishes that are limited to fish, due to the number of tarpon that you can sometimes see going up and down between the waves and the sands, and so I really appreciate the help that this council can give to this matter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Adding to the discussion, which I already spoke to Nelson, we agree and we disagree on a few things, but I want to mention too about forage species, and that is there is some hotspot sargassum accumulation around the island, and I’m addressing the east coast, many of them which create a permanent anoxic and unhealthy waters, with low oxygen and low pH., that, the way I see it, it’s like a station during the spawning season, and I think we are not measuring or considering these events. Since the sargassum has started for our area, the forage species that gather, the little tunny on the lighthouse of Fajardo, is not there anymore, and the small anchovies and the small sardines that create that activity doesn’t get to the shore anymore, if they do, they die immediately or get consumed by the fishes that are there that can support the low oxygen. 121

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

We need to study, and we need to know more about the base of the food chain. Otherwise, we are not doing ecosystem-based management. The focus is to support a study on that, and this is something that I really wanted to say to this group. Anybody else? Go ahead, Carlos. CARLOS FARCHETTE: For years, I have been talking about developing a forage fish management plan, and maybe it’s time to start discussions, but I also do see Nelson’s point, when it comes to tarpon. I know we have Sandy Point on St. Croix, where, during the nesting season for leatherbacks, there were about 2,000 nests laid on that beach, and, when those hatchlings come out, the tarpon were just having a field day, but that’s something that -- They are protected here, because it’s for a charter business, a catchand-release business, but there are other issues, like Marcos said, with the sargassum, and all of that needs to be looked at. MARCOS HANKE: thank you very much. I really don’t want to go in the line of arguing in favor or against any idea, because we are basing this discussion on speculation and appreciation, and what I want this council to promote is to request attention and funds to study and to get information to make the best decisions possible, and, on this process, I am available to support any initiative. Thank you. Thank you, Nelson, for your presentation. NELSON CRESPO:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MARCOS HANKE: There is no other public comment that we -- I mean Other Business that we predicted to be here, and we are passing now to public comment. Is there anybody from the public that would like five minutes to present or to speak about any other issue or comment on the presentations made before? GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Mr. Chair, you have Joel from the Fishers Association Aguadania. MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Joel. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

JOEL --:

(The comment was in Spanish and was not transcribed.)

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. That’s why we need to make a study and support the study, to really know what is going on and which level of pressure and dynamics is really happening out there, more than just isolated important observations. Anybody else? VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Yes, Marcos. 122

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

MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: A small comment. I agree with Marcos about the situation that we need to make more recommendations to address some studies about the tarpon. We have to remember that, for the last year, practically all the restaurants and everything were closed, and so the tarpon have to move on from the coast to more deep, and I know that, in the west, we have a lot of them, and that they can affect and impact the protected areas in the Tourmaline and Abrir la Sierra. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Vanessa.

NICOLE GREAUX:

I appreciate all of that, and thank you so much.

MARCOS HANKE:

No comments, Nicole?

NICOLE GREAUX: Angeli?

We have Nicole Greaux.

Are you referring to Nicole Greaux or Nicole

MARCOS HANKE:

Greaux.

NICOLE GREAUX:

Okay.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Nicole can type it up in the chat, and we can read it for the record. Marcos, I don’t see anyone else with a raised hand or comments in the chat. MARCOS HANKE: Graciela, let’s announce the next council meeting. In the meantime, Nicole can connect. NEXT COUNCIL MEETING GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Okay. We have the next council meeting will be August 11, and it will still be a virtual meeting, and it’s a one-day meeting only. Then, for the December meeting, it will be the 7th and 8th of December, and there is already a contract with the Marriott Courtyard, but, most likely, it will be a hybrid meeting, depending on what the protocol for the public is at that time. Marcos, that’s all I have in my notes. MARCOS HANKE:

Nicole was able to connect?

NICOLE GREAUX: Marcos, this was a question to Tony Blanchard and Julian Magras in regard to the ISLA Caribe. As Tony mentioned, they were here in St. Thomas, talking to the fishers that were in Frenchtown, because that was the most prevalent names given to 123

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

them, and my question to them is when the program starts in the study, if they would be willing to talk to whomever it is that is going to be doing this, just to let them know what they are going to be expecting or what the reasoning behind the reluctance is, once they start off going to talk to the fishers. MARCOS HANKE: Well, yes, for sure, they can answer to you, but I think it will be way more effective if you guys call each other and coordinate those questions, to create a channel of communication. If Julian or Tony want to respond or to comment, before we adjourn. STACY WILLIAMS: comment? MARCOS HANKE:

Mr. Chairman, this Stacy Williams.

May I make a

Yes.

STACY WILLIAMS: Hi. Yes, we are planning -- We are now in the process of contacting all the fishers and fishers leaders in Puerto Rico, and we will be recontacting the liaisons and fisher leaders in the USVI, and so I can write my email in the chat, for any comments or questions, and anyone can email me, and I can respond to any of their questions, and so, yes, we are actually in the process of writing up the letters and sending them out, hopefully at the end of this week, for the conceptual models with the fishers. MARCOS HANKE: I understand, and I just promote those direct channels of communication, so not to get lost on the way. Thank you very much. Seeing nobody else in the queue for public comments, we are ready to adjourn the meeting. It’s 4:29 p.m. Thank you for your patience and for a productive meeting, and we will see you in August. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

You need a motion to adjourn, Mr. Chair.

We need a motion to adjourn.

ANDY STRELCHECK:

Motion to adjourn.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Andy Strelcheck made a motion to adjourn, and it’s seconded by Carlos Farchette. Is there any opposition? Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, guys. Thank you to everybody. Thank you very much for the comments and for the participation. 124

1 2 3

(Whereupon, the meeting adjourned on July 21, 2021.) - - -

125

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 Adoption of Agenda ............................................. 5 Consideration of 175th and 175th Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions ................................................. 5 Executive Director’s Report .................................... 5 Five-Year Strategic Plan Presentation for CFMC Final Action .... 6 DAP Chairs Reports on DAP Meetings on Compatible Regulations .. 17 St. Thomas/St. John ...................................... 17 Puerto Rico .............................................. 23 Presentation on Executive Order 14008 Section 316(a) .......... 28 DAP Chairs Reports on DAP Meetings on Compatible Regulations (Continued) ................................................... 37 St. Croix ................................................ 37 Discussion on Trawling Gear in Federal Waters ................. 38 Update on Progress for Life History of Shallow-Water Reef Fishes .............................................................. 53 Discussion of Sargassum Issues and Role as Essential Fish Habitat ....................................................... 67 Public Comment ................................................ 76 Southeast Fisheries Science Center Update ..................... 80 Island-Based FMP Update ...................................... 103 Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition ..................... 103 Timing of Red Hind Seasonal Closures in Puerto Rico Federal Waters ....................................................... 116 Dolphinfish Research Program Update .......................... 135 Outreach and Education Report ................................ 157 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Reports by Liaison Officers .................................. 164 Puerto Rico ............................................. 164 St. Thomas/St. John ..................................... 166 St. Croix ............................................... 169 Options for Spiny Lobster Accountability Measures ............ 172 Deepwater Squid Fishing ...................................... 182 Enforcement Issues ........................................... 190 Puerto Rico DNER ........................................ 190 USVI DPNR ............................................... 190 NMFS/NOAA ............................................... 191 CFMC Advisory Bodies Membership .............................. 193 Next CFMC Meetings in 2022 ................................... 197 Adjournment .................................................. 200 - - -

2

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

TABLE OF MOTIONS PAGE 9: Motion to accept the five-year strategic plan, presented by Michelle Duval. The motion carried on page 14.

as

PAGE 14: Motion to approve the process to implement the five-year strategic plan by creating a five-year strategic plan interdisciplinary planning team and a council advisory panel composed of representatives from the governments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and the chairs of the three District Advisory Panels and the Science and Statistical Committee and the Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management TAP. The motion carried on page 15. PAGE 42: Motion to prohibit the use of trawling gear from within the MPAs of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. The motion carried on page 46. PAGE 46: Motion to prohibit the use of gillnets, trammel nets, trawl nets, driftnets, and purse seines for the harvesting of fish in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. The motion carried on page 53. PAGE 110: Motion in Action 1 to make Alternative 2 the preferred alternative. The motion carried on page 110. PAGE 111: Motion to accept Action 2, Alternative 3 to increase the number of hooks to twenty-five for all commercial fishing where buoy gear use is allowed for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. The motion carried on page 111. PAGE 111: Motion to approve the generic amendment to the fishery management plan for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, the modification of buoy gear definition and use with the selected preferred alternatives and to submit the amendment to the Secretary of Commerce for implementation. The motion carried on page 112. PAGE 112: Motion to allow staff to make editorial, non-substantive changes to the buoy gear generic amendment. The motion carried on page 112. PAGE 114: Motion to deem the codified text presented by staff as necessary and appropriate for implementing the buoy gear generic amendment. Any changes will be reviewed by the council chair. The council chair is authorized to re-deem the codified text to reflect changes that are necessary and appropriate. The motion carried on page 115. 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

PAGE 194: Motion to add Adyan Rios to the Outreach and Education AP. The motion carried on page 194. PAGE 195: Motion to add Charity Ledee, Jessica Peterson, and Christy Berry to the St. Thomas/St. John DAP. The motion carried on page 197. - - -

4

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

CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 176TH REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Isla Verde, Puerto Rico DECEMBER 7-8, 2021 The Caribbean Fishery Management Council convened on Tuesday morning, December 7, 2021, and was called to order at 9:00 o’clock a.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke. ADOPTION OF AGENDA CONSIDERATION OF 174TH AND 175TH COUNCIL MEETING VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTIONS MARCOS HANKE: On the agenda, we are informed that the agenda is going to be modified, because we have to add a presentation from 1:00 to 2:00 pm. from Sam Rauch presenting on the 14008, Section 216(a), and the agenda modification is presented to all the participants here, and there are some time changes, and I will need a motion to adopt the agenda. TONY BLANCHARD: MARCOS HANKE:

So moved. I need a second.

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Vanessa. Vanessa seconds. Any comment or any opposition? Hearing none, the agenda is approved, and we also want the Consideration of the 174th and 175th Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions. Is there a motion to adopt? CARLOS FARCHETTE:

So moved.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Motion by Carlos Farchette and second by Tony Blanchard. All in favor say aye. Thank you. The transcription is adopted. Executive Director’s Report, and, before we get to the Executive Director’s Report, I want to inform you that Cindy-Grace McCaskey will be presenting a short -- She will participate in Other Business to inform us about some important work that she is doing in the Caribbean. Now the Executive Director’s Report with Miguel Rolon. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this opportunity to -- We want to recognize two people and a group of people. Christina, I need your help for the names. The group of 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

people that we want to recognize today are from NOAA, and I didn’t know that I was a customer, but -- This group of people, some of you already know and have worked to complete the island-based FMPs, to work hand-in-hand with Graciela and staff, and we wanted to recognize them today, just to mention that they already received a letter from NOAA Fisheries. CHRISTINA OLAN: Clay Porch, Shannon Cass-Calay, Adyan Rios, Nancie Cummings, Skyler Sagarese, Kevin McCarthy, Jocelyn D’Ambrosio, Maria Lopez, Sarah Stephenson, William Arnold. MIGUEL ROLON: A round of applause for these people, please, (Applause) Of course, our boss here, Jack McGovern, and the retiree, Bill Arnold. Bill Arnold is retired now, and he’s working in his own company, but, as you all know, he was instrumental in putting all of this together and convincing Roy Crabtree to follow his idea of the island-based FMPs. Now I would like to call a person that is a nurse by academic background, but she’s been helping with fisheries in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and that is Jeanette. We wanted to recognize the work that this lady has done for all these years for the U.S. Caribbean fisheries. She has worked with Sea Grant, and all the time she has been a key to the development of our management plans. She alone was able to put together a very effective campaign for the lionfish, and, today, we want to extend to you this plaque. Not only that, but you will receive our coral reef in a bottle. You have a coral reef here, and I hope that you will put it someplace that you will see it all the time. She is also the grandmother of a star. We have a series of videos promoting the use of our fish, to help the local fishers, and also to help the people at home, especially during the pandemic, to be able to prepare recipes with things that they have on hand, and we have a series of videos. Thanks very much. We want to also recognize the council staff that has worked really very hard, especially during the pandemic time, and, today, we want to recognize Graciela Garcia-Moliner, and she had been with us for quite a long time, and she has been my right hand. (Part of Mr. recording.)

Rolon’s

comments

are

not

audible

on

the

audio

MARCOS HANKE: We’re going to go to the next item on the agenda, the five-year strategic plan. Michelle. 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

FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN MICHELLE DUVAL: Again, thank you all for the ability to be able to present in-person here today. I have what is hopefully the last presentation on the 2022 to 2026 strategic plan. Just an overview of what I plan to present today, I’m going to quickly review the council’s previous actions, and then I’m going to review the public comments that the council received, and then I will just quickly review the recommended changes, and then the action that we will be asking the council to take today is to approve the final 2022 to 2026 strategic plan. Then, after that, I will take just a few slides to review the draft 2022 implementation plan. It’s been a long road to get here, made even longer by COVID, but, back in March, the district advisory panels reviewed the draft island-specific strategies and objectives and provided initial feedback on those components. Then, in April, the council selected draft vision, mission, and goal statements and approved the islandspecific objectives that were reviewed by the DAPs. In June, the DAPs really dug into the strategies, the islandspecific strategies, and provided final edits to those, and then, in July, the council reviewed and approved a draft of the strategic plan for public input, which occurred through most of August and the beginning of September, and so, again, today, what we’re asking the council to do is to review the suggested edits, of which there are only three, and approve the final strategic plan. We did not receive very much public comment. We collected comment through an online public comment form, in both Spanish and English, that was available from August 6 through September 3, and we received three comments. One included a recommended language change, and most of the rest of the comments were suggestions to enhance implementation of many of the strategies. Overall, the comments supported the strategic plan as written, and we did not receive any comments on the communication and outreach components. On the vision, mission, and core values, we received one comment that stated these were not very inclusive and a second comment that supported all of them as written, and so two diametricallyopposed comments. Under the management goal, one suggestion was to gather fisher input for collaborative research by gear and by region, using an electronic form, and another suggestion was to develop an educational campaign, using regional workshops, to gather fisher 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

input for stock assessments. With respect to ecosystem and resource health, one of the comments supported the dialogue between the council and Puerto Rico agencies on the impacts of non-fishing activities on habitat, and it also suggested to compensate fishers monetarily for their participation in ecosystem research and to recognize their contributions, through authorship and publications, as well as in education and outreach activities throughout the islands. Then there was one final comment recommending that sargassum influxes be added to natural disasters in one of the Puerto Rico objectives. With respect to social, cultural, and economic issues, there was a lot of support for this goal, indicating that it was essential to increase confidence in management and compliance with regulations by the commercial sector, and it contained multiple suggestions that were very specific to Puerto Rico, including consideration of fishing communities by gear type, as well as mode, such as commercial, recreational, and for-hire, as well as geography, to conduct a study on fish mislabeling to better target education and outreach activities to stop this type of activity. Another suggestion was to better understand underutilized local markets, in order to strengthen food security through seafood and local fish, and then, finally, to include university social workers, as well as staff from the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, in efforts to promote recruitment of young fishers into the fisheries. Now I just want to talk about the recommended changes to the strategic plan, and the first recommendation is really more in regard to the organization of the plan, and that is to consolidate objectives that are identical across all three districts and simply maintain the island-specific strategies, and so, for example, for the management goal, rather than have fifteen separate objectives, five for each of the three island districts, we will consolidate that into five objectives, because they are all identical for each of the island districts, and instead just list the island-specific strategies. As you can see here on the screen, under the management goal, all five objectives were identical across all three island districts. Under ecosystem and resource health, there were three identical objectives, one objective that is specific just to Puerto Rico, two objectives specific to St. Thomas/St. John, and two objectives specific to St. Croix. 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

For social, cultural, and economic issues, there are three objectives that are identical across all three districts and then one island-specific objective for each island district, for a total of six objectives under this goal. The second recommended changes are language changes, and so the first is under the ecosystem and resource health goal, and that is in response to one of the public comments that we received, and that suggestion was to add sargassum blooms to the natural disasters objective, which is Objective 9, and that was specific to Puerto Rico, and so you can see on the screen, underlined, the added language that has been recommended, and so Objective 9 would read: Collaborate with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters, for example hurricanes, earthquakes, and sargassum blooms, on ecosystem structure and function. Then the second recommended change is under the social, cultural, and economic issues goal, and that is simply to insert “and dissemination” in Objective 14, and so this language was originally added to this objective by the St. Croix District Advisory Panel, and it was also adopted by the St. Thomas/St. John District Advisory Panel, and it is my failing that I did not recommend that the Puerto Rico District Advisory Panel also adopt this language, and I believe the addition of “and dissemination” speaks to some of the conversations that all of the DAPs had with respect to ensuring that social and cultural information would be communicated out to all stakeholders, and so that’s the other recommended language change. That summarizes the public feedback that the council received on the draft strategic plan, the very minor changes that have been recommended, and so I am now happy to take any questions, but I’m asking that the council take action and approve the 2022 to 2026 strategic plan, with these recommended changes, and I will just remind everybody that a Spanish and English version of the strategic plan was included in the briefing book materials. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you very much.

(There is a break in the audio recording.) VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: The motion is being presented on the screen. Carlos presented the motion to accept the five-year strategic plan, as presented by Michelle Duval. It was seconded by Vanessa Ramirez. Now we are open for discussion. Anybody? Richard and then Tony 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

Blanchard. RICHARD APPELDOORN: the recording.) MARCOS HANKE:

(Dr. Appeldoorn’s comment is not audible on

Thank you, Richard.

Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: I don’t think we should move forward with this, to be honest with you. I think what we are missing here is the public comment, because the numbers jump out to me as to the lack of public comment. Seeing the atmosphere that we are in right now, where we have to go virtually and we don’t have any in-person meetings, basically, and you want the message to get out to the public, and the only way you’re going to really get this message out to the public is by having an in-person meeting that the strategic plan can be explained and have the public comment on it. I think, by trying to do this virtually, by trying to have statements written in, that’s not going to work, because we are limiting people, to a certain degree, and not that they don’t have access, but they’re just not into all of that, and so, to really get the public comment, in my opinion, you need to have an inperson meeting, and the strategic plan needs to be explained, to the people that are going to be involved in it, or for people to understand, before we can truly say that we have public comment, and so I don’t feel comfortable with moving forward with this. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Tony.

DAMARIS DELGADO: recording.)

Damaris.

(Ms. Delgado’s comment is not audible on the

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Damaris. again? Julian. JULIAN MAGRAS: recording.)

Anybody else, besides Tony

(Mr. Magras’s comment is not audible on the

TONY BLANCHARD: Do the people that know anything about fisheries know about this, in your opinion? Probably very little, right? JULIAN MAGRAS: recording.)

(Mr. Magras’s comment is not audible on the

TONY BLANCHARD:

A follow-up?

MARCOS HANKE: I want to give the floor to Nelson and then to Miguel Rolon and then maybe some clarification points from 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

Michelle. NELSON CRESPO: recording.)

(Mr. Crespo’s comment is not audible on the

MARCOS HANKE:

Miguel, did you want to make any comment?

MIGUEL ROLON:

No.

MARCOS HANKE: Then we have Damaris and Tony, and then we will go for a vote. Did you want to say something? DAMARIS DELGADO: recording.)

(Ms. Delgado’s comment is not audible on the

MARCOS HANKE: It’s to approve the -- The motion is on the screen to move and accept the five-year strategic plan as presented by Michelle Duval. That’s the motion. DAMARIS DELGADO: comments?

Can we amend the motion to consider Tony’s

MARCOS HANKE: We have to address the motion first, and, as part of the discussion, it’s already addressing what you are requesting, in terms of an amendment, and I think it’s better to discuss and go for a vote. Tony. TONY BLANCHARD: I am going to try and put it as simple as I can possibly put it, how I see it. I think we have a tendency to believe that everybody knows what is going on, and that’s a misconception, because we are all involved in basically the management process, or, in some way, we are tied into it, but the majority of people have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes, and this is what I call this, is behind the scenes. If we truly want to -- Say we want to manage, and we want the public’s input, we can’t vote on this and say that the public really had any input in it, and that’s my opinion. It’s like asking me what do you think about this cup, and, well, I think this cup is half empty, and Marcos might have a different point of view, saying this cup is half full. What I’m saying is that we need to step out of the box and see, from a layman’s point of view, that there is things that are happening that we think people have knowledge to or know that is actually going on, and they don’t have slightest clue what’s happening until it’s dropped on their front step, and, well, guess what? This is what the story is, but I didn’t know anything about 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

it. The idea of us thinking that the information is actually getting out and the information is getting out is two different perspectives, and it all depends on who you want to ask or what sector of people you want to ask, for lack of a better description. The scientists, yes, the information is getting out. The laymen, no, the information is not getting out. MARCOS HANKE:

Jack McGovern.

JACK MCGOVERN: recording.)

(Dr. McGovern’s comment is not audible on the

MARCOS HANKE:

Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: recording.)

(Mr.

MARCOS HANKE: and Tony.

comment

Thank you, Miguel.

JACK MCGOVERN: recording.) MARCOS HANKE:

Rolon’s

is

not

audible

on

the

Jack and then Michelle Duval

(Dr. McGovern’s comment is not audible on the Also, we have Vanessa after Tony.

MICHELLE DUVAL: recording.)

Michelle.

(Dr. Duval’s comment is not audible on the

MIGUEL ROLON: I would like to take your offer to put up the slide. Once this plan is implemented, we have to go to the public and explain, the same way that we are going to explain the islandbased FMPs, and have meetings with fishers in St. Thomas and fishermen in St. Croix and fishermen in Puerto Rico, to make sure everybody understands where are we and where are in the process, and so that slide that you have helps explain to the group what is intended once you take final approval. MICHELLE DUVAL: Graciela, is it possible to go back to my presentation and put up those two slides? (The rest of Dr. Duval’s comment is not audible on the recording.) MARCOS HANKE:

Miguel and then Vanessa.

MIGUEL ROLON: Just to inform the group, this proposed mechanism has been discussed with NOAA legal counsel to make sure that we follow the appropriate laws and regulations. In fact, remember 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

that any activity in a panel has to be open to the public. The activities of the advisory panels and the committee of the council would be in the open, and, actually, it would be either the day before the council meeting or the morning of the council meeting, and it’s up to you to decide. The only one that is internal is the one that discusses the budget and the monies and the personnel between the Regional Office and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and that’s why it’s called an IPT, similar to the IPT that you have now for the management plans, and so we discussed it with Jocelyn D’Ambrosio, and there is a possible way to do this, and to do the implementation of the plan without any conflict with MSA or applicable laws, like FACA. MARCOS HANKE:

Vanessa Ramirez.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make my comment about the plan, and I suggest, as I seconded this motion, because we already know we have a lot of time with this implementation with the plan and the draft, and I can certify that the commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico received their mail with the hard copy in Spanish, and so they have the time to read it and make their comments, if they haven’t already done. We know that we usually want more participation, but the thing is that, in the virtual meetings, it’s very hard for them to participate, and so that is where our jobs start and making them understand these kind of plans and also representing as we should do in these meetings. Tony, I know that we are different islands, but, practically, at least in Puerto Rico, I know that the commercial fishermen, the associations and the villages, received their copy, and received their copy in Spanish, and they had time enough to participate. I will ask to the council members to continue and to please move with this motion. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Vanessa, and I have Tony, very briefly, and I want to hear from all the council members to go for a vote. Go ahead, Tony. TONY BLANCHARD: Okay, and this is going to be my last statement. I understand timelines, and I think sometimes we allow timelines to dictate, because we are under pressure to meet them and come to a decision, and I’m not saying that that’s what is happening here, but, obviously, the public comment is very important to this process, and, me personally, I don’t feel that it was met, and I will draw you a perfect example. I am not saying that you’re not putting the effort forward, but 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

what I am telling you is the effort that you are doing only comes to a certain sector of people, and I am the Vice Chair of the council, and I don’t even get onto NOAA’s website. I don’t get onto the CFMC’s website. I don’t do social media. I am the outreach -- So I think I have made my point of when we try to capture the public using those platforms, and so to say, in my opinion, that we haven’t met, legally, the criteria for meeting the public comment -- Maybe we meet it legally, but, if you ask me, if we truly meet it, I would say no. MARCOS HANKE: We are going to vote, but, before the vote, I want to say my point as a council member. I think that we did everything we can to address this issue, and the process is not a closed process, like Michelle said, and there is still parts of the process in the future that is a lot of participation, and I think that we are overseeing a fact here, and that is that the DAP and the council members and all participants have a mission and an obligation to inform their stakeholders and their constituents, and that’s why you are part of the DAP. Addressing that and saying that, we are ready for the vote. We’re going to start with Carlos. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes.

JOHN-PIERRE ORIOL:

Yes.

DAMARIS DELGADO: I am unsure how to express my vote, but I am not completely in agreement, and I would like to support Tony’s opposition, and so I would say no or abstention. MARCOS HANKE:

Abstention.

TONY BLANCHARD:

Okay.

Tony.

No.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

JACK MCGOVERN:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE:

Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE: Graciela, can you read, for the record, the list of the vote results. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:

Five yes and one no and one abstention.

The motion carries. 14

Thank you very much.

We need

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

fifteen minutes, and I am really sorry about the technical problems that we are having, and we’re going to try to fix it in the next fifteen minutes. We’re going to have a fifteen-minute break. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MARCOS HANKE: Good morning, everyone. We have tried to fix the problem, and I hope that everybody is listening now, and we have Carlos Farchette. CARLOS FARCHETTE: I’ve got to start over. Move to approve the process to implement the five-year strategic plan by creating a five-year strategic plan interdisciplinary planning team and a council advisory panel composed of representatives from the governments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and the chairs of the three District Advisory Panels and the Science and Statistical Committee and the Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management TAP. MARCOS HANKE: Any discussion? Jack. JACK MCGOVERN: recording.)

second?

Thank

you,

Damaris.

Is

there

(Dr. McGovern’s comment is not audible on the

MIGUEL ROLON: Jack is right, and the motion is to create this group because, when we discussed it with Jocelyn, we had the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel, and they will filter whatever we have in the strategic plan, and, on that panel, we have fisheries and we have people who are technically oriented, and they know about outreach and education. One of the things, for example, is they can tell us what is the best way to approach the fishing community to explain the strategic plan and the components of the strategic plan. The SSC and the TAP, they will continue working with what they are doing, and they will incorporate the needs of the SSC and the needs of the TAP, and the same with the three chairs. We will want to hear from them what is it that they would like to do, and this group will sort of filter, for the council, and remember this AP meets with the public, and so let’s say, for example, that Julian has, on the strategic plan, something that Nelson believes should be done next year, and then the group decides that, okay, according to the information we have, yes, we can do that next year, and the Center is willing to participate, and the Regional Office will participate, because the five-year strategic plan IPT said so. 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

Then you come to the council with that set of recommendations, and then the council decides which one. In some cases, for example, the five-year strategic plan will tell us that we are doing this species this year, and let’s move it forward for the following year, because the monies and we have it. It’s similar to the SEDAR process. Then the council advisory panel can say, well, who would like to give priority to these two recommendations, rather than the third one, and those priorities will be based on what the DAP chairs will say and the chair of the committee, of the SSC, and the TAP, and that is more or less what we have, but you’re right that, when we have this -- The motion here does not whatsoever preclude the SSC and the others, all the members of the panel, all the panels that we have here and the committees, to discuss the issues that are important to the implementation of the strategic plan. That’s a good point. MARCOS HANKE: We have to vote on the motion. We have the motion made by Carlos Farchette and seconded by Damaris Delgado. We’ll start the vote with Carlos. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes.

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Yes.

TONY BLANCHARD:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE: Okay. We have one abstention and six yes. motion carries. I just saw a turn to speak by Jocelyn.

The

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you, Marcos. I was just going to offer a comment before the vote, but, since the vote has occurred, I have no comment. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Jocelyn.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:

Could you hear her?

MIGUEL ROLON: For the record, Jocelyn said that she had a comment before the vote, but, now that you voted, it’s not necessary at this time. 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

MARCOS HANKE: Okay. The next item on the agenda is the DAP reports. We have Julian Magras. DAP REPORTS ON DAP MEETINGS ON COMPATIBLE REGULATIONS ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN JULIAN MAGRAS: Back in August of 2021, the Fishery Advisory Committee for the St. Thomas/St. John District had a meeting, and we had that meeting to discuss compatible regulations, and I attended that meeting as a guest, and, after that meeting, I reached out to Miguel Rolon, and I requested that the District Advisory Panel for St. Thomas/St. John needs to have a meeting also to discuss the compatible regulations. That meeting took place on October 26, 2021, and all of our members were present at that meeting, those who were still onboard, and we do have some vacancies, but we’ll discuss that at a later point, and, during that meeting, we had some presenters, and we had Graciela Moliner, and we had Madeleine Guyant from the Division of Fish and Wildlife, and both of those individuals presented both the federal regulations and the territorial regulations. We had some very, very good discussions on the regulations, but we decided that there would be no final decision and that the process needs to be vetted and that we need to take our time and make sure that the process is done correctly, but we did get through all of the items, but, before I get to that presentation that Graciela and the team has put together for me, I want to make a couple of points. I think one of the first items that we had some discussion on is there was some confusion on how to -- the landings, and, because the landings -- The council manages the EEZ, and the territory manages the territorial waters, but there is one annual catch limit, and there was -- The fishers who were there, and the individuals from the committee, were trying to understand, well, how was the ACL set, and was it set just off of the territorial or was it just set off of the federal waters, and we were able to get some clarification on that from Maria Lopez and the team that was there, which the individuals felt a little bit better understanding of the process. Then there was some major concerns with compatible regulations, as it pertains to there is no recreational data in place, and I think, in order for us to have compatible regulations, we need to have a recreational license. Everything I’m saying here comes from the group as a whole, and there needs to be a recreational license in place, in order for us to start collecting that information, so we 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

can see what the recreational guys are harvesting, and looking at that data is very, very important, and it’s going to be tied to the commercial compatible regulations also, and so that was a very important issue there. There was a meeting that took place in November of 2020, which I believe took place with -- It was called together by Carlos Farchette and other members from the Division of Fish and Wildlife and Maria Lopez and some of their teams, where they started preliminary discussions on the island-based fishery management plans as it pertains to St. Croix. There were no St. Thomas representatives there at that meeting, and so the discussions that were started on the compatible regulations at that meeting actually were for St. Croix. We are looking forward to having the same meeting with all the regulatory bodies also, for us to have these discussions on how we move forward. Then another issue that a lot of the members had was we’re looking at the regulations, but we are not seeing the language that comes along with the regulations, and so, for example, you have, on the federal side, 50 CFR 622.10, and then, on the VI side, you have the VI Chapter 12 316-14. On the VI side, it goes all the way down to all of these different appendices, and so one of the requests from the committee was, before even moving forward with any of these compatibilities, is we need to see that language. We need to see the language from both the federal and local side, so we can understand what we are doing when it comes to doing if any compatibility at all, and so, with that said, all the members agreed to stall final decisions until the code languages have been provided to them and we were able to have some discussions, and it was made clear at the meeting, by Miguel, that this is just the beginning process, and it’s going to take a long time for us to sit down and really put this together and make sure that it’s put together with everyone’s input and it’s done correctly. It’s not that you have one meeting and it’s going to happen and we’re moving forward, and this is going to be similar to the fiveyear strategic plan, where we spent three years, but I think we spent three years putting something together that was done correctly, and that’s the same approach. When it comes to compatibility, I think we need to have the same approach, to see which, and if any, of the groups we can actually have compatibility on. We know it’s not going to work completely across-the-board, but it can work for several different groups. 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

Also, it was mentioned, while discussing the compatibility, is the group would like to see an independent fisheries survey on the queen conch, and so what happened there was, because a few years back, when we set the ACLs, we set a zero limit in the federal waters of St. Thomas/St. John, and it’s a virgin stock in St. Thomas/St. John waters, because it’s not fished, and some of the members, and some of the fishers, would like to see this revisited, and they would like to get a study done, and, similar to like St. Croix has a 50,000 pound, which consists of both federal and local, the guys would like to see if, after doing the independent assessment, it would be possible for revisiting how that ACL was set. I am going to refer you guys, and you can see these are some of the slides that were put together, and these were stuff that was discussed at length, and so, as you see, Nassau grouper is a closed fishery, and it needs assessment, and so then we have the queen conch, which I just talked about, and we want that to be revisited. The yellowtail snapper, the preliminary discussions, to adopt, in territorial waters, the minimum size of twelve inches total length, as written in federal regulations. Then, as it pertains to the seasonal closures, seasonal closures have been in place, and rebuilding a stock is fifteen years, and the guys would like to see some kind of assessments done, and these closures -- Are they really working for what it was intended to, and it clearly states that, when we did the SFA, in that document, the Sustainable Fisheries Act, it clearly states where that in not all cases that you close a fishery that it actually helps a fishery to recover. Sometimes bycatch can cause you to collapse that fishery, by not being able to harvest from that fishery, but, not understanding the whole fishery, you don’t know how, and so we would like to see assessments done on all the different seasonal closures, and they are already compatible seasonal closures in the St. Thomas/St. John district. Here it shows all the compatibility, and I won’t read all of them out, because we all have seen this, and so I think this one here talks about the bag limits, and, right now, I think what we are looking at is we would like to see some kind of compatibility of the EEZ and territorial waters for recreational bag limits, and so the numbers are listed there. We can always go back and tweak, and then, as we have further discussions, but, right now, in the federal waters, there are bag limits in place, and we would like to see compatibility acrossthe-board with bag limits. This is also another part of the 19

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

recreational bag limits. Federal regulations and the adoption of the fish traps, we only use the two-inch in the St. Thomas/St. John district, and we request the language to retain berried lobsters, and the recreational guys should not be allowed to fish and lobster traps in the EEZ and territorial waters. Now, I know there are no rules in the federal waters right now as it pertains to traps, but we would like to open up some kind of discussion as it pertains to traps in the federal waters. We’re talking about doing -- If the council could entertain looking into a permit system, which would help us to control the fishing in the EEZ, and the reason we’re looking into that is, right now, I’m going to get in, very soon, to the lifting of the moratorium. Even though the lifting of the moratorium is a territorial issue, it also affects the federal waters, and so I’m going to get into that in a few minutes and have a little further discussion on that. Here it is, and we’re talking about the fishing license and federal permits, and so went into the moratorium, and so, when we get into the moratorium, the fishers had a lot of concerns on the lifting of the moratorium. Now, we are not against the lifting of the moratorium. What we would like to see is the -- Well, what we would have liked to have seen happen is the moratorium should have been lifted in a way where all the studies were done prior to lifting, and so, from what was provided to us, none of these studies were done before the lifting of the moratorium. What was done is we looked at the vacancies and the quantity of fishers that we had, but the ACLs that were set were set on the present -- For the St. Thomas/St. John district, they were set off of 109 fishers, where approximately forty-three, or not much more than, forty-three fishers were the main contributors to those numbers for the ACLs. What we are requesting, from the district advisory panel, is if the council can ask the SSC to take a look at our landings between the years of 2015 and the year 2019, and if the year 2020 is available, and look at where the annual catch limits are sitting right now. Look at the areas of how many fishers contributed to those landings, and look at which fisheries have been targeted the most and which fisheries we can maybe take an increase in fishing activity. A perfect example is the deepwater snapper. Our annual catch limit 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

for the deepwater snapper is set at 500 pounds, and that’s an issue. If you’re now opening up the fishery, to where we are saying it’s going to be opened up more to the lion fishery, you will overrun that ACL within a week. There are some fishers who are interested in doing that, if they obtain a new license, and there are also some fishers who are looking to go into that fishery who are presently commercial fishing, and we would need to know how would we adjust that annual catch limit with guidance from the SSC, if possible, and the council, and how can we adjust that to a virgin fishery, and we all know the fish are there, but they just haven’t been fished. You can look at the landings over a long period of time. Then another area that we have some grave concerns is our wahoo and dolphin fishery, and our annual catch limits that were set were set very low, and we were given a three-year time period to collect as much data as possible, to see what we’re doing in that fishery and if we can go back and reset that annual catch limit. Now, I think we are at that three years right now, and these licenses, if given, will go to a lot of charter boats who already harvest the dolphin and wahoo recreationally, and I think this is going to drive that fishery to be shut down within the first six months. I am asking the council for some help and seeing if we can have the SSC and its team to look at our numbers and, if they can provide us with some feedback, that would be great, and, for the Division of Fish and Wildlife, I know you all have been collecting data on the recreational harvest for the dolphin and wahoo, and, if we could see those numbers, and share those numbers, and let’s see what has been harvested in the last three years, and, if we can see the commercial side of it from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, that would be great. This is information that the District Advisory Panel is requesting. I know it’s a lot to take in, but it’s the beginning process, and, you know, I wanted to say thank you to everyone who made this meeting possible, both on the federal side and on the local side, and from NOAA and all its team members who were present, even to legal counsel, and everybody was there, and, you know, my committee looks forward to us continuing dialogue on moving forward with discussing of the compatibility regulations. Thank you very much, and I am open to questions if anyone has any. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Julian. We’re going to have a question from Kevin, and then we’re going to go to Nelson after, because we are very short on time to meet the lunch time. Kevin. 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

KEVIN MCCARTHY: Julian, I think that a lot of the questions you’ve got are going to be addressed in a presentation I have this afternoon, I hope. If not, we’ll -- I won’t get into that right now, for time’s sake, but my question though is this three-year data collection program that you’re talking about, and what was that exactly? I’m not familiar with that, and so what was that? JULIAN MAGRAS: What happened was, when we were discussing setting the ACLs, and we were discussing the wahoo and dolphin, if you recall, there was a big discussion in the room at the SSC meeting, and we asked to give three years reprieve, for us to collect as much data as possible from the recreational side on the dolphin. At that time, it was Director Ruth Gomez present, and she put together a -- She put together a form to start to collect the data, and then, with the transition of the administration, it was continued, because, at the DAP meeting, we asked Sennai Habtes if that program was still ongoing, and he said yes, and so we requested to see that data, because we need to see that data. We need to see it both from the commercial side and the recreational side, because we don’t want the both of them to be combined and what happens is automatically you shut your commercial guys down, because you had no recreational data on the dolphin and wahoo, just like the rest of the fishery, and we wanted to collect that information, to see if we could even have a preliminary number to set quota for the recreational guys different than the commercial guys. KEVIN MCCARTHY: Okay. Thanks. I mean, if you’ve never collected data from the rec side, it won’t matter what they catch, and you will only be opening and closing the fishery based on the information you have, and it will only be, at this point, the commercial, except now there is this, I guess, voluntary program, and so the fact that they’re -- If you don’t have information from them, you can’t shut down their fishery based upon what they’re catching, because you don’t know what they’re catching, right, but thanks for that clarification. JULIAN MAGRAS: Just to touch -- We want to make sure and -Because we changed the way data was collected, and we created all of these new catch report forms, to see if, at all, it made a difference, and we haven’t seen any of the numbers, and so we don’t know, since we set the new annual catch limits, where we’re at and what has the new information that we put forward with the identified species for each island-based platform, because we all had different species, to see where we’re at. 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

Right now, it would be nice if we can see where we’re at, and hopefully later on we can have an idea, and so it would be nice to see where we’re at, so we can know what we need to do, or what we need to request from you guys, and also to pass that information along to our fishers. MARCOS HANKE: Nelson.

Thank you, Julian.

We’re going to start with

PUERTO RICO NELSON CRESPO: Good morning, everyone. On October 27, the Puerto Rico District Advisory Panel met to revise our regulations in place and to discuss new species under management. Although we did not have the participation of all the members of the panel, we were able to get some suggestions that we are going to present to you, and I really want to thank Miguel and Graciela and Maria for the guidance, and especially to Vanessa, because her comments and suggestions were a help in getting our work done. For the queen conch fishery, we request to the council to reassess the queen conch closure in the EEZ and evaluate the possibility of reopening the EEZ and have them reevaluate the seasonal closure. In my opinion, this fishery should be open in the EEZ for a threemonth season, for around three to five years, to see how this works. We have a lot of comments from divers that used to dive in the EEZ for conch, and they saw a big amount of conch that won’t be able to catch, and this is an opportunity to reduce the pressure in state waters for this fishery. We also recommend to the local government to maintain the administrative order in place that allows us to bring the conch without a shell to shore until scientific evaluation is done and decide what to do with the shell, and this is only for security reasons, and, after this, we recommend modification, if needed, in our jurisdiction. For the spiny lobster, we recommend to establish a bag limit for the recreational sector in state waters, and, also, regulate the use -- We recommend to regulate the use of trammel nets in the state waters for the lobster fishery, due to high bycatch and high mortality of lobster. We recommend to regulate the soak time, the number of nets that can use the mesh size, et cetera. Everything concerned with trammel nets has to be regulated. 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

The spiny lobster fishery is very healthy, but, at the same time, it’s endangered, because we have an extremely high bycatch with the use of trammel nets. In my opinion, it’s time to address this matter, because a high number of small lobster, and in the market with the use of this gear among other dangerous -- I have been saying this for a long time and I think it’s time to do something about this. For the fish species regulated by size, in order to have consistency on enforcement, we recommend to this council to study the possibility to adopt size regulations in the EEZ for white grunt and king and cero mackerels, as established in the Puerto Rico regulations. Regarding the recreational bag limit in the EEZ, we recommend the adoption of a snapper, grouper, and parrotfish combined recreational bag limit in state waters. Puerto Rico and the federal government should do compatible regulations, as much as possible, in order to more easy the enforcement and the protection of these species. For the recreational sector, snapper -- In the market when they are targeted. Parrotfish, we know that it’s an important species that has to be protected for the benefit of our habitats. For the mahi, wahoo, and mackerel recreational bag limit, we recommend to review the bag limit applied in the state waters and maybe consider to apply a five and fifteen bag limit for these species combined. Also, we recommend compatibility of regulations after a detailed assessment of five and fifteen for dorado. Regarding seasons closures, for the Grouper Unit 4, we recommend more studies to evaluate a closure for this unit, and, for the Grouper Unit 6, we recommend to leave this seasonal closure asis. Trying to extend the red hind closure for fifty more days is going to bring a negative impact to the fishermen’s economy during the days that we celebrate the Quaresma, and that is forty days ending with Easter Week, and that is when these fish have more demand, and it would also bring distrust in the management plan and would encourage illegal fishing. Honestly, the red hind would have more pressure during these forty days. After that, that fishery, they are still catching them around the island, but they don’t have that much pressure. I call that fishery a seasonal catch fish. For the Snapper Unit 1, we also recommend to keep the closure asis. For Snapper Unit 4 and 5, this closure is working out, and we recommend to keep it as-is. Also, we recommend more studies for 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

those units. Regarding the fishing gear, we recommend to include regulations on bow and arrow for both EEZ and Puerto Rico waters, and we have some reports from fishermen that they saw, at Mona Island, the hunters, where they are going to hunt on the island, that they use a bow and arrow for fishing from the shore, and that’s going to cause damage to the corals and the habitats. Regarding the nets, we recommend to conduct a revision of this fishing gear and their impact, especially for spiny lobster. We request to evaluate the use of trammel nets in state waters, and, also, we recommend to consider permits for the use of trammel nets and request to establish a maximum number of nets fished. For example, no more than three nets per fisher in a twelve-hour period. Also, establish a limited soak time for nets, and, again, the trammel net is a gear this is very dangerous, and it not only causes damage to the habitat, but it also can affect the whole ecosystem. A high number of dead fish have to be discarded every time you use it, due to its composition, and I have been saying for a long time this, every time I have a chance. The high number of small lobster that are in the market, with ratio of eight out of ten that are captured, and, in my opinion, it’s time for the local government to step up to the plate and take action immediately to address the danger of this fishing gear for the good of our fishing resources. Regarding the trammel net, if you let me, Mr. Chair, I want to read a letter that a fisherman that we all know, Edwin Font, Pauco, sent me a few days ago. It says -- I am going to read it in Spanish. (Whereupon, Mr. Font’s letter was read and was not transcribed.) MARCOS HANKE: Nelson, for the sake of time, that’s going to take too much time to read. Go ahead, Miguel. MIGUEL ROLON: recording.)

(Mr.

Rolon’s

comment

is

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much, Miguel. Nelson. Do you have anything else?

not

audible

on

the

Thank you very much,

NELSON CRESPO: I have two more topics, but I have to add regarding the nets that, in the past, we have a traps fishery for lobster in the west coast of Puerto Rico. Since the fishermen started using the trammel nets, that fishery -- We are now trying, with the Todd 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

Gedamke project, to try to bring that fishery back, but it’s very hard for us, and it’s like to climb Everest on a bicycle, but we are trying, and we do our best. Regarding the bycatch, the trammel nets -- You can kill a 1,000-pound shark or a one-pound fish, and, due to the fish trying to escape from the nets, they start the decomposition really fast, and, when you pull the net out, you have to discard all those fishes, because they are not good for sale. Regarding the traps, we recommend to discuss the use of plastic components in traps and only for the escape panel. Evaluate how traps that do not comply with regulations could become legal. We need to regulate milk crates that are being used as fish traps. In my opinion, these crates are productive if regulated by the size, but we must be very careful when dealing with this matter, because it’s -- Everybody knows that all the supermarkets and all the bakeries put all these crates in the back of the store, and they are really easy to be stolen by anybody. We also suggest to identify sustainable materials for traps, like wood crates, that prove to be effective and cheap. Regarding the area regulations, we recommend to discuss each discrepancy by area for the local governments to adopt federal regulations. We also recommend to the council to study compatibility, taking into consideration the biology and the socioeconomic factors and conduct a vessel inventory that fished those areas with species targeted and the fishing gear used. It’s necessary to do this with an effective committee, where the federal and local government, in conjunction with the fishermen and other interested parties, get together for this purpose. The last one is license permits, and we suggest for the federal to adopt state regulations. There would be no need to have other permits. Evaluate a license or permit that can be valid in both jurisdictions. Highly migratory species outreach meetings with fishers, the fishermen need help and support with the small boat permit for the Caribbean. That’s all I have, and, if you’ve got any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. MARCOS HANKE: One question to Nelson from Kevin, and then we can move on. Thank you. KEVIN MCCARTHY: recording.)

(Mr. McCarthy’s comment is not audible on the

NELSON CRESPO: In my experience, that is a seasonal gear, and the guys use it -- I can guarantee you that that gear can catch, in that period, more than the 75 or 80 percent of the lobster that 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

goes straight to the market, and that is not only because the fishermen use one net. Only one fisherman can have five, six, ten nets in the water, and the length can be from 100 fathoms to 400 fathoms, because I know fishermen who have those for 400 fathoms, and the big problem is, when they throw the nets in the water, and maybe the bad weather comes, that net stays in the water for maybe one week or two weeks, and you cannot imagine how many are killed in that gear, and, for me, I’m a fisherman. I’m a commercial fisherman, and I want to catch fish, and I want to make money, but I protect my resources, and I think -- If you ask me, my personal -- Everybody knows my personal opinion, and, if it was me, I would not allow anybody to use that gear anymore, and that is a concern to you and to the local government to do that. KEVIN MCCARTHY: recording.)

(Mr. McCarthy’s comment is not audible on the

NELSON CRESPO: Yes, and the thing is you throw it back to the water, and that lobster is damaged, because it’s hurt, because taking it out from the nets and the pregnant that die when they’re tangled in the net, and I can guarantee you that it’s a percentage of 80. Eight out of ten lobster are small, and I guarantee you that, and so we have to do something about it, and we can’t keep losing more time, because, in one moment, that fishery is going to be in real danger. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Nelson, and we have a very short presentation from Carlos, and then we’re going to break for lunch, because we have to be back here at 1:00 for Sam Rauch’s presentation. MIGUEL ROLON: You can do that after Sam Rauch’s presentation. You have to break now, and they are going to -MARCOS HANKE: Okay. Carlos is going to bring the presentation after lunch and Sam Rauch’s presentation. See you guys back here at 1:00. (Whereupon, the meeting recessed for lunch on December 7, 2021.) - - DECEMBER 7, 2021 TUESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION 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 Caribbean Fishery Management Council reconvened on Tuesday afternoon, December 7, 2021, and was called to order by Chairman Marcos Hanke. MARCOS HANKE: Welcome back, everyone. (Part of Mr. Hanke’s comments are not audible on the recording.) PRESENTATION ON EXECUTIVE ORDER 14008 SECTION 216(A) SAMUEL RAUCH: I am going to go ahead, and I apologize, Mr. Chair, if I am interrupting, and so I’m going to go ahead and give this presentation, and then we can open it up for discussion, if that is all right with you, and, if not, please someone let me go. Are we good? MARCOS HANKE: Excuse me, Sam. Can you hold on just for a second? We have low volume, and we’re going to try to find out something. SAMUEL RAUCH:

I will wait until you let me know.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:

Sam, go ahead.

SAMUEL RAUCH: All right. Thank you, and please let -- Send me a text or something if the quality cuts out on my end. Thank you, and I am Sam Rauch, and I am the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs at the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Deputy Director, and I am pleased to be with you here today to talk about the administration’s report on Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful. I understand that we were trying to give you this presentation earlier, but we had a mix-up somewhere, and so we rescheduled, and I appreciate the flexibility that the council has provided to allow us to do this, a little bit later than we had originally wanted, but still to get the important input that the council may have and to share with you where we are. The report was released in early May, and it complements NOAA’s five decades of conserving natural, cultural, and historical resources with our nation’s marine and Great Lakes environments and special places. In the report, the President calls on Americans to join together in pursuit of a goal of conserving at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030, through an inclusive and locally-led effort. The report includes recommendations emphasizing the importance of ongoing dialogue, engagement, and collaboration for conserving and restoring America 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

the beautiful. This is the Executive Order that created the process that we’re in now, and it was signed on January 27, 2021, and it direct the Department of the Interior, or DOI, working with other agencies, including commerce to produce a report to the National Climate Taskforce, and that’s the taskforce that is created separately in this Executive Order, but it’s an executive-level taskforce that reports to the President, to recommend steps for conserving at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, and the 30 percent is not necessarily an endpoint, and it says at least 30 percent, and it is not necessarily numerically -- Although it is the target, the target is more on achieving specific conservation outcomes and the benefit they provide over the long-term, as opposed to achieving the numerical standard itself. Section 216(a)(i), which is highlighted here, directs NOAA and other federal agencies to solicit input from state, local, tribal, and territorial officials and agricultural officials and fishermen and other key stakeholders in identifying strategies that will encourage broad participation in the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of our land and water by 2030. It also calls for guidelines for determining whether the lands and waters qualify for conservation and mechanisms to measure progress towards that goal, and I will talk about that more later. With the issuance of the Executive Order, we’ve gathered input, and we’ve had a number of broad listening sessions and outreach sessions, before the report was issued, to a number of these groups, including I talked to the CCC, and I had a number of presentations with individual councils, to the extent that we could arrange them, to get input on how to frame this overall effort, and that helped inform the subsequent report. The report, as I said, came out in May, and it was entitled “Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful”, and it was the first step in the process about building a strategy for achieving the conservation goals, and it lists, at the outset, three overarching conservation goals, and, when I said the 30 percent wasn’t as significant, the 30 percent is designed to achieve these three overarching goals of combating key threats to the loss of natural areas and natural resources, climate change, and disparities in access the outdoors, and so you will see me refer back to these overarching areas, because this is -- When you look at conservation, and you look at what we’re trying to achieve, we’re trying to achieve these three overarching topics of combating the loss of natural areas and natural resources, dealing with 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

climate change, and dealing with disparities in access to the outdoors. It's a ten-year, locally-led and nationally-scaled campaign, and it’s not going to happen tomorrow, and it is a decade-long process, and, most importantly for this group, it recognizes the need for a continuum of approaches, and it intentionally uses the term “conservation”, as opposed to other terms, such as “protected areas”, because it acknowledges that the value of various conservation actions, in addition to protected areas, including areas that allow for sustainable mixed use, or areas that may need to be restored, but we are -- Because we are currently still seeking input on how to measure progress towards that 30 percent goal, and what “conservation” really means, we did not, at the outset, say that any specific conservation actions were either included or excluded. However, it did -- While it didn’t say exactly what was conservation, and that is an issue that we continue to need to define, it did lay out eight core principles that we should be looking at that are critical to the success of the areas, and these are equally important in the report, and they reflect a broad consensus of views and recommendations that we did during that early outreach effort. Some of these principles are that, no matter what we do, the process needs to be collaborative and inclusive. It needs to avoid being top-down and directive, and it should try to build on the collaborative work that makes many of the conservation efforts successful, and it needs to conserve for the benefit of all people, of all Americans, and the benefits should be equitably distributed. The value of a place should not be measured solely in biological terms, but also by its capacity to provide benefits, such as access to recreation and preparing for and restoring climate change and impacts. It needs to be supportive of locally-led efforts. As I indicated, it shouldn’t be top-down, but it should reflect that many of the conservation benefits that we have secured so far are developed locally, from the bottom-up, and we need to honor tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, subsistence rights, and freedom of religious practices, which also align with the President’s overall objectives. We need to recognize that conservation can be a jobcreation activity, and we should pursue approaches that create and preserve jobs across the landscape. A lot of what the councils do, when they create conservation areas, is designed to support important commercial and recreational fisheries, which has a direct linkage back to many important coastal jobs. 30

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

I know that the council takes that into account as they design fishery management areas, and we should be mindful of the same sort of processes and thoughts as we look at applying this conservation mandate here. We need to honor private property and voluntary stewardship efforts, recognizing that, particularly on land, that much of the advancements in conservation are done by private landowners that volunteer their lands for conservation, and we need to be mindful of that and to take that into account and to include that in the process. We need to use science as a guide, but also include and recognize that, as part of that, there is a role for indigenous and traditional ecological knowledge to complement other sorts of scientific endeavors, and important for the council is we need to build on existing tools and strategies, and there is not an intent to create a separate conservation mandate, but, to the extent that we are working in conservation work, through things like the Magnuson Act, or other sort of already existing structures, and not just federal structures, but also state and local structures, private land structures and other kinds of strategies that already exist on the landscape. The next step in this is -- As I’ve said, we’ve done the report, and the next step is to work on a conservation atlas. The President has set a goal of conservation of 30 percent of our land and waters, but we don’t know where we currently stand along that objective. Are we at 30 percent, or are we over, or are we under, and, if we’re under, how far under are we, and what other opportunities are there? There is a need to create a baseline assessment about how much of our existing land and waters are currently conserved, so that we can better design strategies to achieve the President’s overall objectives, if we have not already done so. We’re going to create an American Conservation Stewardship Atlas, provided based on an assessment of where we are, and it’s going to be developed by a federal interagency working group, with input from the public, states, tribes, scientists, and a wide range of stakeholders, and consider a range of contributions, including voluntary conservation measures, conservation measures under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other existing efforts by governments and private landowners on conservation. We do envision that there will be annual reports, and I expect the first annual report to come before the end of the year, but there will be one each year that will document the progress that we’ve made. There will be an update on areas of collaboration identified 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

in the report, an update on land-cover changes, including the loss of open space, and it will review the condition of fish and wildlife habitats and populations. As I said, I expect the first one to be coming in the next few weeks. We mentioned the three overarching objectives, and then there’s the eight core principles that any conservation measure should work its way -- That it should adopt. The report does find six areas of initial focus. As I said, this is a decade-long initiative, but, in the short-term, the President has asked us, or the report recommends, that we look at six particular areas where we might make more immediate and early progress. One is creating more parks and safe outdoor opportunities in nature-deprived communities. Once again though, supporting locally-led efforts, particularly in communities that disproportionately lack access to nature and its benefits. We need to support tribal-led conservation and restoration activities, and we are directed to review our most successful conservation programs to determine how to better include and support tribal governments. That could include working with Congress to revise underlying statutes or developing technical assistance and capacity-building grants to support indigenous-led conservation efforts. Additionally, federal agencies should take steps to improve engagement with American Indians, Alaskan natives, native Hawaiians, and other territorial native groups on the care and management of public lands and waters, particularly regarding sacred ceremonial sites and trust and treaty rights. We are asked to expand collaborative conservation of fish and wildlife habitat and corridors, taking steps -- We should take broadly-supported steps to stem the decline of fish and wildlife populations and their habitat throughout the country, including through such wildlife corridors and fish passage. It explicitly calls for the expansion of the National Marine Sanctuary System and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and these are NOAA programs that are run through the National Ocean Service, and not the Fisheries Service, but the report does call for that expansion, and, in particular, for this group, it recognizes the work of the regional fishery management councils, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and calls for NOAA to work closely with the councils to identify areas, or networks of areas, where fishery management efforts would support those longterm conservation goals, as I said, the three overarching goals at the beginning of this presentation and in the report. 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

We are to look for increased access to outdoor recreation, and we are to incentivize and reward voluntary conservation efforts for fishermen, ranchers, farmers, and forest owners, and, as I indicated before, continue to look with a focus on creating jobs by investing in restoration and resilience, and, in addition, we know that restoration efforts themselves can be job creators. The land that is conserved can function to support broader jobs across the landscape. The report also calls for the putting new diverse generations of Americans to work, such as through the Civilian Climate Corps that can help conserve and restore public lands and waters towards meeting the 30 percent goal, and that is actually a function of a different Executive Order. The next steps, this report is a starting point. Once the report was issued, we began a process of formally and informally engaging states, tribes, territories, stakeholders, and the public, including the fishery management councils, through things like this, and we had intended to reach out to the Caribbean Council earlier, and I apologize for the miscommunication, but we’re glad that we’re here now. The next slide just talks about NOAA authorities, and so, as we engage with the council and others, NOAA has certain distinct authorities that it’s bringing to bear in this process, including the Sanctuaries Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the ESA, but in particular is the Magnuson Act, dealing with the councils and looking at the various time/area closures that the council has adopted and figuring out how they align with the overarching three mandates that the President laid out, or that this report laid out, and whether or not they should therefore be considered as conservation areas for the purposes of this effort. I would also mention the Antiquities Act, which is not a NOAA authority, per se, but we are often -- If the President designates a monument in federal waters, in ocean waters, the President often provides co-management authority to NOAA, and it is not a given, but, for all of the current ocean monuments, we do have comanagement authority, and so that is one of the authorities that we also bring to bear, and so, as we seek comments on this, we ask the councils -- Just keep in mind these various statues which allow NOAA to act and interact in aligning these conservation goals. The last slide is what we’re seeking from you, and so, today, we wanted to provide this report to you and get any input that you 33

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

may have and answer any question that you may have, and this is a list of questions that we are asking, and this slide says the public, but we are asking you today, as the council, to think about. We’ve done a number of outreach, and we’ve done a number of Federal Register notices, and we’ve done eight Federal Register notices, and I think we are going to do one more shortly, that talks about these things, but we’re interested in a number of overarching questions, and I am not going to read all of them, but I’m going to outline a few of them that I think touches on this. We laid out the three overarching objectives like loss of natural areas, addressing climate change and resilience, addressing disparate access rights, and what types of conservation measures are current effective at addressing those three overarching goals? Are there additional actions that would be effective at dealing with that? What are the appropriate tools? I mean, we know the councils can act and recommend closed areas that NOAA implements, and many of them are designed that would complement those overarching objectives, and some are not, but many would, and what criteria should we use to evaluate whether or not to pursue additional measures to meet those overarching objectives, and what role does the Magnuson Act play in that, and what role do any of the other NOAA authorities play in that? How then -- How do we account for what is or what is not conservation? Of those authorities, a different way of talking about this is we need to figure where we are on the spectrum of achieving 30 percent or more, and what of the type of actions that the councils put in place should we take into account, given that the council’s objectives can complement, but are not always aligned with the three goals that we laid out there. I am aware, and I’m sure the Caribbean Council is aware, of the efforts of the Council Chairs Committee to formulate a broader workgroup that is designed to accumulate the various council actions on area-based management and to talk about what is good or not good and what works or doesn’t work with that, with the idea that that could feed into this process about which council actions actually do mesh and align well with the President’s objectives, and so should count for the 30 percent goals and which ones might not, and it’s not that they were bad actions, but they were designed under the Magnuson Act to maybe meet different goals. Then,

finally,

how

would

we

support 34

and

collaborate

with

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

stakeholders through broader participation and restoration objectives, and I see that the presentation has gone away, and I think that’s fine, and I don’t think we need to put it up again, but those are the kinds of questions, and so it’s what should go into the report, how should we craft conservation, how should we look at the various measures that we currently deal with, particularly the council deals with, how could those be improved, if at all, and then how do we collaborate with stakeholders, and so that’s the overall presentation. I apologize, again, for this being late in the process, and, currently, we are working on the annual report, and we are trying to get the atlas together and trying to decide what guidance we have on what really is conservation or not. With that, Mr. Chair, I am happy to take questions or have any feedback, if the council would like to give it to us now or later, into this process. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. I hope you can hear me, and I’m going to pass the mic to Miguel Rolon, and is there anybody from the council that would like to make a question for now, council members? We have J.P. from the DPNR USVI that is going to make a question. JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL: Something that’s already being done in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, back in 2013, the Caribbean Biodiversity Fund launched the Caribbean Challenge Initiative, and it mostly focused on the conservation on water areas of the Caribbean, and I think the goal at the time was 20 percent, and they have since -- I believe, in 2018, they may have upped that to 30 percent, but both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands actually sent letters to the Caribbean Biodiversity Fund for inclusion, and I believe both territories were granted observer status, since it is something that is mostly state and territory combinations. Again, it was to show alignment with our Caribbean partners on the conservation efforts, particularly with the water areas, and then also some sub-goals toward climate change and renewable energy and such, and I think those two things align, and we can see where, from particularly the water side of things, where this also feeds into the American the Beautiful initiative, and so I just wanted to make sure that you guys were aware that the U.S. Caribbean has in fact been doing something along these lines already, particularly on the water side, and then we can also tie in where some of our lands also try and -- Or assist us in meeting that 30 percent goal, and so thanks. MARCOS HANKE:

Sam, did you want to make any comment? 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

SAMUEL RAUCH: I appreciate that comment, and it is certainly true that this effort was influenced by a number of international efforts on the ocean, and I can’t speak for the origins of the land part of it, because we, as the Marine Fisheries Service, we deal mostly with the ocean part, but, on the ocean part, this did seem to build on a number of these international efforts. I will mention that, the various ways that these international groups calculate progress, whether it’s conservation through the Caribbean effort that you mentioned, which is very useful, and there are other ways, and there is the IUCN is doing one, and there are different ways that you might calculate the amount of waters preserved or conserved or other kinds of issues, and the U.S. is going to look at all of those things, but they will develop a U.S.specific criteria that the U.S. monitors, and so I imagine that much -- I think you phrased it as complementary, and I think it will be complementary, but it will not be -- The U.S. will decide on its own exactly what the criteria should be, but it’s already influenced by a lot of these principles that you have talked about. On the land side, we are currently talking about how you can have a consistent view of both land and water, and you need to be mindful that the President’s mandate was for both, and there needs to be some consistency about we think about the ocean, versus how we think about land, and you can see, throughout the report, there’s a lot of focus on not just the ocean-based issues, but the land-based issues are quite important as well, and so I appreciate the efforts that Puerto Rico and others are making in this regard, and we will make sure to take that into account as we move forward with the further planning on this effort, and so thank you. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you,

Miguel Rolon.

MIGUEL ROLON: We would like to thank Sam for the presentation, and, just for information, the Caribbean Council has been involved with the sub-committee of the councils group, the CCC, and this is a committee of the area-based management, and that sub-committee is looking at the areas that we have closed for the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the areas that have been closed by the local governments, and to check whether those areas comply with the requirements of the 14008 Executive Order. With Sam’s presentation, you have a series of questions here, and they are on the webpage, and we have a link to NOAA, and it is the intention that the staff will prepare the response, and we will circulate it among everybody, but the response has to be submitted before December 28 to NOAA Fisheries, but our response will be based on previous discussion of the council. 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

In addition, each government could also send a letter, a letter by the Commissioner and a letter by the Secretary of the DNR of Puerto Rico, addressing these questions, because, like the Commissioner said, the two local governments really have been involved in international bodies concerned with the same issues, but it is important to note that, although the United States is a signatory of some of these international bodies, this executive order calls for the an approach to the Thirty by Thirty, and so the council is going to submit that letter, and the process will continue, and there are some deadlines that, as Sam said, that have to be met, and you will have a chance to see the report, the national report, and the committee report that is being prepared as we speak, and those questions that will be addressed. At this time, Mr. Chairman, does anybody, a council member, have a question in relation to what Sam Rauch presented today? MARCOS HANKE: I don’t see any hands up for now. Sam, we are going to make sure that we keep our ears open to the council members and to all the stakeholders to produce this letter that we’re going to submit to you on time before the date you requested. Do you have any other questions or points to express to the group? SAMUEL RAUCH: I do not, and I apologize, and apparently I had another slide that I didn’t realize that I had that highlighted how to submit comments, and I would say that we appreciate the council’s comments, but, if there are other stakeholders that wanted to comment directly, they can take advantage of these opportunities, but I do appreciate the council’s time, and, if there is nothing else, I am happy to sign off. MARCOS HANKE: Okay, and I am going to offer our social media and the ways we have to make this information available for comments. SAMUEL RAUCH:

Thank you.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda, we have a presentation by Carlos Farchette on the -DAP CHAIRS REPORTS ON DAP MEETINGS ON COMPATIBLE REGULATIONS (CONTINUED) ST. CROIX DAP Chairs Reports on DAP Meetings on Compatible Regulations (Continued) CARLOS FARCHETTE:

I just wanted to make a comment regarding the 37

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

compatible regulations discussions that we were having earlier, and the St. Croix approach was a little different, and we wanted to begin a discussion of the compatible regulations at the local level first, using the St. Croix Fishery Advisory Committee. St. Croix approached the compatible regulations a little differently, and we felt that the discussion should begin at the local level first, before we moved forward with our recommendations to the council’s district advisory panel. Everything that you saw up on the screen that was presented before, we have already completed most of that stuff, and I think we only tabled one of the items that pertains to pots and traps, and, other than that, the various recommendations that the members of the St. Croix Fisheries Advisory Committee made will be taken to a vote, maybe in the January or February monthly meeting, and, after that, we would present our recommendations to the Director of Fish and Wildlife, Dr. Angeli, to forward to the Commissioner for consideration. That’s it. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Carlos. The next item on the agenda will be the Discussion of Trawling Gear in Federal Waters. DISCUSSION ON TRAWLING GEAR IN FEDERAL WATERS GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Mr. Chair, if you may, please make sure that, when you speak, you turn on the microphone, because, otherwise, it won’t be recorded, and so, even if I am next to you with the phone or the other microphone, make sure that you are -That everyone at the table has theirs turned on, so that we can record the conversation. It's really good that this presentation comes after Sam Rauch’s presentation, because it builds specifically on one of the issues that they are encountering in terms of the essential areas of protection and the Thirty by Thirty, et cetera. This is not a new issue in the Caribbean, and this is a paper from 1944 that Maria found, and NOAA actually had cruises in the Caribbean, where we used shrimp trawls and other types of trawls to drag these nets on the bottom and got them snagged, et cetera, and so there is some history as to the use of this gear in the area. Why are we discussing trawling? Specifically, it’s because of the 14008 that has to do with designating MPAs to qualify for specific designations under the EO and it also has to do with the funding available, et cetera, and a revision of all of the areas that are 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

protected. The Executive Order asks for collaboration among jurisdictions, and so that’s not only the state and the federal government, but it’s also the Department of Interior, and it’s monument areas, and it’s the Coast Guard, et cetera, and so fish really don’t understand about boundaries, and we do create quite a number of artificial boundaries, and so collaboration is in the essence of the Executive Order. In reference to the area-based management and marine protected areas that do not qualify for special conservation, that’s the issue that we have in our hands, because apparently we had forgotten, in the authorized gears for the area, that trawls are actually allowed for non-FMP species, and so it is the provisions that people could actually come in and trawl through the area. The other reason that we need to talk about it, and this is the direction that we need from the council, is to keep on working on the tables of authorized gears, and you have, in Appendix B of the gear amendment that you have in the briefing book, the regulations that are in place as of now and the changes that will take place when the island-based FMPs are implemented. There are a number of changes and a number of issues, but we still have trawls as part of the authorized gears. This is the old version, and so I marked in red, and you can see it at the bottom of the screen, that trawl is allowed for the commercial fishery of non-FMP species. There are a number of other issues with these authorized gears, and so, once you review it, just tell staff where you want us to go with the different gears that are authorized for the different fisheries. This is what you will see in Appendix B of the gear amendment, and so it’s a summary of everything that applies to Puerto Rico, everything that applies to St. Thomas, everything that applies to St. Croix, and there are differences in the authorized gears for the different areas. This is what we have to look at, in terms of the authorized gears, and so I have marked, for each of the three islands, that we do have trawl in the regulations, and that’s what the council needs to decide, whether we’re going to continue to allow the use of trawls, or at least to allow the fact that trawls would be allowed to fish for things in the EEZ as they stand now. Back to the areas of marine protected areas, and one of the issues is that, even when we have a prohibition, the council has a prohibition, on the use of bottom-tending gear in these areas, trawling is still allowed in these MPAs for non-FMP species, and 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

so Bajo de Sico has a different regulation than Abrir la Sierra and Tourmaline. Hind Bank is a completely no-take zone, the Grammanik Bank has a seasonal closure, and Mutton Snapper and Lang Bank in St. Croix all have a prohibition on the bottom-tending gears, but, for non-FMP species, except for those areas where it says that all fishing is prohibited during the season that it’s closed, you still have the possibility of someone being able to use a trawl in these areas. In terms of nets, and this is something that we had discussed this morning from the DAPs, and also that it’s in part of the regulations that gillnets and trammel nets are prohibited in the Caribbean EEZ, and so we already have that issue with the nets taken care of in terms of the EEZ, and this is not really the case for compatibility issues with Puerto Rico, for example, but nets are also banned in St. Croix, and there are other regulations that are implemented regarding the gill and the trammel nets. These are the two types of trawls that you are likely to see if anyone was going to come and use them in this area, the midwater trawling and the bottom trawls. As far as we know, there is no one using either one of these two gears in the U.S. Caribbean EEZs, but, again, they could be used for non-FMP species. With the regulation as it stands, that means allow trawl gear in the EEZ and MPAs for non-FMP species, and you can go down the list of pros and cons to keep the regulations in place or to actually change the regulations that you have in place, and that would be, for example, to ban all trawls from all of the EEZ or from the MPAs, et cetera, and there is a picture on the right-hand side that is part of the baseline of the characterization of the mesophotic reef between thirty and fifty meters, and so there is sponges and corals all over the place. One of the big issues would be the destruction of coral habitats, or sponge habitats, that are so important in those deep waters, and the bycatch -- Probably, if it’s usable, it could be a good thing, but then you have the Endangered Species Act and those species that are protected that could probably be impacted by trawls. Then you have -- It would be something to look at if you’re developing a new fishery, but then you have to weigh the tradeoffs in terms of, it’s a new fishery, and it could be economically significant, but then, on the other hand, your coral-based reef fisheries might be impacted by the damage to the coral and the sponge habitats, and, then again, it’s not a really good idea for the management of protected species or for the protection of 40

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

essentially fish habitat and habitat areas of particular concern. This is not an all-inclusive list, and it’s just something that we started looking at. Trawling regulations across the jurisdictions, there you have it, and the EEZ allows for non-FMP species to be harvested with a trawl. For the recreational sector, it’s prohibited for Puerto Rico, as Regulation 7964 states, from 2010, that they are prohibited both for the commercial and the recreational use, and, in the Virgin Islands, as far as I’m concerned, and please correct me if this is not correct, but, at least in the regulations that we have read, it’s allowed to use trawls. There are regulations on certain other nets, but not specifically on trawls. We need the council input and direction to the staff regarding the determination of if a prohibition on trawling in all MPAs, established by the CFMC is necessary, or a prohibition on trawling in all of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ is necessary, and remember that Puerto Rico has -- The Puerto Rico EEZ, the St. Thomas/St. John EEZ, and St. Croix EEZ, or, if you believe that no action is necessary at this stage. Now, the question is how can that be done, whether it’s through a regulatory amendment, whether it’s through the, once implemented, island-based FMPs, and then when can this be done? MARCOS HANKE:

Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: You really do not have to be concerned how it would be done, and you can just do it, because the staff will take care of that, but the decision that we need is do you want to prohibit trawling in all MPAs, and all the reason for that was, when we were discussing, at the area-based management sub-committee of the CCC that I mentioned before, it was pointed out that Hawaii and Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John and St. Croix, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico and Hawaii, do not prohibit the use of trawling in the MPAs, and that created a loophole. In order for you to comply with the Thirty-by-Thirty, they recommend these two councils to close the use of trawling in the MPAs. The second question is do you want to prohibit the use of trawling in all the areas that we call the EEZ, and also to recommend the local governments to take action, if they consider that something that should be done. The first question is for the council, and do you want to prohibit trawling in all MPAs declared as such by the council, by the Secretary of Commerce, at the recommendation from the council? 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

MARCOS HANKE:

Carlos and then Tony.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I have a motion. Do you want to put it up there?

Should I go ahead with that?

MARCOS HANKE: In the meantime, Jocelyn is requesting for a turn to speak. Jocelyn. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you. The only thing that I was going to speak to was just the comments about prohibiting trawling as necessary for any qualification under the Thirty-by-Thirty goals. As we just heard in Sam’s presentation, they are still sort of developing the idea of what would qualify as a conservation area, and so I don’t know that it’s strictly necessary for trawling to be prohibited in the marine protected areas for those to qualify for coverage under Thirty-by-Thirty, and I think that’s still an open question, as to what conservation means, and so I wouldn’t necessarily base the decision on that rationale, but, if there’s other reasons to investigate prohibiting trawling, including to protect the habitat, and for protective reasons for the fish species, then certainly it makes sense to consider it. One other thing to note about the marine protected areas that we have, sort of the areas that are closed to the bottom-tending gears, those prohibitions spell out which gears you can’t use, and so it says things like traps and pots can’t be used in the Bajo de Sico area, and you could add trawls to that list as well, if that was something that you were concerned about there. If the purpose of those areas was to protect it from bottom gears, you could add that bottom tending trawl gear that Graciela had shown. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Jocelyn.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: the recording.)

Carlos.

(Mr. Farchette’s comments are not audible on

MARCOS HANKE: Let’s finish and put the motion up there, and start the discussion, and then we can follow-up on the process. CARLOS FARCHETTE: To prohibit trawling in the MPAs. Okay. I move to prohibit the use of trawl gear in the MPAs of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. It was seconded by Tony Blanchard. Any discussion? JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL: This is more discussion just on language, and you can guys can advise where we would be able to clean this up, but the motion is for specifically trawl gear, and I think that’s -- One of the things that we have to recognize is that the activity 42

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

of trawling is probably going to be -- If things progress, in terms of how we manage our sargassum influxes and issues around the territory, that it will be that gear that is being used, and so it’s not necessarily trawling gear for commercial fishing, but we’re stating here that it’s trawl gear inside the MPAs, the EEZ. You guys can advise best how we can create language that would allow permission, special permits or whatever, to be issued by the jurisdictions that would allow for that type of gear for this specific activity, particularly as it relates to removing or redirecting sargassum, just because those are the discussions that are taking place within the territories, in terms of management of the sargassum issue and how we get rid of it, and it will be more at-sea, rather than inside or nearshore, when it causes the most problems, and so I just wanted to put that on the record for -MARCOS HANKE: by Carlos?

Do you have a suggestion for the language presented

JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL: I think, if we say -- If it’s trawling, and perhaps it’s not necessarily trawl gear, but the intent for fishing purposes, is one way to do it, specifically, or if we leave it in -- If we have it somewhere that there are exemptions from this, and then the territories would be able to issue whatever the necessary permits are for it, but I just wanted to make sure that we don’t just have this outright prohibition on the gear type, because we know it’s used for other purposes. MARCOS HANKE: MIGUEL ROLON: recording.)

I have Miguel and Jack and Tony. (Mr.

Rolon’s

comment

is

not

audible

on

the

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I have a comment on that, but maybe I should let Jack go first. JACK MCGOVERN: I was going to say the exact same thing as Miguel, just bottom-tending gear, or bottom-trawl gear, just to make sure that it’s the trawl gear that is contacting the bottom. MARCOS HANKE:

Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: I understand what the Commissioner is saying, but I do believe that the sargassum was a part of the ecosystem until it hit the shoreline, and I thought that was how the regulations went. Now, as to trawling gear, whether it’s bottom gear is even worse, but, even if you trawl through the mid-water column, you will affect the same species that we are managing, to a certain 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

degree, and so I think that trawling gear should be removed, period. I understand what he’s saying about the sargassum, and I’m not sure how that is going to be dealt with, but you can manage the sargassum when it gets closer to shore, and you don’t have to be in the middle of the ocean to try to capture it, and you could do that a couple of hundred yards offshore, and so I understand what he saying about the trawling gear and that there is ways that you could possibly deal with the sargassum while it’s outside in the EEZ, but, to my understanding, as far as I know, the sargassum is a part of the ecosystem until it comes to shore, unless I am totally wrong. MARCOS HANKE:

We have Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: My next motion goes a little further, and so I do agree with the Commissioner in saying that we’ve got to figure out the language to use here that would allow us to use a barrier to deflect this sargassum issue that we’ve got, that the USVI is encountering, and also Puerto Rico, because I know that they’re suffering from that too, and so maybe, in my next motion, maybe we can figure out the type of language to put in there, like specifically for fishing. MARCOS HANKE:

We have Jocelyn requesting a turn to speak.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you. I just have a couple of points. The first one is just a point about process. The motion that Carlos had mentioned was about moving to prohibit something, and I would recommend that any motion is talking about developing an amendment, or developing an options paper, to explore prohibiting the trawling gear, just so it’s clear that we are going to make that decisions with documents and analysis, so it’s not that we’re deciding now whether or not to make a prohibition, but that we’re just starting that process of developing an amendment to explore that prohibition. Then, in terms of the language on any prohibition, the council’s authority is overfishing, as we’ve been talking about that, and so the area closures, for example, they say fishing with particular gears when particular areas are closed, and so the gear closure for the bottom gears is fishing with pots, traps, bottom longlines, gillnets, or trammel nets is prohibited year-round, and then it states in the particular closed areas. If one of the ways that we were looking at prohibiting this trawling gear was to expand that closure, then we would just add 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 trawling gear to that list, and that’s one of the potential options that we could explore in the document, and then that, again, makes it clear that it’s related to fishing with that gear, again because of the council’s authority over the fishing. One thing I will note though is that fishing, under the Magnuson Act, is pretty broadly defined, and so it includes activities that can reasonably be expected to result in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish, and so, on the sargassum question, to the extent that there are fish in the sargassum, it’s possible that trawling for sargassum could be reasonably expected to result in the catching, or taking, of fish. Then I would note the third point, which is the jurisdictions, and so the council is looking at management within federal waters, and so this wouldn’t affect any use of those gears in the territorial waters, and so those were just the points that I wanted to make, and I am happy to answer any questions. MARCOS HANKE: Jocelyn, do you have any recommended language for a motion to address what we are discussing and the record that have so far? JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: I would recommend something fairly broad, so that we’re not prescribing like how we want to accomplish any prohibition, because, for example, Graciela’s presentation had a couple of different options in there, and so maybe something like moving to explore developing an amendment to prohibit trawling gear in particular areas or throughout the Caribbean EEZ. I don’t know if we want to start immediately with developing an amendment, or if we want to say come back with an options paper, and I know that’s something that we’ve done before, where we just look at options, and then, from there, we decide to move forward with an amendment, but something along those lines of sort of that exploratory paper that comes up with different ideas for how to accomplish the goal here, and then, also, if we could state the goal, if it’s that we want to protect bottom areas from the bottomtrawling gear, or if we’re concerned about trawling mid-water as well, something that adds that as well, so that we kind of know which options to look at. MARCOS HANKE:

I have Tony that is waiting and then Miguel.

TONY BLANCHARD: Okay. Seeing that I seconded the motion, I would like to offer this, which I think is an easier fix to this problem, to Carlos, since he was the motion maker. Just put trawling gear, period, because what we’re really talking about is managing EEZ 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

waters. When it comes to territorial waters, then the territory can decide how they want to deal with that, and that’s my suggestion to Carlos. JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL: Even if you were going to allow the trawling, it’s still never going to be four, five, six miles out. It will be within the first mile, which is territorial waters, and so I think that, from a management perspective, we’ll be able to address that issue closer to shore, in terms of what it is what to -- So I don’t have any objections to the trawl gear as the basis of the motion. MARCOS HANKE: Okay. and go for a vote.

Then we’ll go back to the original language

JULIAN MAGRAS: Marcos, I had my hand up for a comment, and I’m sorry to interrupt. MIGUEL ROLON: The motion that is on the screen reads: Prohibit the use of trawling gear from within the MPAs of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. We have a motion made by Carlos Farchette and seconded by Tony Blanchard. After a long discussion, we are ready for a vote. Carlos. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes.

JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL:

Yes.

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Yes.

TONY BLANCHARD:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

Richard, did you want to --

(Not audible on the audio recording.) MARCOS HANKE:

Carlos, did you have a second part?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I think I’m going to confuse things even more. The motion is request staff to develop an options paper to prohibit the use of gillnets, trammel nets, trawl nets, driftnets, and purse seines for the harvesting of fish in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:

For reef fish and spiny lobster. 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

CARLOS FARCHETTE: To prohibit the use of gillnets, trammel nets, trawl nets, driftnets, and purse seines for the harvesting of fish in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. MARCOS HANKE: The motion was seconded by Tony Blanchard. start the discussion. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARCOS HANKE:

We will

A point of clarification.

Go ahead, Graciela.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: The “use” is one, and a point of clarification is fish, in the sense of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that includes -MARCOS HANKE:

We are open for discussion.

Go ahead, Carlos.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Okay. I know that it’s kind of a general statement there, but I know that we do not manage, or the council does not manage, HMC species. However, Marcos, being a member of the advisory panel to the HMS advisory group, I would also like to see if you can find a mechanism with the advisory panel to prohibit the use of these gear types of the harvesting of BAYS tunas, bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack. MARCOS HANKE: If you want to address that, we are missing purse seine nets there. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Purse seine is there.

MARCOS HANKE: I don’t see it. Okay. For sure, we can -- Depending on the results, we can inform and discuss further within the HMS office this -CARLOS FARCHETTE: BAYS tunas. MIGUEL ROLON: recording.)

My real concern is for the mahi, wahoo, and (Mr.

Rolon’s

comment

is

not

audible

on

the

MARCOS HANKE: Let’s pass the motion first, discuss the motion. Any further discussion on the motion? Graciela. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: Mr. Chair, I don’t know if you have Edward Schuster trying to speak. His hand is raised. MARCOS HANKE:

Edward. 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

EDWARD SCHUSTER: In terms of gillnet, there is one fishery that the fishermen use, that they fish in the EEZ for, is flyingfish, and they use a shallow surface -GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: EDWARD SCHUSTER:

Can you hear us?

I can hear you.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:

Can you hear me?

Hold on a second.

Okay.

EDWARD SCHUSTER: Okay. There is one type of fishery that uses the gillnets in the EEZ, and that’s when the fishermen are catching flyingfish, and it’s a surface gillnet, and it’s usually outside of the EEZ, or in the EEZ, sorry, for St. Croix. It’s a surface gillnet. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Eddie, but, like Miguel explained, this is an options paper, and all those considerations and detailed discussions are going to take place later on, and it can be addressed, but thank you for putting that on the record. Any further discussion before we go to the vote? MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, what is the timeframe for the options paper? MARCOS HANKE: Miguel is recommending to include a timeframe for the options paper, and just a recommendation, Miguel? MIGUEL ROLON: The recommendation is to ask the staff when this can be done, because the staff has a bunch of other stuff to do, and so, if you are happy to have it by the second part of 2022, fine. If you want it for January, it’s not going to happen. MARCOS HANKE: When does staff feel that it can do the work on the options paper to present to the council? MARIA LOPEZ: There is a couple of things that we can address with this prohibition, and one of them is the evaluation of the pelagics, and there is pelagic species that are new to management, for example the dolphin and the wahoo, and we have talked that there are regulations for gear prohibitions, or gear allowances, for these species that we have not set yet, because these are new species, and this could be something that could be addressed in this potential amendment, once we set an IPT and look into different things. There is a gear amendment, Part Number 2, that we are planning, and this might take a little longer, because it’s going to be very 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

comprehensive, and that was one option that staff has discussed, is to include this, given that it’s related to the gear types included in that amendment. However, if the council wants to give priority to this, then we can develop an amendment, a separate amendment, that will deal with all these questions and different things. Right now, we have several items on the agenda, and I cannot say exactly how long it will take to create this, but I think the council will need to decide what is the priority for this, versus other actions that we have. Maybe, at the end of the meeting, once we go through all of the other actions that we have to discuss, and you guys decide what you want to move forward with or not, maybe we can start prioritizing. Like, for example, if you want it for 2023, because 2022 is already here, but, I mean, everything can be done as long as we have a list of what the council would expect to do first. MARCOS HANKE: Maria, a question to you. If you change “options paper” there in the motion, changing the language, and include the work that you already mentioned that is in place, that is going to take place, as another route to do this, which change in the language will address what you are saying that we’re going to get to the same result? MARIA LOPEZ: Let me see if I get it right. What you’re saying is, instead of doing a separate options paper, just include this as part of the Gear Amendment Number 2? MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

MARIA LOPEZ: We will have to change -- I assume we will have to change the motion. MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Graciela.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: -- implemented yet and so, yes, you can put it into the amendment that is happening now, but that will push everything back, in terms of changing the buoy gear amendment that is to come in sooner rather than later, and so that’s one thing. Number two is I was going to ask whether the possibility of going straight through a total prohibition of the trawls, which are the main issue and which are directly related to Executive Order 14008, because of its impact to the benthic habitat, and it doesn’t have precedence over everything else, and so those are the two issues that I have. 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

MIGUEL ROLON: What Maria is saying is that they already have things in the mill, and we need to prioritize. If you want this options paper let’s say by July, it won’t happen, and so, if the council considers that this something that can wait, because you need to implement the island-based FMPs first, and then let the staff organize it themselves, and they don’t have to give you a date now, but we would like to have the options paper at least before the first half of 2023. That way, you will see how things go. What Graciela is saying, I personally agree with her, because the trawling is a big issue now, but the trawling within the MPAs, and I am talking about the bottom trawl, and so you already have a motion for that, and you can amend it. Jack. JACK MCGOVERN: With the previous motion, and with the MPAs and the trawling, I think we need a document for that, and we need some sort of amendment, so that we can get those regulations in place, and we just can’t prohibit it, and so I don’t think we did that, did we? Did we come up with any options paper for that? MIGUEL ROLON: I believe that, for that, the idea was to include everything for the gear that is already prohibited in the MPAs, and Jocelyn said that you have the bottom trawls and the gear that you had prohibited, and so, following Jack’s question, Maria, what Jack is saying, and, for the prohibition of the trawling gear, we can do that just by amending the document that has the prohibition of the bottom-tending gear in the MPAs, and just add the bottom trawl prohibitions? MARIA LOPEZ: We have to have an amendment, and what we can do is -- We will have to do an amendment to the FMP, so that it can be implemented and so that we prohibit that for everything, and I would assume that one of the options would be to include the MPAs, if we need to. Like, if you just want to consider this trawling gear prohibition on the MPAs, that will be an action by itself. If you want to prohibit it everywhere, that will include the MPAs, and so those are -- To me, that will be two options that we could include in an options paper. The question is, and I am going to clarify this, but, right now, we have a gear amendment, and Gear Amendment Number 1 is the buoy gear amendment that is ready for final action today. We think that, if you guys want to move forward with that one, then we shouldn’t add anything else to it, right? There is a Gear Amendment Number 2, which is going to be in the 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

works soon, and this is the one that you all have been asking for for a gear inventory, that we go through all the islands and we look at all the gears that are used, and we document that, and then we bring that to the council, and the council can decide if there needs to be any modifications on the gears that are allowed to be used by the different fisheries in the different islands. That amendment is going to take a little time, because there’s a lot of work on that one, because you have seen -- There hasn’t been a gear inventory since the late 1980s, and so it’s going to take a while. The trawling, this list of gear could be included in this amendment, but, if there is an urgency to get this done, we can do it as a separate action, and, as a separate action, we can treat it as an amendment to all of the plans, like a generic amendment, to do whatever prohibition you want, if it’s on the whole EEZ, if it’s in the MPAs, et cetera, but that depends on the urgency. What I was saying about the priorities is because there are other amendments in the works, and, as a reminder, as Graciela said, the island-based FMPs are still not implemented. However, we already have a lot of work done, so that, when the island-based FMPs are in place, we can proceed with those proposed rules and get everything in place, and so maybe I would recommend to the council, if that’s the way we want to go, to maybe not set a date right now, but you can task staff to begin working on a document, and, as soon as staff can have that ready, then we will be able to present it to the council, just related to that trawling gear, and I don’t know, Jack, if you want to add anything else to that. Thank you. JACK MCGOVERN: recording.)

(Dr. McGovern’s comments are not audible on the

MIGUEL ROLON: Going back to Maria’s comments, we can lead instruct the staff to modify the gear list that she is talking about and then include the trawling gear. The sky will not fall if we do not prohibit this in the next two years, because I doubt very much that people will come here with trawls and trawl gear, but the concern that we have, and this trawl mostly is going to happen within the area of jurisdiction of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. You don’t trawl in the EEZ for -- There is not many places in the EEZ to trawl and the bottom to trawl and use this gear, and so, if the record is that you all agree, then we allow the staff to continue the work that they are putting together and include the 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

prohibition of the trawling in the list of the gears that Maria proposed, and it will go along with the work that they are doing, and you don’t have to MARCOS HANKE: I think we have built a record that the council’s intention is to follow the best path to prohibit the trawling gear and to protect our bottom and all the adverse effects that we identify already. Graciela. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: This is another issue that we need to deal with, and that is that, in order to conduct an inventory of the fishing gear, there has to be a funding source for that project to take off the ground, because it would require to go around Puerto Rico, around St. Thomas/St. John, around St. Croix, figuring out what are the gears that the fishermen are using now and how they have changed, because the last inventory that was conducted, and this is different from the fishermen census, which accounts for X number of hook and lines and things like that, but it’s to actually figure out how they are fishing for different things now. This includes the plastic traps and things that Nelson and Julian were speaking of this morning, and so, in order to conduct that, and in order to have that gear amendment, which we were hoping it would be Number 2, we need to identify the people and the funding for that specific project. MIGUEL ROLON: That is a doable project, and Graciela and I can sit down with the Chair, and we can identify who is going to do it and when, and then we can even hire graduate students, one in each area, to conduct that study, and then Graciela and Maria can take a look at it and put together a questionnaire of what it is that Maria needs and how can we meet that information, and Graciela and Maria can -- I am sure that they can put together the document that we need to collect the information. Then Graciela and I can identify the time and the persons who are going to do it, and the budget will be between Angie and myself. MARCOS HANKE: If I understand correctly, that motion is not necessary anymore, correct? GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: I mean, we have the gears that Miguel has talked about, and you need to tell staff that we are going to work on this. MARCOS HANKE:

Maria.

MARIA LOPEZ: I think what we can do -- You don’t have to remove that, how about if staff works on an options paper just for this, 52

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

and then, when we bring that options paper, to decide if you want to put it in an amendment or if you want to include it in -- I don’t think this is going to take a long time to put together, probably, because there is no trawling. However, the scope may be a little limited in the options paper, because we already talked about you have mahi, and we have the pelagics, and this is not just the trawls, but this is trammel nets, and this is gillnets, and so this may be a little more -Maybe we can put together something more simple, so that we have an idea of what we’re dealing with, kind of what we’re going to do today with the red hind paper, just kind of to have an idea of what we’re dealing with, and then the council can give us more guidance as to, depending on the time that it will need, the staff resources, et cetera, as to work to move forward with it, and so let us consult, council staff and our branch staff, and then see if we can have something by August, at least. I am not making a compromise right now, but I will get back to you on that. MARCOS HANKE:

Graciela.

GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: In addition to that, we need the Science Center to be involved in the data that are available to-date, and so that needs to be brought into their schedule. MIGUEL ROLON: I think we have enough of a record, and so just approve the motion and then allow the staff to work on it, and they will have their own schedule, and they will provide an update in 2022 of this activity that they are going to undertake. Remember that the top priority is the implementation of the islandbased FMPs, and Maria has mentioned that several times, and so, if you approve that, and move forward, and then let staff work it out. MARCOS HANKE:

Carlos, let’s vote on the motion.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE: Actually, let’s do this. Let’s do all in favor, say aye; any opposition. Hearing none, the motion carries. Next item on the agenda. The next item on the agenda is the Update on Progress for Life History of Shallow-Water Reef Fishes with Virginia Shervette. UPDATE ON PROGRESS FOR LIFE HISTORY OF SHALLOW-WATER REEF FISHES VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: I will start out by saying thank you so much for allowing us the opportunity to present you guys with an update 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

on the work that we’ve been doing since 2013. Again, thank you so much to everyone for the opportunity to update you on the work that we’ve been doing. It's a massive collaborative effort to be able to get the life history information, and the whole point of our efforts in doing this research are very focused towards providing life history data for stock assessment purposes, and so what we’ve essentially done is combined information from the original two presentations that we were going to give, so that we could just do a brief presentation and then give people time, plenty of time, to ask any questions or to engage in discussion, and so I am going to try to get through these relatively quickly, and hopefully I will succeed, but thanks, again, and, again, this is just an incredible collaborative effort, and it takes a village to get any of this work done. Just a reminder that, last December, we gave you guys a summary presentation of our -- Of the work that we had done up to that point, and that included a summary of our novel approach to age validation in data-poor U.S. Caribbean reef fishes, and these efforts, so far, have resulted in establishing age estimation protocols to validate through the validation process using bomb radiocarbon for twenty species so far, and then some of the species are included right here, in this visual over here, and this is the now published North Caribbean Reference Decline Series for bomb radiocarbon that we are able to use, that we developed and are able to use, for doing this validation work. Then just a reminder that age is absolutely a fundamental -- It provides fundamental information in estimating the life history parameters that are often then used in the stock assessment process, and accurate age data is required, essentially, to estimate information about growth, longevity, and mortality, and, again, those are major inputs as part of the stock assessment process, and so a lot of what I am going to present today, and a lot of the work that we do, really is focused on obtaining these accurate age estimates for the fish population and then the associated information for the samples on reproductive biology as well. This is just a visual summary, to show you all the species that our massive collaboration is currently trying to gather information on, and so we organized this by platform, management platform, and these are just the top-landed reef fishes that we’re currently investigating for reproductive biology, population demographics growth, and we’re also doing population connectivity and stock structure work. 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

I wanted to start what we present today in the context of upcoming SEDAR assessments, and so planned assessments, and so this is the most recent SEDAR calendar that is available on the web, and it was updated after the October 2021 meeting, and so, for the Caribbean, we’re going to start -- Now we have these three management platforms, and so we’ve expanded out from really having just one column to essentially three columns, one for each of the management platforms. Here, I have just summarized, and I am going to get back to this slide at the end of the presentation, that, currently, we’re undergoing our assessment for queen triggerfish, and then planned, and approved, for 2022 and 2023, and I’m sure Kevin is going to go into some detail about this, with much greater emphasis in his presentation after ours, and so, that 2022 and 2023, we’re on the calendar for yellowtail snapper being assessed for Puerto Rico, and then also for the St. Thomas/St. John platforms, and, for St. Croix, it’s stoplight parrotfish. In 2024, it’s proposed right now to have spiny lobster undergo an assessment for each of the platforms, and then, in 2025, tentatively, hogfish is listed, but there wasn’t an indication, at this point, or an understanding, at this point, as far as for which platform, and that was just a proposed, and Kevin can explain this way better than I can, and so I’m just going to say that hogfish is on there, but it’s not clear exactly for what platform. First, I just wanted to start out with queen triggerfish, because, last year, we presented you our initial findings on queen triggerfish, and we’ve started the assessment process, and hopefully it’s going to wrap up in the near future, and I just wanted to update you on what we have found since the last time we talked to you. We did the validation work, and we used otoliths. Typically, the species, triggerfish species, they use the dorsal spine to estimate age, but it’s not a good structure for that, and so we’ve proven, for queen triggerfish, that spines do not provide accurate age estimates, and otoliths do, and we have validate our otolith age estimation method, through the radiocarbon work that we’re doing, and we have documented an overall longevity for this species of up to forty years, and that’s from some samples that we recently got from North Carolina. The older they get, the more like this they look, the otoliths, and these are some beautiful ones that were from the U.S. Caribbean samples that we have, but the maximum age we’ve documented so far in Caribbean waters is twenty-three years, and this is just a 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

depiction of, if you used spine-based ages, you would get a very different understanding of growth parameters, versus when we use the now validated method with otoliths, and that’s just to emphasize the importance of this work. We have here just a summary of what our overall findings are so far for queen triggerfish, and so we wanted to present to everyone what we have found from our efforts in the context of what Stevens et al., which was a 2019 publication that came out, where they basically synthesized life history information for commerciallyexploited reef fishes for Florida and the U.S. Caribbean, and they basically attempted to identify a useful set of life history parameters for each species. Sometimes we get a little concerned, me and my team get a little bit concerned, when individuals, other scientists, mention that, oh, well, if we don’t have this data for the Caribbean, we can just substitute data from Florida, and so one of the things that I want to emphasize with all of the stuff that I present today is how what we found so far compares to what is in the literature for other regions. Stevens has made that very simple for us, by providing this paper with this summary information, and so we’re going to start with queen triggerfish, and you can see that I’ve got it so that we’ll go through all the species that I am just going to briefly cover today, with the same platform. Stevens et al. reported a maximum age for queen triggerfish of fourteen, and we have updated that, and we now that we get a maximum age of at least twenty-three years in the Caribbean. Most of our samples are fishery-dependent, and there are probably some gear limitations related to the maximum size of fish that we have so far, and the stock assessment is going on right now, and so the gaps that we’ve identified in our life history data are something that we will have to consider for a future assessment, but we suspect, just based on the maximum size of our samples and the maximum size that has been reported in the TIP data, and the maximum size that we actually see with hook-and-line gear offshore of North Carolina, that it is very possible that the queen triggerfish in the Caribbean exceed that twenty-three-year maximum age, but, again, that’s going to take some more sampling effort, some more fishery-independent, so we can get past some gear limitations that traps with funnel sizes would create in trying to get much bigger fish. Here, we have reported for you, in comparison, our L infinity value from our samples, the growth coefficient value, and that’s the T0, 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

which is part of the von Bertalanffy growth function, and then, over here, for maturity, Lm represents 50 percent maturity, length at 50 maturity, and then Am represents age at 50 percent maturity. Again, we have updated, doubled, at least, our current understanding of maximum age for the Caribbean, and probably tripled for the species, and our L infinity value, for the population as a whole, is different, and it’s a little bit smaller than what is even reported from the literature, which was based on spine ages from Brazil. We also have looked at males versus females and found sexually dimorphemic growth. Males tend to be larger at the same age as the females, and those are significant differences. As far as K goes, the growth rate seems to be a little bit higher from what was reported in Steven synthesized assessment, and then we have also updated what the values are for the size at 50 percent maturity and then also the age at 50 percent maturity, and, again, they’re different. Using data from other regions for queen triggerfish is not necessarily a good idea. Next, we wanted to update you on our stoplight parrotfish work, because stoplight parrotfish is going to be the focus of a future assessment for St. Croix, and so, for stoplight parrotfish, we have validated their maximum age so far at seventeen. With the genomics work that we’re doing, our preliminary parrotfish work indicates that there is no major population structure present for the U.S. Caribbean. We are updating this evaluation of genomic population structure with samples from Florida that a NOAA study is providing us with access to the tissue, so that we can see those, but, so far, for any of the parrotfish species that we’ve looked at, we’re not finding evidence that there are discrete populations for each of the island management platforms, and it’s all one big population. For our St. Croix samples, and so you can see down here that we’ve got some questions for the SSC, because this assessment is not going to be for another year, and so we -- It will be within the next year that we’ll probably get started, but we do want to consult with the SSC on future sample collections, prior to the assessment, to ensure that the data that we can provide on life history is the most useful that it can be, and part of our questions are sort of related to that our samples are mainly fisherydependent, and, in St. Croix, the majority of our stoplight samples have been caught from spearfishing efforts, and those spearfishing efforts are in depths typically less than twenty-five meters. 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

We have fishery-dependent samples also from St. Thomas/St. John and Puerto Rico, and so we have a combined total, for our life history work, of almost 2,000 samples, but, just for St. Croix, we’re limited to the 790 fish that we have so far, and then the gaps that we’ve identified essentially are, if data exclusively from St. Croix is utilized for the assessment, then we think we need to get some more fishery-independent samples that include juveniles, and so those smaller fishes, and then fish from deeper sites, where deeper sites are typically speared, so that we can get a full picture of what fish are actually out there around St. Croix and not necessarily just what fish are caught and landed as part of the fishery. Here is our comparison with stoplight parrotfish in the Stevens synthesis, and you can see that we have essentially doubled our understanding of longevity, and we have found L infinity that’s a bit smaller than information that other studies provide, and we’ve also found that the growth rate is about half of what was previously understood, and this might relate just to some inaccuracies with age estimates from other studies, and we’re not sure, because we validated our ageing process. Then we’ve updated information, and, clearly, we have added -- Now we have an understanding of the age at 50 percent maturity, and then these guys start maturing at a relatively small size, and so what we have found, from our samples, is that, across the whole Caribbean, the U.S. Caribbean, the juveniles -- It’s possible that this number didn’t necessarily have very many juveniles, but we’ve found a much smaller size at 50 percent maturity than previously reported. Next, we have yellowtail snapper, and yellowtail snapper is currently scheduled to be assessed for St. Thomas/St. John, and then also for Puerto Rico, at the same time that the stoplight parrotfish is assessed for St. Croix. As far as yellowtail snapper go, we have quite an extensive set for this species, but most of our samples are from a collaboration in sharing data with SEAMAP, SEAMAP-C efforts for Puerto Rico. Probably about half of these samples are from SEAMAP, and the other half are from some fishery-independent sampling that we’ve done in the past couple of years, but, in preparation for the stock assessment, and, again, we would love to consult with the SSC on this, for fishery-dependent samples in Puerto Rico, we just have 129, and so we think it would be important to obtain more. We also need to get larger fish, and we are -- You can see, over here, where our L infinity sort of tops out with this growth curve 58

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

compared to other regions, because they seem to have more larger fish, samples, than we have in our current sample collections, and this growth curve will probably change if we’re able to enhance the sampling for some representative large fish, and then it would be great to get some juveniles, some small, immature fish, as well to add. Now, it’s also scheduled to be assessed for St. Thomas/St. John, and our fishery-dependent collections are a little bit more extensive there, but, as you can see, our overall total collections only include eleven fishery-independent samples, and so, for both of those, for us to provide the most comprehensive and useful dataset for the assessment, we would need to obtain more samples. We have a proposal in, currently, for CRP, to try to fill these needs, but it would be in a very short period of time, and we would have to do all the sampling next year, since the assessment will follow-up shortly after that, and so sampling needs, and definitely we need more samples, we need more samples, but I’m always going to probably feel like we need more samples, just to be able to provide the most comprehensive dataset. Here we are with our comparison for what was in the literature, and so Stevens et al. reported a maximum age of twenty-eight years, which came from some work I think in Florida. So far, we have documented twenty-six years as the maximum age for the Caribbean, and so that’s really close. I think, with larger samples, we could possibly see if that increases a little bit, and then we modeled our data -- We tried to model our data using a von Bertalanffy growth function in a similar way to what was reported for Stevens synthesis, and so we presented this no juveniles with total length, but we mainly use -- We include juveniles in our growth model, and we report things in fork length, and you can look here, and, if we don’t have juveniles included in the growth curve parameter estimates, you end up with these somewhat not biologically-relevant T0 values, and so, by including juveniles, it definitely brings down our L infinity value, but it provides a more realistic estimate for size at age-zero, essentially. Then, like I said, this is a collaborative effort with ongoing work being done by DNER in Puerto Rico, and so I didn’t have the maturity estimates to report yet, because we’re trying to make sure we nail that down in the most accurate way possible, but we will have those, and we’ll be able to update this previous information. 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

Next, we have hogfish, and hogfish -- We’re not 100 percent sure, and hopefully Kevin will definitely clue us in on a little bit more, but we have hogfish collections from both Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John. We were funded to mainly focus, in the past, on hogfish from Puerto Rico fishery-dependent efforts, but we have been able to get some from St. Thomas/St. John, with the help of Julian and some other fisheries in St. Thomas/St. John. Here are our results, and we actually have a report on this that I can share with anyone who is interested, because it was part of a CRP grant that we had, and we submitted the final report, and our sample numbers are summarized here, and the USVI really just means St. Thomas/St. John. If you asked me where our gaps are, I would tell you, once again, that we need small fish, and we need really, really big fish, because, right now, our size has maxed out essentially a little bit smaller than what maximum size has been reported for other areas, and we think it’s related to just -- We just need to do more sampling across a longer period of time, just to make sure we’re getting those larger fish. Here, you can see that I did do a comparison between our St. Thomas samples and the growth in Puerto Rico, and utilizing the data from both of those, but anchoring where T0 falls, based on other literature, and the growth curves are very similar, but, depending on how NMFS decides that they want to do these, with the SSC and the council, how they want to utilize the data on life history, they might have to separate out, and so that’s why we kept those separate, and this is the combined growth curve. Then this is how our data compares to other studies that reported on growth from Florida, and you see differences. Once again, just to hit home that point that our results from the Caribbean show consistently, for all these species, that there is differences in growth and that applying Florida data to our populations isn’t necessarily a good idea, and so this is just a summary of how we compare to what was in the Stevens synthesis. Our max age is actually really close, and I think, again, if we have the opportunity to get some larger fish, to go out and target larger fish, maybe through working with recreational fishers, then that would be awesome, and we could probably have an opportunity to see if this is actually our maximum age for the Caribbean or not. Then, for our growth parameters, you can see, right now at least, they are showing up very different to what has been reported from 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

the Florida literature, and we also are seeing differences in our maturity estimates. Those are the ones that are currently on the calendar, or are being considered, and I also wanted to hit home on some of the deepwater snapper species that we’ve been working hard to get information on that are also part of the important -- They’re considered part of the top species that are landed, and I wanted to emphasize, initially, with silk snapper -- For Puerto Rico, silk snapper is the most landed fish, by pounds. It has been for many, many years now, and we have tried to get NOAA funding, federal funding, to support our life history work on silk snapper, and, up to this point, we have not been successful. We will keep trying, but, to do the silk snapper life history work, this species is going to have to be assessed, right, and it’s kind of the top species for Puerto Rico, and it’s going to be a priority, and it’s going to be on the calendar at some point after 2025, and we’re getting as much data as we can without having federal funding and opportunistically trying to sample, but it’s going to take federal funding to be able to really do a large enough study, and we’re going to try to figure out how to get that started sooner rather than later, so that we can get an expansive dataset that’s not limited to just one or two years before an assessment. I am going to show you, in a second, the results from the work that we’ve been doing on queen snapper, because it’s the thirdtop species for Puerto Rico, and so it’s an important species, and it used to be on the schedule, prior to this October update for SEDAR, and so it’s still an important species, and it will probably be added back to the schedule for some time after 2025, or in the future, and then blackfin is one that we see as an important fish, deepwater snapper species, that contributes to landings across all three islands, and so it’s another one that we’ve really just been working hard, in collaboration with fishers, to get samples for and just get some preliminary data on. Again, it’s another species where we’re trying to get federal funding to do an extensive study, but we haven’t been successful up to this point, and so we’re doing whatever we can. For queen snapper Puerto Rico, we’ve been working on this 2013, and, in general, we’ve been working on all these species starting in 2013. For our queen snapper life history research, it has been a major collaborative effort in obtaining and processing samples. It was included, and we shared our samples with Kate Overly from NOAA, who included samples from our collection efforts and our age 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

validation efforts as part of her thesis, and she defended it and did an excellent job, and this graph is actually one of the graphs that she created for her thesis, and it shows the 336 samples that we have aged from our fishery-dependent sampling efforts, combined with some fishery-independent samples that we got from Smith and Ault’s work from 2017 to 2018, and also combined with some fisheryindependent samples that Kate has obtained as part of her study that is focused on the video habitat work that she is doing in deep waters. Right here, just as an example of one of the older fish that we have aged, I received funding from my university to pay for doing this age validation work on queen snapper. Because of the nature of the otoliths, and they’re teeny-tiny, and so we had to go with a non-traditional method of using eyes, and using cores, to do this validation work, and so, for the samples, these fisherydependent samples, we, Jesus, Wilson, and then Stacy Williams as well, have provided us with samples from the study that the council funded for work that they’re doing on diet. Those samples combined, we were saving the eyes from those, and we used the eyes from those samples to do the validation work, the estimation validation work, and then Kate has included that in her thesis that summarizes age, growth, and mortality results from all these combined samples, but I just want to emphasize that this is a huge collaborative effort, and it is ongoing. We have additional samples that we’ve been collecting that we are working up right now from additional samples to have an even more expanded dataset that will be available for stock assessment purposes, and then we have not received money from NOAA to do our fishery-dependent collections. Stacy did age, growth, and reproductive biology work, and we tried to get federal funding for this, but, just like with a lot of these species, we just haven’t been successful yet, and we will continue to try, and so the majority of these fishery-dependent samples have been samples that I have personally spent my money to purchase, and we’ve also got a few that are from Stacy Williams and Diana’s collections that the council did fund to get those samples for the diet work, but, again, just to show our dedication to these efforts, if we don’t have the federal funding, we are cobbling together what we can find, just to get at these answers. I just want to emphasize that there was a recent article from NOAA news media that was a bit inaccurate in depicting results from some of these efforts, and it kind of mixed and muddled with some of the work that Kate has been doing that was funded by NOAA for 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

the video work, and so I just want to emphasize that NOAA has not funded this life history work. We would love to get a grant, and we’re trying to, but these efforts are basically us dedicating our unpaid time, our personal funds, and then I did get a small grant from the University of South Carolina, the Office of Research, to actually pay for the radiocarbon analysis for the age validation work, and so that’s what is going on with queen snapper. It's not yet on the assessment schedule, but, from the work that we have been doing, in collaboration with Kate at NMFS, and what is contained in her thesis that she just defended, and she also included data from the Gulf of Mexico population, just for comparison, and then, here, we have it kind of lined up with what Stevens had synthesized from the literature, and this is just to emphasize, again, how our efforts, although right now, from my team, they are not funded by NOAA, what we’ve been able to achieve without that federal funding, and hopefully we could achieve even more. For example, we really, really need to get at answering these maturity blanks here, and that’s definitely going to take some very targeted, specific funding that we have designed, and we have proposed, and we’re trying to get funding for, but, anyway, that’s going to take some more work, but, as you can see, maximum age -Previously, there was a maximum age estimate for this species of I think it was eight years, based on some length frequency work, but we have now validated maximum age for the Caribbean at fortyfive. Our growth parameter, our L infinity, for the Caribbean, is 994, compared to what Stevens synthesized from the literature, and one of the big things that we’ve found that’s different, and it’s pretty consistent between Puerto Rico and the Gulf of Mexico, is that the growth rate for this species is an order of magnitude less than was previously understood through length frequency analysis, and that’s a really big finding and something that, again, shows that using data from other areas, or synthesized from the literature, for stock assessment parameters, is not necessarily ideal. Just to summarize for you, we have our -MARCOS HANKE: the --

Virginia, excuse me.

We need to speed up, because

VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: I am almost done. I was just going to finish with this, which is just our acknowledgements, and I will just leave this slide up, so that everybody can read it, in case you 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

have questions. MARCOS HANKE: Are there questions from any council member about the presentation, and then I have a comment after. Julian. JULIAN MAGRAS: recording.)

(Mr. Magras’s comment is not audible on the

VIRGINIA SHERVETTE:

I am sorry to interrupt, but I can’t hear.

JULIAN MAGRAS: More than willing to help you in those areas, and just send me the quantity of large and small fish that you need, and when you need them for, and I will start right away to work on collecting those species for you, so we can finish the assessment. I know how important it is, and me and my team is always willing to help and get you all that you need, but, again, thank you for all the hard work that you’ve been doing in the Caribbean, and I look forward to continue working with you. Thank you. VIRGINIA SHERVETTE: Thank you, Julian, and I really cannot emphasize enough how collaborative this effort is and how none of this could be possible without people like Julian and other fishers that have helped us out tremendously and all of our partners throughout the Caribbean who just -- We couldn’t do this without you, and it’s just incredible. It’s an incredible group of people to work with, and so thank you to everybody, and thank you, Julian. Thank you for stating that on the record, but you are a named collaborator on our proposals and everything too, and we just can’t thank you enough. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Virginia. I show my full support, and I was able to collaborate and see the amount of time that you put to create the bridges for assistance, and you put a lot of time to be effective in the Caribbean, and that’s something that I never saw before, and just keep working hard, and we hope we can keep working to get the best data available for managing. Thank you very much. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, before the break, you heard that Virginia identified the need for some studies, the need to continue, especially for the silk snapper and others. The question here is whether the council would like to continue that work, and we need to go to the bidding process, but, as you know, when you go above $5,000 process, you need to have a bidding process for any study that you want to make. Dr. Virginia Shervette came to the council with a proposal, and 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

you approved it, and that’s what she is working on, and it was recommended by the St. Thomas fishers, and so the question to you is do you want to continue this, and can we do it as a follow-up in the future, and where we can identify the monies, and then we can continue the work with her. I believe that the SSC has talked, several times, about the need for especially biological parameters for the species in the management units, and Dr. Shervette’s study, to me, is one of the best ever done, as we have seen here. The other thing is that the Southeast Fisheries Science Center cannot continue doing basic studies, and so we need to find other avenues to get these basic studies, and they will continue work, and they will bless the best available information for the SSC to consider, but this is an opportunity here for you all to take a five-minute break to see what is the wish of the council. If you want to continue this, if that is yes, then Graciela and I have to talk with Virginia and put together kind of a schedule of how this can be done and identify those species that are a top priority for the council to get the biological parameters and the information that we need. MARCOS HANKE:

Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: I think the council should support that. I think the council should support Virginia Shervette with these studies, because of the good job that I think she’s doing, and, basically, the results that we’re getting. MARCOS HANKE: Carlos.

Would any other council member like to talk?

CARLOS FARCHETTE: I agree with Tony, and I also believe that life history information is very important for the SSC to have. MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead, Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: In that case, we would appreciate to have a motion by the council for the staff to continue the work with Dr. Shervette and identify funding and resources for these studies. Remember that she can -- The council can provide seed money or whatever to continue that study, but I would like to see that motion, because this is directing the staff to work with Dr. Shervette to continue the work she’s doing for the council, as opposed to having a proposal and then advertise the proposal and see who can do it. MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

Carlos, can you make the motion? 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

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Sure, but, since Tony is the one that started it up, I don’t know if Tony wants the privilege of having that motion, and I will second it. TONY BLANCHARD:

Go ahead.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: The motion would be to have the council -- How should I word this? That will work. MIGUEL ROLON: The motion will be to instruct the staff to look for alternatives to continue the work of Dr. Virginia Shervette and identify the possible funding for those projects. CARLOS FARCHETTE: TONY BLANCHARD:

So moved. Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Is there discussion? Would anybody like to make a comment? Hearing none, let’s go to a vote. Carlos. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes.

JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL:

Yes.

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Yes.

TONY BLANCHARD:

Yes.

JACK MCGOVERN:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

All in favor.

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE: I am informing the group that, before the break, we have two presentations that we are going to move to tomorrow, which is the timing for the red hind closure and the discussion of sargassum issues, and that is going to be moved to tomorrow, due to the schedule problems that we have today and the technical problems that we had earlier in the meeting. We’re going to have a five-minute break. MIGUEL ROLON: For the record, in the previous vote, Vanessa Ramirez voted yes. MARCOS HANKE: I am sorry that I didn’t state it, but I heard her say yes. Thank you for the clarification. Maria. 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

MARIA LOPEZ: I will be happy to give the buoy gear presentation tomorrow, and then you can leave the discussion of the sargassum for today, given that we have resources from NMFS that are already scheduled for this afternoon, if that’s possible. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, we can do that. We have to stop at 4:30, and we have a hard stop at 4:30, and you are saying that -- One second. After the break, a five-minute break now, and then we’re going to do the sargassum after the break. I will see you guys in five minutes. (Whereupon a brief recess was taken.) MARCOS HANKE: We are starting the meeting. Thank you very much, everyone. The next presentation is sargassum EFH. DISCUSSION OF SARGASSUM ISSUES AND ROLE AS ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT DAVID DALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, council members, and staff, for having me present to you today. My name is David Dale, and I am the Southeast Region’s Essential Fish Habitat Coordinator. I work in the Habitat Conservation Division, and so, today, I would like to briefly introduce the division, since we don’t get before the fishery management councils as often as the Sustainable Fisheries Division and the Protected Resources Division, and then we’ll talk about the role of sargassum as essential fish habitat and what that means, and we’ll have some time for questions in the end. Unlike the Sustainable Fisheries Division and Protected Resources Divisions at the National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region, which most divisions have most of its workforce located at the Regional Office in St. Petersburg, the Habitat Conservation Division is located across eight locations scattered throughout the Southeast Region’s area of responsibility. Branches within the Habitat Conservation Division are aligned with the areas of responsibility of the three fishery management councils in the Southeast. We have a Gulf of Mexico branch, and then the South Atlantic and the Caribbean branch are both managed jointly out of Charleston. Ideally, we would like to have staff within about four hours of driving distance, to directly interact with our customers, who are mostly federal regulatory agencies, and the regulated public, and we currently have a few gaps in that staffing arrangement, which includes south Texas, the Florida Panhandle, and northeast Florida. 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

For the Caribbean, we have staff located in Puerto Rico, and, once the pandemic situation is over, we hope to have staff located in the Virgin Islands. Here, you see our current organizational chart, combining fulltime and contract positions, and we currently have twenty-three scientific and technical staff and three administrative positions, shown in the locations across the bottom. Virginia Fay, or Ginny Fay, is currently the Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, and she is backfilling Andy Strelcheck’s old position as Deputy, and we’re looking forward to having her back when a permanent fill is made for the Deputy, hopefully early next year. In the meantime, we’ve got Pace Wilbur is currently acting as our Assistant Regional Administrator for the Habitat Conservation Division, and Jocelyn Karazsia is acting as the chief of the Atlantic Branch. As far as our staff in the Caribbean, many of you are sure to know Jose Rivera, and I see that he’s been on the call, and we have recently hired Dinorah Chacin, who will work with the Coral Reef Conservation Program in the U.S. Caribbean, and, again, when the pandemic is over, we will have her located in St. Croix, and I know that she is on the call today as well. What does the Habitat Conservation do? We kind of focus our efforts in three main areas of habitat conservation, habitat restoration, and partnership. Habitat Conservation, this is where we provide consultation services, and our biggest customer is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, both their regulatory and civil works program. The regulatory program, they permit coastal development projects, such as docks and piers and residential and commercial development, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The authorities we use to consult with them include the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and our topic today, the Essential Fish Habitat provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The corps civil work program is also a major customer of ours, and this is largely ports and navigation channels and flood control and coastal protection projects. The primary authorities we use there are NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, but also Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and, of course, the essential fish habitat in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Other customers in our habitat conservation role include the U.S. Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and those two entities regulate navigation interests and the oil and gas sector. 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

Another one of our primary focus areas is habitat restoration, and a lot of effort is put into the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, which combats wetland losses in Louisiana, and so, if you recall, in our previous slide, our Louisiana office has the largest staff, and that’s largely because of our efforts put forth there. We also prioritize fish passage at dams, through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s relicensing of hydropower facilities, and that is done under the Federal Power Act. We put a lot of effort there, because these relicensing opportunities come around about only once every twenty to fifty years in a project’s timeframe, and so it’s important for us to act when we have the opportunity to restore fish passage across these barriers, and then our final focus area is habitat partnerships. We focus on those partnerships with habitat conservation and restoration goals that provide the proverbial biggest bang for the buck, since we generally cannot bring any funds to the table. Examples of these types of programs in the Caribbean include the San Juan Bay Estuary Program, which is run by the Environmental Protection Agency, and, of course, NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program, and so that’s just a little rundown of the Habitat Conservation Division, but, today, I really want to focus our discussion on essential fish habitat and sargassum and what that means. Congress gave us the following definition of essential fish habitat in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Amendment in 1996, and EFH means those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity, and you will hear those words several times today. The EFH provisions also include requirements for the Secretary of Commerce and the regional fishery management councils to identify and describe EFH, the requirement for federal agencies to consult with the Secretary regarding the effects of their programs and activities on EFH, and for the National Marine Fisheries Service and councils to minimize the adverse effects of fishing activities on EFH. Implementing regulations for essential fish habitat were first published in 1998, and they were published as interim final rules, because, with a new program, we knew we wouldn’t get it right right off the get-go, and final rules were published in 2002, after we implemented the new programs for a couple of years. 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

The EFH regulations expand the statutory definition and provide clarifying language for the terms “waters”, “substrate”, “necessary”, and “spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity”. For our discussion today, regarding sargassum in the Caribbean, what definitions are going to be most relevant is the definition of what habitat is, quote, unquote, necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity of managed species under the Magnuson Act. The definition of “necessary”, as shown on the previous slide, means the habitat required to support sustainable fisheries and the managed species contribution to a health ecosystem. The regulation introduced that term, which is also defined here, and the term “spawning, feeding, breeding, and growth to maturity” provided in the statute includes all major life stage of each managed species. The statute and the EFH regulations tell us what EFH is and how we, both National Marine Fisheries Service and the councils, are to identify and describe EFH, and this was all done in the late 1990s, following passage of the Sustainable Fishery Act Amendment in 1996. The Caribbean Council originally described EFH in 1998, but, as a result of a lawsuit, which was the American Oceans Campaign versus Secretary Daley, NOAA Fisheries was required to revisit all of our EFH designations made by many of the fishery management councils, including the Caribbean Council, and we also had to expand our NEPA analysis regarding the effects of fishing on EFH, and so, in the early 2000s, we expanded our NEPA analysis to the environmental impact statements, and so, in the Caribbean, that EIS was finalized in 2004, and, as a result of a lawsuit, the amendment was separate from a NEPA analysis, and, like I said, that was just a function of the lawsuit, and so, since the early 2000s, we’ve been operating under the EFH identifications and descriptions contained in the 2004 EIS and 2005 amendment. Those designations were based on literature reviews, which created a long series of life history-habitat association tables, which described the habitat requirements of each major life stage necessary for each fish managed under the council to spawn, breed, feed, or grow to maturity, and essential fish habitat is defined by the statute. The EFH regulations require EFH information to be reviewed every five years, which the Caribbean Council has done, and, when the council’s island-based fishery management plans were developed, the EFH descriptions for species that were currently managed by 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

the council at that time were simply carried forward, and, for the newly-added species that are going to be managed by the islandbased plans under the Magnuson Act, the same life history association method was generally used to identify and describe EFH for those species. Also, I want to point out that highly migratory species, which is managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, on both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, they have also identified and described essential fish habitat, and those designations were first made in 1999, and they were reviewed and revised both in 2009 and in 2017. However, those designations are primarily based on presence data obtained from fishery-independent surveys and research. Here is the EFH identification and description for reef fish in the 2005 amendment, and this is where sargassum was identified and described. It is important to recognize that this description of EFH was based on a literature review which created a series of tables, and that series of tables identified the habitat necessary for each major life stage of each species managed by the council, and that’s that definition of necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. While the associations were made for each life stage and each species, in the end, the council condensed the definition of EFH into this single composite definition for the entire fishery management unit, and you can see, in the definition, that sargassum is referred to as drift algae occurring from mean water to 100 fathoms depth, and that’s what is identified and described as EFH for sargassum, and so this doesn’t mean that sargassum is or was EFH for all reef fish, and you need to dig back in the tables to find the specific species and life history associations for drift algae, which met the necessary definition for essential fish habitat, were for early and late juvenile stages of greater amberjack and almaco jack. When we approved the island-based fishery management plans, they provided a little bit more clarity, particularly for the newlyadded species. As I mentioned earlier, the existing essential fish habitat identifications and descriptions were carried forward from the 2005 amendment into the island-based fishery management plans. However, where new species were added, the same methods of identifying EFH were used, but individual descriptions were provided for the species new to management under the Magnuson Act. This is an example from the Puerto Rico plan, and it’s the description of essential fish habitat for gray triggerfish, and so 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

we see that sargassum has been identified as EFH for gray triggerfish from the mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ, and that is habitats used by larvae, and that it is also identified as EFH for later life stages, and that is limited to mean high water out to 100 fathom depths. Due to the data-poor nature of the Caribbean, a lot of our EFH identification and descriptions are very similar, and, within the island-based fishery management plans, you will see very similar EFH descriptions, such as this for the gray triggerfish, for dolphin and wahoo across all three island-based plans, and, also, in Puerto Rico, sargassum is EFH here for gray triggerfish and also for great barracuda, tripletail, pompano dolphin, little tunny, blackfin tuna, as well as king and cero mackerel. Sargassum is EFH in the Caribbean, and I know there’s a lot of concern and confusion about what that exactly means, and so being identified and described as EFH does not prohibit harvest. In the Southeast, and up the Atlantic coast, for example, oysters are essential fish habitat for a variety of managed species under the Magnuson Act, yet their harvest is allowed, and so simply being identified and described as EFH does not prohibit harvest. What it does do is trigger the consultation requirement that federal agencies have to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding their activities that they are either funding, permitting, licensing, or undertaking which may adversely affect EFH, as identified and described by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the councils. Adverse effect is further defined in our EFH regulation, and it is defined as any impact that reduces the quantity and/or quality of EFH, and so it’s basically a very low threshold that kind of triggers the consultation requirement with the National Marine Fisheries Service. What is an EFH consultation? Basically, an EFH consultation consists of a federal agency sending NOAA Fisheries, the Habitat Conservation Division, an EFH assessment which describes their proposed activities, the effect of those activities on EFH and managed species, what the conclusions of those effects are, and if they are proposing any mitigating factors for the effects. NMFS is required to provide recommendations to protect and conserve essential fish habitat. Councils may also provide comments, if they choose. In the Southeast, we most frequently see that done by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, who have issued a series of habitat policy statements, and so, when a project does 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

not align, or conform, with their habitat policy statement, it is generally pretty easy for the council to react to that and send a letter to that federal agency to that effect, because EFH consultations, and the permitting activities which trigger consultations, don’t generally align with the council meetings and the council timeframes. When NOAA Fisheries, or National Marine Fisheries Service, or a council submit EFH conservation recommendations, the federal agency is required to respond back to NOAA Fisheries, or the council, detailing how they are incorporating our recommendations or not, and a federal agency is not bound by our recommendations. They are, however, required to indicate how they are addressing them in their administrative record, and so, again, they do not have to adopt our recommendations, but they just simply have to write back to us and tell us how they are or are not incorporating our comments. We are allowed to provide EFH conservation recommendations to a state or territorial agency. However, states and territories are not required to initiate consultation, nor are they required to respond back to NOAA Fisheries or the council regarding our EFH conservation recommendation, and so what really triggers a consultation is it has to be a federal action, a federal agency funding, permitting, licensing, or undertaking an action, and that activity may result in an adverse effect on EFH. When we’re talking about sargassum in the Caribbean, an EFH consultation would be triggered if there was a federal activity and it’s occurring in that zone that’s below the mean high water line, and we, the Habitat Conservation Division, would then assess the value of the EFH being affected and determine what appropriate conservation recommendations may be. If sargassum is on the beach, above mean high water, we would not need to consult on that activity, and it would fall outside the defined area of EFH. If it’s on the beach below mean high water, while technically requiring consultation, we would consider the value of the EFH at that location to be so low, and not meeting the definitions of being necessary to the spawning, feeding, breeding, or growth to maturity of fish managed under the MagnusonStevens Act that EFH conservation recommendations would not be required. Now, beached sargassum is not providing those functions to our managed species. If we’re talking about sargassum that’s near-shore, say around a water intake structure, the value would likely be assessed a little higher, that it may be providing some of those necessary functions 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

necessary maturity.

for

the

spawning,

breeding,

feeding,

or

growth

to

Whether that would trigger us to EFH conservation recommendations would depend upon the nature of the activity, and, of course, as we move further offshore, the value of sargassum to managed fish becomes much higher, and so we would give much more scrutiny to any activities that may affect its value of EFH in those instances. This is my last slide, and a few other things that I thought we should mention, that need to be considered in the overall conversation regarding sargassum, is you are probably aware that the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has an improved fishery management plan for sargassum. That plan did limit harvest to 5,000 pounds wet weight, which is allowed off of North Carolina, but any harvest south of North Carolina/South Carolina is prohibited. The prohibition, harvest prohibition, is not because it is identified and described as EFH, but because sargassum was identified as a species qualifying for management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act which requires conservation and management measures. As a managed species, it has its own EFH identified and described, and I also mentioned here that, lately, we’ve seen some folks exploring sargassum as a biofuel, and it’s related to some funding offered by the U.S. Department of Energy, and so we are starting to see some proposals circulate around about propagating and potentially harvesting sargassum, and so we’re having conversations with those folks, bringing up what is happening, what triggered the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council to have a sargassum plan, and so not a whole lot has come from that just yet, but we are keeping an eye on these proposals. We have also been approached by some researchers who are interested in trying to figure out at what point does sargassum no longer serve its function as EFH, and maybe it should be considered a harmful algal bloom, and we’ve seen some draft proposals for that type of research, but I really haven’t seen anything submitted for funding, but that’s not to say that it’s not happening out there. Finally, and it was kind of mentioned before, in some of the earlier discussions, and, if we’re talking about removing sargassum from the ocean, there are some Endangered Species Act and some bycatch issues that I can’t specifically address, but we do know that sea turtles and managed species, such as juvenile dolphin and marlin and other pelagics can also be found in 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

sargassum, and they could be captured by certain harvest methods. I just wanted to bring those things up as points that need to be considered as this discussion continues, and so, with that, I am done, and I am willing to entertain any questions that you may have. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much for your presentation, and does any member from the council -- Tony Blanchard. TONY BLANCHARD: I’ve got a question. Can you tell me when sargassum is essential fish habitat and when it is not? Is that by how close it is to shore or when it gets on the shore? DAVID DALE: If I heard the question correctly, I think I can answer it by responding, and so we are -- National Marine Fisheries Service and the councils are required to identify what constitutes EFH and where EFH occurs, what the geographic range is, and so the Caribbean Council has taken the approach that sargassum is identified and described as EFH from mean high water out to the edge of the EEZ, and that is for those eggs and larval life stages, and it doesn’t extend out to the EEZ, but out to 100 fathoms for later life stages. Within that geographic range, it would trigger an EFH consultation, but, in triggering that EFH consultation, the National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division, while conducting that consultation, would assess the value of the habitat in the landscape, or the seascape, in determining what appropriate EFH conservation recommendations would be. If it’s onshore, we are not likely to issue any conservation recommendations, because it has essentially lost all its EFH value to managed species, but, as it’s offshore, further offshore, it has much more value and is serving those statutory functions deemed necessary for spawning, feeding, breeding, and growth to maturity. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for your answer. Just to make clear, in terms of when you refer to high water mean, we are talking about basically when the sargassum is suspended, even if it’s on the shoreline, from that point on, just to make clear, because I am not really understanding the term you used there of the high water mean. DAVID DALE: All right, and so I missed part of that. offline for a second. MARCOS HANKE:

I got kicked

When you refer to high water mean, basically it’s 75

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

the highest of the tides from the shoreline, and this is what I am understanding, and, if the sargassum is suspended on the shoreline, but not on the shore, it’s considered as part of the EFH scenario, and that is correct? I am understanding correct? Is there another way to understand what you are saying? DAVID DALE: It would qualify as essential fish habitat, but, to trigger a consultation, we would need that federal agency nexus, and I’m not exactly sure what that would be, and my guess would be something like maybe if the NOAA Marine Debris program was funding something, or if the Department of the Interior, along a national park or a national seashore, was trying to do something, and so that provides that federal nexus. Otherwise, if it’s not a federal agency undertaking the activity, a consultation is not required. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. I was just rephrasing to have a full clarity on what you explained. Thank you so much. Would anybody else like to make a question? Maria. MARIA LOPEZ: Thank you. Thank you, David, for your presentation and for clarifying the role of sargassum as EFH for the council. I just want to remind people here that each one of the territories have their own protocols for their processes for determining removal of sargassum and for attending any situations that are present, for example with sea turtles or other species, and the role of the sargassum on the beach and the disposal of the sargassum that is removed from the beach, as either waste or something else, and so I would recommend everyone that has additional questions to consult with their state partners to see what are those protocols or processes that they have. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Maria. Would anybody else from the council, from the room or from the online group -- Is there any raised hands on the virtual participants? We are going to pass now to the public comment period, and we’re going to have the presentation from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center tomorrow, and it will be the first presentation in the morning, and the follow-up presentations from that will be behind, and, for now, we are going to go to the public comment period, and we have a participant that will address us. PUBLIC COMMENT CINDY GRACE-MCCASKEY: Thank you, everyone. Thanks for having us here. My name is Cindy Grace-McCaskey, and I’m an anthropologist from East Carolina University. I have been doing work in the Virgin Islands for more than ten years now, mostly focusing on St. Croix, and, most recently, before COVID, I may have reached out to 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

some of you and conducted interviews, collecting social networks data, and, now that COVID -- Now that we’re traveling again, we’ll be revisiting some of that data in the spring and moving forward with that project. The real reason I’m here is to introduce one of my PhD students, Anya Shosterum, and we are -- As I’ve said, we’re from ECU, and the PhD program is an integrated coastal sciences program, and she has to do a specialization in both social sciences as well as a natural science, and so we are in the process of defining, more specifically, her research questions, and so she will tell you a little bit about what her interests are, and, really, we’re just here to introduce ourselves and complete a follow-up with some of you as we clarify the direction of her research. Anya. ANYA SHOSTERUM: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Anya Shosterum. As Cindy mentioned, I am doing my PhD in the Integrated Coastal Sciences Program at East Carolina, and my background is in interdisciplinary science, and I did my master’s actually working with the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and I am really interested in being engaged in the process of ecosystem-based fisheries management, as you are developing it here in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and I would really like to make my dissertation work somewhat actionable and useful for this council, in particular continuing some of the connections and work that Cindy has done in St. Croix. I work in social ecological systems science, primarily, and I work in ecology, as well as utilizing the range of social science tools, and so I hope that, by attending this meeting, I’m hearing some more of the projects, and I can find a place to put some of my expertise and continue to fit it in over the next couple of years, and so I appreciate the time, and it’s great to be here. CINDY GRACE-MCCASKEY: Also, after the meeting, we are heading to St. Croix, me just for a few days, and Anya will be staying on, but we’re hoping, for those of you who are based on St. Croix, we hope to sit down and connect with you more one-on-one and try to help further define her work, and that’s all. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. Let’s see if there is any questions from council members. Do you know Carlos? CINDY GRACE-MCCASKEY: Yes, I am still in touch with Carlos and some of the fishers, and Miguel also has offered to support Anya with some funding, and so we’re excited about that, and, if anyone has ideas for contacts, and it’s been a few years since I have been there, and so it’s always good to about new people to get in 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

touch with as well. MIGUEL ROLON: recording.)

(Mr.

CINDY GRACE-MCCASKEY:

Rolon’s

comment

is

not

audible

on

the

Thank you very much.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. else to address?

Miguel, do you have anything

MIGUEL ROLON: No, and the reason that we are interested in the work that Anya is proposing is because the council has identified, for many years, that we need to have socioeconomics and socioecology from Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas/St. John, and this is the first step to start gathering that information, and I hope that other scientists will have interest in working in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John areas, so we will be able to collect this information, similar to the information that Graciela mentioned this morning, or this afternoon, that we need to collect for identifying the gear used in the U.S. Caribbean, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MARCOS HANKE: No other questions? Then we are ready to close this part of the meeting. We’re going to close the meeting now. Thank you so much, and we’ll see you guys tomorrow at the published time, at 9:00. (Whereupon, the meeting recessed on December 7, 2021.) - - DECEMBER 8, 2021 WEDNESDAY MORNING SESSION - - The Caribbean Fishery Management Council reconvened on Wednesday morning, December 8, 2021, and was called to order at 9:00 o’clock a.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke. MARCOS HANKE: Good morning, everyone. We are about to start the meeting. It’s 9:02 a.m. on December 8, 2021. Please take your seats, and thank you very much for everybody that is attending virtually. The first presentation today, we are going to start with some presentations that -- Yes. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER:

(Dr. Garcia-Moliner’s comment is not 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

audible on the recording. MARCOS HANKE: Okay. We have some housekeeping information that Graciela is going to share with the group. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: If you are having a hard time listening to us, or to whoever is speaking, please use your headsets. The people in the back, they can pick it up by the translation booth. Make sure that, when you are here at the table, you have your speakers turned off. All the computers have to have their speakers turned off, and, if you have a microphone, then you can turn it on when you are going to ask a question, so that the people who are listening via Zoom can hear you, and make sure that you also turn on the microphone that is on the table, because that’s the one that is actually recording. When you are speaking, you have to turn this one on, and Channel 1 is for translation, and Channel 2 is the one that is around the table, and so thank you very much, Mr. Chair. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Graciela. We are going to start with the roll call, starting with Graciela. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: MARIA LOPEZ:

Graciela Garcia-Moliner, council staff.

Maria Lopez, NOAA Fisheries.

CARLOS FARCHETTE: District.

Carlos Farchette, council member, St. Croix

JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL: Good morning. Jean-Pierre Oriol, Commissioner of Department of Planning and Natural Resources, USVI. TONY BLANCHARD: Good morning. Thomas District.

Tony Blanchard, Vice Chair, St.

MARCOS HANKE:

Good morning.

Marcos Hanke, Chair.

JACK MCGOVERN:

Good morning.

Jack McGovern, NOAA Fisheries.

KEVIN MCCARTHY: Good morning. Kevin McCarthy, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. CHRISTINA OLAN:

Good morning.

Christina Olan, council staff.

MICHELLE DUVAL: Good morning. Michelle Duval, council contractor. SENNAI HABTES:

Good morning.

Sennai Habtes, DPNR, Division of 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

Fish and Wildlife and EBFM TAP Chair. ALIDA ORTIZ: Good morning. Advisory Panel Chair. NELSON CRESPO: Puerto Rico.

Alida Ortiz, Outreach and Education

Good morning, everyone.

RICHARD APPELDOORN:

Nelson Crespo, DAP Chair,

Rich Appeldoorn, SSC Chair.

MIGUEL BORGES: Enforcement.

Good morning.

Miguel Borges, NOAA Office of Law

HOWARD FORBES:

Good morning.

Howard Forbes, DPNR Enforcement.

NICOLE ANGELI: Good morning. Nicole Angeli, Director of Division of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Planning and Natural Resources, USVI. MICHELLE SCHARER: ROBERTO SILVA:

Buenos dias.

Good morning.

Michelle Scharer, SSC. Roberto Silva, Puerto Rico.

WILSON SANTIAGO: liaison officer.

Good morning.

Wilson Santiago, Puerto Rico

ANYA SHOSTERUM: University.

Good morning.

Anya Shosterum, East Carolina

JEANNETTE RAMOS: Good morning. Rico Sea Grant Program.

Jeanette Ramos-Garcia, Puerto

MARCOS HANKE: That’s all for now. Thank you very much, and we will be recognizing other people as they arrive. We will start the presentations with the Southeast Fisheries Science Center Update. SOUTHEAST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER UPDATE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Thank you, Marcos. Thank you very much for allowing me some time to speak at the meeting. Good morning, buenos dias, bonjour, and those are all the languages that I’ve got, and it’s very limited what I do have, and so let’s get started. My name is Kevin McCarthy, and I am the Branch Chief of the newlycreated -- Now we’ve got three mics. Okay. Perfect. I’m the Branch Chief of the newly-created -- I feel like I’m being interviewed for something really important, but, anyway, I’m the 80

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

Branch Chief, as I have said three times now, of the newly-created Caribbean Fisheries Branch at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Joining me in the presentation today -- We’ve got a lot to cover, and Adyan Rios and Rachel Eckley are both going to join me in this presentation, and so they’re here listed as presenters. Now, I am going to cover, as I said, a lot of ground, a lot of projects going on at the Science Center that are Caribbean-based, and it is by no means a comprehensive list, and it’s primarily the work that our branch is doing, the Caribbean Fisheries Branch. We’ll mention a couple of other folks, but, for example, I don’t have a bunch of information on what the social science research group is doing, although they’re doing a lot of work down here, and a number of folks are running surveys, and I won’t be talking much about those, but, if we want -- If the council would like to hear about that work, we could certainly arrange for those folks to present information in the future. What I will be talking about, or I should say my co-presenters will be talking about, are the Caribbean projects inventory, as noted in the Federal Register, the species selection for assessment process that we have got, and a SEDAR 80 update, and those will all be discussed by Rachel and Adyan. The theme that you’re going to see, I think, throughout this is that what we’re trying to do, now that we’ve got a Caribbeancentric branch, is to make data-driven decisions, and so I think you’ll see that over and over again. As we all know, we’re managing fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and so, within that world, what kinds of data do we need? You have heard Virginia Shervette talk about this a little bit yesterday, in terms of the life history information, but we also need landings, also sometimes called take, and so that’s commercial landings and recreational landings. I am seeing that Julie Neer says that she has no sound. Does everybody else out there have sound? I am seeing that others have sound, and so let’s keep going. Julie, it may be something on your end. Anyway, we need commercial landings, and we need recreational landings, and we also need dead discards, if we want to get total take. Now, dead discards are a tough thing to get, not just in the Caribbean, but everywhere, and so we usually have a better handle on commercial and recreational landings, although that also can be a challenge. Again, the Caribbean doesn’t have problems that other areas don’t have, and so one of the things that we’re 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

trying to do, in the Caribbean Branch, is to take the lessons learned from other regions and apply them down here and come up with our own solutions, because we do have a unique situation down here, and so let’s take what we can get from other places and apply it down here and end up with a better data process. We also need size composition of the landings, and we need that by sector, meaning recreational and commercial, and we need it by gear. Different gears, as you all know, catch different sizes of animals, and so we need to take that into account, and that can be a challenge, and this is also a time series, and you need to measure a lot of fish to do this well. I won’t dive too much into the life history, and Virginia covered a lot of it yesterday, but we need to know some information about reproduction and size and age and growth of the animals, and so there is a lot of information there, and it turns out that, if you don’t have these life history parameters, when it comes to doing a stock assessment, you’re kind of dead in the water. You can’t do a lot without the life history. You can’t do anything without size composition, and you can’t do much at all without the landings or the take. Now, where we’ve got a little bit of wiggle room is with this last bullet, with index of abundance, and this is a catch per unit effort series over time, and we didn’t have one for lobster, when we did the last lobster assessment. It’s better if we’ve got one. For SEDAR 80, queen triggerfish, you will see that we’re developing indices for that stock assessment, and so it’s an important component, and we would rather have it than not have it, but the other three are absolutely critical. We have much of this information for some managed species, but we have very little of this information for many of the managed species. What do we do? What are our first steps for getting at data? Well, one of the things we’re doing in the branch is to do a data triage, and Adyan will talk more about this later, but, briefly, what we’re doing is, species-by-species, island-by-island, going through and figuring out what data do we have that’s specific to that species, and it’s a laborious, time-consuming process, and we’ve done it in a very preliminary way, which has informed the decisions for which species to run assessments on in 2023 and 2024. We need to continue doing that, and we need to expand on it, because we need to inform future years and which species to run an assessment on. If we don’t do something like this, and we go in blind, we run the risk of putting up a species for stock assessment that doesn’t have even the minimum of information, and so we don’t 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

want to set ourselves up for failure. Let’s go in there with some knowledge that we’ve got at least enough data to get started. One of the other things we’re doing is compiling a database of federally-funded research, and so this will tell us the various projects that have gone on in the past and what data are available from them, and we’re starting with the federally-funded stuff, because it’s easier to track down, but we’re certainly not limited to that, and Rachel will talk more about this later in this presentation. Another thing we’re doing is trying to begin coordination among the various folks who are doing life history work, and so we’ve set up sort of this informal working group, led by Stephanie Martinez-Rivera, and she is part of the Caribbean Fisheries Branch, and she’s just the coordinator, and she’s trying to get people together to discuss who is working on what, how can they help each other, how can they maximize their limited resources to get the most samples, the most data, the most out of their analyses as possible. After we run through that process, and we have found the data gaps, what do we do now? Once we have identified the gaps, let’s prioritize those, and so what I see is sort of this three-tiered system. We’ve got the top, and we’ve got species where we’ve got enough data to do an assessment, and that’s sort of our top level. Then, below that, we probably have quite a few species where maybe we’re missing life history, or maybe we’re missing an index of abundance, or maybe we’re missing some size composition data, and so that, to me, should be a high-priority species to put research dollars towards, so we can fill in those gaps and bring them up to the highest tier, where we might be able to do an assessment, and, below that, we’re going to have a lot of species that have very little information, and those are longer-term projects. We shouldn’t ignore them, but it’s going to take longer to get the information that we need to move them up to a higher tier, where we can do a stock assessment. Among the things that we can do are design new and expanded surveys, and we’re working on that, and you will see that in a minute. Improve survey designs of existing surveys, and one of the things that is going to be absolutely critical, and we’ve already begun this on some projects, is collaborative research with the fishers. We don’t need to reinvent a fleet of research vessels. We need to work with the fishers to get out on the water and to work with 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

them collaboratively to get data collected, and, as I said, we started some of that in both the Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico, and we need to do more of it. We need to maintain that database of funded research, and we need to continue to coordinate among life history researchers. This is, again, a non-comprehensive list of the projects that are going on through the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. If you recall back to those kinds of data that we need for a stock assessment, one of them was landings, and another was size composition. The way we get at that, or one of the ways we get at that anyway, is through commercial port sampling, and that’s been ongoing, as many of you know, for a number of years in Puerto Rico. The objective there is -- Because we don’t have long-term funding for that, the objective is let’s build a statistically-robust survey design. When we get the funding, we can apply those dollars to that survey design and continue the sampling. We’ve got -- Also, in Puerto Rico, DNER is trying to get started with a recreational fisheries survey, and we’re, at the Science Center, providing some support for that, and it’s absolutely DNER’s project, but we’re providing some support, in terms of training port sampling staff, and some technology transfer as well. The Virgin Islands port sampling, this is just beginning, and it’s a very similar project to the one in Puerto Rico, where we’ve got commercial and recreational fisheries sampling. We wanted to do both, and we want to hit all sectors, and, again, we have recently begun this, and we’re probably a month or so into it, where you will see, at the various landing sites, somebody with a clipboard noting usage patterns. When are people coming into that dock, when are people coming into that boat ramp, when are they leaving, is it a high-use site, is it a low-use site, and, in the future, they will begin with interviews for catch and effort, and so that’s just beginning. I’ve also got a Fisheries Information System, also called FIS, funded study, where we’re looking to improve the efficiency of sampling. We don’t want people coming to the dock and taking two hours for somebody to sample their catch. We want to have a very efficient way of doing this and get it done in ten minutes, and then people can get out of there, and so what we’re going to use is automation and machine learning, and so you will see people with cameras. They are not taking pictures of boats, and they’re not taking 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

pictures of people, but they are taking pictures of fish, so that it can automatically identify the species, through machine learning, and get the size of the fish, and then they process the next one, and so these surveys are all designed to collect landings and size composition data. I am sure that I’m running late, and so I will try and speed up. Again, life history is critical, and we’ve got a CRP grant, actually to Stephanie, to do shallow-water sampling, and there is only enough money to collect the samples, and so we’ve got to get some more money to actually process them. This is a part of the Puerto Rico deepwater snapper sampling, and this is a project that Virginia Shervette talked about yesterday, and she’s been heavily involved in this, along with Kate Overly and Andy David, who are at the Science Center Panama City Lab. Multiple funding sources went into this, and Virginia and Kate both work on doing the laboratory work, and Virginia also brought in some additional samples that she had collected through the fishers in Puerto Rico, and I think, also, there may have been some samples from elsewhere, maybe the Virgin Islands, or maybe the Gulf of Mexico, but I know it was a big effort, and there was lots of funding sources involved. Again, I mentioned this working group to coordinate life history researchers, and we also supported the DNER life history laboratory, and we purchased some equipment and supplies, and that was all happening during COVID. I had mentioned abundance indices, and there are two of them that are being developed for SEDAR 80, and one is using the commercial fish logbook data, and this is a new effort, and we’ve tried doing it in the past, but this is a much more comprehensive approach, and then the reef fish oral census, the diver survey that Jay Grove and others -- Jay Grove is at the Miami Lab, and he and others run that survey. Those are both being used, that one for the first time in a SEDAR, as I understand it. I’ve got some money to do a lobster recruit survey, and, this one, we’re working cooperatively with Puerto Rico commercial fishers, and, as funds become available, we will want to expand that survey into the Virgin Islands. The idea here is -- When I talk about “recruit” here, I mean lobsters that are just below legal size, so that, the next time they molt, they will be in the fishery, and so there’s the direct connection between that size of lobsters and what can be caught in the future. 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

There’s also a deepwater camera survey, and this is linked to the work that Kate and Virginia and Andy have been doing on the west coast of Puerto Rico, and so it’s specifically designed to look at the deepwater snapper fishery, and so that’s an ongoing CRP-funded, and so CRP is the Cooperative Research Program, funded work, and so they’re working with fishers, Puerto Rico fishers, on the west coast. We have also got gear selectivity studies, a number of them, and this came out of a recommendation from the SEDAR -- The last lobster SEDAR, the last assessment, SEDAR 57 I believe it was, and so the idea here is what sizes of animals are being caught by the fishery, and so that, of course, depends upon the gear. It depends upon a lot of things, gear, where they’re fishing, that sort of thing, and it’s an important input to assessment models, and so we want to make sure that we get that right, and so there’s a Virgin Island trap study that the Science Center is running in partnership with the Virgin Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife. Part of that involves talking with fishers to understand the kinds of traps that are being used, and I get it that there are a lot of different designs, but we need to come to a handful of sort of common designs that we can use as part of this study, and we’ve also got a diver survey, in partnership with the University of the Virgin Islands, and also the Park Service, and they are doing dives in different islands. They are doing shallow dives as well as deep dives, and the idea here is what do you see, what sizes of animals do you see, in the traps versus what the divers see in the water. Puerto Rico, similarly, has a trap study, and that also involves cooperation with fishers, and it’s to get at the same idea of what sizes of fish are being caught, or what sizes of lobster are being caught, by the fishery. We have a number of additional projects. We’ve got our strategic planning workshop that we’re going to do, and the first one is -There will be several, and the first one is for the Science Center, to get the Science Center’s strategic plan together, and a future one will involve the regional partners, and so you all at the council, SERO, and then the regional scientists as well, and coming out of this was this database of federally-funded projects, and so, again, Rachel will talk about that in a moment. We’re also working with Puerto Rico DNER to automate their correction factor calculations, as you all know, to get to the official landings, and there’s a correction factor that is applied, 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

and it’s a very laborious process for DNER staff, and so we’re trying to automate that, and I won’t go into all the steps there, because I know I’m running late, and then Science Center staff has also been involved with the quality assurance and quality control of data collected in the SEAMAP-C video reef data, and so we’re not running that project, but we’re involved in data improvements. This is, again a non-comprehensive list of NOAA-funded Caribbean research projects, and this is money that goes to outside researchers, and these aren’t folks who are in NOAA, and so this is -- We just very quickly went through, and we looked at MARFIN, and we looked at Saltonstall-Kennedy, which is the S-K, and Cooperative Research Program, and, in the period from 2015 to 2020, NOAA has put in about $6.5 million to non-NOAA researchers for U.S. Caribbean projections. These have included a wide range of studies looking at life history, genetics, survey design, aquaculture, spawning aggregation work, and other things, and, if you look at the researchers involved, you will see some names that you know, and a number of these folks have received multiple awards of money, and so NOAA is not just relying on the Caribbean Fisheries Branch, but they are putting money out to researchers, some of whom are local and some of whom are located elsewhere, but doing work in the Caribbean, and it’s not -- It’s a non-trivial amount of money, six-and-a-half million bucks. I wish they would give it to me, and I think that’s it for my part. I thank Adyan is up next. I apologize to Adyan and Rachel for taking up all the time, but I will pass it over to you. ADYAN RIOS: My slides are in this poster style, and they’re a little busy, but I will walk you through them. This is an overview of SEDAR 80 for queen triggerfish. In the map on the far-left, the red pushpins represent the three island platform assessments, and the gear images show the main gears on each island platform. Moving over to the Center, you see the notes there, and this assessment has a terminal 2019, and the lead analyst at the Caribbean Fisheries Branch is Nancie Cummings. Moving down the center panel, you see a summary of the data types being incorporated, and I think it’s exciting to point out that this will be the first Caribbean Fisheries Branch assessment in the region to have local life history data, as well as the first assessment with exploring indices of abundance. On the far-right, we have a summary of important dates ahead, and the life history topical working group is up next, in January, and the indices topical working group will be in February, where we’ll 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

be reviewing both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent indices. Near the end of February, we also have the fishing behavior, selectivity, catchability working group, with the assessment making it to the council in July of 2022. Lastly, in the bottom-right, we have a nice conceptual cycle representing the fisheries management process, and I will highlight the top arrow, pointing to the top-right, which is where we are, and we are incorporating the best available collected data into the assessment to eventually arrive at catch targets grounded in sound science. The second of my four slides is about the Southeast Fisheries Science Center’s management history project, and this work was initially funded by the Fisheries Information System program, and we had an excellent team compiling Federal Register references and translating each regulation into the database. Moving to the center panel, the bulk of the current work is processing the database, which involves designing and executing logic for related management events and spot-checking the database to improve the input validations of the data that goes into the database. The far-right represents the upcoming uses and users of the dataset, with the goal of being able to filter the analysis-ready dataset by species, sector, or region of interest, as well as to automate outputs and tables and data for SEDARs and FMP amendments. Next up, we have a workflow overview for developing CPUE indices from the Caribbean commercial logbook data, and abundance data, ideally, come from a statistically-designed fishery-independent survey, but, in some situations, catch rates by fishermen can be explored and analyzed to provide additional abundance measures as well. The top visual represents the tools we are using to go from the logbook data that we have on the left to the indices of stock abundance for SEDAR assessments on the right. In the bottom-left, we have some notes about the challenges associated with this process, including the fact that, because this is an island, gear, and species-specific process, a lot of the past methods are of limited utility when we look at the data for other species. This process is also conducted with important considerations and attention to the confidential nature of the data being used. In exploring these data for SEDAR 80, we are also trying to build this into a workflow, reorganizing and modernizing the process 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

with new tools and new skills we now have, and, on the far right, you can see the result of this workflow, which includes easilyreproducible methods, a project-oriented workflow with continuous improvement, and an open data science tool. The data remain confidential, but the analysis process becomes more transparent. The last topic that I will talk about is the assessment prioritization data triage, an overview of that process, and so the Caribbean Fisheries Branch worked on this to help guide the decision of species with higher likelihoods of having the data needed for stock assessments that can result in science-based catch limits that are required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The MSA requires that we use the best scientific information available, and the MSA also specifies that regional fishery management councils are responsible for setting ACLs, through the development of fishery management plans or plan amendments, and so focusing here on the bottom-left. For stocks that are assessed with -- For stocks that are assessed, the stock assessment specifies the OFL, the upper limit that you see in this chart in the bottom-left, and some stocks cannot be assessed, because there is not enough information, and, for stocks that are not assessed, the SSC typically reviews historical landings, as has been done in the Caribbean, but the purpose of the triage overview was to rank species and explore the data that we have to identify, among those best available data, which of those species stand out as candidates for stock assessment to result in OFLs based on stock assessments. We did so focusing on three important data categories of abundance, biology, and catch, and so, in the center panel at the top, you see that those are three of the very important inputs going into a stock assessment. “Abundance” means a measure, or relative index, of the number of weight of fish in the stock, and this information comes from important fishery-independent surveys or catch rates supported by fishermen. “Biology” includes the information on fish growth rates and natural mortality, and this information comes from important analyses of fish, including whole fish for size age information, gonads for maturity, and otoliths for age. “Catch” reflects the amount of fish removed from a stock by fishing, and these important data come from logbooks as well as dockside monitoring. Now I will tell you a little bit more about the results of the triage, and specifically, I am going to show the summary visuals that we have, specifically for St. Thomas, and so we’re on the 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

far-right-side of the plot. The stoplight colors are green for good, yellow for limited, and red for missing. Here in this table, we are looking at the top seven species ranked across all species in St. Thomas for which we have the length data available, and the overview triage is specific to each island, and so it’s relative to this -- The rankings are relative among the species on each island, and the summary approach allows us to see which species stand out in having sufficient types of data that we need for upcoming assessments. Here is a summary of it, but this information is actually broken down into all the different various components and the specific data, and we’re able to kind of really show it in a summary way, with this approach of this overview triage, and so we have that for the other islands, but, for now, we’ll just be showing this one today. With that, I will pass it over to Rachel. RACHEL ECKLEY: Thank you. As they mentioned, I am Rachel. Today, I wanted to share with you a project that I’ve been working on which involved building a database of Caribbean research, and we are calling this the Caribbean Projects Inventory. I know we’ve heard about this a little bit, but it just want to reiterate the importance of the stock assessment process, which is NOAA Fisheries’ way of monitoring the health of fish populations. Recall, from Adyan’s presentation, that the three main components to this process are data collection, data processing, and then the actual mathematical modeling. From the model, we’re able to answer the questions of how are the stocks doing now and what are the future projections. We then are able to provide management advice, like ACLs, catch limits, season lengths, and size limits, all with the overall goal of maintaining sustainable fisheries and healthy fish stocks. In order for a successful and informative stock assessment, we need many kinds of data, and we’ve heard about the data already today and yesterday, but they are important and worth mentioning again. Recall the ABCs that we just heard from Adyan, and the three main data categories required are abundance, biology, and catch, and we really like this graphic here, because it answers the question of who provides the data. We rely on commercial fishers, recreational fishers, and research scientists to obtain the regional abundance, biology, and catch data, and it’s important that we compare historical data with current data, in order to understand how the stocks have changed 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

over time. This leads to me our ongoing effort of building a database that includes sources for those historical and current data necessary for the stock assessment process. We are compiling reports, publications, and information on research projects that have collected or are collecting those data in the U.S. Caribbean and adjacent waters. At the moment, we are focusing on compiling NOAA-funded research, but we’re capturing other sources opportunistically. Along with the historical and ongoing research, we are also capturing information on any planned projects that will occur in the coming years. Users will be able to search for specific criteria, including species, location, year, and the type of data collected, and the output will be a table that shows all relevant research that matches the search criteria, with links to the reports or publications. Along with the search criteria that I mentioned previously, we’re also compiling information related to the research methods of the project, including experimental design and sampling unit. In addition to that, we’re compiling funding information, including the source, the dollar amount, and the grant number, when that information is available. The funding source will also be a searchable field, as a means to determine where the majority of the funding is going to, and, finally, we are reporting the contact information of the principal investigator, as well as collaborating organizations or personnel. This here is an example of a record in the database, and this particular one is the princess parrotfish age, growth, maturity, and transition, and I have converted the record from the current horizontal view that we’re using in the database to a vertical one, just for ease of showing the information today and fitting it all on the screen. You will see that, for this record, we have compiled the citation, the link to the publication, the year it was published, and the location in which the research took place. The type of data collected in this study was categorized as life history, and we have created drop-down categories as a way to organize the records and make the database more searchable, and life history is one of those drop-down options. Other drop-down options are indices of abundance, take, social science, and management and regulations. The sub-categories would be the specific information you will find in the paper, which, for this record, are age, growth, and maturity 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

data. Below that, we note the common and scientific name of the targeted species, which, for this record, is princess parrotfish. Now, for this paper, the species and the data categories were listed in the title, and so this was fairly straightforward, but, for projects and reports that target multiple species, these fields aren’t always listed in the title, and so these fields will be a really great way to search the inventory for the data that you need. Funding for this work mainly came from NOAA, and all the grant numbers are listed there, and another drop-down category is the study type, whether the information was gathered from fisherydependent, fishery-independent sources, or a hybrid of both, and this particular work was categorized as a hybrid, as it had fishery-dependent and independent data, and this field will also be in the search criteria, and then, finally, at the bottom, we have the authors and the first author affiliation. Why have we initiated this effort? What we’re doing here is creating a central repository of research that will be accessible to various organizations and collaborators, and the main point here is accessibility. It’s impossible to know about every research effort that has taken place, or every report that has been published, especially if those data or reports are sitting on a desk or a computer. Having this centralized location that is accessible to everyone who needs it will be extremely beneficial for fisheries management. With this research inventory, we at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center will be able to identify the existing data, as well as identify those areas in which we may need more data. We will then be able to focus our efforts and fund those needed areas of research, be it for the stock assessment process or ecosystembased fisheries management. This is my last slide, and I just wanted to give a little update on this effort. It’s currently being compiled in an Excel spreadsheet, and we have identified a number of individual projects, reports, and publications dating back to the early 1900s up until the current time. Moving forward, we plan to integrate this inventory into ODM, or the Online Database Manager, which is where the management history database is housed, the one that Adyan mentioned a little bit ago, and that database was created in a dynamic manner, to support a variety of datasets, and so we believe this inventory will be a great fit for it. 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

Again, going back to that theme of accessibility, moving this into an online data warehouse will allow more personnel to have access to and utilize the inventory, and of course, I have to put in a request for information, and so, if you have any reports, or you know of any that may not be accessible online, we would greatly appreciate a digital copy, so that we can continue building this inventory. Additionally, if you have any planned research projects, we would love to hear about them and add them to the inventory as well. I have left my email there on the screen, and so please reach out with any information or any questions that you may have. That was all that I had, and I think, if you go to the next slide, it’s just questions, and so thank you for your attention, and, Kevin, I guess I will throw it back to you. KEVIN MCCARTHY: anybody? MARCOS HANKE:

Thanks, Rachel and Adyan.

Any questions from

Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: I would like you to go back to your first slide, the very first one that you put up, the one that mentioned the recreational fishery. Right there. I’m going to try to draw you a picture, because, for the last ten years, I’ve been involved in this process, and I came on as the chair for the trap reduction committee, and I’ve been a fisherman basically all my life, and the point I’m going to try to make here is that this is a continuous process, that the load of this fishery falls on the commercial fishers. The only information we have in the Virgin Islands is on the commercial fishery, and we mention, every time, that the fishery is managed by the recreational fishery as well as the commercial fishery, yet we have no recreational information in the Virgin Islands. Time and time again, it’s been mentioned that we’re going to fix this problem, but, at the end of the day, I think this is an injustice to the commercial fishers, number one. Number two, if we’re going to manage a fishery, and this is the criteria we need to manage this fishery, we ain’t doing a good job, brother, because, at the end of the day, I guarantee you there’s a lot more recreational fishermen dipping into this fishery than commercial, yet, when we find a problem with the fishery, or the stocks, it’s always the commercial guy that takes the blame. 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

It's always the commercial guy that gets the regulation put on his head, and so I’m going to try to keep it short and make the point, and the question is this. When is the council going to get serious about fixing this recreational problem, because, at the end of the day, the only one who is taking a blow is the commercial fishery, and, to be honest with you, I’m a little tired of it, and that’s why I stepped out of going to meetings before ten years ago. I used to be involved in going to the commercial -- To the CFMC meetings, when they were held in the Virgin Islands, and I used to go to the fisheries meetings, and I got tired to beating my head against the wall. When I stepped into play here, I figured that we would get some things in check, which we look like we ain’t getting anything in check, and we call for enforcement, and I’m going to give you a perfect example. Enforcement comes in, and I am willing to bet you eight out of ten enforcement -- Where enforcement steps into play, they’re going to stop a commercial fisher. They ain’t going to stop the guy with his family running up and down the place with four rods off the back of his boat, but I guarantee you that, if they seem a boom coming off of my boat, they’re going to stop me. To the end of the day, when is this injustice going to stop, and when is the CFMC going to get serious about fixing this? That’s the question. KEVIN MCCARTHY: I can’t speak for the council or enforcement, and what I am getting at with this, I think, is getting at some of your frustration, which is this is talking about collecting data, and so how -- We need to collect not just the commercial landings, but the rec landings as well, and so some of those other slides is the survey that we are just starting in the Virgin Islands, is to get at both commercial and rec, to get both of them, and the forhire sector. If you’ve got a -- I don’t think you do a lot of headboats here in the Caribbean, but, if you’ve got a charter boat that’s going out, what are they catching, and so I agree that we’re not tracking that at all, or at least not consistently and thoroughly, and so that’s what this new survey design is meant to get at, how do we sample the recreational fishery in addition to the commercial fishery, and so I’m right there with you on getting those data, because we can’t say the impact of the recreational fishery until we’ve got some data. We could speculate all you want, but we can’t say it for sure, and so this is about collecting those very data you’re talking about, 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

but, as to what the council will do, or enforcement will do, that’s outside of what I do. MARCOS HANKE: A follow-up from Tony, and then we have Vanessa, Julian, and Nelson in the queue. TONY BLANCHARD: Okay. Let me just run a scenario by you, and I know I’m going to sound like, because, at the end of the day, it is what it is, and I’m speaking as a commercial fisher, and so let me be very clear. If the commercial fishers of the Virgin Islands was to get serious and challenge this MSA, according to their guidelines, this fishery is not being managed how it’s supposed to be, because of the lack of recreational information, and so, at the end of the day, this is a biased -- This is biased data that we are dealing with, and so I will leave it on that note, and I am not putting this on your head, and don’t get me wrong, and I ain’t blaming you. This has been a process that, from day one, the commercial fishers have been carrying on their back, and I don’t see this getting fixed anytime soon, to be honest with you, and that’s as straightforward as I can be and as clear as I can be. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Tony.

KEVIN MCCARTHY:

Can I just --

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

KEVIN MCCARTHY: I appreciate your candor, Tony, and I understand your frustration, but it is a process, and, if we don’t get started, we’ll never get finished, right, and so what I’m saying is we’re trying to get started, and we’re trying to -- You know, what happened in the past is in the past, and I was not part of that, but we’re here now, in this time and place, and let’s move forward and figure out ways to address this problem, because you’re right that it is a huge data gap that we can’t put a good handle on, and so we want to address it. We want to have the data. MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and, like I said, I have Vanessa, Julian, and Nelson. Before that, I just want to mention that this presentation, to me, being involved in this process for a long time, shows, for the first time, a good effort on coordination and looking for efficiency and looking for industry participation, which includes recreational fishermen for the first time, and, for sure, to get more details, you can talk to Kevin later on, because recognize that we have a greater effort on the recreational, and that we all here have been requesting, over the years, to include 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

those data and to make it available to us.

Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Marcos. I just want to say some comments, especially in the same line of Tony, because it’s practically the same issues that are in the Virgin Islands are in Puerto Rico with the data collection, but I want to make one comment. Some of the species that we are looking at, we are not going to find in the data collection, and it’s not because we don’t have enough, but it’s because, practically, for the commercial fishermen, they go for the ones that are the best paid, and some of these fishes that we’re presenting here, like the example of the queen triggerfish, we have many, and we have a sustainable fishery, but the thing is that it’s underpaid by the fish markets, and so that’s why, especially in the west area, that we have a lot of fishermen and divers, and they don’t go for it, because it’s really underpaid. How could we practically start making them report the best data that can help you to bring the data that you need to continue this big effort that you are doing? Thanks. KEVIN MCCARTHY: I think I followed the question, and I had a little bit of trouble hearing, and so correct me if I’m wrong. One of the ways to get at better data, in terms of landings, is the surveys that I talked about, and that is for commercial as well as recreational. Those efforts are happening both in the Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico, and so a properly-designed, statistically-valid survey will get at those better numbers, because we need to have a good, solid way of saying we’ve got confidence in the numbers that we’re getting, and I think those surveys, and the participation of the fishers in those surveys, are what is going to get us to a place where we have confidence in the data. As far as the economics side, we’ve been talking with the social science research group at the Science Center, especially in Miami, to get them more involved, and I know that they’ve done work down here, but we specifically talked to folks, very recently, about getting them to participate more in the stock assessment process, and they can inform things like -- Through their work, they can inform things like how do prices -- How do natural disasters and how do various factors that are kind of outside the data collection that the fisheries people do, and how do those impact the landings and the fishing behaviors of the commercial fishers and the recreational fishers. 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

There is a place in what you’re saying for the social science research group as well, and so we’re trying to get them more involved, and they want to be involved, and they have been doing other work, but now we’re at a place where we’re starting to get people more coordinated, and so that’s what we’re trying to do, and so I hope that addresses your question. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Kevin. We have Julian, and I have Jocelyn requesting, and I will go with you, Jocelyn. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: I just wanted to speak, briefly, to the comments about managing the commercial versus the recreational sectors. Obviously, the management measures that we’ve been talking about, the overfishing limits and the ACLs and the ABCs, they’re based on the best data that we have available, and, for right now, as Kevin and the Science Center have explained, that’s the commercial landings data. We’re trying to fill in those data gaps and get the recreational data, so that we can have more informed management reference points, based on good quality data, and, obviously, that’s because we want to ensure we’re meeting the Magnuson goals, in particular preventing overfishing and achieving optimum yield, but, in the meantime, with the management measures that we do have, that are based on the best available information that we have at this time, I just wanted to clarify and make sure everyone knows that we are managing the recreational sector. We’ll look at commercial landings information and compare those to the annual catch limits, and, where a closure needs to occur, because of exceedances of the annual catch limit, that closure applies to the recreational and commercial sectors, and so, in that instance, on the enforcement question, if there were persons recreationally fishing during a closure, that would be a violation that could be enforced, and so I just wanted to clarify that we are managing the recreational sector, but we’re using the available data, which is the commercial data, and then this presentation is talking about getting better data, so we can make sure that we have more informed management, but, in the meantime, we are managing, to the best we can, the recreational sector. Of course, there is bag limits as well for the recreational sector, but I did want to clarify that the closures, for example, do apply to the recreational and the commercial sectors. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Jocelyn. 97

Julian.

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

JULIAN MAGRAS: This one is going to be very interesting, and so I looked at your presentation, and it’s an excellent presentation put together by the team, and here it is I see that you’re mentioning of the involvement of the fishers, but I am still waiting to see that involvement. I see that you’re doing interviews with fishers about traps and stuff like that, and I’m the chairman of the St. Thomas Fishermen’s Association, and I have the forty-three biggest hitters on my team, the biggest fishers in the industry, and I just reached out to my fishers, to ask them which of them has been interviewed about trap dimensions or different traps they use and everything, and no one knows what I am talking about, and that’s one. Where is this study taking place? Is it taking place in the St. Thomas/St. John district, or is it taking place in the St. Croix district, because it’s two different fisheries. The UVI is doing a study on lobster diving, and not one fisherman is involved in that study. I know who is doing the diving, and where they are diving, and they don’t know where they are diving, and I have a problem with that. I think, going forward, that, any grants that are given to any scientist, it should be mandatory that there is fishers involved, and it should be a speculation in those grants, and the reason why is scientists hold the PhD, by paper, and I have been saying this for years, saying this for years, and they hold it by paper, and we hold a PhD by fishing on that ocean for a living. We know what goes on everywhere on that ocean at different times of the year, and I am so frustrated with how this process has been going. We talk about port sampling, and the project that you guys are pushing forward -- There is so much inconsistency in that project by the presentation that was given and by Todd Gedamke and what was done in Puerto Rico. We are talking about certain species being off up to ten to a hundred thousand pounds, and we have been saying, for the longest time, that we need port samplers hands-on measuring and weighing the fish, and I heard you say that you’re going to do a port sample in ten minutes, and, nothing against you, but it’s never going to happen. If I come in with three coolers of fish, and I used to have one guy from Fish and Wildlife, Gerald Greaux, that used to come and port sample my catch, and I am working with him on separating the fish, and it took us about an hour-and-a-half to do, and you’re 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

getting every fish measured, and you are getting every fish weighed, and you’re getting all the information on where we fish, how long we fish, how long the traps soak, everything. This process of coming and taking a picture, the first thing that this was preliminary, I would say about six to eight months ago, and they came and they did me. Four port samplers came, and they are taking pictures, and I am trying to understand what they are doing, and some asked questions. Number one, they didn’t know half of the species, and they wouldn’t ask the fisher, which was me, what kind of fish is this, and they’re looking through a book, and so just think how long it took with four port samplers and me to do the catch, and it was threeand-a-half hours, and it was a very small catch. What the fishers are trying to say here is we’re throwing all of this money -- You’re going to have these people coming out with cameras and everything, and I see it to be a big waste of money, because it’s going to take more than the actual hands-on body that was doing it before to get the job done, and they’re not going to be able to keep up with a lot of the guys from the Saga Haven area. I’ve been telling them that, listen, we’ve got seven, or eight, of the biggest fishers fishing out of the area, and we’re all going out two or three days this week, and bring your whole team in, and, when we come in, you have the whole team there and sample every boat that comes in there one time. You can’t get that done up until now, and there is no ice to reice the fish, and there’s a big problem with the fishers being willing to help. The St. Thomas Fishermen’s Association has been willing to help, and we want to create a great dataset that, when we go to look at stock assessments, and I will use Virginia Shervette as an example. When she put her presentation up there, look at that amount of information that she is able to give us, and imagine -- I sat on the SEDAR lobster process with you guys, and the fishers were able to give a lot of information that the scientists didn’t have, and the amount of information that we were able to compile, and we were able to move forward with a good assessment. This is why we can do it if we get the involvement, and you guys need to start to listen to the fishers. We don’t want special treatment. Everyone in here is getting a salary, right, except for Tony, Nelson, and myself. We are fishers, and so, every day we are here, we lose fishing. The little compensation that we get 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

here is nothing to compare for our hands-on, but the reason we are here is because we care about our fishery, and we care about the future. You know, at first, when we came in here, we came in here as fighters. Back in 2004, it was a war when you walked into a room, and Miguel can tell you. Now, you have a working relationship that we’ve been trying to move forward, but obstacles have been getting in the way over the last couple of years, and we need to stop that. I think we’re all trying to accomplish the same thing here, and we need to get the fishers more involved, and you guys need to listen a little bit more. We can help you get the information that you want, and it’s going to be 100 percent accurate. If not 100 percent, 99 percent, but trying to speed up and collect something is not always the right way. The right way is doing it correctly, and I feel that, if we get out there, and we measure the fish, and I can take -- Let’s use the red hind as an example. I can take a hind that I catch that’s been in a trap for four days, and it weighs a pound, and I can take a hind that I’ve caught in a pot, in a three-hour soak, because of baiting, and it weighs a pound-and-three-quarters, and what’s the difference? This fish was not in the trap losing weight, and he was caught as he went in. When you look at size and weight frequency, you’re going to see a big difference, and that’s when the preliminary stuff that was done in Puerto Rico -- You saw the big numbers, and, you know, a good way to determine is, all right, let’s say we’re going to do ten of the new way, but, when you do those ten new ways, at the same time, let’s have those same ten done the old way, the way that we feel, and let’s compare those numbers and really see, off of those ten samples, what is the difference. You guys would be surprised, and I think that’s what we need to look at, in order for us to give the Southeast Fisheries Science Center the tools that they need to do their job, and we need to give them the best information as possible, and so I am not here to beat anyone down, but I am just here that I would like, like Tony said, and I know that Nelson is going to chime in here shortly, but I would like us to see it being done better. Let’s do it the right way and not waste money to try something. Let me just look here and see my other notes here, and so I will leave it as that for right now, and, if you want to comment, I am -- But I just want everybody to know that I am not picking on any 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

department or anyone, and I am just saying there is a way to do it and a way not to do it correctly, and getting your fishers 100 percent involved -- You have fishers that are willing to do it, different fishers from the different parts of the industries, and they are willing. They are willing to take you out on their boat, and they are willing to help you do whatever you want to do. You know, I was honored by the council a while back, a few years back, in 2017 I think it was, at a CCC meeting that was held at Frenchman’s Reef, and I made the statement right there, and a lot of the other council representatives that were there agreed with my statement, and it’s the same thing that I said earlier. You guys hold a degree by paper, and we hold a degree by hands-on. Us working together, we can achieve a lot more than working against each other. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Julian. Kevin, short comments, and then we’ll go to Nelson, and then we have to wrap up. KEVIN MCCARTHY: Okay. Thanks, Julian, and I am going to try to and turn and look at you and talk into these, because I hate to have my back to you when I respond. So much of what you said I agree completely, and, in fact, if we can advance to Slide 1 or 2, and right there is collaborative research. It’s the third point down, and I completely agree. Everything that you will ever see that has “CRP” with it, and you know that as well as I do, Cooperative Research Program, and that has to have people in industry involved in the project, and so, right there, it’s a mandate, and we absolutely want to have that. We absolutely want to have that, and I couldn’t agree with you more. There was a whole lot of stuff you went through, and so I’m going to try and remember, so that I can respond, and so we are actively looking to do that, and maybe what we need to do, so that we ensure that more folks are being involved, is you and Sennai and I get together and talk about who has been involved in the trap study and the design of all that, so that we can -- We want to get the broad array of people to have input on this, because we don’t want to come up with some specialized trap design that hardly anybody uses. We want to get -- I get it that there are a zillion different varieties, but there are probably some groups that are fairly similar, right, and we want to get at that, and so let’s have that conversation today, before everybody takes off out of here. 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

We want to do that, and, as far as the dive survey, contracting with fishers can be tricky, and so we need to talk about that too, and we’ve got to have a mechanism so that we can do that directly, and it’s hard to do that contracting process, and so I think, in the Virgin Islands -- We’ve got some things set up in Puerto Rico, but we need to do -- We need to come up with a similar mechanism in the Virgin Islands, because, if they get NOAA money, they’re got -- There is all kinds of rules they’ve got to follow. One of the things, and I’m not -- I want to fix it, and I want to be able to more directly work with the fishers, but sometimes you get money and you’ve got spend it, and so the quick way to spend it, in this particular instance, was the University of the Virgin Islands is part of the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Science, and so CIMAS, which is run through the University of Miami, but it involves a bunch of different universities, including the University of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the University of Puerto Rico, other places. I can immediately put money over there, and I can immediately get a project started, because, when they tell me, in June, can you spend this money, and I say yes, I have to have it spent in about a month, and so it’s harder to do that with the contracts, but, if we have a mechanism in place, and they tell me, in June, can you spend this, and I’ve got a mechanism to work with you guys directly, I can say, yes, I can spend it, and here’s how I’m going to do it, and then we can move that money, but, in this case, the Caribbean Fisheries Branch is not even a year old yet, and, when they give me money, I don’t have to say yes, but I need to say yes, because we’ve got so many projects that we need to do down there, but, if I ever say no, they’re never going to ask me again, right, and so I’ve got to spend it. I know that only addressed some of your comments, but let’s talk some more today about those very issues, about how we can get that mechanism set up, and about the trap study, so we get more people involved, and so I’m sorry for not getting to all of it, but I know we need to move on. MARCOS HANKE:

Nelson.

NELSON CRESPO: Julian, you hit the nail, and so I am not going to go over the words, because you said it all, and I don’t have much to say about that, but I just want to make a quick comment. I support strongly the words of Tony and Julian, and I think that not only this council but the local governments have to step up to the plate and finish, for once and for all, the recreational 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

license, because we need that data, because we feel that we are receiving unfair treatment when it’s time to apply accountability measures, and we have unfair competition with the recreational, that everybody knows that most of the catch ends in the market. It's very important to take care of this issue, because we’re going to lose our lives dealing with this, and it’s time to do something, and don’t keep -- Just finish, and let’s go to work. We need the recreational data that we need. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Nelson, and I want to invite everybody, because we are very short on time, to read the comments by Shannon and by Virginia and others on the chat, that basically are in agreement of the conversations and the points that Julian, Tony, Nelson, and Kevin brought to the table and the kind of conversation to deal with the collaboration and the request that has been made on the record today. I just would everybody to go to the chat and read the comments. The next presentation is Maria Lopez. ISLAND-BASED FMP UPDATE MODIFICATION TO THE BUOY GEAR DEFINITION MARIA LOPEZ: Good morning. The first thing that I wanted to say is about the island-based FMPs, and this is just going to be a short update, and so we are very, very close to being done with our NOAA Fisheries reviews, so can publish the proposed rule for these island-based fishery management plans. The plan is still that the island-based fishery management plans should be in place in early 2022, and so that’s all I have for you right now. As soon as we have more information, we will be sending that information to the council, so that it can be published on their website as well as in their social media and other forms. I am going to start with another topic, and the next topic is the modification to the buoy gear definition and use. Once again, hopefully this is the last time that we’re going to be hearing this presentation in here, because are trying to have final action on this amendment today. There’s a couple of things that we still have to do, and so I’m going to go through everything, as a refresher. The last time that we met, the council requested the addition of an action that will address the potential use of the buoy gear by the recreational sector, and so we added that in there, and so I will go through each one of the actions, the final purpose and need that was prepared by the IPT, and then I will give a summary of what each of the actions will be doing and then next steps. 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

The issues addressed in this amendment are going to be two, as I just said, to modify the definition of buoy gear in federal regulations to allow the use of up to twenty-five hooks to fish commercially, and then the second item was limit the use of buoy gear to those fishing commercially. Let’s talk, real quick, about that new issue which the council tasked staff to look into during the last council meeting. The council would like to restrict the use of buoy gear to commercial fisheries only. Council members were concerned about the potential for use of buoy gear by recreational fishers that are fishing for non-managed species, and I am mentioning non-managed species because the use of buoy gear in other managed fisheries by the council is not allowed, and so the only place where the use of buoy gear is allowed is for non-managed fisheries, which means that these are the ones that, once we go to the island-based FMPs, there is a lot of species that are not going to be managed in these plans, and so, to address that possibility, for future use of this gear, the council requested this. They also mentioned, during the last council meeting, that the use of the buoy gear was very limited, or non-existent, and the rationale for that is because it was a very specialized gear, and that recreational use was unknown, and it was unquantified at this time, and then there were also other measures that we wanted to take, for example to protect essential fish habitat, and also protect managed species. There were concerns that there could be an increased effort in the future added if recreational fishers would be using this gear. Buoy gear, just as a refresher, is an allowable gear for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix in the commercial reef fish and pelagic fisheries that are managed by the council under the FMPs; Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix noncommercial fisheries and non-FMP commercial pelagic fisheries; and also non-FMP recreational fisheries. I know it’s a little complicated, but this is how it’s going to be in the island-based FMPs, and remember -- I should have said this before, but this is an amendment to the island-based FMPs. Once the FMPs are implemented, we can proceed with this amendment. This is the purpose and need, and all of this information is in the amendment that was included in the briefing book, and so the purpose is to modify the definition of buoy gear included in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2, and these are federal regulations, the Caribbean section, to allow for the use of a greater number of hooks with this gear type when fishing 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

commercially for deepwater snappers and groupers managed under the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Thomas/St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP, and to limit the use of the buoy gear to those fishing commercially. I apologize, and 622.2 is the definition of buoy gear that applies to South Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf fisheries. This change will only be for Caribbean fisheries. The need is to ensure that commercial fishermen fishing for deepwater snappers and groupers in federal waters of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix can use the buoy gear with more than ten hooks, preferred by some fishermen, while protecting the deepwater reef fish resource and its habitat and minimizing user conflicts. Now, this is another change from what you have seen before in the previous amendment, in the previous version. The IPT switched the actions, right, and we are going to start now, instead of just having one action that deals with the commercial fishers and the increase of the number of hooks, and we’re going to do Action 1 now, and it’s going to be buoy gear prohibition for recreational fishing. This is very simple, and it only has two alternatives. Alternative 1 is always the no action. Buoy gear is currently an authorized gear type for recreational harvest in the Caribbean, as found in 50 CFR 600.725, and this is the list of allowable gears, and so, in this list, as I mentioned previously, the only place where this is allowed is for recreational harvest of non-FMP species. Retain the authorized gear types for recreational harvest in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. What this means is that, if we do anything, the only place in our regulations where you can use recreationally buoy gear is for those non-FMP species. The Alternative 2 is our action alternative, and that’s what the council wants to do, is to prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing recreationally in federal waters off of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. What this alternative does, instead of just prohibiting where it’s allowed right now, it’s like a blanket statement basically saying that there is no use of this gear for anything recreationally, right? It's already like that, and so this is more -- Like, in our regulations, it will say, in the Caribbean, you are not going to be able to use this buoy gear to fish recreationally. This is just a summary of what each one of the alternatives will 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

do, and I’m going to go through this real quick. Retain all the gear types authorized for use, and this is Alternative 1, if we don’t do anything. Although buoy gear is an authorized gear for recreational harvest of non-species only, which are species not managed by the council, at present, there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses, or has used, buoy gear, as defined in the regulations. Any use of the gear by the recreational sector is unlikely, because buoy gear is a very specialized commercial gear that is expensive and difficult to use, and this information is based on what you told us, and so this is what we’re including. You told us something, and we’re including that as part of our rationale. This is the Alternative 2 to prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing recreationally in federal waters of each one of the islands. This proposes a broad prohibition for all recreational fisheries, which means managed and non-managed species that will be implemented for federal regulations. It would eliminate any potential future conflicts between commercial and recreational user groups at the subject fishing grounds, any additional ecological/biological and physical effects that might accrue through additional, additional meaning recreational-fishing-related pressure at those grounds to those resources, any safety concerns potentially associated with the presence of a new fleet which we’re talking about the recreational fleet, at the deepwater reef fish fishing grounds which may arise due to the specified characteristics of the buoy gear operations. Again, this is all based on what you all told us. For (b), what we’re talking about, and (b) is the one that says any additional ecological/biological and physical, we’re talking about the risk of overfishing of the deepwater snapper grouper resources, any risk to managed species for misuse of the buoy gear, and we also want to limit bycatch of species. This is our summary for Action 1 for recreational. Alternative 1 does not change any of the gear types authorized to fish recreationally, while Alternative 2 only affects one gear type, which is the buoy gear, and its use by the recreational sector fishing for all species, managed and unmanaged. However, neither Alternative 1 nor Alternative 2 are expected to alter recreational fishing behavior in the short-term, as there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear in the EEZ. With that, I am going to move to Action 2, and this is the one that you are familiar with. It’s modification of the buoy gear 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

definition. Alternative 1, no action, the definition of buoy gear specified in 50 CFR 622.2, with respect to the number of hooks allowed, would not be changed, and the number of hooks would remain at ten. Alternative 2 would modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector fishing for managed reef fish in the EEZ off of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix to allow the use of up to twenty-five hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. Alternative 3 is the one that we added the last time that we met, and it would modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the U.S. EEZ in the Caribbean. That is the EEZ of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix, to allow the use of up to twentyfive hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end for all authorized commercial fisheries. This is the same text that is described in the amendment. In the next slide, I am just describing what each of the alternatives will do. Alternative 1, no action, the definition of buoy gear that we have currently in our regulations is not going to be changed. One of the specific requirements, under this definition, is that buoy gear cannot contain more than ten hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. In components of each of the island-based FMP fisheries, where buoy gear is an authorized gear, and these are the commercial sector harvesting managed reef fish, fishers must limit the gear to ten hooks. Alternative 2 would modify the definition of buoy gear as it applies to the commercial sector, and so this one will increase the number of hooks allowed to be used up to twenty-five, instead of ten. This new maximum number of hooks would allow those fishing commercially for managed reef fish in federal waters to legally use the gear configuration employed by some in state waters in federal waters of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, in this alternative, the modification would only apply to those using this gear to fish commercially for managed reef fish species. This is Alternative 3, and it would modify the definition as it applies to the U.S. Caribbean EEZ to allow up to twenty-five hooks. This one would increase the number of hooks allowed to be used up to twenty-five, instead of ten, for all commercial fisheries where buoy gear is authorized. Buoy gear, as currently defined in our regulations, is authorized for the commercial harvest of reef fish and pelagic species in the island-based FMPs for the commercial and recreational harvest of 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

non-FMP species and commercial non-FMP pelagic species. That definition of buoy gear under Alternative 3 would apply to all harvest in the Caribbean EEZ, similar to the application of the definition. Now, note that there is an Action 1 that deals with recreational. If that is prohibited, then this would only apply for commercial, and so I made a note in here saying that this does not supersede any regulations applicable to HMS species, and just a reminder that this is only for fisheries that are not HMS, and, if you’re fishing for HMS species, you have to follow HMS regulations. In summary, for Action 2, Alternatives 2 and 3 would both increase the maximum number of hooks that can be used with buoy gear to twenty-five per line, depending on target or location, contrasting with Alternative 2, which maintains the limit at ten. 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. You previously -- Council members preliminarily expressed support for Alternative 3, and, as you remember, this is because this one is the one that gives you guys a little bit more flexibility. If you are fishing for buoy gear, and I know that this is -- For buoy gear with deep water, I know this is a very targeted fishery. However, if you have other species incidentally caught, as long as they are not HMS, you could be able to retain them, and so this is something that you requested from us, and we added it as a new alternative. These are the next steps, and the reason that I went through all of the alternatives is because we have not chosen, formally, preferred alternatives, and, also, we have a new option that we need to choose preferreds, and so what we need to do in this meeting, if you agree, is to select preferred alternatives for each one of the actions, and then, once you’re comfortable with that, the council can vote to submit the amendment for secretarial review. That’s all that I have, Marcos. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Maria, and I think that we have discussed this three times now. MARIA LOPEZ:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE: Council discussion. Go ahead.

members

108

should

be

very

aware

of

the

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

MIGUEL ROLON: Just a matter of procedure that -- Maria, do you prefer to have a motion for each one? If so, you can guide us, and the council can have a motion to approve this as their preferred alternative, and then the last one is a motion to submit the document. Can you guide us through the first one, based on previous discussion of the council? MARCOS HANKE: I was just going through that, because it’s the most expedited and effective way of doing it, but I just wanted it to be on the record that we have discussed this before, and this is not new for anybody, and, from my perspective, Maria has reflected everything that we discussed in the past, and it was very precise and very well done. Go ahead, Maria. MARIA LOPEZ: I prepared some -- Sarah and I prepared some suggested text for the motion, based on what you preliminarily told us about what you wanted. What we can do is -- Christina, if you can go to Action 1, just so that everybody can look at the -This is the first action, and the council needs to vote -- The motion are already the suggested text, unless you change, and so I think just vote on which one you want to do as a preferred, and maybe we can deal with the motions later, and then, after you vote on this one, then we’ll go to Action 2 and vote on that one, and then we’ll show the motions, and then you can say if you want to modify them or not. MARCOS HANKE: Because you created the text, and not to waste time of people rereading everything, can you just mention the Alternative 2 is the one that you guys have been discussing, and it was the preferred, and we just are going to speed up the process. MARIA LOPEZ: Christina, do you want to show the motions that I sent you? There are going to be a couple of motions. There is going to be the motions to choose the preferred, and then there’s going to be a motion to submit it, and then I believe that we have the codified text, too. With the codified text, which is what is going to end up in the regulations, right now, because there was no preferred selected, it’s what we have in our regulations right now, and so, once the preferreds are selected, we can make that modification, and the codified text will be sent to the council chair for review and for deeming that, but we want to show you how the regulations look right now. However, there are no changes included. Normally, we would bring the text already with the changes, but, because we didn’t have a preferred, we didn’t have that ready at the time, but we’re prepared to do that at any time. 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

MARCOS HANKE: something.

Okay.

Very quick, Maria, Tony wants to say

TONY BLANCHARD:

Well, I would like to move Action 1.

MIGUEL ROLON: Let’s go the draft motions that you have one-byone. Tony, for the first one, is the language that you see on the screen, is that what you -MARIA LOPEZ:

I can read what the --

TONY BLANCHARD: 2, move.

Yes, if you can read it.

Action 1, Alternative

MARIA LOPEZ: Just for the record, Alternative 2 says to prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing recreationally in federal waters off of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. DAMARIS DELGADO:

Second.

MIGUEL ROLON: recording.)

(Mr.

Rolon’s

comment

is

not

audible

on

the

MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and I also stated that a little while ago, and I think the record is very clear. We’re going to vote. Carlos. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes.

JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL:

Yes.

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Yes.

TONY BLANCHARD:

Yes.

JACK MCGOVERN:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE: speak again.

Yes.

I am sorry, and I heard that, and, Vanessa, can you

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

The motion carries.

Yes.

It’s a unanimous decision. 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

MARIA LOPEZ: The second motion will be for Action 2, and, Mr. Chair, if you want to read it. CARLOS FARCHETTE: I will. I move to accept Action 2, Alternative 3 to increase the number of hooks to twenty-five for all commercial fishing where buoy gear use is allowed for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. TONY BLANCHARD:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: The motion was presented by Carlos Farchette and seconded by Tony Blanchard. Any discussion? Hearing none, we will go for voting. Carlos. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes.

JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL:

Yes.

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Yes.

TONY BLANCHARD:

Yes.

JACK MCGOVERN:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Yes.

MARIA LOPEZ: This one is the one for submitting the amendment with the preferred alternatives to the Secretary of Commerce. CARLOS FARCHETTE: The council moves to approve the generic amendment to the fishery management plan for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, the modification of buoy gear definition and use with the selected preferred alternatives and to submit the amendment to the Secretary of Commerce for implementation. VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE: Carlos.

Second.

Any discussion?

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes.

JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL:

Yes.

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Hearing none, let’s go to a vote.

Yes. 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

TONY BLANCHARD:

Yes.

JACK MCGOVERN:

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

Yes.

The motion carries unanimous.

Maria.

MARIA LOPEZ: The next motion is something that we always do, in every amendment, and it’s basically to make editorial, nonsubstantive changes to the amendment, and all of those changes -What we normally do is we have a list of those, and we send it to the council chair for review, and this is something that we do all the time, because sometimes there is little mistakes, et cetera, et cetera. DAMARIS DELGADO: I move to allow staff to make editorial, nonsubstantive changes to the buoy gear generic amendment. TONY BLANCHARD:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Any discussion? Hearing none, let’s go for voting. The motion was presented by Damaris Delgado and seconded by Tony Blanchard. CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes.

JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL:

Yes.

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Yes.

TONY BLANCHARD:

Yes.

JACK MCGOVERN:

Yes.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

Yes.

The motion carries.

It’s unanimous.

Maria.

MARIA LOPEZ: I wanted to add that that part that says, “any changes will be reviewed by the council and re-deemed as well”, and so that probably needs to be added to the motion. Sorry for that. I apologize. It’s not to that one, and it’s to the next one. We’ll correct it when we go to the next motion. 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

Christina, did you have the codified text that was sent? No? Okay. I have been informed that we don’t need that, and so this motion is to deem the codified text, which the codified text, as a reminder, is what goes in our regulations, as necessary and appropriate for implementing the gear amendment, and I think we need to add something else to that. Jocelyn, can you give me what is usually the text that we do, and this is more like the legal text. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure. I was just thinking that it would be useful not only to deem the codified text, but to also give the council chair the -- Just to make it clear that we want the council chair to have the -MARIA LOPEZ: Hold on. We cannot hear you, Jocelyn. for a second? Okay. Go ahead.

Can you hold

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Sure, and I was just saying that, as you had mentioned, the codified text reflects the current regulations, because we didn’t have preferred alternatives, and so that means that text will need to be changed to reflect the preferred alternatives, and so we’ll deem the codified text, but we’ll also need to be able to provide the revised codified text that reflects the changes that were made for the preferred alternatives, and we’ll need to send that back to the council, and it would be very useful if this motion could reflect that we’re giving the council chair the authority to re-deem that text. I believe that’s also noted in your SOPPs, but it’s just useful to have it in the motion, to clarify that the council is deeming the codified text as necessary and appropriate and that we’re giving the council chair the authority to re-deem the codified text to reflect the changes necessary for the selection of preferred alternatives. MARIA LOPEZ: MIGUEL ROLON: recording.)

Okay.

Thank you, Jocelyn.

(Mr.

Rolon’s

comment

is

not

audible

on

the

MARIA LOPEZ: I don’t have it, and so it should say the council moves -- At the end of the sentence, we can add “the council chair would be authorized to re-deem the codified text”. That should cover it, and we will be done with that. MARCOS HANKE:

Jocelyn, the language is what we need?

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Yes, that looks good to me. You could reflect 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

any of the reasons to re-deem the codified text, to reflect changes that are necessary and appropriate. MARIA LOPEZ: Thank you, Jocelyn. necessary and appropriate. MARCOS HANKE: ahead.

To reflect changes that are

Damaris, do you want to present this motion?

Go

DAMARIS DELGADO: Move to deem the codified text presented by staff as necessary and appropriate for implementing the buoy gear generic amendment. Any changes will be reviewed by the council chair -VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Second.

DAMARIS DELGADO: -- and authorized to re-deem the codified text to reflect changes that are necessary and appropriate. TONY BLANCHARD:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Tony. Vanessa seconded the motion made by Damaris Delgado. We’re going to go for a vote. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Just as a quick point, and I’m sorry, Marcos, but it looks like there might be just a typo in the last sentence. MARIA LOPEZ: Can you wait, Jocelyn? Jocelyn, please wait a second. I need to connect to the speaker. Go ahead. JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: I would just note that it would be probably better if you had two sentences in the last sentence, and so where it says that any changes will be reviewed by the council chair, and if you just say that “the council chair is authorized to redeem”, or “and the council chair is authorized to re-deem”, just as a grammatical point, and so -MARIA LOPEZ: authorized”.

Where it says “chair”, “and the council chair is

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: I think you need both concepts. Changes will be reviewed by the council chair, and the council chair is authorized, or you could have two separate sentences, however you would like to do it. MARIA LOPEZ:

Yes, that’s fine.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO:

Thank you, Jocelyn.

Thank you. 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

MARCOS HANKE:

Damaris, do you accept the change in the language?

DAMARIS DELGADO: MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

Vanessa, do you accept the change in the language?

VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Yes.

Thank you.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Yes.

JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL:

Yes.

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Yes.

TONY BLANCHARD:

Yes.

JACK MCGOVERN:

Yes.

VANESSA RAMIREZ:

Now we are ready for voting.

Carlos.

Yes.

MARCOS HANKE: Yes. The motion carries. It’s unanimous. it? Are you finished, Maria? Carlos, go ahead.

That’s

CARLOS FARCHETTE: Just for clarification, everything that we just did will also then automatically fall into place for each IBFMP platform? MARIA LOPEZ: Yes, Carlos, and everything is for each one of the FMPs, and remember that these changes are going to take place once the island-based FMPs are in place and the proposed rule for this particular action is prepared, and the final rule, et cetera, and so as soon as the final -- We are done with this one, and so, as soon as the island-based FMPs are in place, we’re already going to be working with that proposed rule, to get everything done. I want to say thank you to everyone that helped out in preparing this amendment, especially the fishermen, because this is an action that was brought by the fishers, with a lot of concern from particularly Pauco, Edwin Font, and thank you so much, and hopefully this will be done as soon as possible. Thank you, all, and thank you, Nelson, also, Nelson Crespo, for all of your assistance in explaining to me how the fishery works. Thanks. I learned a lot. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. We’re going to make a fifteenminute break, for people that need to make the checkout to do so, 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

and we’ll come back in fifteen minutes. 11:12.

It’s going to be here at

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MARCOS HANKE: Hello, everyone. We are going to start the meeting again, and we are waiting for the rest of the group to sit down to restart, and we are trying to catch up with the agenda, and the next presentation will be the timing on the red hind seasonal closure in Puerto Rico federal waters. Maria. TIMING OF RED HIND SEASONAL CLOSURES IN PUERTO RICO FEDERAL WATERS MARIA LOPEZ: Welcome back, everybody. This is going to be a presentation collaboration between Graciela Garcia-Moliner of the council staff and our office. The title of this presentation is Modifications to the Timing of the Red Hind Seasonal and Area Closures in Federal Waters Off Puerto Rico. The way that we have this presentation set up is to be very similar to the draft options paper that is included in the briefing book, and so, if it’s a little wordy, it’s because that’s on purpose, and it’s because we wanted to get the council familiarized with the text and how it’s included in the document, so that, if there is any changes that are needed, we can do it right away. I wanted to start this presentation with the issue addressed in the options, and we’re also calling this a decision paper, because, once we go through this, the council needs to make a decision of how they are going to move forward or not move forward with the action that we’re going to be presenting, and we are including in here the recommendation that the SSC gave the council in July of 2021, which is when they presented to the council their recommendations for this action. It's to reduce the impact on the red hind spawning stock at the west coast spawning aggregations at the end of the reproductive period, due to a possible shift in the timing of the aggregation, and we decided to put this in here because this sets the topic, like what we are dealing with in the rest of the slides. This is a recommendation from the SSC in July of 2021, to shift the dates for the seasonal closure prohibiting fishing for or possessing red hind in or from federal waters west of 67° 10’ west longitude and in the area closures prohibiting all fishing in federal waters in the Tourmaline Bank and Abrir la Sierra Bank red hind spawning aggregation areas to December 15 to March 15 each 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

year. The SSC noted that red hind spawning aggregations do not form before December 15, but spawning aggregations can remain intact after March 1. To measure the benefits of management measures for the red hind population off the west coast of Puerto Rico, the SSC also recommended the council support implementation of continued long-term monitoring of spawning aggregations. This was presented by the SSC in July of 2021. After that, this prompted the council to have a discussion about this topic, and we heard about that in the August meeting, as well as the SSC meeting and the July meeting, which is where Dr. Scharer presented the results of her studies and with other colleagues about the potential shift of the spawning activities for the red hind in the west coast of Puerto Rico. During this meeting, the council made a motion that instructed staff to prepare an options paper that would discuss modifying the seasonal closure for fishing for or possession of red hind in federal waters west of 67° 10’ west longitude and the seasonal closure for the Tourmaline Bank and Abrir la Sierra Bank red hind spawning aggregations areas. Before I proceed, I wanted to clarify what this means, just as a refresher for everybody, and so, right now, there are what we call the seasonal closure for the red hind grouper, and this is for federal waters, and this is a closure that goes from December 1 to the last day of February, and it’s west of 67° 10’ west longitude, which means that, on the west coast of Puerto Rico, the federal waters are going to be closed to the fishing for and possession of red hind during this time. In state waters of Puerto Rico, there is a closure that goes from the same date, and it applies to all territorial waters. There is also seasonal closures, seasonal area closures, in Tourmaline Bank, which is partially in federal waters, and in Abrir la Sierra Bank, which is completely in federal waters, that close all fishing that would occur from December 1 to the last day of February, and so this is what we’re going to be talking about in this presentation and in this action. To provide a little bit of background on the species of interest, this is the red hind grouper, and the scientific name is Epinephelus guttatus, which is one of the most abundant grouper species that are landed by commercial and recreational fishermen in Puerto Rico, and this is why this is a very important species for us. 117

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

Puerto Rico commercial red hind landings, and you can see on that graph that these are the different landings, the average adjusted landings, which means that the expansion factors were applied for the different coasts. In 2019, which is the most recent data that we have, it totaled 48,648 pounds of whole weight, and we don’t have any recent recreational landings data reported for the species up to 2017, and I am going to show that in the next slide. As you can see from this graph, the top landing areas from 2010 to 2019 are the east and the west coast of Puerto Rico. In 2019, the east coast contributed to 49 percent of those adjusted commercial landings for red hind, and the west coast with 32 percent of the red hind adjusted landings. This is the red hind recreational landings that we have up to 2017, and we do not have that information by coast, unfortunately, like the other ones, but this will give us an idea of what is the recreational harvest of red hind from 2010 to 2017 in estimated landings. Let’s continue with a little bit of background for the species, because the biology of the species is what is prompting changes in this action, and so the red hind is what is called a protogynous species, which means that it changes sex to female or male based on some environmental cues, for example social cues, at approximately twenty-eight centimeters fork length, or approximately eleven inches. They have a complex social structure and reproductive behavior. They form transient spawning aggregations that follow a lunar cycle, and I added all the references in there, and I am not going to get into details about that, because we have received a presentation from the scientists before, but, if you are interested, here are the references, and that has been linked to when the full moons occur each month in relation to the winter solstice and the summer. The reproductive individuals aggregate to spawn in established aggregations in Puerto Rico, and these take place between December and February and, from what we have seen, also into March. In the aggregations, we have the males that arrive first and defend their territories, while waiting for the females to arrive. Some other aspects of the reproduction is the female fecundity increases with size, but there needs to be a sufficient number of males to fertilize the eggs. Both males and large females remain at the aggregation after the spawning season before migrating to 118

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

their home ranges. In western Puerto Rico, spawning occurs -- Red hind spawning occurs in aggregations at several sites within loosely-defined areas that are located towards the edge of the insular platforms. For example, we have aggregation that have been identified in Bajo de Sico, Abrir la Sierra, and Tourmaline Bank, and what I am showing in here are our managed areas, and, to the left, you can see the red hind closure that occurs from December 1 to the last day of February, and it includes all the west coast of Puerto Rico. Then, to the right, we have the three areas of Bajo de Sico, Abrir la Sierra, and Tourmaline, and some of them are shared with the territory. As I said in there, red hind catches in western Puerto Rico are a substantial proportion of local grouper catches, and very likely depend on healthy aggregations in managed areas, and this actually came from the regulatory amendment, and I believe it’s Number 2 or Number 3, from 1996, which is the one that implemented these spawning aggregation closures of Tourmaline and Abrir la Sierra, I believe. In the 1990s, red hind in western Puerto Rico show evidence of some overfishing and showed a decline in landings, prompting the enactment of conservative management measures to protect the stock from that overfishing, and that’s where all these measures came from to protect the stock. This is the background information on the histological information, which is the examination of the tissues and the cells under the microscope, that were obtained from -- What we have looked at in some reproductive tissue obtained from red hind between 2010 and 2017, it provides support for the spawning season period that we have right now, and they have found spawning-capable females from December until February, and a small percentage in March, and this comes from a report that was provided by the DNER lab, and it’s unpublished right now, and it’s from 2017. In these studies, when they were looking at all the samples from the reproductive tissue, the largest proportion of spawningcapable red hind that were found were from December, and they also found early post-spawning individuals in January and in March, from January to March. One of the things that we found while we were evaluating the information that we have is that we need additional information on the reproductive potential of red hind in the west coast during the spawning months. I am saying this, because this is very 119

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

important for the action and for the council to be able to make an informed decision. There is also what we heard before from Dr. Scharer and colleagues about long-term acoustic monitoring and surveys of red hind, for example at Abrir la Sierra, have shown that peak aggregations consistently occurred seven to ten days after the full moon, and this comes from a paper from Appeldoorn and colleagues in 2019. Research conducted in western Puerto Rico suggests that, because red hind spawning is associated with the lunar cycle, with peaks during the full moon, spawning activities, or behavior, may still be occurring during the full moon, or the new moon, of late February and March, and this was all presented to us during the July 2021 meeting by the researchers, and I’m just stating that in here for our purposes of our action. In this research paper, Appeldoorn and colleagues suggest that two spawning events could occur during one lunar cycle, and that is that extended periods of red hind calling activity have been identified in at least four lunar cycles over eight years of recordings at Abrir la Sierra, and these years were 2007, 2013, 2014, and 2016, and this indicates that this pattern may be common. Now, for our action, March is not included in the current dates of the annual season closure, which, as you know, goes from December 1 through the last day of February, or in the area closures in Abrir la Sierra Bank and Tourmaline Bank, which also go, right now, to the end of February. A shift in the seasonal closure dates from December 15 to March 15 could provide protection to spawning red hind as well as to individuals that remain in the aggregation after spawning, based on that information that has been provided to us by previous research. For example, Scharer et al. 2021, and this is the presentation that was given to us in July at the council, discussed that, for 63 percent of the past eleven years, red hind were present at the Abrir la Sierra aggregation after March 1. Further, this same presentation estimated that the potential aggregation peak could occur outside of the current seasonal closed period for 80 percent of the next ten years, because of when the full moon occurs. What we’re presenting here is both the histological information and the acoustic and visual census information, which basically 120

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

complement each other and be available, or are available, so that the council can make an informed decision. If you have any -- If you would like to see further information, on the council website, under the briefing book for the July meeting, you can find Dr. Scharer’s presentation that has more details about what I summarized in here. This is just -- I am not going to go through all of this, but just to let you know that these are all the management actions at the federal level that have been taken that affect the red hind, and it’s starting with the reef fish FMP, which started in 1985, and which is when red hind was added to management as part of the reef fish and grouper unit. Then, after that, we have, for example, in 1993, the establishment of the Tourmaline Bank aggregation, from December 1 to February 28, and so that means that it has been in place since 1993, and there was the resizing of the Tourmaline Bank in 1996, and then, in 1996 also, there was establishment of the Abrir la Sierra Bank red hind spawning aggregation, and also the establishment of Bajo de Sico. There was also, after that, in 2005, a ban on the use of bottom gear in all three areas year-round, no filleting at-sea, no gillnets or trammel nets, and all of this was passed in the SFA amendment, and then that seasonal closure that spans all the west coast of Puerto Rico in federal waters also was implemented in 2005. Bajo de Sico, which is not part of this action, was changed, and the timing of that closure was changed to October 1 to March 31, and, therefore, that’s why this is not included in here, because that potential shift in the aggregation would be already covered under it. Later on, in 2012, we have the 2010 amendment, which is the one that established the ACLs and the bag limits for reef fish as an aggregate and the accountability measures, and then now, in 2022, when we have the island-based FMPs in place, there was a rearrangement of the grouper units, and remember that this action is just for Puerto Rico, right, and we’re just talking about the Puerto Rico FMP, and there was a specification of ACLs, accountability measures, and there were also some actions -- Sorry. In all of the actions, all of those previous actions that are included in this previous table were carried over into the Puerto Rico FMP, and so they are all effective. Based on all of this information, we were tasked with creating 121

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

some options that will include these potential changes from the seasonal closure. Now, I want to do a disclaimer real quick, and not because this is set like this that it means that this is the way to go. This is just an example of what could be. If the council is interested in moving forward, then, once an IPT is formed, they can rearrange anything as the council desires, and so, right now, this is the way that our team decided was a good way of showing how it could look. We decided to set it up as two actions, and Action Number 1 is the timing of the red hind seasonal closure and area closures in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Puerto Rico. Option 1 is always included as a no action, and we don’t change the seasonal closure date or the area closures for red hind. Now we have an Option 2, and we can change the seasonal closure period for red hind in the EEZ off of Puerto Rico, under any of the following sub-options, to December 15 through March 15, and, remember, right now, it’s December 1 through the last day of February. The way that it is set up, it has three options, and so you can change it for the seasonal closure and the Tourmaline Bank and Abrir la Sierra or you can change it for the three of them, and it doesn’t have to be set up this way, but this is the way to look at it more clean. Now, in Option 3, we added an Option 3, and note that it has an asterisk, and it says that this option could be further developed, depending on council interest, because some of you requested that what about if the closure is shifted only in certain years. If it’s going to be based on the lunar cycle, why not just shift it when that full moon falls within the last part of the month of February, right, and that will encompass some potential spawning activity during the beginning of March, which will not be included in the closure, and so that’s why that option is in there, is to change the closure period for the seasonal fishing and possession of red hind in the EEZ off Puerto Rico and/or the area closures of Tourmaline Bank and Abrir la Sierra only for certain years, based on the lunar cycle. We added in there pre-identified and codified in the regulations because it is known when these events will happen, and those dates could be already included in the regulations. For example, say, in the year 2023, the closure, the red hind closure, will be from December 15 to March 15, but, for 2024 and 2027, and this is just 122

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

an example, the closure will be December 1 to February 28. This is the way that an option like this could look, and that doesn’t mean that it’s desirable, but this is an option that could be explored, if necessary. If we go to the next slide, I am going to explain what each one of the options would do, and so the first one is no change, and you don’t change anything that is going on. This one was established to protect the red hind resource during the identified peak spawning periods in western Puerto Rico. Other things are the states are consistent with the December 1 to February 28 red hind seasonal closure in territorial waters off Puerto Rico. However, the scope is different. The EEZ closure only applies to the west coast, while the territorial closure applies to all Puerto Rico waters, including the waters off the other three coasts. Both Abrir la Sierra and Tourmaline Bank are closed to all fishing in federal waters during this period. Abrir la Sierra is completely within federal waters, and so there is no overlap in territorial jurisdiction for this area. Tourmaline Bank, however, spans both federal and territorial waters, and there is not a compatible closure regulation prohibiting all fishing in the territorial portion of the Tourmaline Bank. In the territorial portion of Tourmaline Bank, the prohibition is limited to fishing for red hind. We are bringing all this up because, when we were looking at this action, we found a lot of loopholes and things that were not consistent between the two areas, which, obviously, as we all know, complicates enforcement and complicates management, et cetera, and so it’s important for all of us to bring this to your attention as well. For the Option 2, shifting those dates to December 15 to March 15, we set it up as three sub-options. Sub-Option a is the red hind seasonal closure would be shifted for that seasonal closure. SubOption b is you shift it in Tourmaline Bank, and/or, right, and you can do the three of them, Abrir la Sierra Bank is Sub-Option c. Under all of the sub-options for Option 2, that would allow for inclusion of a later potential spawning peak period that is not currently included in the existing regulations at 50 CFR Part 622. Moreover, a spawning event that occurs during a full moon period at the end of February, or the beginning of March, depending on 123

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

the year, may not be included in the current dates of the seasonal closure and the seasonal area closures. Shifting the dates may provide protection not only to spawners during this period, but also to reproductively-viable red hind that remain in the aggregation after spawning. Shifting the date for the seasonal closure, and remember that these are kind of like pros and cons for this option, which is Sub-Option a, and not for the area closures, would still protect red hind in the closed areas from December 1 to December 14, as red hind would not be allowed to be fished or possessed while the areas are closed to all fishing, because remember the closure in Tourmaline and in Abrir la Sierra is for all fishing. Even if you have the red hind closure open, the red hind closure not operating, you still cannot fish for red hind in those places, because it’s a ban of all fishing, but fishing for other species in federal waters in Tourmaline and Abrir la Sierra could be allowed during the March 1 to March 15 time period, and this could allow for bycatch mortality of red hind in these areas, right, because they will be fishing for other species, and red hind can still be caught, but that is something that can happen, right, and so we’re setting up absolutely everything in here. One of the things that you have mentioned before is how this overlaps with Lent, right, and so this is the socioeconomic part, because red hind is one of the species that fishers harvest during this time. Now, with all of that said, what we are showing here, in this graph, is the commercial adjusted landings of red hind, averaged by month, for 2010 through 2019 in the west coast of Puerto Rico. As you can see, the highest landings of red hind are reported from August through October, and we’re talking about 3,100 to almost 3,300 pounds of whole weight. March and November show the lowest average landings from 2010 to 2019, outside of the red hind closure dates, and so you see the Xaxis is the months, and we have January, February, March, et cetera, all the way through December, and so 1 and 2 are January and February, and these are months that the red hind is not supposed to be caught, because these are supposed to be a closure, as well as December, but there is always some red hind reported in the landings, but there is supposed to be zero. After those months that are closed, we have March, which is Number 3, and November, which is Number 11, are the months with the lowest red hind landings, adjusted landings, for the west coast of Puerto 124

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

Rico. Then, in terms of recreational, these are the recreational landings from 2010 to 2017, by two-month waves, which is how this is reported, and remember that this is not just from the west coast, and we don’t have information from the west coast, but this is representative of all of Puerto Rico, and it shows that, in all of Puerto Rico, the highest recreational landings are in the March to April wave, and we are showing approximately 4,300 pounds. We don’t know how many of these pounds come from the west coast, and this is only until 2017, and let’s not forget that. Based on these two graphs that we just saw, shifting the closure to December 15 to March 15, based on what we are seeing on these landings, may not be expected to substantially affect the commercial landings in the west coast, as the average west coast March landings are low compared to other months of the year, and so this is what those landings are showing us. It us unknown what proportion of the recreational landings come from the west coast of Puerto Rico and how this action could affect those landings, and so socioeconomic factors, such as a higher demand for fish, during the Lent period could also be included in a future analysis for this amendment. When you go to the amendment, or not to the amendment, but to the options paper, there is a table that has all of the pros and cons of the different options, and I didn’t include that in here, but I summarized it for you, and we included that in the document. This is Option 3, and this is the one that we said that has that asterisk saying that, if the council wanted to develop it further, we can definitely do that, and this is changing the date of the seasonal closure and areas closures during certain years, based on the lunar cycle. We don’t have a lot of input in here yet, just because, based on the council’s interest, we could look into that. Okay, and so this is a slide that shows the commercial adjusted landings of red hind during March 1 to March 15 and March 16 to the 31 for 2010 through 2019. Those yellow circles that you see in there are years where red hind was present at a spawning aggregation west of Puerto Rico in March, per the presentation that we saw from Dr. Scharer and colleagues in July of 2021. The asterisk notes when Lent started during the period of March 1 to 15, and so, in here, we cannot really see, based on the landings, like a certain pattern of if there are more harvest occurring when the full moon or when the fish were present at the beginning of 125

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

the year, but what we wanted to show in here is how much harvest, how many landings, occur in different parts of the month, and, if you think about that, you can say, well, if the closure is shifted, then those landings that occur from March 1 to March 15 will be potentially the landings that will not be caught, or fished, during this time. Graciela is going to talk a little bit about this, too. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: One of the issues that we’re looking at, and data that we were not able to get yet, has to do with the histological examination of the red hind that have been sampled by the DNER in the area, and so we are looking at that data, and hopefully it will be presented to the council at the next meeting, if you decide to move forward. Even if the council doesn’t decide to move forward, this is information that needs to be brought to the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, to be included in the databases that are provided for examination of these data, and so that sampling that has taken place over the years -- There is information on the -- That could come out in terms of sex ratio and whether the fish were ready to spawn or not, whether they had previously spawned, et cetera. Those datasets are part of the mini projects, if you want to call it that, that the council can push for, or ask that they be carried out, and so the data has been collected, and it has been explored, and we’re just waiting on the transfer of the information to the council, and we don’t know exactly how far along the examination of the samples is, and, if that’s part of the problem, that there is no funding to complete that project, that those funds could come potentially from the council and complete the project. MARIA LOPEZ: Thank you, Graciela. This is the last option, the way that we set it up for purposes of making the council to be able to make some decisions as to how they want to proceed, and this explores an extension of the area included for the red hind seasonal closure in the Puerto Rico EEZ. If you have no action, the area where the December 1 through the last day of February red hind seasonal closure, and this is on the west coast of Puerto Rico, federal waters, it will not be changed, and this one states that no person may fish for or possess red hind in or from the Puerto Rico EEZ west of 67° 10’ west longitude. A potential option, if the council desires, is to extend the application of the annual seasonal closure for red hind to all waters in the EEZ off Puerto Rico. The seasonal closure would be applied during the dates in any of the sub-options below, and it 126

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

could take place from December 1 through the last day of February each year, in all of Puerto Rico, which is basically just extending the area and not changing the date, and it could take place from December 15 to March 15 each year, which is what we were proposing in Action 1. However, this one will be extended through the whole island, or any other date that the council is interested in doing. I am going to explain each one of the options in the next slide. For Option 1, it is not consistent with the scope of the Puerto Rico regulations, because, in the Puerto Rico regulations, they close all territorial waters from December 1 through February 28 to all harvest and possession of red hind, not just the areas off the west coast of Puerto Rico, and what has been mentioned before is that, obviously, this complicates enforcement, because you have two different areas that are closed during the same time, or not closed. It creates confusion from constituents, and it does not extend protection to the red hind stock in all federal waters off Puerto Rico during the recognized peak spawning period, and, if you remember from the graph before, there is a lot of harvest for red hind -- Most of the harvest for red hind comes from the east coast of Puerto Rico. Option 2 would extend the protection to red hind in all federal waters off Puerto Rico and not just to a particular area off the west coast of Puerto Rico, and remember that these were set in the 1990s and later in 2005, to protect the aggregations, spawning aggregations, stock, the spawning stock that was in those aggregations identified on the west coast. Extending the closure to cover all federal waters off of Puerto Rico would provide additional protection to the red hind spawning stock during the spawning period. Sub-Option a would make the closure compatible with the closure in Puerto Rico territorial waters, which extends from December 1 through February 28, and this is something that I wanted to mention too, because Puerto Rico stops at February 28, but there are some leap years that go through February 29, and so we are adjusting our regulations in the island-based FMPs so that it says the last day of February, and it’s not a big deal, but we should probably be consistent, so there is no confusion. Sub-Option b would only be partially compatible with Puerto Rico regulations. I am almost done, and then we can discuss, and, if there is no time for discussion, I was just told that we can continue this discussion after lunch, and so I have one more slide. Miguel. 127

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

MIGUEL ROLON: recording.)

(Mr.

Rolon’s

comment

is

not

audible

on

the

MARIA LOPEZ: Miguel is saying just to continue, and then we’ll talk about what is the next step. This is a little more about what Graciela just mentioned. We need incorporation of reproductive condition of red hind from the histological data. For example, we need to identify which red hind are in a transitional state, which ones are spawners, post-spawners, et cetera. Identification of parameters that affect the aggregations, and so, for example, currents and temperature. Information on aggregations and Boya 4, which is south of the west coast, and this was mentioned in the presentation that we had in July, and this is not currently an area of closure, but this just covered under the seasonal closure that covers all the west coast. Information on spawning on the east coast of Puerto Rico from different sources, and that’s something that would be interesting to have, and, as Graciela mentioned, most of this information could be just out there, and it’s just that it needs to be evaluated and incorporated into this action. Information on connectivity of the different populations, on red hind density, and include fishers in focused research, comparative research, as was mentioned earlier. If the council wants to move forward with this as an amendment, we could consider the extension of the closure to protect this, or, if the council wants to task staff to continue evaluating this action, and bring it again to the council’s attention, that’s something that we can definitely do that, or, if the council doesn’t want to move forward, that’s another possibility as well. Graciela, do you have something to add regarding the next steps? MIGUEL ROLON: A couple of things. I am here with Vanessa, talking in the chat and some other things, and this is -- We have three minutes to go until lunch, and this is a very important issue, because it also may have application in other species in the future. Marcos and I were talking, and, taking into consideration what Tony mentioned yesterday, that, because of the pandemic, we haven’t been able to talk to fishers one-to-one and eye-to-eye, and, by the way, this is excellent, what you have done, and your staff -- The staff that has worked with this is excellent, and it’s probably one of the best summaries that I have seen in an options paper of any of the species that we have worked with. Our proposal is to have a couple of workshops with the fishermen in the west coast of Puerto Rico, where we can present this in 128

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

Spanish and English, and we also can have this posted on our webpage that Christina manages, so that everybody will have an idea of what we’re talking about, because, as Maria mentioned, there is need for action within the local area, within the Puerto Rico area of jurisdiction, because, otherwise, it will be a nightmare for enforcement to have a couple of -- In the EEZ, a different set of regulations, a different set of closures. Our proposal is for the council members to take this home and read it, the whole document, and, like Maria said, it’s on our webpage, and ask the staff to have this series of meetings with the fishers, eye-to-eye, and we can come back to the next meeting and get the feedback from the fishers. Don’t call it public hearings, because a public hearing -- It’s better to call it a workshop, because, at the public hearing, you say what you have to say, and then you shut up and let other people speak, and, sometimes, it’s very difficult for the fishermen to grasp all this and be able to have the information they need to be able to contribute. Our proposal here is to take this and have it in Spanish and English, and Christina can help us with that, and then have a workshop that Graciela and Maria and myself, and we can work toward having that workshop, between here and the next meeting, and then, at the council meeting, we can have more time to discuss this red hind application. Remember that, if we are going to do this quick, remember that quick time for the council is sometimes the same as geological time. When you say something is quick here, it will take two years to implement, and so, if we have this workshop, and let’s say in the next few months, or the first month in -- Let’s say March or April, and we can have the input from the fishers and come back to the council and explain it to you. Also, Graciela has stated all the information that we can get from Virginia Shervette’s work and others, and so we can gather that information to submit it to the council, but the most important thing, to me, is to pay attention to what Tony said, and this is an opportunity, hopefully, if Omicron or whatever Greek letter that we will have next year will allow us to have meetings, hybrid meetings, with the fishers. Then we can have this information that supports that this is what we need, and this is the information that we have. We can break now for lunch, and maybe have fifty minutes, so we can come back and talk a little bit more about it, but now we have to break for 129

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

lunch and go, because the people here won’t wait for us, but this is important enough that we can have, Mr. Chairman, maybe fifteen or twenty minutes after lunch, and the dolphin presentation can be moved a little bit, so that we can wrap this up for Maria and Graciela to talk about it. MARIA LOPEZ: Thank you, Miguel. As Miguel said, we’ll come back after lunch, and so everybody hold their thoughts on this action, and then we will continue the discussion after the lunch. Thank you very much, everyone. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. We will be back here at 1:00, sharp, really sharp, and be a few minutes before. Thank you. (Whereupon, the meeting recessed for lunch on December 8, 2021.) - - DECEMBER 8, 2021 WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION - - The Caribbean Fishery Management Council reconvened on Wednesday afternoon, December 8, 2021, and was called to order at 1:00 o’clock p.m. by Chairman Marcos Hanke. MARCOS HANKE:

We are going to start.

Welcome.

It’s 1:03.

Maria.

MARIA LOPEZ: Welcome back. The only thing that -- This is the last slide, and it was the next steps, and we talked a little bit about it, and it’s basically depending on what the council wants to do, if moving forward, or when moving forward, is identify the information requirements and the sources, everything that we discussed before about the scientific, social, and economic information that are needed for this action. Then a report on progress at a future council meeting, and then, if the action is going to move forward with an amendment, we can create an IPT, which is an interdisciplinary planning team, which are the ones that are tasked with the creation of the amendment and evaluations, when appropriate for development of the amendment, and that’s all, Mr. Chair, if we want to continue with the discussion for this action. MARCOS HANKE: Okay. We have Nelson and then Tony Blanchard, and I have some lines that I want to read to the group, and then we 130

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

will keep going. NELSON CRESPO: recording.) MARCOS HANKE:

(Mr. Crespo’s comment is not audible on the Thank you.

Tony.

TONY BLANCHARD: (Part of Mr. Blanchard’s comment is not audible on the recording.) Some fish are still spawning at that point in time, but, if you’re going to tell me that you don’t have the numbers, we might be shutting down a fishery or extending a fishery for fifteen more days for 1 percent of the fish that is still aggregating. The other part of it is the only ones who are going to suffer from this is the commercial fishers, and I am going to remind some of us that I was here at the council about eight years ago, when we went down to Ponce, and there was a situation where we was going to implement some management plans for the ABC, or the Abrir la Sierra and the other ones, the Bajo de Sico, that the fishers hadn’t really realized that the management, the regulations -(Part of Mr. Blanchard’s comment is not audible on the recording.) The room was filled with fishers for that public hearing, before the decision was made, and they brought in different fishing organizations, the fishers and their families and everybody else, and they flooded the room, and their cry, at that point in time, was to leave the regulations as-is, because they were living with it, and so let’s not forget that, that we went and we invested all of that time at the council level to try to simplify things, which it would have been more complicated. At the end of the day, for the lack of the data that we need at this point in time, the only ones here who are going to suffer, once again, is the commercial fisher. We don’t have an idea as to how many fish we are talking about that are still in that aggregating mood. To extend the fishery, or to change the fishing days for fifteen days, I say, at the end of the day, no action. MARCOS HANKE: Julian, I need to put my perspective on the table, and please be very brief in your participation, but go ahead. JULIAN MAGRAS: I totally agree with what Mr. Crespo and Mr. Blanchard just said. My point is, watching the numbers and everything that was in the presentation, one of the things that popped out, to me, and that sits there with me, is I see that the 131

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

landings are very high from the recreational fishery, and I think changing the dates would be a nightmare for enforcement and for the commercial fishers. What I see is a greater opportunity on cutting back on the harvest of what the recreational fishers are harvesting, and so it’s just I’m throwing it out there, and I think it’s something that needs to be looked into, that you regulate more on the recreational side than trying to change what the commercial guys are doing for their living. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: We have Vanessa pending to speak, but I want to remind the council that this is something that we have to really be mindful. We have work done by the SSC, and some recommendations on that line, and we have data presented by Dr. Scharer to us, and we have some new approaches to address this that we didn’t have on the prior that Tony just mentioned to us, and, for example, the shift. I don’t think this is the moment for a decision yet, and I think it’s important, and we are going to keep discussing this and filling the gaps of the information that we need to make the best decision possible, but I want to -- Because we need the balance of this discussion, to have all the points of view and possibilities and facts on the table. I want to remind the group about this, and any fish related to a post-spawning activity are not necessarily appropriate for the resource or the best for the population, because they are aggregated there, and they are contained in one area, and that’s a risk, and it’s something that we have to discuss in the future, how much of that we can tolerate or accept. If we don’t do that, and we do it in the wrong way, we’re going to take the chance that, if you don’t have cherry-picking on them very hard now, we can have it in the future, and that’s one point. The shift allows an opportunity also, and this is very important for Nelson, and the shifting allows, in the future, to open in December for fifteen days, which is the time of the year where the group of deepwater snapper and the red hind are closed, and for the people with the same gear, which is bottom fishermen, they will have access, open access, to this fishery, and they don’t have it right now, and they have two closed seasons together, and this is a benefit for the fishing industry. Due to the global warming, many aggregations have been documented to be moving later on the year, for many factors that I am not an 132

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

expert on at all, but I have read about it, and I think this council should evaluate the effect on the aggregations that are not just red hind, but others that take place during the same time of the year. Especially, in this administration, there is a big emphasis on addressing, in a proactive way, climate change parameters, or analysis, and considerations. Fishers have another area to fish besides Bajo de Sico and Tourmaline and Abrir la Sierra on those fifteen days, and it’s not that -- Depending on what you decide, it's not that they don’t have access at all to it, and they may, depending on what we decide, have options, if they want red hind, to fish on some other place. Also, it’s important to note that most species -- Besides the red hind, there is other important species that can benefit from that, like Nassau grouper, black -- On the protected areas that we are talking about, under a direct consequence of this analysis and decisions in the future, and Nassau grouper, black grouper, yellowfin grouper, yellowedge, tiger, and red grouper, and maybe others. I want also to remind the council that the socioeconomic benefits of taking the max recruitment input to the fishing population of red hind, or whatever, through an aggregation, will allow a better availability and sustainability of this resource throughout the year and not just under the risk of a situation of cherry-picking, just going there free during an aggregation, and my points are just trying to make a balance and justifying that all the good points that Nelson brought and Julian brought and Tony brought to the table are important as well as those others, and that’s why we need more time on the council to discuss this and to do it in a responsible way, and that’s my point, and Vanessa has a turn to speak. VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Practically, on the same line as we were saying, we have been discussing this issue for a long time, and we have been seeing all the studies that have been made, and we know that this is a moving that we have to do sometime in the next years, but please take care of -- As Miguel suggested, make the workshops for the fishermen and explain to them, faceto-face, the background of the studies that have been made and the why of this situation. We know that it’s not something that is not in our hands, and it’s a Mother Nature change, and, for the sustainability of the red hind, we need to do it, but, practically, because it affects directly the area where I fish, where my boats are fishing, and, 133

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 I live in this area, I know that the commercial sector is going to be hard to understand this, and so, please, I suggest, as Miguel says, to start with the workshops, and then, for the next meeting, have this conversation and discussion again. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Vanessa. We have to wrap up this item, and I think we have a path going to the future, with a strong record of why we need to go through discussion. We will go to the next item on the agenda. MIGUEL ROLON: The next thing to do will be to have these workshops and allow the staff to keep working, but do you want to create the IPT or not? What else do you need, Maria, from the meeting today, if anything? MARIA LOPEZ: I don’t think we need to create an IPT right now, and I think we can move forward with the actions that you are saying, collecting information from the public, and then, when we come back to the council with the results from that and any additional work that you would like the staff to do, and then you can decide if you move forward with an amendment, and then we can create an IPT for the action. Jack, I don’t know if you would like to comment. Okay, and so I think Jack agrees, right? Okay. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE:

Go ahead.

MIGUEL ROLON: To summarize, just so we’re clear, the staff will have a workshop, or a series of workshops, with the fishers off the west coast of Puerto Rico, and then we will coordinate that with Maria, and, after we get that information, we will come back to the following meeting with that report to you, and Graciela also mentioned that they may be able to collect other scientific information, and so, with that, we can wrap it up. GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: We would request from the Science Center also to collaborate on these efforts with the workshops, specifically to answer some questions regarding the high increase in landings from August, September, and October. I mean, we’ve known that fish can be much bigger during that time of the year, just because they are preparing for the spawning events, and so they are bigger, and so this is data that might be available through the TIP, or Trip Information Program, that can shed some light into the changes in sizes over time, and we can be prepared to answer questions like that, and so thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. need to move on. 134

Kevin, and then we really

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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: Just some logistical questions, because I’m going to need to go back to the Science Center with what the proposal is, and so maybe we can meet separately, if you have a handle on time commitments and if you’ve got some data analysis ideas, or we’re still going to explore that, and I just need to be able to tell my bosses something of what the ask is going to be. MARCOS HANKE:

Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: I promise this is the last thing, but, for the record, we don’t need that for the workshop. That is for ongoing things, and so you don’t have to rush into getting this information, and the workshop really is to do the work, talk to the fishers, have the presentation that Maria Lopez gave here in Spanish, and then let them talk and see what their reaction is. You may have all the information that they ask, and have beautiful things to do, but, if there is not buy-in by the fishermen, you are not doing anything, and so if, by pushing fifteen more days into March, you are going to lose the support for the days that you have there, the red hind will suffer too, and so let’s take it easy. We will have the workshops, and we will give you the report, and then you will be able to make a decision, and so I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you stop it here and wait until -MARCOS HANKE: Yes, and the next one online, the next presentation, is the Outreach and Education Presentation from Alida Ortiz. Alida, my mistake. The next presentation is the dolphinfish, because Dr. Merton has an appointment, and he’s going to present first, and then you. The microplastics, we are going to move that to the next meeting. DOLPHINFISH RESEARCH PROGRAM UPDATE WESSLEY MERTEN: Good afternoon, folks. It’s been four years since I have presented at this council, and so it’s a pleasure to see some familiar faces again. Shifting from one important issue to another, and that is what to do with dolphin, in terms of management for dolphin, in the Western Central Atlantic Ocean. My name is Dr. Wessley Merten, and I’m the director of Beyond Our Shores Foundation Dolphinfish Research Program. We are based in Newport, Rhode Island, and, really, my objective here today is to try to limit the amount of emotion that I include in my presentation, because this is a pretty charged topic right now, a pretty controversial topic, depending on who you talk to throughout the Western Central Atlantic Ocean and depending on which sector 135

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

you speak to with regard to what to do, in terms of helping conserve the dolphinfish stock within the WCA for the future. With that being said, I am going to present some case studies and some data that we’ve been collecting around Puerto Rico and within the U.S. Caribbean Sea, as well as the Caribbean Sea Basin, that can lead to some further conversations about this topic. I run the Dolphinfish Research Program, which is the world’s largest international citizen science mark-and-recapture program for dolphinfish, and so it’s designed to collect data with the public, and so to integrate the public into a mark-and-recapture study to collect data on the movements, the life history patterns, and population dynamics of the species, and so this program actually began in 2002, and so we’re in our twentieth year of research, and so it’s been running for two decades, and we’re about to begin our twenty-first year, and so we have a pretty deep history of working with anglers throughout this region. Like I mentioned, I am going to provide a comprehensive update on specific data collected through the DRP, specifically for the U.S. Caribbean Sea, and also for the broader Caribbean Sea Basin, and, now, I am very ambitious here, knowing that I only have thirty minutes to do so, and so, basically, what I’m going to do is present three case studies, and I have allocated about seven minutes each, for each one, and we’re going to hit that seven right on the dot, right? Probably not, but I am going to conclude, at the end, with issues facing the WCA stock, and I’ve allocated four minutes for that, and so these timings are something that I hope you guys are lenient on. Let’s get started with these case studies. Just to kind of point to what these case studies will present, in terms of the data, I put these together based off of questions that Captain Marcos Hanke submitted to me a couple of weeks ago, when he approached me about presenting at the council meeting today, and so one of those questions was with regard to dolphinfish catch and effort at sargassum. Obviously, the pulses of sargassum mats throughout the Caribbean Sea is a very controversial topic right now, and so he approached me with a question about catch and effort of dolphinfish at those habitats. Another question that he had was relative to stock connectivity throughout the Caribbean Sea, and so Case Study Number 2 will look at movements throughout the Caribbean Sea, with an emphasis on the Dominican Republic, but this case study will point to data that serves to address that question that Captain Marcos Hanke sent me. 136

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

Then the last case study is on dolphinfish landings and fishery dynamics in the Caribbean Sea, and this really kind of addresses the notion of who is landing what, and what is our status, in terms of the amount of landings, for this species throughout the region, and so these three case studies should provide you with a good amount of information, so that you guys can make some rational decisions about the management for this species. Case Study Number 1 is catch and effort, sargassum versus FADs, and so each one of these case studies is a manuscript in development, and so, with this first case study, there is six different datasets that we have used to begin to address this notion of catch and effort of dolphinfish at sargassum habitat. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Hurricane Center provides paths of different meteorological events, and so this is Tropical Storm and Hurricane Leslie, which occurred from September 22, 2018 to October 12, 2018. It was a unique twenty-day event that served to influence the oceanography and meteorology around Puerto Rico, and, specifically, the north coast of Puerto Rico, from Arecibo to Fajardo. During this time, anglers were reporting some of the best fishing conditions and the best abundance of fish in years, and so this storm really kind of served as the episode to kind of look at the influx of sargassum and catch and effort relative to that habitat during this twenty-day event, and so that’s Dataset Number 1. Dataset Number 2 is looking at the oceanographic and meteorological data from Buoy 41043 that’s right off of Old San Juan. This buoy collects general standard meteorological and oceanographic data, and so the top panel just shows the wave period in black, and the wave direction is in gray, and, when the black and the gray lines move away from each other, that’s indicating swell energy from the north, and so northerly swells coming towards the north coast of Puerto Rico. Now, the bottom panel is alluding to wind direction in black and wind speed in gray. Again, when you see divergence in the black and the gray lines, that is indicating that the wind direction has shifted to the south, and the wind speed is actually decreasing in velocity, and, when you have a long-period swell from the north, and light southerly winds off the north coast of Puerto Rico, those are prime fishing conditions off this coast, and anglers flock to fish during those moments. Those are the first two datasets that really kind of set the stage 137

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

for analyzing additional data that overlay on top of this time period, and one of those datasets is visual census scuba dive surveys, and so, during this episode, we dove FADs, and we dove logs, and sargassum, and we did standardized scuba surveys. Just to point to a couple of quick results here, we’ve been doing these standardized scuba dive surveys since 2016, and, during this episode, this meteorological and oceanographic episode, we observed some of the largest schools of dolphinfish during those standardized surveys, and so up to thirty individuals observed on one dive and twenty-two on another. Now, we also have another dataset that we’re incorporating into this analysis, which is tagging data, and so we started tagging off the north coast of Puerto Rico, around the FADs, beginning in 2015, and so we grabbed the tagging data from 2015 through the end of October 31, 2018, which was kind of the end of this weather event. During that time period, there was 392 fish tagged, including this one, during that actual period, and ten fish were recovered. Now, 23 percent of all tagged fish were actually tagged during this meteorological event off of San Juan a few years ago. Now, in October, during that episode, we had the highest monthly tag deployments, with fifty-nine fish actually tagged during that time, and so we had an increased amount of tagging activity from a bunch of different participants during this time period, and so that was Dataset Number 4. Now, Dataset Number 5 is, during this exact time, we had vessels participating in our catch and effort study, and so we had ten vessels embarking on outings on pretty much a daily basis, between recreational, charter, or small-scale commercial anglers, and we grabbed the trips from September 1 to October 31, during this time period, to examine the catch that they were having during this episode. We recorded catch for any species, but really looking at dolphinfish, yellowfin tuna, blue marlin, and wahoo, and then the last dataset, that really kind of brings everything together here to start to address this question of dolphinfish catch at sargassum is incorporating the floating algae index via the satellite-based sargassum watch system, and we collaborated directly with Dr. Hu and Dr. Zhang to look at the data, more so than what is available via the website that everyone can view, and so we actually worked directly with Dr. Hu and Dr. Zhang. Now quickly to the results.

Now, basically, the main part of the 138

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

results here is a catch matrix that you can look at and break it down by boat, by week, and whether or not the catch was FAD or non-FAD associated, and so, every catch report that anglers reported to us, they said whether or not they caught the fish at FADs or they caught the fish away from FADs. From Week 1 through Week 4, the vessels, during this study, embarked on forty-four trips, of which eighteen resulted in no catch, but then, from Week 5 through Week 9, which was kind of the peak of this meteorological episode, of the forty-seven trips, only three resulted in no catch, and so the incidence of vessel catch per trip was highest in Week 5, and just over half, or 50.5 percent, of reported dolphinfish catch occurred in Week 5 and Week 8, and so, from vessels that embarked on trips from Week 5 to Week 9, each vessel reported their highest catch per trip and, overall, significantly more dolphinfish were caught away and unassociated with FADs during this time period, and these were statisticallymodeled results, and so we do have statistical significance with these catch records. During this time period, we logged ninety-one trips, and a total of 702 dolphinfish were logged during this nine-week period, twenty-six yellowfin tuna, twelve blue marlin, and ten wahoo. The yellowfin tuna was the only species that was caught in greater abundance at the FADs during this time period. All the other species were caught in higher abundance away from FADs, and presumably at these sargassum mats. Now, when you start to look at the vessel effort relative to the floating algae index and the images that Dr. Hu and Dr. Zhang provided, we found matches for the majority of the weeks that we observed this data, and we correlated this data, and so the only matches that we didn’t have are the ones that are kind of grayedout here in Sub-Panel B, Sub-Panel C, F, and G. Now, there is a limitation with the model, in that nearshore, close to shore, there is a lower amount of ability for the floating algae index to actually reflect floating algae, and so there is a nearshore limitation with these data, and so, in F and G, clouds, and the lack of nearshore remote sensing data, led to no matches, but, for some weeks, when you do have satellite imagery available, you can actually do more sophisticated models, which, in this next slide, shows the Sub-Panel H, which is Week 8, and this is using an image from Sentinel 2, which is a different type of satellite used than the floating algae index. This provides nearshore resolution of sargassum mats, and, within this actual figure, we have recaptures that occurred during this 139

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

week from fish that were tagged, and the anglers that reported those recaptures also reported those fish being caught at sargassum, and so the point being that incorporating these different datasets can lead to strengthening the floating algae index and lead to actually starting to address the lack of data of catch at these sargassum events within the Caribbean Sean and within the U.S. Caribbean Sea. In summary for Case Study Number 1, we had significantly more catch unassociated with FADs during the time period examined, and so a lot of the dolphinfish being reported during this time period were likely being caught in association with those sargassum mats during this time period examined. The one negative aspect of our catch and effort model is that we do not ask the anglers for size, because it is really demanding on anglers for them to report size estimates in all of their catch reports. One thing that we have done, to try to rectify this, is they send images of their catch, and so we’re trying to incorporate size by getting images, so that we can incorporate size into the catch associated with these trips. Now, some of those trips caught upwards of 111 dolphinfish at the habitat that they are fishing, and so it is based on my experience that, whenever you’re catching 111 dolphinfish, they’re not gaffer dolphinfish. They’re not twenty-five or thirty-pound fish, and they are three-to-five-pound fish, probably, predominantly being caught, and not number of fish. Coupling remote sensing floating algae index and Sentinel 2 images is promising, but it has its nearshore limitations. The visual census and tagging data are certainly helpful for providing additional observations, which can be used to corroborate those other datasets, and then this is an analytically extensive like episodic approach to small-scale fisheries observations, but it is doable, and so it is doable to look at sargassum coming into say Puerto Rico or coming into the Virgin Islands and trying to quantify what anglers are catching at those sargassum mats. There is the possibility of incorporating vessel speed and direction into this type of research, to then model the likelihood that vessels are actually trolling sargassum, relative to these habitats that are coming through the Caribbean Basin, and I would just like to point out here that, off Fajardo, this is actually Captain Marcos Hanke and his vessel activity, and so we do have his catch reports, and, probably compared to his more detailed catch log, we could look at whether he was trolling sargassum lines back then, but you can kind of see some of these images here, these 140

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

tracks, where these vessels are moving, in a pretty much horizontal direction, indicating that they are likely trolling sargassum lines, and so there’s definitely machine learning and other types of really cool analytical techniques that can be used for this research. That was Case Study Number 1. Case Study Number 2 is looking at movements in the Caribbean Sea for this species, and so we have established, through scientific papers, that fish are moving from the east coast down to the Caribbean Sea, and we published a paper, back in 2016, that showed these dynamics, but, today, I really want to focus on the Caribbean Sea tagging effort, and so we’ve had an uptick in tagging activity within the Caribbean Sea over the last several years, and now this zone represents 8.6 percent of our total tagging database. We have anglers tagging in Barbados, Guadalupe, St. Barts, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, DR, the Caymans, Cozumel, but, obviously, we’re always looking for more people to participate, but the point that I am trying to make though is that we have had more participation, which is good. Now, Caribbean Sea movements -- We have eleven satellite tag movements from twenty-two deployments, and all of those fish were revived in situ, and so actually revived in the water and released, which shows that deploying satellite tags is not an easy thing, and there is definitely an art to it, but we have eleven break records, and that is indicated here with the movements here. We have ninety days of high-resolution vertical movements, a fiftysix-day location track of a forty-seven-inch bull, and then ninetynine days of mark-and-report PSAT movements, and so we’re gathering more fishery-independent movement data. Now, that information, when you bring and compare it to the fifty convention recaptures, starts to amass to a reasonable movement database for the movements of the species in the Caribbean Sea. We have had a fish tagged off of San Juan and recaptured by a commercial longliner off of Charleston, South Carolina after 203 days at liberty, and we had -- Actually, Dr. Guy Harvey tagged a fish off of Grand Caymans, a couple of summers ago, and it was recaptured in thirty-eight days off Key Largo, and then we had Captain Collin Butler tag a forty-one-inch bull off of the North Drop, which was recaptured in the Keys after fifty-one days, and then this is a fifty-six-day movement, from a satellite tag, of a forty-three-inch bull that was tagged a few years ago, and so you see that they have, obviously, broad movements throughout the Caribbean Basin and connectivity with many different jurisdictions throughout this region. 141

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

Really, what I want to focus in on here though is the fine-scale data, and so we’re going to look at DR, and then we’re going to look at, really, the Virgin Islands, actually, for this particular segment, and so first with the Dominican Republic. The Sandman started tagging for us on September 18, 2021, and so just over two months ago, and, from September 18 to November 19, they tagged seventy-three fish in eighteen outings. All of these fish were tagged at or near fish aggregating devices. Minimum size was twenty-two inches, the maximum was thirty-one, and the mean, median, and mode was twenty-six inches, and so these are sub-adult fish. These are not fully fecund fish. Five of seventy-three fish were recaptured, which equates to a 6.8 percent recapture rate, which is a very high recapture rate, and all recaptures occurred at FADs, and so all the reporters, and I communicate with these reporters via WhatsApp, all of these reporters reported that they caught these fish at FADs. They were recaptured three, seven, eight, ten, and fifteen days after release. Now, Sandman’s 6.8 percent recapture rate is higher than Wam-Jam’s highest 5.9 percent and Killin’ Time II’s highest 5.1 percent June to August recapture rate in the Florida Keys, and that is the location of the largest directed dolphin sector in the region, and so this incidence of a very high recapture rate raises a couple of questions, and it also points to a couple of situations. Number one, fishing pressure is extremely high off of the Dominican Republic, and specifically offshore for dolphinfish, if we have a 6.8 percent recapture rate from seventy-three fish being tagged. Number two, this raises the question, or the notion, of are FADs leading to horizontal compression of the species movements around the Dominican Republic, and so Molly Wilson, from UC Santa Barbara, published a paper in 2020 that estimated there are 2,500 fish aggregating devices around the coast of the Dominican Republic, and that is a lot of fish aggregating devices, and it could be leading to a false sense of abundance of dolphinfish, if their movements are being horizontally compressed towards those structures. Then the third thing that I would like to point out here is that recaptures of dolphinfish at FADs is not just specific to the north coast of DR, and so I would like to introduce to you a fortyseven-inch bull that we caught two-and-a-half years ago off of La Parguera, and so this fish -- This is the most probable track for that forty-seven-inch bull, and we tagged it really off of Cabo 142

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

Rojo, off the lighthouse, and, during pretty much the month of April, it moved throughout the Mona Passage, and then, for almost the entire month of May, it was active south of La Romana before the fish is recaptured at a fish aggregating device, and so this was a very unique event. Obviously, gathering geolocation estimates is something that we’re trying to do with our tagging program, and it is hard to do, and it’s also very rare, but it has now happened, for a fish to be recaptured with a satellite tag, and so we got back the entire dataset here, and so we get a lot of really cool vertical movement data, which I am not going to present, obviously, here, but I would just like to make the point that this tag left the hands of artisanal commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico and ended up in the hands of artisanal fisheries in the Dominican Republic, and so it points to connectivity between fishing communities, and also this species is being caught at FADs in pretty good frequency. Now over to the Virgin Islands, so Fishing Vessel Family Ties was extremely active in our tagging program from January 9 of 2018 to August 20 of 2019, and they tagged 372 fish during that time, in a total of fifty-seven outings, and most of those tagged fish were actually tagged near FADs, and so public FADs that the United States Virgin Islands has deployed. The minimum size is twelve inches, and the maximum is forty-inches, and the mean is twenty-three, and the median and the mode are twenty-four inches, and so sub-adult fish, and they’re not fully fecund. Now, nineteen of those fish tagged were recaptured, or 5.1 percent is the rate, which is another high recapture rate. Some of the information that we gathered from this is some of the first return migrants to the North Drop region, and so “DAL” stands for days at liberty, and so we had some of the fish obviously being recaptured within just a couple of days of being released, and others being recaptured up to a month later, and then several actually coming back and being recaptured 2.5 to six months later, and so, previous to giving this talk, I didn’t pull the growth estimates for those 200-day and 135-day fish, but there is probably substantial growth with those individuals, and I could pull it up after the talk. Also, that yellow dot is a fish recaptured by Collin Butler that was tagged in Florida that was at large for 210 days, and so all of this data is pointing to the fact that fish are being caught and tagged at fish aggregating devices in pretty good frequency within the U.S. Caribbean Sea, and the Dominican Republic as well, and we have broad connectivity patterns between the east coast, 143

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

between the U.S. Caribbean Sea, and throughout the Caribbean Basin. Now, just to summarize this case study, the highest recapture rate by a tagging team in the DRP over a seasonal window for DR, and this is what we just observed recently. Tagging and recaptures all occurred at FADs in DR, and the average size was twenty-six inches fork length, and so you’re not getting a big fillet out of the fish when you fillet it, and it’s not a fully mature, fully fecund fish. Satellite tag recovered at a FAD south of Isla Saona, Dominican Republic, and that was in the spring. Now, a high recapture rate and short-term return migrants were observed off of the North Drop, and so those return migrants point to the fact that, if you release a small fish in these waters, the return migrants show that they are coming back, and so there’s a potential for small fish to come back as bigger fish when they are released. FADs are prevalent and increasingly referenced as reported tag and recovery sites in the Caribbean for the DRP over the last several years, and so this is the -- This is Guadalupe, and I didn’t do an in-depth analysis of this angler that participates with us, but this is all his vessel tracking data for the past several years, and it looks like four or five years, and we’ve got 476 fish that he has tagged in a hundred different outings. Most of the fish are tagged at FADs off of Guadalupe as well, and you can see, by this vessel tracking data, it’s very direct. This angler is heading out of port and going straight to specific points and moving between those points. I can show you other data from the west coast of Puerto Rico that the anglers just disperse everywhere, because they don’t have FADs, and so the point I’m trying to make here is that FADs are increasingly being used, and they're increasingly being deployed, and the mean size of the fish being caught at these FADs is small, and twenty-three inches for Captain Julian Brassall out of Guadalupe. That’s end of Case Study Number 2, and I think I’m going pretty good with time. I don’t know, and I haven’t been paying attention. Am I doing okay? Yes? Okay. I will keep going before they stop me. Case Study Number 3 is landings and Caribbean Sea fishery dynamics, and so we’ve got forty-three jurisdictions that arguably all land dolphinfish throughout this region, and whether or not they report is another question. Robin Mahone, Dr. Robin Mahone, someone that I have never met, but has done some amazing work on dolphinfish, published a paper in 1999 that looked at the Caribbean Sea and 144

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

dolphinfish fisheries. One of the figures from his manuscript is Figure 3, and so what we’ve done over the last eighteen months is attempted to update Dr. Mahone’s work from the past, and so we extended out his Figure 3, using the FAO landings data for dolphinfish, really looking at the main countries that have been reporting since 1950, but we also incorporate other countries that are now reporting dolphinfish landings. With looking at just these particular nations, and this is for directed dolphinfish landings, 3,000 metric tons is the average for these nations throughout this time period, but, when you incorporate all other nations that are now reporting since Mahone’s work, we’re seeing pretty much a spike in catch, and an increase in catch, from these other nations reporting, and now we’re seeing directed commercial landings of 6,000 metric tons. I presented this information to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council about a year ago, because they are also considering management and conservation measures for dolphinfish as well, and so this is just the figure cleaned up, with some of those nations depicted in color, and you have some interesting patterns here. The yellow in the middle of that plot is Mexico, and so I don’t know what has happened to Mexico’s reported dolphinfish commercial landings, but it’s non-existent anymore, and they have a very large EEZ, and so I’m not sure if they are landing commercial fish or not or if another nation is now actually landing that fish for them or something, and so lots of interesting fishery dynamics occurring within the Caribbean Basin, and that is one that I want to point out from this figure. The Dominican Republic has been increasing in their directed commercial landings reporting over the last several years, and, within this same figure, the U.S. commercial directed dolphinfish fishery was larger back in the mid-1990s and late 1990s and has been decreasing since then, really ever since that time, but, now, when you look at the recreational sector, you actually see what the largest sector for directed dolphinfish landings is within the Western Central Atlantic region, and that is the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic Bight, Mid-Atlantic Bight, and New England recreational sectors. In this plot, the yellow, indicated here, is the U.S. commercial fishery, which has been decreasing in size since the mid to late 1990s, to the end of this time period, which was 2018 that we 145

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

looked at this data, and so the red and the yellow nations are the nations that are actually reporting dolphinfish landings, and so they were actually giving estimates to the FAO. The black nations are the nations that are not reporting any landings to the FAO, and we do not have any estimates, really, for many of these nations for the recreational sector, and so there is a lack of data on dolphinfish landings throughout the region, but, since Mahone’s work, we’ve actually seen longline effort double within the actual jurisdictions within this region, and so this is actually the number of hooks set. I grabbed this data from the ICCAT data, and so this is the number of hooks set within national jurisdictions and the number of hooks set outside of national jurisdictions from 1956 all the way through 2018, and, since Mahone’s work, we’ve seen effort double within national jurisdictions and quadruple outside national jurisdictions, and so this points to the fact that, obviously, we have a lot more longline fishing effort throughout the region, and then the question becomes what is the incidence of bycatch of dolphinfish associated with that activity. It’s a number that nobody has presented. One way to start to address this lack of information, or even start to get a ballpark of what is being caught incidentally, or not reported, is to look at other types of indices, such as coastal and oceanic-grouped fish, and so this is a figure showing the countries that are not reporting dolphinfish, and there are coastal and oceanic take, and, on the scale, on the Y-axis, it’s landings in metric tons, and so there’s a lot of fish that are being grouped into these kind of ambiguous groups of coastal and oceanic fish. Again, what is the proportion of dolphinfish associated with these designations, or these groupings, and, since Mahone’s work, we’ve actually seen seven nations that have recorded an increase in what’s called the UIM category, which is the unidentified marine fish category, and so those nations include Haiti, Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, Panama, St. Barts, St. Maarten, and Turks & Caicos, and so Haitian landings have increased fourfold within that UIM, unidentified marine fish, category, while the Cayman Islands and Jamaica have increased 48 percent and 40 percent, respectively. Quite a bit of fish is being reported, but it’s being grouped into unidentified marine fish, or it’s being grouped into coastal or oceanic groups, which we are able to actually discern what proportion of that is dolphinfish, and it’s likely that it’s probably a pretty good proportion, given the broad connectivity of the species throughout the Caribbean Basin. 146

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

This is countries reporting dolphinfish and their coastal and oceanic landings, which have been increasing through time, but these nations are actually reporting dolphinfish, and so we know what proportion of those landings it is. Then another aspect of this case study was looking at The Sea Around Us, and so Daniel Pawley’s group at UVC, and they have reconstructed dolphinfish catch, and they have reconstructed catch for a lot of different types of fisheries throughout the world. What we did is we looked at the SAU, and so Sea Around Us, dolphinfish reconstruction for the commercial sector and for the recreational sector, and we also looked at the SAU reconstruction for UIM-identified fish, and, in most cases, or, basically, in the only case that there wasn’t a difference between the reconstruction and the reported to the FAO, or to the MRIP, was for the U.S. recreational sector, and so the SAU and the MRIP estimate were pretty much spot-on, but, when the SAU reconstruction was compared to the FAO commercial dolphinfish catch, the SAU catch was higher during the time period, and so pointing to the fact that there is likely misreporting going on with some of these catch reports being submitted. That points to the comments that I just made about the SAU and the FAO commercial catch and the MRIP data, and so, right here, I can’t see that, because there’s a little thing there, but, in one particular year, it was 2,634 metric tons higher for the SAU commercial estimate than the FAO estimate, the point being that reconstructed catch was 39.4 percent higher than the reported catch from 2000 to 2016 and 18 percent higher over the entire time period, and so the landings data we’re getting is likely an underestimate of what is actually happening. Then here is just the UIM category, SAU versus the FAO, and one time it was 2.7 times higher, but the UIM estimates are on the order of 67 percent higher throughout the entire time series, and so this is just pointing to the fact that there is a lot of uncertainty about landings of dolphinfish throughout the region, and it’s something that we need to rectify and improve upon, and it needs international cooperation, and it needs attention from fishery councils, such as the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, as well as the Gulf Coast Fishery Management and the South Atlantic Bight and the Mid-Atlantic Bight and the New England Fishery Management Councils. The last part of this case study is looking at the final part of this table, and it’s a complex table, but the SAU data allows us 147

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

to look at recreational estimates for landings at international locations, and, when I did this analysis, and when you combined it with the reported commercial landings for 2016, total dolphinfish direct catch was 12,000 metric tons, of which 68 percent was estimated to be recreational catch, and that really is a pretty staggering look at how this sector, and this part of the region, is generally a recreational fishery. When you compare landings in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, it is -- The lion’s share is, obviously, commercial catch over there. In the Western Central Atlantic, it is different. The recreational sector is the largest landings sector, and that also affords the opportunity for it to be the biggest sector to make an impact on the conservation and management of this species. In conclusion, lack of data on and at fish aggregating devices in the Caribbean Sea and at sargassum events -- Obviously, you guys are aware of this, but it is evident, and I want it to be a part of the record, and, generally, small, sub-adult fish are less than twenty-four inches fork length, and about 50 percent maturity, in terms of maximum fecundity, are being caught at FADs. The high recapture rate in the Dominican Republic really leads to the question of are FADs leading to horizontal compression for dolphinfish, where you have high FAD densities. Continuing here, we have inconsistent regulations on the same stock, despite transient evidence. The stock is connected. It is connected throughout this region, and so it should be managed accordingly. It should be managed as a connected stock. Quality data on the recreational fishery is lacking, yet there is an increase in the fishery. We have unknown indirect harvest in longline fisheries, and we’ve seen a doubling and a quadrupling of effort inside and outside of national jurisdictions. We have virtually no landings data from sixteen nations, a lack of bycatch data, and so what proportion of WCA dolphin catch is made up of bycatch? If it’s larger than the recreational sector, then we really have a problem. Increasing demand in major seafood markets, and so we’re doing restaurant work here in Puerto Rico, and the people that we work with in restaurants are always searching for dolphinfish, and there’s price issues with dolphinfish here, and there is increasing demand within the U.S. market and on this island. High discard mortality, and we need to promote the use of circle hooks, and so U.S. directed commercial longliners need to use 16/0 circle hooks in their longlining effort, and so, when recreational anglers are 148

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

bailing dolphin, one of the most impactful conservation measures they can impart is to use a non-offset circle hook during that bailing action, and so, when they’re drifting with a school and catching small fish, they should be using circle hooks. We need to eliminate the perception of resistance to overfishing, and so let them go and they will grow. The 2.5 to six-month return migrants off the North Drop, those are growing fish. Those are fish that are highly fecund now, after being released, and they’re coming back into the system. Lastly, we have this underappreciation of the multinational distribution which fragments data collection and management for this species, and so that, folks, is a laundry list of issues facing the WCA dolphinfish stock, and I am sorry if I went over time, but I will take any questions at this time. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. Like always, that was a great presentation, and thank you for answering most of the questions that Carlos Farchette and I sent to you, and I think we should evaluate how we are going to address the continuous influx of sargassum that is opening the opportunity for overharvest of juvenile dolphin. I think we are in a position to address that, and we have better information now, and, in the future, we have to evaluate that, especially for the recreational sector, and a question that I have, just to make sure that it’s very clear on the record, is what is 50 percent -- Twenty-four inches fork length is 50 percent of the fish are mature. WESSLEY MERTEN: The maximum fecundity, and this is coming from back in 1999, and so Dr. Hazel Oxenford published a paper, back in 1999, on the biology of dolphinfish in the Western Central Atlantic, and it was a review, and so her dataset, which is in the Panel B for the line plots, shows kind of frequency of mature fish, and so the percentage of the frequency of those mature fish, and then the size of those fish, and so, based off of her data, twentyfour inches fork length was where 50 percent of the fish were mature, and that is maximum fecundity maturity. Now, the top pane is for Puerto Rico, and the sample sizes weren’t quite as high, and so the Barbados data, in terms of replicates, might be stronger, but the 50 percent maturity was a little lower for Puerto Rico, and we’re looking at anywhere from -- It says about 500 millimeters here, where you’ve got about 75 percent frequency of mature females observed in those samples, but you have a pretty small sample size there, and you have like nine 149

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

individuals that they looked at. The point being that we should be allowing these fish to reach a larger size maximum fecundity before they are harvested, and we should get anglers away from the notion that, once they are able to reproduce, we should catch them, and so we should let them mature before harvest. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for advancing what I was trying to get to, and there is two main points. One is that a fast-growing, fast-reproducing -- A few inches on the measurement means much more reproduction for that fish that will support the population. Number two, we don’t have the use, in Puerto Rico, of dolphin as a deep-fried whole fish, or the little fillets are not valuable, and we are not creating any problem to the use of the meat as it is right now by regulating and being proactive in favor to the dolphinfish and creating a rationale behind for a minimum size for them. This is a discussion for the future, but it’s something that I want to stress to the group what I think, and I would like to hear from the council. Carlos. CARLOS FARCHETTE: Thank you so much for that presentation. You know, I’ve been doing a little bit of homework on St. Croix about the dolphinfish, and there’s a lot of concern from fishermen, both recreational and commercial, and I’m sure in Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John. I’ve been hearing, anecdotally, that they have some concerns about the overharvesting of juveniles, and so our local fisheries advisory committee on St. Croix have been discussing a size limit for mahi and for wahoo, but, now that you mention twenty-four inches, the Golden Hook Club, when they have tournaments, their minimum size is thirty-three, and anything smaller than that has to be released and tagged, if they can tag it, and so I was coming here almost prepared to make a motion for a minimum size on mahi, and maybe even wahoo, but mostly mahi for right now, but maybe I would like to go back and have a little more discussion before I do that, but I am definitely going to try to move forward, and I am really -- Since we’re moving to island-based fishery management plans very shortly, I am going to be really speaking more about St. Croix, and we are considering having a strict bag limit for the recreational take of mahi, and we’re looking at numbers like five and fifteen, five per person and fifteen per boat. Anything other than, you tag and release, or just release, and this idea, or this notion, that some of the fishermen that I’ve been hearing saying that they pass through these same sargassum weed lines and the little mahi, the little two-pounders, or one150

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

pounders, are so greedy that they don’t even give the bait a chance to go down for the bigger ones, and then I tell them, well, move from that area. If that’s all you’re catching, move away from that and fish somewhere else and see if you can find the bigger fish. I think I would like to go back before I come to the council with a motion to try and do something in the EEZ, because, for St. Croix, our waters are so close to shore, 2,000 feet and half-amile from shore, that we also would have to work with the Commissioner to have a minimum size, and also a bag limit, for the territorial waters for St. Croix, because you can catch that species that close in. I know that Puerto Rico and St. Thomas have a much bigger shelf, and so they have to go out further to get to the deep waters, and I’m not sure what they intend to do, but -- Miguel. I saw you raise your hand, and so I don’t know if -MIGUEL ROLON: I was raising my hand, and don’t worry. By the way, Dr. Merten, excellent presentation, and I always read your papers and everything, and I’m glad that you have a PhD from Puerto Rico, and that’s a feather in your cap. I was going to mention three things. We have been working with the dolphin at the international level for a long time. Actually, Hazel and I worked together with Dr. Hunt, and we started this idea of having a Pan-Caribbean management of the dolphin, because you have a grab-it fishery, and a grab-it fishery is when each country grabs whatever they can, and the next country does the same, and then there is no coordination, and so we were worried that, even though this is a short-lived animal, we may be able to wipe them out of the fishery, where we’re not careful with it. There are three regions, let’s say, governance regions, the local governments, like Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, the federal government, and international, and those three have to work together to be able to manage the dolphin wahoo in a proactive manner, in a very effective manner. From the presentation of Dr. Merten here, you have seen that his information -- Actually, I love that satellite tracking that you did with these animals all the way to the Dominican Republic, but, also, Dr. Mahone, the presentation where he got all the information from across the Caribbean, and he wished to demonstrate who is reporting and who is not. At the WECAFC level, we are going to have something that we 151

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

postponed, and it’s a flyingfish and dolphin wahoo working group, and, actually, I told you already, some time ago, that Marcos and you are probably the best representatives from the U.S. delegation that will be working together at that meeting. That meeting will be in person, and, because it will be in person, we have to postpone it. We, the WECAFC group, have to postpone it, and so the council can ask the staff to start working together on this information, and you don’t have to rush into any motion at this time, but the local governments -- You can use this information and establish your own quota. The thing about the dolphin wahoo is that you have two issues of allocation and then the conservation of the animal. One country cannot do the conservation that you need to protect the animal and to make sure that the biological parameters are followed and that you fish at the time that they are sexually mature, but you have a buffer before that, and so this presentation you can use as a roadmap, and so the government of the Virgin Islands -- You can go ahead and work on whatever is appropriate, in your case, the quota or whatever, and, if you go before the council, then that can be also used at the time that we discuss compatible regulations, because, in Puerto Rico, it’s the same. In Puerto Rico, we have discussed with Puerto Rico for a long time allocation issues, commercial and recreational. Recreational wants to fish for them, and they don’t want the commercial to fish it, and the recreational use it for socioeconomic purposes, and then the recreational fishermen go to the market, flood the market, and the price goes down, to the detriment of the economy and the commercial fishers. In essence, I believe that this presentation here could serve as the basis for following this, and so the council can have -Actually, you can ask the staff, Graciela and Maria, not to rush into this, because we have, as you know, a lot of priorities that Maria mentioned this morning, but at least to have some time consideration for the information that you need, and 2022, probably the last part of 2022, we will be able to move forward with this, and the local governments can use this information to move forward if you want right now, if that’s what you want to do. In order not to drop the ball on this one, we would like to hear from the council what is your pleasure, what would you like to do with this information for the next 2022/2023 period. MARCOS HANKE: Along the same lines, and I have you, Julian, and this is not a vote, and there is not a motion, but I want -152

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

Because I am here in the room, and there is other people virtually, and I’m pretty sure that these questions that I am going to make now are going to give you some guidance of how deep we already understand the problematics. Is there anybody in opposition to consider a management to protect or to address the overfishing or the extra pressure on juveniles of mahi, considering the problem of the sargassum and everything that we spoke, and is there anybody that has any consideration that is not in favor to consider and to address this problem? There is a silence in the room, and everybody, probably, is interested to address that, and that’s point number one. Point number two is I want to -- Miguel, you mentioned the white paper, and what is the process to start the white paper? Is it just instruct the staff to go ahead with it? MIGUEL ROLON: recording.)

(Part of Mr. Rolon’s comment is not audible on the

One thing that you could do is to write a letter to the local governments to move forward with the dolphin wahoo, and then they can use the information to start considering with the process that they have, and that’s something for the local governments to do, and the council can help with that information, if you want, but it's all entirely a decision by the local government. Second, the difference between somebody asking the difference between the white paper and the options paper, and the white paper is just to collect the information that you have, the background information and all the information that you have and bring it to the council. The options paper has the options that you have for management, and so, at this time, clearly what you need is the information, and it could be the presentation that you have today, the information that Dr. Merten has already, through different organizations, and we can pull that out and use it. Probably, by the end of 2022, we will have an opportunity to discuss this a little bit further, and, if you want to discuss it in the summer, that’s fine, but it’s an idea, and we can send a letter to the two local governments, or just, if you don’t need the letter, because the commissioner is here, and Damaris is here, and so they can make a note and discuss it at your own pace, if you deem it necessary to discuss it. In summary, I believe that, from the presentation here, I don’t think that anybody is opposed to help this fishery by protecting the small animals, and that’s something that can be promoted. The 153

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

management plan that is being considered -- Not being considered, but will be considered again by WECAFC will include all that information. Number one, the CFMC will promote Pan-Caribbean management of the species, and that’s one of our charter goals and objectives, and we will assist the WECAFC with the next meeting of the working group, and we will invite Dr. Merten and Marcos to participate, to give us the same information that we have here, and we will probably invite Dr. Mahone and Hazel, and those are the three -The three people that I just mentioned are the top authorities right now on the dolphinfish. Again, the council can wait for maybe an options paper sometime, and Graciela and Maria can figure out the schedule, making sure that we don’t trip over the things that we are doing now, but at least we have something that the council is considering. Then the local governments can make a note, and, for the next meeting, you can tell us an update of what’s going on, in terms of the schedule that you have and whether you would like to do it or not. The issues to be discussed are allocation and the biological parameters that we can protect to make sure that the fish reach the age where they can reproduce, the size they can reproduce, and also to have a buffer and not to fish right at the time that they become sexually mature, because that will not cut it. In addition, Puerto Rico has a component that is different from other islands, and we have two species, one in the north that comes from North Carolina and reaches Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and another one from the south that -- We call it dorado, or mahimahi, because we copied that from Hawaii, but there is two different species, and they have different strategies and biological histories, and they are different. That is my suggestion, Mr. Chairman. MARCOS HANKE: So it will be on the record that the staff will work on this and collect all the information, and I need the participation of people, and please go very, very fast. I have Julian and then Tony and Maria and Carlos, and then we will end this. I’m sorry. I have Julian, Tony, Nelson, Maria, and then Carlos. JULIAN MAGRAS: I would like to start off by saying excellent presentation. To get straight down to the point, back in 2017, the fishery advisory committee for St. Thomas/St. John, which, at that time, I was the vice chair, we had a meeting with the recreational and commercial guys that were fishing for wahoo and 154

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

dolphin. We held that meeting at the Frenchtown Community Center, and, at that meeting, at that point, we all determined that there needed to be a size limit for both of the species and a bag limit for both commercial and on the recreational side. With that said, it was presented to the council in 2017, on the size and bag limits, but it has not been implemented, and it’s something that we can request that fishery advisory committee now look at, but I also can speak with my members of the fishermen’s association, and we would be willing to host a meeting, again, with the commercial and recreational sector, and gather as much information as we can to help with this process. Maybe even increasing, now that we have seen this presentation, and if you can share that with me, and maybe even increasing the size limit by a couple of inches, and so I just wanted to put that on the record out there. Thank you, and one last thing is I think it would be great, for both the fishery advisory committee and the DAP committees, to come up with the suggestions for findings. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you. We have Tony, Nelson, Maria, and Carlos. TONY BLANCHARD: I would say the same thing that Mr. Magras just said. I think that we could start working on it right now, but, since we don’t have any authority in territorial waters, we need to start -- I think we need a size limit and a bag limit, specifically for the recs, but we do definitely need a size limit across-the-board. NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Excellent presentation, and this is a great opportunity to request again to the local government to reevaluate the bag limit of the recreational fishery for the mahi-mahi, and, in order to protect these fisheries on the commercial sector, and, also, I request to this council to evaluate, like Tony says, and start working with this as soon as we can, and evaluate the possibility to implement a size limit and a bag limit for recreational, too. Thank you. MARIA LOPEZ: We received the task from you, and we will be adding that to the list of actions to take care of, and I think this is one of the things that can be also addressed through the implementation plan from the strategic plan from the council, because, over there, the priorities can be set up. I mean, the council can always decide if this is a big priority, just to speed the process, and then just give us some guidance on what we should be doing first. 155

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

Another thing is that this is very important, and this is exactly what we wanted to do, in terms of we just were bringing this species to management, the pelagic species, and this is what you wanted, and so there is -- Obviously, once the species are in the plan, now is when we have to start implementing measures for the conservation and management of these species. The last thing that I wanted to mention is that, for that flyingfish and dolphinfish working group, as part of the WECAFC, the U.S. has a delegation in our office, the Southeast Regional Office, and it’s represented in the U.S. delegation, as well as our colleagues from Headquarters, and so we will be participating in that meeting too, because the objective is that we need to manage these resources that share boundaries, and so we will be participating in that as well with the council. Thank you. CARLOS FARCHETTE: I just wanted to clarify something, because I didn’t want you all to misstate that, because I said the Golden Hook Club has a minimum size of thirty-three inches for you to land the fish for the tournament -- I am not saying that it has to be thirty-three inches, but, from what I have been gathering for information on St. Croix, between twenty-seven to thirty-three inches, so that we have something to play with, and I’m glad to hear Miguel and Maria mention WECAFC partners, because I did have that on my notes to talk about, are the WECAFC partners working with us, because, without everybody on the same page, I don’t think we’re going to get very far with this. Also, working on the same page, I know that the VI government can actually sign-off on something faster than the federal government can, but we also need them -- We need to work together, because the fish have no borders, and so, when you catch the fish and you’re going to land it, that’s where the problem comes in. If you’re going to land it in St. Croix, and we have regulations, what are you going to do with it, and you can’t come in with it, and you’re going to go somewhere else, and so I think we all need to come up with a plan at the same time. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE: This is a wrap-up, because of timing, and not because of lack of interest, and I think the record, at this level, right now is very clear that we want to do something, and it’s important to do something, and the science is there, and the desire is there, from all sectors. The staff will address the priorities and the timing on this, and we’re going to rely on them, and, Dr. Merten, thank you very much, and we’re going to keep in touch further on this effort, and the 156

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

next presentation is the Outreach and Education Report, but, before that, I want to recognize the presence of Ricardo Rivera, Director from the Department of Agriculture of Puerto Rico. Thank you very much for being present here. Also, --. Thank you very much for being here, and something very important is that this effort is way more productive when other agencies like agriculture and different personnel of DNR are supportive of the work that we do at the council level, and we encourage you guys to keep coming to the meetings and supporting our efforts. (The next comments are not audible on the recording.) MARCOS HANKE: There is a technical problem for the virtual people. Hold on for a second. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION REPORT ALIDA ORTIZ: Good afternoon, everyone. I think it’s almost evening, but we are okay. I will make my report on the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel, the materials that we have discussed in our last meeting in November, but, also, we are going to present the ideas that came out of that meeting and that Roberto Silva and Ricardo Rivera and Nelson are going to help me, and Vanessa, with the idea of school for new fishers. One of the important things, at this time, is that Marine Resources Education Program that has been giving workshops throughout Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, even though they were not able to do that since 2019, I think, but there will be one in August of 2022, and the Outreach and Education, as part of their steering committee, will have a meeting with them and work on the content of that workshop, and so you will know when in August it is going to be, and then the fishers will participate. Also, we have been taking part in many, many webinars, because probably -- I believe it is because of the pandemic situation, but a lot, a lot, a lot of information is being developed through webinars, and 2022 is going to be the year of artisanal fisheries and agriculture. We have been taking more information on the impact of sargassum on fisheries, on MPAs, for sustainable fisheries, climate change, and fisheries and fisheries management in the Caribbean. I have participated in those webinars and taken notes and got in contact with the people that are organizing them, because we think that this is very important information for our outreach and education activities. 157

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

One of the activities that we have been working, and should be finished by probably next week, is remember the calendar for 2022 that was going to be dedicated to the MPAs in our Caribbean region, and this is a way of giving the public in general contact with the importance of the MPAs, not only for fishers, but also for conservation, for protection, of different species for tourism, and so the 2022 calendar is all on MPAs, and it has mainly the MPAs that are under the council jurisdiction, and those are in the EEZ in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix, and then there is information of what happens there, and it will be ready, I hope, by probably next week or something like that, because it has been set up already, and it has several months dedicated to the protected areas, mainly the ones that the Caribbean Council has under its jurisdiction, but also one or two of the local MPAs, because fishes don’t know who manage them, and so we have to take into account all the protected areas. The other material that we have worked, and I think we showed you very, very briefly in the past meeting, is the recommendation that the panel gave that some of these issues, like ecosystem-based fisheries management, to all the fishers and consumers should not be put only in big documents, but in illustrated documents, and so we have been working on some type of -- I will call it a comic book, but it is not a comic book, and it’s illustrations. The materials are illustrated, and this is what we have right now. Notice that all the topics, and there was questions that were sent to people to check them and to see if they had any meaning to the public, and the responses that we receive, and we decided on the text, and notice that all the illustrations are -- These are from Paco Lopez, who is the graphic artist that does most of our work, and, in each one of those questions, there is a fisher, and it can be a fisherman and a fisherwoman and what they are doing, with the idea that, in the ecosystem-based fishery management, the human being is one of the very important components of that cycle, of that ecosystem. They see that their connection between what happens on the shore or on the mountain, but it goes to the water, to the sea, where the fishers are working, and whatever happens in that coast is going to impact the marine environment. Our next product that we have been presenting, little by little, but it’s very, very close to finished, and we hope that, by January, it will be totally complete, and that is remember the Sustainable Seafood Consumption Campaign that was going to end with a recipe book, but a recipe book with the local underutilized 158

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

species, and, here, we have six chefs and collaborators that have given us their recipes, or the traditional recipes, and then these are the illustrations, and Sea Grant is doing the final product. It will be in Spanish and English, and it will be something that the person in the kitchen can have it, and, if they want it in English, they have it one side, and, if they turn it on the other side, it will be in Spanish, with the information, and we have illustrations of the fishes, but also the plates and also the nutritional facts of that recipe. Here is a very special one, and do you recognize that, Carlos? This is Carlos Farchette’s recipe, and so we will know how to make it and what it tastes like, and it has -- Also, you see the nutrition facts, and so you will find that it is very nutritive. Then there are other recipes from chefs who are very well known in Puerto Rico, but also very simple cooking, and we want that species to be on the table, following what we have in our history, following the way we cook things, and so this one from Cedric Taquin, who is also a fisher, and he has given us very good information on especially the wahoo, and it’s one of the species that he prepares very, very good. Lionfish, also. Wanda Pantojas, who is also part of the contributors to the book, in terms of nutrition and health and safety of the fish, and she’s a professor at the University of Puerto Rico in Carolina, but also a very, very good cook. We will have other products with that, because we want to take the same information with the species that are underutilized and use it also for the schools, because we went to some of the schools, and we gave information, and we gave a workshop to the students on the marine ecosystem, the marine fishery ecosystem, of the Caribbean, but that has to have something that they can work with, and not just a text, and so one of the new products that we will have will be that underutilized species for educational purposes. You have seen this before, and we are about to finish, and Miguel, I think, has sent it to be printed, the MPAs of St. Thomas/St. John. The next product on this area of MPAs is going to be the same approach, and it doesn’t have to be exactly the same font, but the same approach for the MPAs in St. Croix and for the MPAs in Puerto Rico, and this is not only the MPAs in the jurisdiction of the council, but we also have information on the MPAs that the territorial government manages. Also, the placemats have been very, very popular in Puerto Rico, and they was a great demand for them, and the one in St. Thomas 159

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

will be the same, and this is -- There is one poster and one fact sheet with the same information, and it has two pages on both sides, and then they have a placemat for the local restaurants and another placement for the restaurants where the tourists eat. These are the projects, the initiatives, that we are following for 2022 to 2025, and this is something that was discussed at our meeting in November, the 8th and 9th, and so we will have to produce island-based fishery management plan fact sheets and infographics and all kinds, all sorts, of materials for the public, and it will be for each one of the island-based, one for Puerto Rico, one for St. Thomas/St. John, and one for St. Croix, and we will be working with probably Chapter 5 in each one of those management plans, so that we can distinguish the species that are being managed, and some were taken out of the old management plan, but there are new species in the new plans, and so we will produce that, and Maria will be a great help with that product. It will take -- I have to run the fact sheets and infographics, but it can also be posters, and it will take any way that it is attractive to the public, that you can put it in the restaurants, and you can put it in the fishing area, that you can put it in the fishing villages where the species are sold. Then MPAs is a very, very important issue, especially with the Thirty-by-Thirty program, where they want to expand many of these areas, and, actually, on February 9, and I don’t know whether it’s going to be -- On February 9, we will have an MPA symposium in San Juan, and you will hear about that, and there will be people from Puerto Rico and from the Virgin Islands and from the rest of the Caribbean, and I think there is also someone coming from Hawaii to share with us their experiences in MPA management and also on the importance for the fisheries. We are working on the illustrated booklets and the illustrated booklets that I think I showed you the first one already, and there is another one on climate change and another one on the MPAs in the U.S. Caribbean. This is now probably the most important issue that was discussed in our Outreach and Education Advisory Panel in November, and it is the great need in our region for new fishers and for fishers that are going to substitute all the spaces that are being left out, and the development of schools, the development of training, of workshops, to bring people into the fisheries, and, with that, we will very closely with -- Vanessa Ramirez gave us a presentation, or not a presentation, but she told us what was being done in the area of Cabo Rojo, and, today, we have here Roberto 160

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

Silva and Ricardo Rivera and Vanessa that I really would love to have them add to this. MARCOS HANKE: We are going to have the representative of the Department of Agriculture, Ricardo Rivera. RICARDO RIVERA: recording.)

(Mr. Rivera’s comment is not audible on the

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Ricardo, and for sure this first conversation right now is on the record, and we encourage you and your staff and Alida to communicate, because I think, more than being the same, they complement each other, and one has more of an educational element to it, and the other one has more of a practical element to it, in terms of the execution in the field from your department, and both can complement each other, and I am pretty sure that that will work out very well. Thank you. ROBERTO SILVA: recording.)

(Mr.

Silva’s

comment

is

not

audible

on

the

MARCOS HANKE: Go ahead, Alida, and I wanted the group to be aware that we still have a lot of presentations coming up, and you are going to see that I was going fast, and now I am going to go even faster. Go ahead, Alida. Nelson, but go faster than faster. NELSON CRESPO: (Part of Mr. Crespo’s comment is not audible on the recording.) Not only in Cabo Rojo, but, everywhere we can, we must have one. Every year, the percentage of all fishermen increased, and we don’t see that amount of young blood that we need to maintain the commercial fishery working as we want, and I guarantee you that, if we go to the field, we’re going to find more people interested to get into the commercial fishery than we think. Every time I know a young guy interested in commercial fishing, I just make an approach to him and try to guide him the best way that I can to make him a profitable fisherman, and one example of that, or one suggestion, that I have for the commercial fishermen’s school is in the west coast of Puerto Rico, especially in my town, in Rincon, we have one of the best wooden boat constructors that I think is on the island, and maybe like an incentive for the fishermen, and maybe we can develop a program that this guy -First, we have to make the approach to this person, and, if he agrees, we can make an approach to the people who are interested, so he can teach them how to build it, and, when they finish, the student can keep it to start to develop his work. 161

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

Alida, I really appreciate, and Roberto appreciates, all the efforts that you are putting here, and to Vanessa, to develop the commercial fishermen’s school in Puerto Rico. MARCOS HANKE: Alida, go ahead, because we have many things, and you have still some slides, correct? ALIDA ORTIZ: Yes, and so our specific areas for outreach and education are the ecosystem-based management plan and the fishery ecosystem plan, to get that information to the fishers, to the public, and, also, each one of the island-based management plans, and we will keep with the sustainable fish consumption, and we will have activities where the book will be presented, where the recipes will be cooked, and then we will keep working with the marine protected areas, and so this is what we have for 2020 to 2025. Now we have Christina. CHRISTINA OLAN: Good afternoon. I am Christina Olan, and I work with the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, as the social media manager, and I will be presenting some updates for what we have in social media, and I will be very brief. As I have been mentioning before in other presentations, we have a Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram accounts, and there are some numbers of our amount of followers, and most of our followers are on Facebook and Instagram, and Twitter is not -- If you have a Twitter account, please follow us. The content that we mostly share to our social media platforms is related to seasonal closures, meetings, workshops, educational materials, videos, content produced by other organizations and agencies, local and federal both, and the CFMC monthly bulletin. We have new collaborations with Mavel Maldonado that will be contributing to preparing the contact list of fishers and fish markets in St. Croix, and Nicole Greaux already is helping me with interviews of fishers in St. Thomas/St. John for the CFMC monthly bulletin, and Ruth Gomez and I also agreed to share content of the St. Thomas Fishermen’s Association. This is an example of a bulletin, and the bulletin is also distributed through email and WhatsApp. We also produce the Repaso de PEPCO, that is based on the materials that Wilson presents during the PEPCO workshops, and we do that every week. You already met Ita yesterday, and Jeanette, and we were working on five videos about recipes that you can cook at home of species that are considered as underutilized or that are not the most common in the 162

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

restaurants, but are good for your consumption and you can prepare at home. This is new, and, also, Marcos Hanke has been working very hard on producing information regarding new opportunities for deepwater squid fishing, and we have been sharing this information through our social media platforms. The council is also participating on a regional campaign that is called Big Fish, and, through Big Fish, one of the things that we did was compile the contact information of all fishing villages and fish markets in Puerto Rico, and this information is names, phone numbers, and emails and physical and postal addresses, and we have already this information, and this information is also available for our partners in the DNER and Puerto Rico Sea Grant to help in the distribution of publication to reach more people and have a shared database for outreach and communications and education efforts. We already included those phone numbers in the WhatsApp list that Wilson manages, and so more fishers are now involved and receiving more information through that list. For WhatsApp, Wilson in Puerto Rico manages the list in WhatsApp, and I prepare the messages that he is sending through the contact list. In the case of the USVI, I am happy to also collaborate if you want that in the USVI. Thanks to all of our collaborators and all the staff at the CFMC and to the council members and everybody, and I am very happy with all the feedback that I have been receiving, and, also, I have to mention that we have been receiving a lot of inbox messages in Facebook and Instagram, and it is very good, because it helps to keep communicating with the fishers and also producing content. For example, last week, we have fishers that we were asking us about the vermilion snapper and different common names in Puerto Rico, and so we created this post to answer them and the information that they were requesting, and also to allow them to comment and contribute with the information that they have as fishers, commercial and recreational. If you have questions, please let me know, or ideas, and I will be around throughout this meeting, or you can contact me through email or the social media platforms. Thank you. ALIDA ORTIZ: Thank you, Christina. I think now we can hear the reports from the liaisons, and they will be very, very short, and so we will have Wilson first. 163

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

REPORTS BY LIAISON OFFICERS PUERTO RICO WILSON SANTIAGO: Good afternoon. For those who don’t know me, my name is Wilson Santiago, and I am the Puerto Rico Fisheries Liaison Officer, and so I have been like a year-and-a-half of being a liaison. In 2021, in my participation as a liaison, we have brought the educational program for commercial fishers, and we named it PEPCO, and, in the pandemic, we couldn’t make it in-person, and so we met virtually. In our participation, I have support from the CFMC, from Christina Olan, from the posts of the Repasa de PEPCO, and the Repasa de PEPCO is topics from the educational program for commercial fishers, and so we have been supporting Christina with that. I have been participating in the MREP committee meetings for the 2022 fishers’ workshop in Puerto Rico, and, like Christina said in her presentation, we have sent out weekly educational posts via WhatsApp. With that participation, we keep on supporting the fishers with their issues and information of the DNER for state and federal closures, and we have been doing educational materials for the fishers and fishing communities around Puerto Rico, and this is new, and we have started with an educational program for recreational fishers in Puerto Rico, and so I am going to talk more about it. For the educational program, PEPCO, of commercial fishers, from February 17 to March 17, we have presented the virtual program, and we made five different sections every Wednesday, and we’ve had the participation of forty-one fishers around the island, in the five stations. For all the participants that completed the five sessions, we send them, via mail, via post mail, educational materials that the Sea Grant program gave to us and the CFMC and DNER and TNC, and TNC helped us by paying for the shipping of the mail. All of them that completed the program, we sent them a certificate of completion. For the educational program for recreational fishers, just a quick background. In 2018, the program was developed by the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, through the fisheries liaison, Helena Antoun, and DNER, as a means of addressing adverse impacts to coral reefs for recreational fishing activities. Healthy fisheries is equal to healthy reefs. The program was developed with the collaboration of recreational fishers and DNER personnel. The DNER, CFMC, and NOAA are 164

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

collaborating together to bring a workshop to the fishers. This is a picture of the virtual program, and the first one we gave was August 19, and the topic was the recreational federal and state laws and regulations, and we had forty-two participants. In the second model, we had it on October 28, and the topic was regulated marine species in federal and state waters, and we had twenty-two participants. We will keep on coordinating three or four more modules that we’re going to bring to the fishers with different topics, and we’re going to start again between January and February of 2022, and I want to thank Helena Antoun, and she is the one that had the initiative to create this program, with all the collaborators, and Christina Olan for her support with the recreational program and the commercial program and with anything else. For Puerto Rico marine protected areas, just quick, we have a total of forty-four MPAs that DNER manages in Puerto Rico. In the second bullet, you can see a website, and, over there, you can go to the web and find an interactive map, and you can find that as management plans, and there is a lot of other good material for the MPAs for the Puerto Rico jurisdiction. I recommend to the council that, for further meetings, if you want to know more about the MPAs in the Puerto Rico jurisdiction, I recommend that you invite Ms. Coralis Ortiz and Ms. Clarimar Diaz from the Office of Zona Cosanera in the DNER, and so, if you want to invite them, we can contact Damaris, or I can contact them, to see if they can come and talk about more of the MPAs in Puerto Rico. Here is a map, and I got it from the website, and it’s a map with all the protected areas in Puerto Rico, and there is a lot of marks, because we have more in the middle of the island, but, around the island, in the coast, we have forty-four of them protected. This is a list, and you can’t see it very well, but it’s a lot of information, and there are all the names of the protected areas, marine protected areas, and there’s a lot of natural reserves, and some of them are marine reserves, the year that they were designated as a reserve, and the size. If you need this document, just contact me and I will send it to you. Here are the names of the MPAs that we have management plans right now, and some of them are completed, and some of them are in draft, and some of them are in process, and some of them are approved, and here are the names of them. These are the ones that DNER has 165

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

management plans right now. Here are some photos of the educational programs that used the MPAs, and so, in the federal jurisdiction, we all know that we have the Tourmaline Bank, some parts of Tourmaline Bank, the Bajo de Sico, and Abrir la Sierra. For the Puerto Rico fishers’ issues, the DNER has been resolving the issue with the commercial fishing license, and so the fishers in Puerto Rico are receiving their commercial license, and, if not the department is communicating with them, and we have fixed that issue. Another issue is the new fisher misinformation about the fishing closures and statistics reports, like e-reporting, the electronic reports, license and permits for state and federal waters in Puerto Rico for this, starting in January, and we going to coordinate a workshop every month around the island for this matter. Another issue is there is low enforcement to watch the closures and illegal commercial fishing and recreational fishing in state and federal waters, and fishers need support with different funding opportunities, like funding from the Department of Agriculture and other funding that is available. My next step, in 2022, like I said, I am planning to coordinate a workshop of the commercial program, educational program, one per month, and we are continuing the recreational program in the next year. We will continue supporting the CFMC social media, and we will find more information about the management plans of Puerto Rico MPAs at the DNER office. Find out and support fishers in their issues, visiting fishing villages and fisher communities. Visit fishing villages and fishing communities around the island and giving educational materials. If anyone has any questions, and I know we are going quickly, and here is my email, and you can -- I am going to be around here, or you can call me or send me an email. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Wilson. The next liaison officer, and please be brief, and we have three other presentations. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN NICOLE GREAUX: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Nicole Greaux, and I am the liaison for the St. Thomas/St. John area, and this is my report that I am going to try to get through as quickly as possible. 166

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

2021 has been a very challenging year for us, by means of local fishery outreach. We have been contending with things like a staffing shortage at the St. Thomas DFW office, which makes a lot of the officers there sometimes unavailable or deep into doing other research projects to try to take time out of that to communicate with me. We had the mandated restrictions that were still going on for gatherings in 2021, and a lot of our fishermen here prefer to meet in-person, as opposed to virtually or conducting through messaging or email, and we also had the issue with overtaxed DPNR enforcement officers wearing many hats and doing many things, especially regarding the COVID regulations. Thankfully, all of these issues have been rectified in the positive, and we are looking forward to 2022 being smooth. Some of the activities that have been going on in this year have been my visits three-times a week to the different fish vending sites. One of the things that I am really proud of is our Joseph P. Bryan Fish Market now has water available to the fish cleaners and the fishermen, and that was a bit of an annoyance, since the water was either turned off or unavailable to the fishers to keep the area clean, and that has now been rectified, and I do water availability checks, and so that’s also a very good thing, to make sure that we are consistent with keeping the water flowing for these fishermen that utilize that particular fish market. There is more communication with the Division of Fish and Wildlife in regard to new studies that they are putting out and also projects and programs that they have coming up for 2022, and the thing that I am most interested in, and happy to be a part of, are the interviews with our fishers here in the Virgin Islands, on St. Thomas and St. John, to be highlighted with the Caribbean Fishery Management media platform that Christina touched on earlier in her report. The Sustainable Seafood Initiative was also a large part of our education and outreach program. On this particular slide, you will see some of the information in the seasonal closures that I utilize when I am visiting the restaurants that are going to be taking part in our Reef Responsible Sustainable Seafood Program, and the middle slide is a picture of two very large haemulons, and those are my favorite fish, and this is also a part of the project that we’re using for giving people new ideas to use underutilized species, and that last slide is what our gorgeous, glorious fish markets look like on any given Wednesday or Saturday at some of our various fish markets, and so our underutilized species are not so much underutilized, and we do have underutilized markets, but 167

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

we do have lots of things that we prefer to eat, as far as our reef fish are concerned. The next few slides will be about our MPAs, or our marine protected areas. There are three different types of management for our marine protected areas, federal, the Virgin Islands government, and comanaged. Here are some examples of the federal and the government managed, and so we have the national park, the Coral Reef Monument, the Hind Marine Conservation District, and the Grammanik Bank. The U.S. government has Cas Cay, Compass Point Marine Reserve, Frank Bay Marine, and the St. Thomas East End Reserve, and that is probably the largest area of conservation and preservation that we have currently that’s under USVI government management. This is an example of the different areas of both marine protected areas as well as areas of particular concern. St. Thomas and St. John has eighteen marine-managed and marine protected areas, and the largest one, represented in 5 and 7, happen to make up the St. Thomas East End Reserve. The St. Thomas East End Reserve is governed and also utilized by many different agencies that do educational research, as well as citizen science projects, and so the STEER management council is very, very important, as far as protecting this particular area is concerned. As I mentioned earlier, it is highly utilized by every single recreational availability that we have here, from tours to educational purposes, and also to the fishers for bait capture. VI EPSCOR, I am very, very much in admiration of this particular program, and it stands for the Virgin Islands Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, and VI EPSCOR is one of our largest contributors to everything from emerging areas of research, especially dealing with seagrasses and the sargassum in our shallows, and there are studies being conducted through the VI EPSCOR by not only Dr. Kristen Grimes, but also Mr. Cruz-Rivera and also Mr. Ganal for very, very thorough research on the seagrasses that are invasive and also the sargassum and how they affect our shallows. The Virgin Islands Marine Advisory Service, this is something that is also really wonderful, and this program not only allows citizen scientists to get involved in their natural environments, but there’s a program called Ocean Explorers, which helps children in the Virgin Islands, every summer, learn a bit more about their surrounding environment and also how to become stewards of our environment, and so this particular group raises awareness about 168

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

our natural resources. I want to thank everyone for being available to me whenever I have questions on anything concerning my education and outreach, to Christina, and also to Alida, for being there to help me out when I have issues and problems with any sort of products that I would like to bring, and also to Wilson Santiago for being available to both myself and to Mavel when we have questions. That’s it for my report. Thank you very much. ALIDA ORTIZ:

Mavel. ST. CROIX

MAVEL MALDONADO: I am Mavel Maldonado, and I am the new CFMC liaison for St. Croix, and this is my first time being in this meeting, and I’m going to do just a brief description of myself. Again, my name is Mavel Maldonado, and I have been part of the fishing industry for over fifteen years, enjoying the different aspects and creating wellbeing for the fishing community, and I am so happy to be part of this community and being involved with them has given me like more knowledge, knowing how this community works, and I have more respect for them, and it helps to find ways to better serve them. It’s been a great experience so far, and thanks to the fact that I have a good relationship with the department and have that -That is allowing me to be able to assist the fishers. I have been a liaison since June, and so, for the past few months, I had the opportunity to speak to my fellow fishers and listen to them and to their concerns. Always it’s when will some of the closed areas be back open to go fishing, and then they have been sharing their mixed feelings about the new changes, like the new -- Everybody now is able to apply for the new commercial fishing license for 2022, and, like I said before, it’s mixed feelings, and some agree, and some don’t, but, hey, we’ve got to deal with it. Now we have a new, and my husband is a fishermen, and so now we have a new place to sell fish, and it’s called the La Reine Fish Market, and all the fishermen are able to be there, and they are happy, because they have a way to sell fish in a more organized way. Also, here in St. Croix, we have different vending sites, and they are like private location, and they are kept clean. Going back to like the La Reine Fish Market, the only concerns that they have is they have like more enforcement, so the place 169

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

could be kept more clean, and always, when you have someone in authority, to be able for other people to see it, they can apply the rules and regulations and make them follow it. For the past year-and-a-half, things have been hard for the fishermen, due to the pandemic, but they are happy now that stuff -- Even under the circumstances, it’s getting back to normal. This slide is a list of MPAs in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and I am going to go through only like the island of St. Croix, and we have the marine protected areas, like Buck Island Reef and Salt River National Historic Park, and its governing institution is the MPAs, or the other one for the Salt River is the MPAs and the VI Department of Natural Resources, and it has been established since 1992. Going down to the territorial marine parks, we have the St. Croix East End Marine Park, and it’s governed by the VI Department of Natural Resources, and it’s been established since 2006. Going down, and I hope that everybody can see it, the fishery closure areas are the Marine Conservation District. I think I skipped one. Sorry, guys. The marine sanctuary and wildlife reserve is the Salt MSWR, and it’s governed by the DPNR, and it’s been in effect since 1995. Fishery closure areas and the marine conservation districts, we have the Mutton Snapper, and it’s being governed by NOAA, the CFMC, and the VI DPR, since 1993, and the Lang Bank is the same, NOAA, the CFMC, and the VI Department of Natural Resources, and the same year, and so they have seasonal closures and no take. The areas of particular concern are the Frederiksted Waterfront APC, and the good thing about -- I am reading it, and I am trying to go as fast as possible, but, in the next slide, we’re going to see like more in an illustration form. The Southshore Industrial Area, the St. Croix Coral Reef System, the Salt River Bay APC, Christiansted Waterfront, the Southgate Pond/Chenay Bay, the Great Pond, and the East End APC. I love this slide, because you can see exactly where those areas are, and we see, in the purple outline, the particular concerns, and we can see where the territorial MPAs are and the APCs are, and the solid purple are the territorial MPAs, and then the brown shading represent the hardbottom substrate. The next slide is the St. Croix East End Marine Park. Seagrass patrol, participants explore vital nursery habitats and learn about the invertebrates that inhabit the seagrass meadows. The coral nursery, through partnership with The Nature Conservancy, 170

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

the Cramer’s Park Coral Nursery was established in 2019. The coral nursery tour allows the public to learn about coral reef restoration efforts and a first-hand look at the organisms that call nearby patch reef and seagrass beds home. Shoreline walks, explore the function of the watershed and how coral reef seagrass meadows and mangrove forests work together to protect the coastlines. The visitor center, the center includes interactive displays for teaching guests about the vital marine and terrestrial habitats within the park and history of the natural resources within the USVI. What I love about this is it’s like having a visitor center that allows the tourists and locals to learn more about the areas and why it’s important to be protected. In the next slide, we see all the outreach in the St. Croix EEMP, and we see the new signage on March 2021, and it’s in bold language, in English and Spanish, and the rules are specific to the location of the signs, and then three are three informational products of brochures, maps, businesses operating in the park, beachgoers, and offenders. I have the link to this video about the citizen science and the very educational purpose, and so I don’t know if you guys want me to leave it there for a little while, but it’s open to the public. Then we have the Great Pond fact sheet. Research in the St. Croix EEMP, NOAA and the NCCOS do fish acoustic, telemetry, south shore. UVI does Acropora monitoring. Woods Hole, the cleaner fish stations influence on microbiomes, and the UVI SEAS Islands Alliance students in the summer of 2021, assessment of Cramer’s Park nursery outplants. If I sound a little -- English is not my first language, and it’s Spanish, but I am trying my best. Thank you for this opportunity to be here, even though it’s virtually, and thank you for allowing me to be a liaison for the island of St. Croix, and I will do my utmost to do my job, and I will go to the first slide, and this is my information, and my email, and my number, if any of you want to contact me, and there is my information. Thank you so much. ALIDA ORTIZ:

Thank you so much, Mavel.

MARCOS HANKE: Thank you for everybody that is online for your cooperation, and we’re going to conclude with the presentation of 171

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

Alida and address the next presentation, which will be the spiny lobster presentation. ALIDA ORTIZ: This is our report from the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel, and, as you see, our last meeting was quite complex and productive, and so I hope that we have given you the idea of where we are going. Thank you so much, and happy new year. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. Like always, Alida, I am sorry for the short time and the being rushed on this, but we’re going to jump to the next presentation, which is spiny lobster. OPTIONS FOR SPINY LOBSTER ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES SARAH STEPHENSON: This presentation will give a brief overview of some options that the council could consider for modifying the timing of the accountability measure for spiny lobster in federal waters off of Puerto Rico. The MSA requires that accountability measures, or AMs, be established for all federally-managed stocks. AMs are management controls used to prevent annual catch limits, or ACLs, from being exceeded and to correct, or mitigate, overages of the ACL if they occur. Both ACLs and AMs for council-managed stocks were set under the 2010 and 2011 ACL amendments, which were effective in 2012. Those amendments separated the AM action in two parts, the first describing the AM trigger, or what years of landings would be used in the ACL monitoring process, and then describing the AM application, which includes the timing of when the closure would occur. In 2021, NOAA Fisheries implemented an accountability measure for spiny lobster in federal waters around Puerto Rico based on average landings during the 2017 through 2019 fishing years, which were the most recent and complete years of landings available. The spiny lobster fishing season in federal waters was closed for forty days, from August 22 through September 30. Given the history of spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico, represented by the blue vertical bars in this graph, and the ACL approved under the spiny lobster framework amendment to the island-based FMPs, it is likely that spiny lobster catch in Puerto Rico could exceed the ACL in place in future years. The landings shown are the adjusted landings estimated by DNER using the coast-specific expansion factors. The horizontal lines on the graph represent the different ACLs for 172

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

spiny lobster in Puerto Rico. The lower dashed line is the ACL that was set under the 2011 ACL amendment to the Spiny Lobster FMP that has been in effect since 2012. The topmost dashed line is the ACL that was set under the Puerto Rico FMP, which is in the process of being implemented in the regulations, and the middle solid horizontal line is the ACL that was set under the spiny lobster amendment to the Puerto Rico FMP, which is likely to be implemented shortly after the island-based FMPs. The spiny lobster amendment would compare a three-year average of landings to the ACL, but, if the annual landings frequently occur at levels above the ACL, then the AM would be triggered. Maria just told me that the lines didn’t show, and so I will tell you what those levels are, and I’m sorry about that. The ACL that was set in the 2011 amendment was 327,920 pounds, and the ACL that was set under the Puerto Rico FMP was the highest, and it was 527,232 pounds, and so it’s above all of the blue bars in this graph, and then the ACL that was set under the spiny lobster amendment is 369,313 pounds, and so it’s above the ACL that was set in the original 2011 amendment, but below the FMP ACL, and so, just in light of where those landings fall relative to those reference lines, the council may want to reconsider the timing of when the AMs should be applied for Puerto Rico. Specific for spiny lobster, the AM application was set under the 2011 ACL amendment. If an AM was triggered, the length of the fishing season would be reduced by the amount needed to prevent such an overage from occurring again, and the closure period would extend from December 31 backwards into the fishing year of the closure year for the number of days necessary to constrain harvest to the ACL. Fishers in the USVI and Puerto Rico stated that implementing AMbased closures at the end of the fishing year resulted in negative socioeconomic impacts, and so the timing of AMs was modified in the 2016 timing of AMs amendment, which was effective in 2017. Under that amendment, if an AM was triggered, the closure would be implemented from September 30 of the closure year backward, towards the beginning of the fishing year, towards January, for the number of days necessary to achieve the reduction in landings required to ensure that landings do not exceed the ACL. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeded the period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction required would be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year, toward December 31. At that time, the date of September 30 was identified, in general, as the end of a slow fishing season, which also purposely avoided 173

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

the December holiday season. September was also identified by fishers from the four different coasts of Puerto Rico as a period of rough weather, and that was in the amendment, in case you would like to read it, and I can send you that, if you would like. This timing of accountability measures, the September 30, will be continued under all three island-based FMPs and the spiny lobster framework amendment, once that’s effective. Any AM closure applied is only applicable in federal waters, which, for Puerto Rico, is nine to 200 nautical miles from shore. During an AM closure, state waters remain open to spiny lobster harvest. Discussion at the August 2021 council meeting brought up concerns from fishermen surrounding the timing of the closure and compatibility in state waters. Specifically, some concerns were that, if Puerto Rico DNER were to adopt a compatible closure for spiny lobster in state waters, then that closure would overlap with the closure for queen conch in state waters, which is from August 1 to October 31 each year. Following discussion, the council requested that staff examine alternative times when AMs could be applied for spiny lobster under the Puerto Rico FMP. Here is a quick look at the average landings by month for spiny lobster in Puerto Rico, before we look at the timing options. The bars represent the average adjusted commercial landings for spiny lobster for each month, using landings from the years 2012 through 2019. Again, the landings shown are the adjusted landings using the coast-specific factors. A couple of things to point out. The months with the highest landings of spiny lobster are August, September, and October, and this is likely because queen conch is closed in Puerto Rico, in state waters, from August 1 to October 31, and so divers that were targeting queen conch switched to spiny lobster. There is a second period of high landings that occurs January through March, and then, finally, the lowest landings of spiny lobster generally occur in November and December. The no action would continue the current AM application, and any AM triggered would be applied from September 30 backward, and, if the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the period of January 1 through September 30, any additional reduction would be applied from October 1 forward, towards December. 174

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

Three additional options for the timing of the spiny lobster AM for Puerto Rico were developed. Each option will be discussed in more detail on the following slides. Under Option 1, any AM triggered would be applied from December 31 backwards into the year. Under Option 2, any AM triggered would be applied from July 31 backward into the year, and, if more time is required, from August 1 forward. Under Option 3, any AM triggered would be applied from January 1 forward into the year. Option 1 would use the same application of AMs as that original 2011 ACL Amendment when AMs were established, and any required closure would be at the end of the year. Since landings of spiny lobster are generally lowest in December and November, as we saw in that previous chart, any required AM closure under this option may be longer than a closure under the status quo, which is September 30 backwards. That is because of how the closure lengths are estimated. NMFS uses the average monthly fishing rates during the trigger period, which, in most instances, is that three years of landings, most recent period of landings, to determine how many days would be needed to prevent a similar overage from occurring in the current fishing year. This means that months with higher landings, such as August through October, would have a shorter closure period than months with lower landings, such as November and December, and so the required closure, based on those landings at the end of the year, December and November, may be longer than a closure that is based on landings that occur in September or August. This option would give fishers the greatest amount of time to react to or prepare for an AM-based closure, since the Federal Register closure notice would likely publish at the beginning of the year, but the closure would be at the end of the year, and so they would have more time to kind of prepare. A closure under this option could overlap with the queen conch closure in state waters, that August through October, if the required AM closure period runs from December backwards into October. Option 2 would be similar to the current AM, but the closure period would just shift earlier in the year, during the summer months. Under this option, an AM would be triggered, and the closure would be implemented, from July 31 of the closure year backwards towards January for the number of days necessary to achieve the reduction in landings. 175

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

If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the period of January through July 31, any additional fishing season reduction would be applied from August 1 forward towards December. Landings in April through July are generally lower than landings in August through October, but higher than landings in December and November, and so the required closure period under this option may be longer than the closure under the current AM approach, but shorter than the closure under Option 1. This option would give fishers less time to react to or prepare for an AM-based closure than the current approach, as the FR notice would likely publish at the beginning of the year, and the required closure period would likely start sooner than a closure under the current approach, and so, this year, I mentioned that it started on August 22. Under this option, it would potentially start sometime in July, and so earlier in the year, giving less time to prepare. An AM-based closure for spiny lobster under this option would not overlap with the August through October queen conch closure unless the January 1 through July 31 period was not long enough to ensure that landings, again, do not exceed that ACL in place. Option 3, the last option, would change the closure period to the beginning of the year. If an AM is triggered, the closure would be implemented from January 1 of the closure year forward into the year for the number of days necessary to achieve the reduction in landings that is required, and landings in January through March are generally lower than landings in August through October, but higher than landings in the summer or landings at the end of the year, and so the required closure period under this option may be longer than the closure under the current approach, but shorter than a closure under Options 1 or 2. However, this option would likely require that the notice in announcing the AM closure period be published in the previous calendar year, which could be problematic if final landings are not available at that time, and it would also give fishermen the least amount of time to react, assuming that that FR notice publishing the closure period occurred in November or December, and then the closure started on January 1. This option would not be likely to coincide with the August through October queen conch closure in state waters, but, if the required closure period extended into March, then that could overlap with other period of high demand, such as holy week. 176

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

At the August council, the SERO Regional Administrator noted that, given the history of spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico, the ACLs approved under the spiny lobster framework amendment, which are listed below for Puerto Rico, and the lack of compatible ACLs or closures in state waters, there is a high likelihood that catch will exceed the spiny lobster ACL in future years. As such, the council may want to consider other management options, such as a fixed seasonal closure, to ensure, to the best of our ability, that ACLs are not exceeded on a regular basis. Here is a graphic representation of closed seasons for spiny lobster across the Caribbean region, from north to south, and these are reported in the citation listed below the figure from a 2021 publication by Atherley et al. that looked at the size of sexual maturity and seasonal reproductive activity of the Caribbean spiny lobster. For most territories within the Caribbean Sea, egg-bearing females have been observed in all months of the year, but with the greatest frequency in the months of February to August, and you can see that the majority of these countries have fixed closures for spiny lobster that occur during the summer months, with twelve of the thirteen countries closed during the months of May and June, which overlaps with that peak spawning period. A major benefit of a fixed season is that fisherman would know when the closure occurs and could plan around it. However, when you look at where spiny lobster are landed from Puerto Rico, the majority occur in state waters, from zero to nine nautical miles from shore, and the table breaks down the amount of landings reported from state waters, which is the second column, from federal waters, the third column, and then from an unknown area for each year for the years 2012 through 2019. The cells highlighted in blue represent years in which the portion of landings reported from state waters were greater than the ACL that was in place for spiny lobster for Puerto Rico, which, at that time, was 327,920 pounds. Note that the fishing area is not always reported, but the amount of landings from that unknown area has generally gotten smaller over the years, likely from improvements in data collection and reporting. The blue, highlighted landings are also greater than the ACL for spiny lobster that will be in place once the spiny lobster amendment is effective. If landings continue at those highlighted levels, future AMs for 177

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

spiny lobster would likely be triggered, and a closure would be applied. Having a fixed season for spiny lobster that only applies in federal waters might not prevent future overages of the ACL or from AMs being triggered and applied. If the Puerto Rico DNER adopted the same fixed closure, or adopted compatible regulations for ACLs or accountability measures, then future AM-based closures may be reduced or may not be triggered. For the next steps, the council can discuss whether they would like to develop these options into an amendment to the Puerto Rico FMP or continue with the current timing of AMs for spiny lobster specified in the Puerto Rico FMP and retained in the spiny lobster framework amendment, which is from September 30 backwards, and then, again, if more time is needed, from October 1 towards the end of the year. If you would like to develop this into an amendment, are there any other times of the year that you would like staff to consider as an option, other than the three times that were outlined in this presentation? Additionally, would you want to include an action that considers the fixed seasonal closure in federal waters? Following discussions that the DAPs have been having with their respective state agencies, the council could request that the DNER consider adopting compatible regulations for ACLs or AMs for spiny lobster in Puerto Rico state waters, and, additionally, during any future any AM-based closures, NOAA Fisheries could request that the state agencies adopt a compatible AM-based closure in their state waters to provide enhanced protection for the stock or the stock complex, and, with that, I will open it up for questions and council discussion. Thank you. MIGUEL ROLON: Marcos, if I may, the first thing that Sarah has on the screen is what is the reaction of Puerto Rico at this time in the lobster fishery, in the regulations in place? DAMARIS DELGADO: they are as now.

I recommend to leave the state regulations as

MIGUEL ROLON: Which regulations, the EEZ or the ones that you have in Puerto Rico DAMARIS DELGADO:

The ones in the state waters.

MIGUEL ROLON: So the question what will be the next step then? If Puerto Rico doesn’t move -- The question really is, is there any need for the council to take any action at this time? 178

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

MARCOS HANKE: I can help with that a little bit, and I had a feedback from Nelson. Nelson, go ahead. NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In my opinion, for the moment, just leave it as-is. For me, it’s the best way. However, it’s good to bring that discussion to the DAP panel, to see their feedback. TONY BLANCHARD: try to fix it. MARCOS HANKE:

I agree with Nelson.

If it ain’t broke, don’t

Before Vanessa, Jocelyn.

JOCELYN D’AMBROSIO: Thank you. I was just going to say, to the point about the compatible regulations, I think Sarah’s point here, and NMFS’s point here, is just, if the council wanted to send a letter to Puerto Rico to request that they take particular action, and, obviously, the council has jurisdiction over the federal waters, and so we can’t change anything in state waters, but it would just be writing a letter requesting the territory to take, or the commonwealth, rather, to take particular action based on whatever record we had for that request, the need for it for supporting the stock here. It's not that we would be doing anything to change Puerto Rico regulations, but it would just be whether we want to pursue writing a letter to request particular action from Puerto Rico. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

Damaris, do you want to reply?

DAMARIS DELGADO: I just wanted to clarify that, in order to get that compatibility that we have been talking about for the last council meetings, I do recommend that federal waters apply our regulations apply our state water regulations, for compatibility purposes. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

Vanessa.

VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would suggest that we stay as we are. We need to check that data, as we have been looking around since 2018, and we have better data, and I know that because of the licenses that were stuck in the department that are now mailing to the fishermen, and we have a lot of new fishermen, and so these numbers are going to be up and up, and so we need to verify that data for the next year and then make any suggestions. Thanks. 179

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

MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you, Vanessa.

Jack.

JACK MCGOVERN: This might be something that the Puerto Rico DAP wanted to talk about, and I just wanted it to be something that could be on their agenda to talk about at their next meeting. MARCOS HANKE: If I understand correctly, your recommendation maybe is to hold this presentation and present it to the DAP and come back to the council? JACK MCGOVERN: It sounds like that’s the direction we’re going here. I don’t think we want to drop it completely, and it might be something that the Puerto Rico DAP can examine further. MIGUEL ROLON: With all the things that we have on the plate for 2022, and with Puerto Rico’s statement that they won’t move an inch for this, and we don’t have a real reason to present to the local government, because the fishery is not in jeopardy, we can leave it at this, and you considered the issue, and you had the presentation, and the ACL is always there, and so, if we go over the ACL, the EEZ will be closed, and the people who are going to suffer are the fishermen who fish for the spiny lobster, and they will have something to say. For the next steps, rather than taking any action, I agree with Jack, and maybe, in 2022, we will have a DAP meeting in Puerto Rico, with the group, and we can present this and present this particular presentation, and then, in due time, at the next meeting in the spring or the summer, Nelson can give a presentation on the comments that the DAP Puerto Rico may have, and, that way, you can dispose of this part of the agenda at this time. MARCOS HANKE:

Okay.

For the sake of time, Kevin.

KEVIN MCCARTHY: Somewhat related, this all happened before we had a Caribbean Branch, and on our radar is to do an update assessment for spiny lobster next year, and has the council officially asked for that, because it’s outside of the SEDAR process, and that would be a request of the Science Center, as I understand the process, and so has that happened? If so, it’s just because of the shift in who is responsible, and I would have missed it, but I just wanted to make sure -- I mean, it seems timely, right, given this conversation and given where the ACLs are going to be over time, and those could change with a new assessment, and we don’t know which way they might change, but they could change, and they may stay the same, but they are likely to change somewhat, and so has that request been made, and I think 180

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

it makes sense to do so. MARCOS HANKE:

It makes total sense.

Miguel.

MIGUEL ROLON: It isn’t scheduled for SEDAR, but, now that you mention it, if you have time, please do your best to get that information, and so you need anything, like a letter from the Chair? KEVIN MCCARTHY: We need some sort of memo to Clay, and it would ask for an update assessment, and an update assessment is outside of SEDAR, and so we would do that internally. We would get data from other people, but we would do that internally at the Science Center and not a part of the whole SEDAR thing, but, in 2024, yes, it is a full-on SEDAR update, but I think it’s important that another one, given this topic, be included officially in the 2022 schedule. We will be finishing up SEDAR 80, but we will have the capacity to do that update assessment during the calendar year 2022. MIGUEL ROLON: In that case, Mr. Chairman, the Chair will write a letter to Clay Porch requesting that assessment, and Graciela will prepare the talking points for Marcos. Thank you a lot, and we can move to the next. MARCOS HANKE: It’s already clear our path, and we’re going to do this letter, and we’re going to -- Before or after, depending on the guidance and the timing by the staff, we’re going to take this information to the DAPs, and we will move from there. Thank you to all. The next presentation is me. MIGUEL ROLON: For those of you who don’t know the next presenter, I have been trying to promote the use of squid in Puerto Rico since the 1970s, and, the first time it occurred, Marcos was interested, and he has experience, and he contacted people throughout the Caribbean, and I believe that you are going to see today a success story. The idea is to present to the fishers of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands alternatives to the fishing that they do now, and the fishermen are not convinced by Miguel telling them that this is good, but they are convinced by watching other fishermen adopting this gear that is capable of catching deepwater squid, and so I asked Marcos to help us with a presentation. This is something that already Marcos put on the webpage that we have and the social media, through Christina Olan, and so what we will hear today is a presentation on the deepwater squid 181

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

opportunity for fishers in the Caribbean. fifteen minutes, according to yourself.

Marcos, you only have

DEEPWATER SQUID FISHING MARCOS HANKE: I am going to show how quick I can be now. The deepwater squid opportunity, for me, it’s a personal opportunity to -- I am sorry for the use of the word two times, but to show what the fishermen can do to create sustainable efforts and new opportunities for the fishing industry that are totally new or complement part of our other fishing efforts, like swordfish fishing and deepwater fishing, and this presentation was -- The outreach efforts for this information was supported by the council, CFMC, and by Sea Grant, and a special thanks to Christina Olan, to Jeanette Ramos, to Miguel Rolon, to Alida, and especially Collin Butler from the St. Thomas DAP, Danny Suarez, a swordfish fisherman, and others that supported this effort. This is the one-pager that is posted on our social media, which is pretty much a little synthesis, or a little roadmap, of how to go fishing for deepwater squid around Puerto Rico and the USVI, and, as a result of that, it’s the following. It’s important to recognize that, because it’s a totally new approach to the fishery, we have new things in there, right, and we have crazy, weird hooks, which is the squid hooks, which is like a parachute, and we have like the jig that is on the side that’s made with aluminum and filled with pieces of weight and cement, and it’s all homemade. Pretty much most of the jigs that we used on this project were manufactured locally. The terminal depth means the depth where the jigs, or the lure, are going to be on the water column, and the bottom depth is the depth where you are fishing, and let’s say you can be in 3,000 feet, and the jigs can be in 1,500 feet. This initiative started in 2017, and I had the opportunity to talk about this fishery with some fishermen in Miami, and we started to explore the opportunity with an approach for commercial and recreational fishers, and this approach was based on the conversation with Mitch Lay in Miami, and then we used the publications and the videos produced by FAO and by JICA, which is the Japan International Corporation Agency, to guide us on the first steps of this project of how to fish for deepwater squid. My kids call them the sea monsters. This effort was mostly for commercial fishermen, the effort from FAO and from JICA, and it was an effort designed for an artisanal 182

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

fishery, smaller-scale fishermen. Except in Puerto Rico and the USVI, many islands in the Caribbean are already fishing, because of this project, artisanally for deepwater squids. The Dominican Republic, Antigua, Grenada and some others are some examples. Most important, guidance was provided by Mitch Lay and Antigua fishermen and Michiro Ishida, via telephone, and there were hour-to-hour phone calls addressing how to manufacture and how to identify the fishing areas and details that on the videos are not there. This photo, just to put it into context, is a photo taken by Danny Suarez, and he’s a swordfish expert in Puerto Rico, because those squid were already caught in Puerto Rico by accident, right, incidentally, fishing for swordfish. Incidental catch, and some targeted landings, were sold in Puerto Rico, prior to this effort and to this presentation, for $8.00 to $12.00 a pound, similar to conch and octopus prices on the market. Nowadays, and this is brand new, the USVI introductory price per pound is $16.00 a pound that those organisms are being sold, after they are cleaned, and this exploratory fishing opportunity includes the recreational and commercial sector as well, and I want to highlight that, because the effort that I did at first, and I am going to present to you some numbers that I tried to put in a very small fraction of the data that we have, the really new part is the recreational approach to this fishery. Part of this initiative is to develop local expertise and rigging adaptations, such as finding the best rigging, fishing areas, manufacturers of local terminal tackle, testing different reels, create added value to existing fisheries, like for swordfish fishermen and deepwater fishermen, and adapting to recreational angler applications. Deepwater squid is a natural alternative and a substitute to culinary applications made with conch and octopus, and it’s extremely versatile, in terms of the culinary approach of this resource, and it’s amazing what you can do with those squids, because of the shape, the quickness, the form, and the quality of the meat. Now, the characteristics of this species and the fishing methods, just to give a little context to this, and, based on the reported biology papers that I read, it showed some resilient characteristics, and I present these as resilient characteristics because there is not a lot of information, especially for our areas, and it’s just some biological parameters and things that 183

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

can suggest to us that they are a good species to explore for our area. They grow very fast, and they live for approximately one year, or maybe just a little more, but pretty much one year, and they can get to thirty pounds. There is a wide distribution in the Caribbean and Atlantic area basins, north and south of us, and, basically, they are everywhere related to deep waters and to the thermocline dynamic with the plankton migration, and pretty much the point of reference is the thermocline. They are potentially resilient to climate change, and I want to highlight this, and I just put one aspect of the climate changes, which is the surface global warming of the waters, and those species have -- In their reproduction cycle, they have a dynamic, and everything is spread around, and it’s not something that, if you impact here, you impact the population as a whole, because they are widely distributed, and, from my reading, and this is my expertise developed up to now, they don’t aggregate with chum and things like other species, and it’s pretty much a species designed for recreational and artisanal approach, where you can get a few of them and have high value on the fishery. They have low fishing pressure throughout the range, and they are mostly fished artisanally, and there is two squids that are part of the fishery, and I think this is very important, because it’s not a single-species approach recommendation, and I am talking about the species composition that you can extract from the ocean, doing the method that I am going to recommend to you, which would divide the pressure to two populations, two different groups of organisms. It can reduce, or redirect, shallow-water effort, especially on conch and octopus, as an option. If we have a closed season for octopus, and let’s say there is a lack of production or a supply of conch or whatever, and easily this product can substitute for both, in terms of preparation and culinary application. It has a minimum bycatch, and it’s a very clean fishery, and it’s easily combined with pelagic fishing methods, like swordfish fishing and deepwater fishing, and, basically, the only thing that changes is the terminal tackle. Everything else is exactly the same, in terms of the gear used, and they both require the electronics and everything. It's a great substitute to add value to engage local fishermen to a pelagic resource, and it’s basically moving them out of the platform, that has a lot of pressure, and the opportunity includes the Caribbean pelagic multispecies approach, and, again, when you 184

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

go to the deep water, and you are ready with some rigs extra on your boat, you are pretty much fishing for deepwater squid, and you can be fishing for swordfish and mahi and so on and have that combo of species opportunity, and, by having that mentality and the expertise, you can have the incentive to move out of the platform, because it is not like I am going to fish for one, and, if I don’t do good, I don’t feed my family, right, and, in this case, you have to take like a multispecies approach possibility. The shallow insular platform is not the only alternative that we have, and we have been turning our backs, as fishermen in the Caribbean, to the resources that we have in open water, and everybody else around us is using them except us. Fishing in very deep waters, gears don’t interact with the bottom, and it does not add significant pressure to the benthic habitats, because it’s in the water column. Management considerations, just a few, to put it in perspective, it’s a very similar gear description to the gears used by deepwater fishermen and swordfish fishermen, and the main change is the terminal tackle, and I already explained that. The typical fishing area, there is a little freedom on those numbers, but I had to put some numbers there for people to visualize what we are talking about, and they are mostly caught in 1,200 to 3,000-plus feet, all the way to 4,000 feet we have been fishing for them, and the squid jigs between 1,000 to 1,500 is the standard on our effort to produce deepwater squids of both species. This picture was provided by Collin Butler from the DAP St. Thomas/St. John. Here, you have a diagram made by Cynthia from Sea Grant, and I invite you to see it on our social media, and there is all the measurements and the details of how to make the terminal tackle. On the top, we have two of the important jigs for squid, and one was made with a plastic bottle of Perrier full of lead and cement, with the hooks costing $75.00 on the internet, and the cost of the lure is $2.00. The other one is carved with the same hooks, and it's about the same cost, and the size is between ten to twelve inches long. On the side, also, and we have a reel on the top, which is a topnotch reel, and it’s the LP reels that are good for swordfish and deepwater species, and you have the recreational general deepwater electronic reel for deepwater species, and I will not read all the gear, because we’ve already read it in there, and there is some details about them, the lights, the elastic cord and so on, and I put more details in there, because this can be another reference 185

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

to the fishermen. When we spoke about the culinary market versatility, you have, in St. Thomas, two days ago, a restaurant, and this is an effort of Collin Butler, who has been amazing to help me out and to move this along with a commercial fishing approach, and this is squid on the grill, and on the top is fried squid, and the tentacles, and it’s the same thing they do with the octopus, and we have, on the side, the way to clean, a little bit of the details. Remember that one of the highlights of this product is that, if you freeze them, you get a higher quality, because it breaks down the meat and it makes it more tender and better quality, which means that, in terms of how you market and where you take it and how you deal with the meat, the fishermen have way more control to maximize their income, and it’s not a product that needs to be sold fresh, and you have a salad there, and, also, you have a dish favored by my kids, which is, instead of pasta with veggies, stir fry, you have very fine-cut squid pieces, twenty seconds on the fire, and you’re good to go. Here, you have the history of my effort, my limited effort, and I wish I could go more, but I think this is enough to give you an idea on a recreational approach. First, I started with the wrong things, and it was the wrong hooks, and it was not exactly the best depth on setting the lures and on the terminal tackle bottom, and I just got pieces of a tentacle. Once I adjusted that, on the next trips, every single trip, I caught a squid, with a single line, and be mindful that my effort was a recreational effort with a single line. There is other things that we’re going to explore later that are going to maximize those numbers, and, basically, the standard for us now is large squid hooks of two-inch diameter, setting on a depth between 2,500 and 3,500 range and deeper. The terminal tackle, I would say that 1,500, which is where the thermocline pretty much are. The game-changer was the participation of the DAP members that requested more information after the CFMC social media post, and this post was the new fishing opportunity for deepwater squids, and Captain Collin Butler showed very quickly his knowledge and his expertise on pelagic species, generating great information and fishing results in catching deepwater squids. He has the proper gear, and he has the mentality to fish for deepwater squids commercially. Please listen to this, and this is 186

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

a great example of how, across the U.S. Caribbean jurisdiction, fishers for all sectors, all sectors and areas, can help each other to create better and more resilient fishing opportunities in a responsible way. I added that, and, Captain Collin Butler, I don’t know if he’s connected, and I didn’t see him before. Otherwise, I pretty much can follow-up. For the sake of time, I am going to keep going, and he made two trips. The first trip had no hook-up, and the second trip had hook-up, but it didn’t land. On the third trip, after we finetuned, over many conversations on the phone, he caught eight squid, six neon and two diamondback, for a total of ninety-two pounds, and each diamondback squid weighed twenty-four pounds, and those animals can get close to fifty or sixty pounds, and all those eight were caught on the same trip. The verbal update that I will add here is that he is already -The mega yachts are approaching him, and very quick the stories are running in St. Thomas, and people are getting interest on it. One restaurant is requesting to include it on the menu, and they sold out once they introduced it on the menu as a test. People bought it, and it was $16.00 a pound, and the buyer is willing to buy more. The tuna trips, he spent about a hundred gallons of gas. Squid fishing he spends just twenty gallons of gas, and the first processed squid batch was $16.00, and I covered that. The biggest squid represent about $300.00 on his effort. For now, we’re going to have two slides, one for recreational and one for commercial, and the size of the instructions and the guidance on the first post that we did on the web, there is some extra information that we want to share. If you combine two rods, one for squid fishing from the boat, no buoys, one squid and one swordfish, or one swordfish rigged, at different depths, you can maximize your effort. Using weighted jigs from six to ten pounds, to compensate for drift, and this is for a recreational application, and they are fishing from the boat, and to prevent a big ball on the line, and the lights must be positioned fifteen to eighteen to twenty feet apart from the lures, and they don’t like the light to be too close from the jig, and that distance is key when you are approaching this fishery. Use a long-tip flex rod, and, basically, you are looking for a shock-absorbent method with a flexible Momoi or a rubber that you introduce on the rig to create some give when the squid makes the 187

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

short run. Use a big dipnet to keep it in the water or use a fourinch-long gaff, and be mindful that we didn’t explore yet the use and collection for sale that is a very high value product, also. Next, for the commercial fishing recommendation, fish three to five buoys, and that is the FAO and Captain Butler recommendation. Combine squid with swordfish, and make sure that you are fully ready for the other species. Use weighted jigs, from four to ten pounds, and the light position the same, and this is all the same as the rec recommendations, and use light drag when you are pulling, instead of doing it by hand, and try combining the swordfish rigs, instead of putting just a weight, just adding the weight, as a weighted squid jig to produce a fish and a squid at once. The depth where he is recommending to explore is between 1,900 to 3,500-plus. The challenge to the future, and this is a request to the agencies, for the people that can support this effort, recommend formal exploratory data collection to establish seasonality, biological data, abundance for both common species, market potential, price range, gear description, and other important information, because we have a unique opportunity on a developing fishery to have that baseline data and to do this at once, the best way, and the best informed way, possible. It’s important that this effort was a voluntary, private, selffinanced effort by myself and my family, and they were not with me, but it’s part of this, and this was to support all sectors of the fishermen in the U.S. Caribbean. Let’s promote a new opportunity in a sustainable and collaborative way. Thank you. MIGUEL ROLON:

Any questions for the Chair?

MARCOS HANKE: Let me put on my other hat now. have Nelson and Julian.

Any questions?

We

NELSON CRESPO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Marcos, for your initiative in developing this alternative fishery. You and me have been talking about this fishery, and definitely we are going to try this at the beginning of next year, and we know the presence of giant squid on the west coast of Puerto Rico, because we know swordfish fishermen that are catching it, and I think I sent you some pictures of this, and I know some fishermen that, when they are going for the deepwater snapper, the tentacles are tangled in their hooks, and I think it’s a good alternative to reduce the pressure in other fisheries, like the deepwater snapper and the conch fishery and other types of fisheries in the future. We are very interested, and we are going to keep talking about this. 188

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

Thank you, Marcos. JULIAN MAGRAS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am excited. When I saw the pictures, when Collin first posted them on social media, I was like I couldn’t believe it, and I know it’s been talked about, and I’ve heard you talking about it for a long time, and one of the good things about this fishery is nothing goes to waste, and I wanted to get that out there, because I spoke with you earlier yesterday, and I told Collin that I want all the waste. I bait my traps with the waste, to catch the fish, and so he had forty pounds of waste, and he had ninety-two pounds of sellable squid, and so which is great, and so it’s a place for me to get the waste, and so I am very excited. Then another post that I saw, and I heard you talk about it, and another post that I saw was someone told him that, to stop the squid from inking, if you have a big enough live well, as you catch them, and you can have that live well filled with fresh water, and, as you throw it in, the squid will not ink. That was interesting, to see how much people got onto social media and have been following this. I also heard, in my fishing community, other fishers now who are interested in going and doing this, and so I just want to applaud you for doing this and continue the great efforts, and I am looking forward to hearing a lot more about this fishery. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you, Julian, and I just want to follow-up that between the neon and diamondback are different, because they are different species, and they are built a little different, but one twenty-nine-pound diamondback results in twenty-three pounds of meat. There is more byproduct on the cleaning and trimming on the neon, but the important part here is that the U.S. Caribbean, in developing the two species, it will use the resource to the maximum, and the international effort was to use neon to supply the international market exportation, and this approach aims to feed the local Caribbean market. Vanessa. VANESSA RAMIREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Marcos, I have to congratulate you, and I have been looking at this project since practically the first week that you started with it, and it’s been a pleasure to see this presentation, and, as I wrote in the chat, I have some of the commercial fishermen for deep snappers that want to participate, and we are able to make training in here, when you are available, in the west. Thanks. MARCOS HANKE: We are in this plan, and thank you very much, and I think we have another presentation, and thank you for your 189

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

patience of hearing this project, and let’s keep working, and we’re going to find a way to create videos, maybe, and training, and how to manufacture, and basically transform this into a package of execution in a responsible way, coordinated with the Science Center, maybe, to collect some data, and let’s see which way we can do this. Next presentation is Puerto Rico enforcement. ENFORCEMENT ISSUES PUERTO RICO DNER (The presentation was in Spanish and was not transcribed.) MARCOS HANKE:

USVI. USVI-DPNR

HOWARD FORBES: The Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Enforcement federal fisheries summary for the third quarter is as follows. We are pleased to announce that we have hired three additional officers within the last six months and are in the process of recruiting an additional five to augment the existing force. Presently, we have a total of eight officers throughout the territory, which is four in each district. It is important for us to continue to recruit and hire, to maintain a functioning division. Highlights of the enforcement cases include confiscation of undersized spiny lobsters that were attempted to be sold at the La Reine Fish Market, for which was confiscated, and a citation was issued. Other cases were related to the illegal harvesting of conch during the closed season, two individual observed diving conch on the south side of St. Croix. Seventy-three pieces of conch meat was confiscated, and citations were issued. Earlier last month, an officer on routine patrol on the north side of St. Croix conducted a fisheries inspection and observed that an individual was a licensed commercial helper who was harvesting conch, but without a commercial license holder on the vessel. The catch of thirty pounds of shell conch meat was confiscated, with a citation issued to that individual. With the opening of the La Reine Fish Market in March of 2021, it has provided a centralized location for the local commercial fishers to have a sanitary and state-of-the-art facility to conduct sales and transition to the consumers. Officers conducted spotchecks at the first, but are now assigned to the facility on 190

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

weekends. The height of the activity is on Saturday, at which time it’s necessary to have enforcement present, to maintain it’s secure and safe to consumers. On a final and good note, the division has been awarded a $1.5 million grant from the American Rescue Plan Act for the acquisition of four new patrol vessels, two per district, which are slated to be commissioned and in service in the late fall of 2022. Dockside boarding hours was 567 hours, and sea patrol hours were 268, and market inspection hours were 162. The St. Thomas fishers registered for the year of 2021 through 2022 cycle, and, on St. Thomas, it’s 119 fishers registered. On St. Croix, registry for the 2021 to 2022 is 141. The helpers that St. Thomas registered with the department, for St. Thomas, it’s forty-four. On St. Croix, we have eighty-five helpers, and this concludes the USVI report. MARCOS HANKE:

Thank you.

NOAA. NMFS/NOAA

MANNY ANTONARAS: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Manny Antonaras with NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement. I apologize for not being able to join in-person, and I’m hopeful that I may be able to travel to the Caribbean for the next meeting. We did prepare a couple of slides, and I’m not sure if we are able to see those, but, due to time, I can run through just some notes that I have for each of those slides. Beginning here on Slide 2, our office initiated an investigation involving spiny lobster that was imported into Puerto Rico from the Dominican Republic. Our folks seized approximately 3,000 pounds of spiny lobster for various violations, spiny lobster regulations, and this included some undersized lobster, some eggbearing lobster, and also lobster that was clipped. This case is currently being prepared for submission to our Office of General Counsel. We had another case this quarter, a couple of cases, involving HMS species, and one of those was for selling yellowfin tuna without the required HMS permit, and a summary settlement was issued in that case in the amount of $3,000. Another HMS case involving yellowfin tuna, and this was for purchase of tuna from a non-permitted fisherman, and that case resulted in issuance of a $750 summary settlement. We also had an incident involving catching of one tuna, yellowfin tuna, and a 191

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

written warning was issued for that particular case. Our agent in Puerto Rico also followed up on a complaint involving a dolphin feeding video that was posted on social media, and this was -- This posting was part of an advertisement for short-term rental property, and, as part of that advertisement, they had what appeared to be dolphin feeding activity. On further investigation, it was determined that this particular video was actually photoshopped and that the feeding never took place in Puerto Rico. Subjects were informed of the prohibition under the MMPA and agreed to post “Do Not Feed Dolphin” placards on their property, and my understanding is they have since requested more of those signs for some education. Puerto Rico, we also had a joint patrol, and it was an air patrol with DNER aboard DNER’s aircraft, and that particular patrol focused on the Bajo de Sico closed area off of the western side of Puerto Rico. I also know that Special Agent Miguel Borges has met with the acting commissioner of DNER and is involved in some ongoing discussions with regard to the JEA and how those particular hours are being worked with Puerto Rico. In the USVI, we have an enforcement officer that is now assigned to the USVI, and he is stationed in St. Thomas. During this past quarter, he conducted twenty-four separate patrols across St. Thomas, including areas of Hull Bay, Magens Bay, Frenchtown, Charlotte Amalie, and Red Hook, and, as part of those patrols, he took the opportunity to conduct outreach and education with commercial, recreational, and charter fishermen. Also, in the USVI, we did have a case involving catching -- It was also an HMS case involving the harvesting of tuna without the HMS permit, and also landing that not in whole condition. That case resulted in a written warning. We had another case involving, again, HMS species, and this one was an individual that was actually targeting HMS species, but did not have any fish onboard, and that case just resulted in compliance assistance, and I just wanted to note that, the very next day, the fisher applied for and obtained the required permits, and so compliance was obtained just that very next day. We did have an incident involving lobster poaching, and that case is still ongoing, and I can’t provide any more details at this time, and so investigation continues. We also followed-up on a report of illegal anchoring, with potential seagrass damage. On initial investigation, it was determined that the incident took 192

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

place in territorial waters, and that information was passed to DPNR for action. Just to summarize, some of these incidents and cases under discussion are just some of the activities, and it, of course, doesn’t cover all of the enforcement efforts throughout this quarter. As I mentioned, we have several other ongoing investigations pertaining to different sorts of things, like illegal sales, conch poaching, and sea turtle poaching, just to name a few. This concludes the OLE brief, but I wanted to, once you again, leave you our twenty-four-seven enforcement hotline contact numbers and, just so that you are aware, complaints can be made anonymously, and callers can also leave their contact info, if they wish to have either a special agent or an officer return their call, or they could simply contact the hotline and leave their information and provide anything they would like to share directly with one of our officers or agents. I also have here, including on this final slide, the contact information for Miguel Borges, the OLE Special Agent out of San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Alex Torrero is the enforcement officer assigned to St. Thomas, and so their email addresses are included on this slide, and I have introduced Matt Walia, who is our office’s Compliance and Council Liaison, and Matt’s information is not on this slide, but, as soon as I am complete, I will add Matt’s contact and email address in the chat, and Matt is available for any questions on regulations, current or emerging enforcement concerns that may come up, if there is any question or clarification needed on regulatory requirements, and he’s also a very good point of contact from our office. That concludes the OLE brief. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: Thank you very much. Is there anybody from the Coast Guard connected virtually? I didn’t see any. Seeing none, we will go to the next item. Miguel. CFMC ADVISORY BODIES MEMBERSHIP MIGUEL ROLON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next item is the CFMC Advisory Bodies Membership. Yesterday, we had a closed session to discuss the possible candidates, and I will go one-by-one. In the case of the SSC and the Ecosystem-Based Management TAP, the Technical Advisory Panel, they’re okay, and the membership is complete, and we didn’t need to address any vacancies at this time. In the case of the Outreach and Education Panel, there is a 193

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

recommendation to Adyan Rios to the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel. Since this meeting is a hybrid, she can participate virtually, and she’s a member, as you know, of the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, the Caribbean Branch, and so, at this time, we need to have a motion to approve. TONY BLANCHARD:

So moved.

CARLOS FARCHETTE:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE:

All in favor say aye.

The motion carries.

MIGUEL ROLON: In the case of the DAP, St. Croix is okay. The membership is complete, and we can review that in the summer, when some of the members’ terms expire in 2022. In Puerto Rico, there are four vacancies, and Nelson is going to submit to us some recommendations between here and the next council meeting. In the case of the U.S. Virgin Islands, St. Thomas/St. John, yesterday, we considered three people, and I would like to ask the Chair of the DAP St. Thomas/St. John to speak about these recommendations. We have Charity Ledee, Jessica Peterson, and Christy Berry, and so, please, Julian, can you talk about these people and why they are recommended and who are they? JULIAN MAGRAS: I submitted three names for recommendation, and I will start off with Charity Ledee, and she is a registered commercial fisher, and she’s a female, of course, and her husband is also a commercial fisher, and she’s been following the industry for a very, very long time, and she’s been participating for over fifteen years, being active and attending both -- Listening-in these meetings and listening to the FAC meetings, and she has a young son that’s also sixteen years old, and so he’s too young to have a license, and she actually goes out on the boat with him, and she’s the captain, and she goes out with her husband, and so I think, with her wealth of knowledge that she has in the fishery, I think it’s time that we start to include females into participating on these committees, especially on the district advisory panels, and it’s good to have their input, because they are following, and they’re our side-piece, and I think it would be a great opportunity for her to be on the committee. Then I have Jessica Peterson also, who is a commercial fisher, and she also fishes with her son, who here very soon will hopefully be one of our young fishermen, and she also has been in the process, following this process with us, from the very beginning, back in 2004. 194

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

I reached out to her, also, and asked if she would be interested, since it’s very difficult to get some of the other guys to participate, and I said, well, I am going to reach out to people who want to actually be involved, and she is a great candidate, a wealth of knowledge of all that’s been going on, both local and federal. She’s a lobster fisher, and I think she will bring great help to us in her areas, and then the last person that I have is Christy Berry, and her dad used to be one of the biggest fishermen, back in the day, David Berry, and her stepmom also used to be a council member, Monica Lester, and so she’s a diver. She and her husband own a diving company on St. Thomas, and she has a lot of interest in what has been going on, and she’s also a member of the Fishery Advisory Committee St. Thomas/St. John, and she said that she would like to give it a try and see if her input can supply information for the diving industry, which we do have a lot for the committee, and so I think it’s a great opportunity to have these three females, and I hope they can be considered to fill the vacancies that I have on my committee. The members that I don’t have on the committee no more, they have moved on. One of them moved to Hawaii, and two of them have moved to the states, and so, while they were there, they were a great help to us, and now I think, with their vacancies, and with all of what’s going on, I think it’s time for us to get people who are willing and want to be involved in this process to join the committee. Thank you. TONY BLANCHARD: I would like to add to that. I agree with Mr. Magras on these three great candidates, and I know all three of them. We talk about having fisherwomen involved, and this is a perfect time, and so, like I said, I think it’s three great candidates, and so I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be added to the DAP, and they show interest. I mean, at this point in time, there is very little interest shown to get on these committees and to stay on these committees, and so I think we should encourage people that are willing to take that step forward, by putting them in and giving them a shot. So moved. MARCOS HANKE:

Any second?

DAMARIS DELGADO: MARCOS HANKE:

Second.

Damaris seconds.

All in favor say aye. 195

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

JEAN-PIERRE ORIOL: on the recording.)

(The first part of the comment is not audible

My question is level of effort to recruit outside of the commercial fishing sector, number one, and what has that experience been like, or is there any effort, or has there mostly been -- Then, second, because this is a St. Thomas/St. John committee, and, again, just for my edification, level of effort to have a St. John representative, because we do not have that at this time. JULIAN MAGRAS: Thank you, Commissioner, for that question, and that’s a very important question. We have had members from the St. John fishers on the committee before, and both recreational and commercial. The last one that just came off was Joshua Bourg as the representative, and he was from St. John, and I have been trying very, very hard to get the guys from St. John to be involved, and they are telling me that they don’t have time. They say, if we have a charter, we cannot be involved, and we don’t want to leave a seat that is vacant, that somebody can fill to be on the committee, and so it’s been a great challenge, and I’ve tried, from the time I’ve been the chair of this committee, to continue getting someone from St. John, and it hasn’t worked. The same issue in St. Thomas, but some of the guys that you see that are commercial on the St. Thomas side actually are representatives also for the sportfishing group, and like Collin Butler, and he is one of them, and so having a guy like that is great. Having Elizabeth Kadison from the University of the Virgin Islands, and we had a representative from the Department of Agriculture, and he left, and that was Elton George. We also had Lance, who left us, and he was also from the recreational sector. We have reached out to several, several individuals and asked them to be part of the committee, and we have been turned down, due to the fact that, one, they are scared to speak, and, two, they say they don’t have the time, because the times when the meetings are taking place, and so, with all that’s been going on out there, they are members of the association, and they get involved, and they ask questions, but they just don’t want to be at the table sitting down for an eight-hour meeting, or a four-hour meeting, and that’s been the problem. By giving these ladies an opportunity, I think it’s a great opportunity, and, in the future, when we revisit our membership in April of 2024, if we do find someone to fill one of those positions from St. John, or somebody else that shows interest, we can bring them on, and there’s people always saying that they want to leave, 196

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

and we just was able to get Joshua Quetel, one of our youngest fishermen, involved, and I see here, within the next couple of years, as a couple of these younger fishermen come up, it will be a great opportunity for them to get involved, so that some of us who have been there for so long can train them, and we can actually get a break. Thank you. MARCOS HANKE: We need to vote. We have to finish the vote. All in favor say. Yes, just to make clear the record. The next item on the agenda is -- Miguel. MIGUEL ROLON: For the record, there was a recommendation to allow the Chair to appoint these members that Nelson is -- So we can have them for the DAP meeting. MARCOS HANKE: Yes. Once Nelson submits the names, you guys authorized me to send the letter to appoint those people, and do I need a motion on that part? CARLOS FARCHETTE: MARCOS HANKE:

You need a motion for what?

To appoint the people that Nelson is going to --

CARLOS FARCHETTE: recording.)

(Mr. Farchette’s comment is not audible on the

DAMARIS DELGADO:

Second.

MARCOS HANKE: All in favor say aye. The motion -- The next item on the agenda is Other Business, and we don’t have anything, and we’re just going to jump to Public Comment. Is there anybody from the public who would like five minutes to speak? GRACIELA GARCIA-MOLINER: I do have a message from Bill Arnold. He’s in Hawaii vacationing, but he wants to wish you all happy holidays. MARCOS HANKE:

Next meetings, Miguel. NEXT CFMC MEETINGS IN 2022

MIGUEL ROLON: We are going to have a workshop on February 9. By the way, Liajay is our new -- You have seen her around, but we want to have a round of applause for this lady. She is a bright cookie, and she competed with a lot of people to get her position, and she beat them all, and so we are really lucky to have her. We are going to have a workshop, a special workshop, on February 197

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

9, and so mark your calendars, and, for this special workshop, we would like to have everybody -- The chairs of the advisory bodies and the council members are going to be invited to participate, and this meeting will address MPAs, and we will have the three liaison officers talking about the MPAs, and they are going to focus on that. We will have a person from the Western Pacific talking about the oceanic MPAs, marine protected areas. As you know, the Executive Order of President Biden called for having a Thirty-by-Thirty area protected, and you have heard all of that already, and so this special workshop will have science and governance and the industry, and we probably -- I asked Julian and Nelson and Eddie to be ready to give us the perspective of the fishers in terms of the MPAs and what they have -- You have the local governance talking about the governance, and so we hope that that will be a good meeting, and it will probably be two days, the 9th and 10th, and it all depends, and it will be a hybrid meeting. All the meetings of the council from now on will be hybrid, by the way. The three meetings that have been scheduled, or proposed to be scheduled, are April 19 and 20, August 11 and 12, and December 6 and 7, and, in between, if we need to, let’s say because the of the strategic plan recommendations and everything, if we need meetings in between, we will advertise and have a doodle poll that we will have the consensus of the council members as to which are the best days to have those meetings. That’s what we have, Mr. Chairman. MARCOS HANKE: Before we end, thank you very much for the patience, and I am sorry for the inconvenience with the technology, and this is something that the council staff have already plans to adjust and to improve, and we’re going to work with the timing of the agenda and not to be so rushed next time, and I received many, many communications requesting all the tools possible for this not to be so rushed and more time between presentations, or maybe more days, and the staff and I and you guys are going to evaluate that, and Miguel is going to help me on that part, and I want to wish, to everybody, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Miguel. MIGUEL ROLON: We say that, by the way, every time that we meet, and I want to say goodbye to a special person, Dr. Michelle Duval, and she is sitting at the end, and she was trying to escape the cold weather, and she never knew that we would have cold weather just for her in that corner, and she is freezing there. Dr. Duval worked very hard to get this strategic plan going, and she’s a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and 198

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

so she has been a member of other council before, and we hope to see you sometime, and maybe, if you have your own boat, come here and start working with us, and I would like to give a round of applause to this lady. I want to also say this, that we are closing a year after a very hard year, 2020, and 2021 we thought we were all going to be happy and without facemasks, and look at that, and we still have the masks and keeping a distance from each other and all that, and so we hope that 2022 will be better, but I want to thank my staff. If you look around, women are taking over, and look at that corner over there, and so, guys, we have to do something, but I am the last of the Mohicans in my office, and all the rest are women, and we have two contractors, and they are women, and they do an excellent job, and so kudos to Christina Olan, and she is our contractor, and Natalia Perdomo, and she is going to have a baby in March, and she is the one who takes care of the webpages, and the rest of the staff here, and there are not many, and so I am going to mention them. There is Ruth Gonzalez, Iris Oliveras, Diana Martino, Maria de los A. Irizarry, Vivian Ruiz, and you know Vivian, because she is the one who sends the checks, and she is the one that receives the receipts, and so you all know her. Then Graciela runs around, and she is now teaching Liajay to run around, but I am really grateful to have these people working with us, and I hope that I will keep them for some time before I die or retire, because, without these people, nothing moves. Then the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and the Regional Office, and, actually, we have another two women there, Sarah and Maria Lopez, and, in the Science Center, we have Adyan Rios and Shannon and other people, and so watch out, but we are really grateful that we have the support of the Regional Office and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center and other people around here, and especially the fishers, because, without the fishers, we don’t go anywhere, and they have the interest, and they have the guts. I remember when Julian and I used to talk, and he was the only one talking to that side, and he would say to me, Miguel, I am going to say this, and I would say, yes, say that to the council, for the fishers, and it’s the only way, and that has been about twenty years like that, and so sometimes we don’t see eye-to-eye, but we respect each other, and I believe that we can work that way for the future. The Commissioner of the Virgin Islands, we thank you for coming here, and I know you are a very, very busy person, and I am really 199

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

grateful that you came and had the time to meet with us, and so, to all of you, thank you for very much for helping the staff and working together, and I wish you the best in 2022. Happy Christmas, Feliz Navidad, and thank you very much. VANESSA RAMIREZ: MARCOS HANKE:

Thanks, everyone, and Happy New Year.

Motion to adjourn.

Goodbye, all.

(Whereupon, the meeting adjourned on December 8, 2021.) - - -

200

2022-2026 Strategic Plan Caribbean Fishery Management Council December 7, 2021

Overview

• Previous actions • Review of public comments • Review of recommended changes • ACTION: Approval of final 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • Draft 2021 Implementation Plan

2

Previous Actions • March 2021: DAP review of draft island-specific objectives, initial feedback on strategies.

• April 2021: Council selection of draft Vision, Mission, and Goal statements, approval of island-specific objectives reviewed by DAPs.

• June 2021: DAP final review and edits to island-specific strategies.

• July 2021: Council review and approval of draft Strategic Plan for public input (August-September).

• TODAY: Review suggested edits and approve final Strategic Plan 3

Public Comment Summary • Online public comment form (Spanish and English) open August 6 — September 3

• Three comments received • One recommended language change • Many suggestions to enhance implementation of various strategies

• No comments on Communication and Outreach

4

Public Comment Summary • Vision, Mission, Core Values - One comment stated they were not very inclusive, one supported all as written

• Management - Gather fisher input for collaborative research by gear and region - Develop educational campaign using regional workshops to gather fisher input for stock assessments

• Ecosystem and Resource Health - Support dialogue between Council and Puerto Rico agencies on impacts of non-fishing activities

- Compensate fishers monetarily for participation in ecosystem research, and recognize contributions in publications

- Add Sargassum influxes to natural disasters in Puerto Rico objective 5

Public Comment Summary • Social, Cultural, and Economic Issues - Overall goal is essential to increase confidence in management and compliance with regulations by commercial sector

- Multiple suggestions specific to Puerto Rico: ‣ Consider communities by gear type, mode, geography ‣ Conduct study on fish mislabeling ‣ Strengthen food security through better understanding of underutilized local markets

‣ Include university social workers and Department of Correction and Rehabilitation in efforts to promote recruitment of young fishers.

6

Recommended Changes • Consolidate objectives that are identical across all districts, maintain island-specific strategies - Management: All five objectives identical - Ecosystem and Resource Health: Three objectives identical, one PR-specific, two STT/STJ-specific, two STX-specific (8 total)

- Social, Cultural, and Economic Issues: Three objectives identical, one island-specific objective for each district (6 total)

7

Recommended Changes • Ecosystem and Resource Health: Insert “(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, Sargassum blooms)” in Objective 9 (Puerto Rico)

- Response to public comment Objective 9. Collaborate with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, Sargassum blooms) on ecosystem structure and function.

• Social, Cultural, and Economic Issues: Insert “and dissemination” in Objective 14

- Originally added by STX DAP Objective 14. Promote the collection and dissemination of social and economic data that informs management decisions.

8

Discussion and Council Action •

Questions/Discussion

•

Council Action: Approval of 2022-2026 CFMC Strategic Plan with recommended changes

9

Draft 2022 Implementation Plan Purpose… • A tool that complements 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • Identifies and prioritizes 2022 activities necessary to achieve Council’s goals and objectives

• New and ongoing activities mapped to objectives • Aligns activities with available resources • Allows Council to track progress annually • Provides stakeholders with comprehensive view of how activities contribute to Vision

• Not all activities can be addressed at the same time! 10

Draft 2022 Implementation Plan Process… • Three groups are proposed to assist the Council in identification, prioritization, and tracking of annual activities - OEAP: track and recommend communication & outreach priorities - 5-Year SP IPT: SERO, SEFSC, CFMC staff to review and help prioritize science needs and tasks

- 5-Year SP AP: Subset of Council members & DAP chairs to review OEAP and IPT priorities, other management projections, and provide recommendations to Council for approval

• Annual process to prioritize activities in an appropriate sequence for available resources

• Council action: Approval of workgroup-type process to identify Implementation Plan priorities 11

Example Implementation Activities Table Objective

2022 Priority Tasks and Activities

Timeframe

Lead Organization

Participate in selection of a modified non-commercial fishing survey for Puerto Rico (PR).

Ongoing

OST

Participate in development of a new non-commercial/ fishery dependent survey in the USVI (STT-STJ, STX)

Ongoing

OST

Support SEFSC rapid sampling electronic monitoring pilot in the U.S. Caribbean (PR, STT-STJ, STX) Support improvements to Puerto Rico commercial port sampling recommendations from MER report (PR)

2022

Partner

Ongoing

OST/SEFSC

USVI port sampling design activities (STT-STJ, STX)

Ongoing

OST/SEFSC

Promote DRNA commercial e-reporting outreach (PR)

Ongoing

Support completion of queen triggerfish assessment, SEDAR 80 (PR, STT-STJ, STX)

2022

Provide support for lane snapper life history sampling by USC (PR, STT-STJ, STX). *Also meets #11

2022

All Districts 1. Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and costeffective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

2. Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs.

12

Funding Source

Questions? Michelle Duval michelle@mellivoraconsulting.com

13

CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Draft 2022-2026 Strategic Plan December 2021

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 PLAN ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................................................................... 5 VISION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 MISSION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 CORE VALUES ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 GOAL STATEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 MANAGEMENT ..............................................................................................................................................................................6 ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH .................................................................................................................................................6 SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES .........................................................................................................................................6 COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH ...................................................................................................................................................6 MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH ...........................................................................................................................11 SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES ..................................................................................................................15 COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH .............................................................................................................................18

Page 2

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

ACRONYMS CFMC CRFM DAP DPNR DRNA EBFM EEZ EFH FAD FEP IBFMP MREP MSA NOAA NPS OEAP OLE PEPCO SEFSC SSC USCG USFWS USVI WECAFC

Caribbean Fishery Management Council Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism District Advisory Panel Department of Planning and Natural Resources (U.S. Virgin Islands) Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (Puerto Rico) Ecosystem Based Fishery Management Exclusive Economic Zone Essential Fish Habitat Fish Aggregating Device Fishery Ecosystem Plan Island-Based Fishery Management Plan Marine Resource Education Program Magnuson Stevens Act National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Park Service Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Office of Law Enforcement Programa de Educación para Pescadores Comerciales (Educational Program for Commercial Fishers) Southeast Fisheries Science Center Scientific and Statistical Committee U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Virgin Islands Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission

Page 3

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

INTRODUCTION The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Caribbean Council, or CFMC) is responsible for the conservation and management of fishery resources within the federal jurisdiction of the U.S. Caribbean, which includes Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Caribbean Council is one of eight regional councils established in 1976 by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, later renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). In addition to the councils, the MSA also created the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), an area that extends from the seaward boundary of coastal states and territories out to 200 nautical miles. The MSA established sovereign authority over most fishery resources in the EEZ, a responsibility that is shared between the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and the regional councils. The Caribbean Council recommends management measures for fishery resources within its jurisdiction through the development of fishery management plans, which must be reviewed and approved by the Secretary of Commerce before being implemented by NOAA Fisheries. All Council recommendations are developed in an open, public process and must be consistent with the ten national standards contained in the MSA. The Caribbean Council is comprised of seven voting members. This includes four public voting members appointed by the Secretary with knowledge of commercial fishing, recreational fishing, or conservation of marine resources of the U.S. Caribbean. The remaining three voting members include the principal officials with marine fishery management responsibility for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (or their designees), and the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Administrator. The Council also has three non-voting members representing the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Secretary of State. Development of measures to maintain healthy fishery resources that meet the needs of fishers and the general public is an inclusive process. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviews biological, statistical, social, and economic information and provides expert technical advice to ensure that Council decisions are based the best scientific information available. Additionally, the Council has advisory panels to assist it in establishing fishery management goals and objectives, as well as outreach and education approaches, and to provide input on cultural values and economic needs of island fishing communities. Each advisory panel contains a balanced representation of fishery and stakeholder interests and serves an important communication role for those affected by the Council’s decisions. The Caribbean Council recently evaluated its management framework and is transitioning from a species-specific approach to one that is focused on the unique characteristics of the fishery resources and fishing communities of each of its three island districts (Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St.John, St. Croix). This new framework is detailed in the Council’s recently approved Island-Based Fishery Management Plans (IBFMPs). Additionally, the Council is developing a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) that will guide implementation of its new management framework using an ecosystem-based approach. This strategic plan establishes goals and objectives for these critically important efforts and serves as a roadmap for future activities that will promote effective implementation, as well as transparency and accountability for the Council’s stakeholders.

Page 4

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

PLAN ORGANIZATION The organization of the strategic plan reflects both the collective goals and distinctive needs of the three island districts that comprise the Council’s jurisdiction. The Vision, Mission, and Core Values incorporate a common future, purpose, and approach. The Goal Statements reflect broad areas of focus necessary to achieve the Council’s Vision while accommodating the differing priorities of each island district. All were developed with extensive Council, advisory panel, and stakeholder input. For three of the goals (Management; Ecosystem and Resource Health; Social, Cultural, and Economic Issues), island-specific objectives and strategies were developed to address the characteristics and needs of each district. Several objectives evolved to be identical across island districts, indicating overlapping priorities. In such instances, objectives have been consolidated so that only the island-specific strategies are represented. The Council also determined that the Communication and Outreach goal encompasses one of its most important responsibilities and concluded the objectives and strategies were relevant throughout its jurisdiction, and not specific to one island or district.

Page 5

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

VISION Thriving and resilient island ecosystems, fisheries, and fishing communities that provide cultural, social, and economic benefits for all.

MISSION The Caribbean Fishery Management Council conserves, restores and manages fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Act. The Council is committed to advancing the collaborative stewardship of these fisheries and supporting island ecosystems through education, outreach, and stakeholder input.

CORE VALUES The following core values guide all Council decisions: • • • • • •

Stewardship Collaboration Integrity Transparency Fairness Respect

GOAL STATEMENTS MANAGEMENT Advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources.

SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process.

Page 6

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

MANAGEMENT Goal: Advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners. CROSS-DISTRICT OBJECTIVES Objective 1: Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Improve fishery-independent data through partnerships. • Prioritize data collection for species subject to seasonal and area closures. • Expand education and outreach on commercial electronic reporting technology. • Continue participation in re-initiation of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) in Puerto Rico. • Support Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) and Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (DRNA) improvements to commercial sampling. • Support the SEFSC fishery-independent deep-water snapper-grouper survey. • Support local government efforts to increase port sampling and port agents. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Support NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) efforts to improve recreational reporting and establish an MRIP survey in St. Thomas/St. John. • Support SEFSC efforts to work with DPNR to design and implement a multi-mode catch sampling program. • Prioritize data collection for species subject to seasonal and area closures. • Support USVI DPNR efforts to examine licensing modifications and improvements. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Support NOAA Fisheries and USVI DPNR efforts to improve recreational reporting, port sampling, and review previous pilot efforts to establish an MRIP-certified survey in St. Croix as per the MRIP regional implementation plan. • Support efforts by USVI DPNR to review and modify licensing requirements to improve catch reporting. • Support SEFSC efforts to work with USVI DPNR to design and implement a multi-mode catch sampling program. • Collaborate with USVI DPNR on education and outreach regarding accurate catch reporting. • Prioritize data collection for species subject to seasonal and area closures. • Support USVI DPNR efforts to modernize and improve the licensing system.

Page 7

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 2: Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Develop and prioritize a list of Puerto Rico-specific research needs. • Work with science and research partners and with fishers to prioritize stock assessments for species subject to seasonal and area closures. • Collaborate with Sea Grant to ensure Puerto Rico-specific research needs are included in grant opportunities. • Incorporate fisher observations into stock assessments. • Develop a list of Puerto Rico science and data needs that could be addressed using commercial and recreational fisher involvement. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Collaborate with science partners and fishers to develop and prioritize a St. Thomas/St. John-specific list of research needs. • Prioritize and involve fishers in urgently needed stock assessments for species subject to seasonal and area closures. • Encourage collaborative studies on the effectiveness of Grammanik Bank and other closed areas. • Work with the SEFSC to identify key species for which fishers could assist in obtaining biological samples. • Support joint SEFSC, USVI DPNR, and National Park Service (NPS) efforts to improve information for datalimited stock assessments (e.g., gear selectivity studies in St. Thomas/St. John etc.). • Develop educational materials to promote fisher understanding of science and information needs. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Support joint SEFSC, USVI DPNR, and NPS gear selectivity studies in St. Croix. • Identify opportunities for fishers to contribute to biological samples for parrotfish and other species. • Support research by academic science partners to improve data-limited species assessments. • Collaborate with science partners and fishers to develop and prioritize a St. Croix-specific list of research needs. • Ensure that closed areas are correctly marked by buoys (e.g., Buck Island). • Develop educational materials to promote fisher understanding of science and information needs.

Objective 3: Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Review enforceability of existing Puerto Rico management measures. • Work with Puerto Rico DRNA to foster regulatory consistency. • Work with Puerto Rico DRNA, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and local marine enforcement agencies to support cross-training of personnel.

Page 8

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan •

Collaborate with management partners to develop commercial and recreational compliance guides for Puerto Rico.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Coordinate with NOAA OLE, USVI DPNR and USCG to review enforceability of existing regulations. • Support cross-training of enforcement personnel and joint enforcement efforts through memoranda of understanding. • Identify enforcement gaps in existing St. Thomas/St. John regulations. • Promote development of clear, understandable compliance guides for commercial and recreational stakeholders. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Coordinate with NOAA OLE, USVI DPNR, and the USCG to review consistency of existing regulations for federally managed species. • Support cross-training of enforcement personnel. • Identify enforcement gaps for existing St. Croix regulations. • Review regulations for effectiveness and/or redundancy. • Develop clear, understandable compliance guides for commercial and recreational fishers and other stakeholders. • Ensure that educational materials are available for decision-makers (e.g., legislators) as needed.

Objective 4: Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management that considers diverse community interests. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Regularly review effectiveness of existing management measures (e.g., spawning areas and closures). • Work with partners to develop clearly stated objectives for management actions. • Address impacts of bycatch on ecosystem relationships. • Participate in Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) queen conch workgroup. • Evaluate new and existing management measures for consistency with local ecosystem productivity using Ecosystem Status Reports. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Review and evaluate the effectiveness of existing seasonal and area closures as soon as possible. • Reduce bycatch and waste through gear modifications and seasonal restrictions. • Collaborate with USVI DPNR to develop consistent management measures where appropriate. • Ensure management measures accommodate St. Thomas/St. John local ecosystem productivity. • Participate in international forums such as WECAFC and the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) efforts to improve understanding and management of Caribbean-wide resources.

Page 9

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Work with NOAA Fisheries and USVI DPNR to reduce bycatch through gear and seasonal modifications. • Work with USVI DPNR and NOAA OLE to develop consistent regulations where appropriate. • Ensure management measures accommodate St. Croix local ecosystem productivity. • Involve both the St. Croix District Advisory Panel (DAP) and Fisheries Advisory Committee (FAC) in review and development of management measures to evaluate commercial and recreational community impacts. • Ensure that management measures consider and/or address the potential impacts of climate change. • Ensure that management approaches consider the impacts of invasive species. • Explore underutilized species as a means to reduce pressure on currently fully utilized species. • Support the development of interagency coordination for permitting of Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) deployment.

Objective 5: Consider the potential impacts of climate change on the efficacy of management measures. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Use Puerto Rico Ecosystem Status Reports to inform development of management measures. • Evaluate fishery-independent information for climate-related impacts and trends. • Solicit fisher input regarding climate-related changes in species and habitats. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Use USVI (St. Thomas/St. John) Ecosystem Status Reports to inform development of management measures. • Evaluate fishery-independent information for climate-related impacts and trends. • Solicit fisher input regarding climate-related changes in species and habitats. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Use USVI (St. Croix) Ecosystem Status Reports to inform development of management measures. • Evaluate fishery-independent information for climate-related impacts and trends. • Solicit fisher input regarding climate-related changes in species and habitats

Page 10

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH Goal: Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources. CROSS-DISTRICT OBJECTIVES Objective 6: Implement the Fishery Ecosystem Plan as a roadmap for future Council actions to maintain the ecological relationships, roles, and services of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix island ecosystems. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Evaluate existing spawning season closures and closed areas (e.g., Bajo de Sico, Tourmaline Bank, Abrir la Sierra) to determine contributions to ecosystem integrity. • Establish a schedule to regularly evaluate and monitor closed seasons and areas. • Collaborate with science partners and stakeholders to improve local ecosystem information. • Establish a process to incorporate ecosystem information and approaches into management measures specific to Puerto Rico. • Identify enforcement concerns that may impact ecological relationships. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Collaborate with science partners and stakeholders to identify gaps and improve local biological and ecosystem information for St. Thomas/St. John. • Evaluate existing spawning season closures and closed areas (e.g., Grammanik Bank, Hind Bank) to determine contributions to ecosystem integrity. • Establish a process to incorporate ecosystem information and approaches into management measures for St. Thomas/St. John. • Consider ecosystem approaches that are responsive to climate change. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Collaborate with science partners and stakeholders (e.g., other nongovernmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy, Caribbean Oceanic Restoration & Education Foundation, commercial/recreational fishers) to identify gaps and prioritize ecological data needs to improve local biological and ecosystem information for St. Croix. • Evaluate existing spawning season closures and closed areas (e.g., mutton snapper, Lang Bank) to determine contributions to ecosystem integrity. • Establish a process to incorporate ecosystem information and approaches into management measures for St. Croix. • Ensure that ecosystem-based management approaches are responsive to climate change. • Explore use of underutilized and underdeveloped species and resources to reduce pressure and maintain ecological relationships.

Page 11

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 7: Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Develop Council habitat policies that address impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) from coastal development, erosion and sedimentation, and other forms of pollution. • Develop outreach materials on the impacts of habitat loss from non-fishing activities (e.g., erosion/sedimentation) and communicate and collaborate with agencies responsible for managing these activities. • Support SEFSC mapping efforts and collaborate with science partners to identify Puerto Rico habitat mapping needs. • Work with management partners to establish clear goals for five-year EFH reviews. • Ensure that EFH designations account for ecological roles and relationships of species. • Support projects that rehabilitate fishery habitats to offset habitat loss or damage. • Collaborate with scientists and fishers to assess the impact of certain fishing gears on fishery habitats. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Develop Council habitat policies that address impacts to EFH from coastal development, erosion/sedimentation, and other forms of pollution that impact St. Thomas/St. John habitats • Develop outreach materials on impacts of habitat loss from non-fishing impacts. • Work with management partners to establish clear goals for 5-year EFH reviews. • Ensure that EFH designations account for ecological roles and relationships of species. • Utilize the Council's EFH comment authority to address federally permitted projects that may impact ecologically sensitive habitats. ST. CROIX • Develop Council habitat policies that address impacts to EFH from coastal development, erosion and sedimentation, and other forms of pollution that impact St. Croix habitats. • Support modifications to territorial coastal zone regulations that reduce sedimentation and erosion. • Work with management partners to establish clear goals for five-year EFH reviews. • Ensure that EFH designations account for ecological roles and relationships of species. • Use the Council's EFH comment authority to address federally permitted projects that may impact ecologically sensitive habitats. • Ensure that juvenile habitats are sufficiently protected. • Promote the regular review of marine managed areas (e.g., East End Marine Park). • Promote a boating infrastructure plan. • Promote single point moorings both inshore and offshore to protect EFH.

Page 12

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 8: Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Conduct outreach with NOAA OLE and Puerto Rico DRNA enforcement personnel regarding impacts of illegal fishing activities on fishery resources and habitats. • Conduct outreach to Puerto Rico agencies on the impacts of non-fishing activities and development on ecosystem structure and function. • Conduct outreach with the fishing community to communicate the impacts of illegal fishing on the health of the resource. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Conduct outreach with NOAA OLE and USVI DPNR enforcement personnel regarding impacts of illegal fishing activities on fishery resources and habitats. • Conduct outreach to permitting agencies on impacts of non-fishing activities and development on ecosystem structure and function. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Conduct outreach with NOAA OLE and USVI DPNR enforcement personnel regarding ecological impacts of illegal fishing activities. • Conduct outreach to permitting agencies on potential impacts of non-fishing activities and development on ecosystem structure and function. • Conduct outreach with the fishing community to communicate the impacts of illegal fishing on the health of the resource.

PUERTO RICO OBJECTIVES Objective 9: Collaborate with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, Sargassum blooms) on ecosystem structure and function. • Determine data needed to evaluate impacts of natural disasters on species and habitats. • Incorporate effects of natural disasters into the development of Ecosystem Status Reports. • Evaluate the flexibility of existing management approaches to respond to local ecosystem impacts from hurricanes and earthquakes. • Establish a process to collect fisher observations on local impacts of natural disasters.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN OBJECTIVES Objective 10: Encourage efforts to create and rehabilitate fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function. • Work with federal and territorial management partners and stakeholders to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement. • Explore opportunities for funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA's Marine Debris Removal Program, and other federal agencies to use certain types of marine debris for habitat creation. • Identify habitat restoration needs for NOAA's Office of Habitat Conservation grant programs.

Page 13

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 11: Collaborate with science partners to identify and address ecological data and information gaps. • Explore existing datasets to fill information gaps. • Communicate St. Thomas/St. John ecosystem information needs to academic partners. • Collaborate with science partners to prioritize ecological data needs, consistent with NOAA's Caribbean Regional Ecosystem Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Implementation Plan.

ST. CROIX OBJECTIVES Objective 12: Encourage efforts to rehabilitate and/or create fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function. • Work with federal and territorial management partners and others to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement and restoration. • Explore opportunities to address the impacts of invasive species on St. Croix fishery habitats. • Investigate the potential of FADs to mitigate habitat losses and deploy FADs where appropriate. • Identify habitat restoration needs for NOAA's Office of Habitat Conservation grant programs. Objective 13: Collaborate with management partners to ensure that ecosystem approaches are responsive to climate change, environmental changes, and natural disasters. • Evaluate flexibility of current management approaches to climate change impacts. • Work with the broader Caribbean community to identify potential impacts to habitats and species distributions from climate change.

Page 14

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES Goal: Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use. CROSS-DISTRICT OBJECTIVES Objective 14: Promote the collection and dissemination of social and economic data that informs management decisions. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Engage science partners, fishers, consumers, wholesalers/distributors, and the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to identify and prioritize social and economic data gaps and research priorities for Puerto Rico. • Work with Sea Grant to ensure social and economic research priorities are incorporated into funding opportunities. • Use results from existing and completed studies (e.g., Hurricane Maria & COVD-19 assessments, Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN) project) to inform future decisions. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Engage science partners and the SSC to identify and prioritize social and economic data gaps and research priorities for St. Thomas/St. John. • Work with Sea Grant to ensure social and economic research priorities are incorporated into funding opportunities. • Identify and use results from existing and completed socioeconomic impact studies (e.g., Hurricanes Irma/Maria, COVID assessments). ST. CROIX • Engage science partners (SEFSC, academic researchers, Sea Grant, etc.) and the SSC to identify and prioritize social and economic data gaps and research priorities for St. Croix. • Work with Sea Grant to ensure social and economic research priorities are incorporated into funding opportunities. • Identify and use results from existing and completed studies (e.g., Hurricanes Irma/Maria, COVID assessments). • Ensure that new or existing social and economic science studies collaborate and coordinate with USVI DPNR.

Objective 15: Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions and actions across user groups. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Review and document the social and economic impacts of existing Puerto Rico closed seasons and spawning areas on commercial, for-hire, and recreational stakeholders. Page 15

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • • • •

Ensure that management measures address cultural differences across Puerto Rico's fishing communities. Use online tools and social media to incorporate fisher and other stakeholder observations and experiences. Assess recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction across Puerto Rico communities. Consider the contributions of fishers with respect to stewardship of the resource and ecosystem in the development and evaluation of management decisions.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Review and document the social and economic impacts of existing St. Thomas/St. John closed seasons and spawning areas on commercial, for-hire, and recreational stakeholders (e.g., Grammanik Bank). • Ensure that management measures acknowledge and address differences across the fishing communities of St. Thomas/St. John. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Review and document the social and economic impacts of existing St. Croix closed seasons and spawning areas on commercial, for-hire, and recreational stakeholders (e.g., Lang Bank). • Ensure that management approaches provide equitable access for commercial and recreational resource users. • Work with stakeholders to Identify and address commercial and recreational user conflicts. • Assess the social and economic impacts of the Buck Island Reef National Monument expansion on recreational and commercial fishers.

Objective 16: Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Support community efforts to improve fishing infrastructure across Puerto Rico. • Support and promote development of a recruitment and training program for young fishers that encourages legal entry into the fishery. • Consider management approaches that address recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Support community efforts to improve fishing infrastructure across STT and STJ, including landing and market sites. • Develop education and outreach materials to support the use of social media and other virtual approaches to marketing locally caught species. • Consider management approaches that address recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Support community efforts to improve fishing infrastructure across St. Croix, including landing and market sites.

Page 16

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • •

Develop education and outreach materials to support the use of social media and other virtual approaches to marketing locally caught species. Consider management approaches that address recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction.

PUERTO RICO OBJECTIVES Objective 17: Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in Puerto Rico on economic opportunity and social well-being. • Collaborate with science partners to document the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed sales of fish in Puerto Rico. • Work with management partners to determine where additional enforcement could improve economic conditions and/or trust among user groups.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN OBJECTIVES Objective 18: Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in St. Thomas and St. John on economic opportunity and social well-being. • Collaborate with science partners to document the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed sales of fish in St. Thomas/St. John. • Work with management partners to determine where additional enforcement could improve economic conditions and/or trust among user groups.

ST. CROIX OBJECTIVES Objective 19: Consider the impacts of non-regulation, enforcement, and illegal fishing in St. Croix on economic opportunity and social well-being. • Collaborate with science partners to document the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed sales of fish in St. Croix. • Work with management partners to determine where additional enforcement could improve economic conditions and/or trust among commercial and recreational user groups. • Educate hoteliers and restauranteurs on the importance of purchasing fish from licensed commercial fishers.

Page 17

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH Goal: Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process. Objective 20: Use a variety of communication tools that consider the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of target audiences in coordination with the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP). • Continue use of the Council's social media platforms and explore online and app-based technologies (e.g., WhatsApp, email templates) to convey information and updates. • Develop a catalogue of communities, markets, businesses, and individuals with preferences and need for traditional media tools. • Maintain the content and organization of the Council's website to enhance its utility to a variety of users. • Ensure that communication and outreach materials account for stakeholder language preferences. • Coordinate with management partners, commercial and recreational fishing organizations and fishers, nongovernmental organizations, and coastal businesses to expand the scope of Council communications across new and existing audiences. • Consider sector-specific and "boat-friendly" communication materials. Objective 21: Promote participation of a variety of stakeholders in the Council process. • Increase the frequency of Council communications in advance of meetings or events. • Use a variety of traditional, online, and social media tools to advertise and remind stakeholders of Council meetings and events. • Expand the use of webinars and conference lines to provide opportunities for remote access, participation, and education. • Ensure that meetings and events are scheduled to encourage maximum participation. • Consider development of issue-specific online comment forms to expand opportunities for public input. • Conduct issue-specific workshops to promote collaborative development of management approaches. • Develop a newsletter or summary to highlight Council meeting outcomes and anticipated actions. • Expand and improve participation by experienced and young fishers in the Council process through the development and support of territorial outreach programs in the USVI. • Attract other stakeholders, in addition to fishers, into the Council process to improve decision-making for the benefit of fishery resources. Objective 22: Improve public and stakeholder understanding and awareness of fisheries management, current issues, and the Council process. • Expand existing non-traditional stakeholder outreach efforts (e.g., restaurants, small-scale grocery store owners, and farmers, etc.). • Continue support of the Marine Resource Education Program (MREP) workshops throughout the U.S. Caribbean. • Develop island-specific (Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, St. Croix) outreach approaches and materials for recreational and commercial fishers.

Page 18

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • • •

• • • • •

Expand the role of fisheries liaisons to improve both fisher and public understanding of fisheries issues and the Council process. Coordinate with management and science partners to improve the clarity and simplicity of presentations to improve public understanding. Partner with other outreach organizations (e.g., PEPCO, Sea Grant) and federal agencies (e.g., USCG, NPS, etc.) and commercial and recreational fishing, diving, and boating organizations to develop and distribute educational materials to fishers, other marine resource users (e.g., divers), and the general public. Conduct in-person and/or virtual outreach meetings and workshops to improve fisher and public engagement in the Council process. Explore partnerships with organizations to capture traditional ecological knowledge of U.S. Caribbean fishing communities. Create an orientation program to inform the fishing community of the roles of the different management partners. Develop a mechanism to coordinate development of Council and territorial outreach efforts to ensure consistent messaging on fishery issues and other topics as needed. Support the expansion of the Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program in the USVI.

Page 19

CONSEJO DE ADMINISTRACIÓN PESQUERA DEL CARIBE BORRADOR DEL PLAN ESTRATÉGICO 2022-2026 2021 diciembre

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

ÍNDICE DE CONTENIDOS ACRÓNIMOS................................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCCIÓN ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 ORGANIZACIÓN DEL PLAN............................................................................................................................................. 5 VISIÓN ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 MISIÓN ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 VALORES FUNDAMENTALES .......................................................................................................................................... 6 METAS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 MANEJO.......................................................................................................................................................................................6 SALUD DEL ECOSISTEMA Y DEL RECURSO.............................................................................................................................................6 ASUNTOS SOCIALES, CULTURALES Y ECONÓMICOS ...............................................................................................................................6 COMUNICACIÓN Y EXTENSIÓN ..........................................................................................................................................................6 MANEJO ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 SALUD DEL ECOSISTEMA Y DEL RECURSO ......................................................................................................................12 ASUNTOS SOCIALES, CULTURALES Y ECONÓMICOS .......................................................................................................16 COMUNICACIÓN Y EXTENSIÓN .....................................................................................................................................19

Pagina 2

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

ACRÓNIMOS CFMC COPACO CRFM DAP DPNR DRNA FAC FAD FEP HEP IBFMP MPBE MREP MRIP MSA NOAA Fisheries NPS OEAP OLE PEPCO SEFSC SSC USCG USFWS USVI ZEE

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe Comisión de Pesca del Atlántico Centro-Occidental Mecanismo Regional de Pesca del Caribe Panel de Asesor Distrito Departamento de Planificación y Recursos Naturales (Islas Vírgenes Estadounidenses) Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (Puerto Rico) Comité Asesor de Pesca Dispositivos de Agregación de Peces Plan de Ecosistemas Pesqueros Hábitats Esenciales de Peces Plan de Manejo de Pesquería Basado en Isla Manejo Pesquero Basado en el Ecosistema Programa de Educación sobre el Recurso Marino Programa de Información Recreativa Marina Ley Magnuson Stevens Servicio Nacional de Pesquerías Marinas Servicio de Parques Nacionales Panel Asesor de Extensión y Educación Oficina de Aplicación de la Ley Programa de Educación para Pescadores Comerciales Centro de Ciencias Pesqueras del Sureste Comité Científico y Estadístico Guardia Costera de los Estados Unidos Servicio Federal de Pesca y Vida Silvestre Islas Vírgenes Estadounidenses Zona Económica Exclusiva

Pagina 3

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

INTRODUCCIÓN El Consejo de Administración Pesquera del Caribe (Consejo del Caribe, o CFMC) es responsable por la conservación y el manejo de los recursos pesqueros dentro de la jurisdicción federal del Caribe Estadounidense, que incluye a Puerto Rico y las Islas Vírgenes Estadounidenses. El Consejo del Caribe es uno de los ocho consejos regionales establecidos en 1976 por la Ley de Conservación y Administración Pesquera, más tarde rebautizada como Ley Magnuson-Stevens (MSA, en inglés). Además de los consejos, la MSA también creó la Zona Económica Exclusiva (ZEE), un área que se extiende desde el límite hacia el mar de los estados y territorios costeros hasta las 200 millas náuticas. La MSA estableció una autoridad soberana sobre la mayoría de los recursos pesqueros en la ZEE, una responsabilidad que es compartida entre el Secretario de Comercio Estadounidense y los consejos regionales. El Consejo del Caribe recomienda medidas de manejo por los recursos pesqueros dentro de su jurisdicción mediante el desarrollo de planes de manejo de pesquerías, que deben ser revisados y aprobados por el Secretario de Comercio antes de ser aplicados por el Servicio Nacional de Pesquerías Marinas (NOAA Fisheries). Todas las recomendaciones del Consejo se desarrollan en un proceso abierto y público, y deben ser consistentes con las diez normas nacionales contenidas en el MSA. El Consejo del Caribe está compuesto por siete miembros con derecho a voto. Esto incluye a cuatro miembros públicos con derecho a voto nombrados por el Secretario, con conocimientos de pesca comercial, pesca recreativa o conservación de los recursos marinos del Caribe Estadounidense. Los tres miembros con derecho a voto restantes incluyen a los principales funcionarios con responsabilidad de administración de pesquerías marinas para el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico y el Territorio de las Islas Vírgenes Estadounidense (o sus designados), y al Administrador Regional del Sudeste de Pesquerías de la NOAA. El Consejo también tiene tres miembros sin derecho a voto que representan a la Guardia Costera de los Estados Unidos, el Servicio Federal de Pesca y Vida Silvestre y el Secretario de Estado Estadounidense. El desarrollo de medidas para mantener unos recursos pesqueros saludables que satisfagan las necesidades de los pescadores y del público en general es un proceso inclusivo. El Comité Científico y Estadístico (SSC, en inglés) del Consejo examina la información biológica, estadística, social y económica, y proporciona asesoramiento técnico especializado para garantizar que las decisiones del Consejo se basen en la mejor información científica disponible. Además, el Consejo cuenta con paneles asesores que le ayudan a establecer metas y objetivos de manejo de pesquerías, así como enfoques de divulgación y educación, y para hacer aportaciones sobre los valores culturales y las necesidades económicas de las comunidades pesqueras insulares. Cada panel asesor contiene una representación equilibrada de los intereses de la pesca y las partes interesadas y desempeña una importante función de comunicación para los afectados por las decisiones del Consejo. El Consejo del Caribe evaluó recientemente su marco de administración y está pasando de un enfoque específico para cada especie a uno que se centra en las características únicas de los recursos pesqueros y las comunidades pesqueras de cada uno de sus tres distritos insulares (Puerto Rico, Santo Tomás/San Juan, Santa Cruz). Este nuevo marco se detalla en los Planes de Manejo Pesquerías por Isla (IBFMPs, en inglés) recientemente aprobados por el Consejo. Además, el Consejo está desarrollando un Plan de Ecosistemas Pesqueros (FEP, en inglés) que guiará la implementación de su nuevo marco de gestión utilizando un enfoque basado en el ecosistema. Este plan estratégico establece metas y objetivos para estos esfuerzos de importancia crítica y sirve como hoja de ruta para las actividades futuras que promoverán la aplicación efectiva, así como la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas para las partes interesadas del Consejo.

Pagina 4

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

ORGANIZACIÓN DEL PLAN La organización del plan estratégico refleja tanto las metas colectivas como las necesidades distintivas de los tres distritos insulares que comprenden la jurisdicción del Consejo. La Visión, la Misión y los Valores Fundamentales incorporan un futuro, propósito y enfoque comunes. Las declaraciones de objetivos reflejan amplias áreas de enfoque necesarias para lograr la visión del Consejo al tiempo que se adaptan a las diferentes prioridades de cada distrito insular. Todos se desarrollaron con amplia aportación, los paneles asesores y las partes interesadas. Para tres de las metas (Manejo; Salud del Ecosistema y del Recurso; Asuntos Sociales, Culturales y Económicos), se desarrollaron objetivos y estrategias específicos por la isla para abordar las características y necesidades de cada distrito. Varios objetivos evolucionaron para ser idénticos en todos los distritos insulares, lo que indica prioridades superpuestas. En tales casos, los objetivos se han consolidado de modo que solo están representadas las estrategias específicas de la isla. El Consejo también determinó que el objetivo de Comunicación y Divulgación abarca una de sus responsabilidades más importantes y concluyó que los objetivos y estrategias eran relevantes en toda su jurisdicción, y no específicos de una isla o distrito.

Pagina 5

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

VISIÓN Ecosistemas isleños, pesquerías y comunidades pesqueras prósperas y resilientes que proveen beneficios culturales, sociales y económicos para todos.

MISIÓN El Consejo de Administración Pesquera del Caribe conserva, restaura y maneja los recursos pesqueros en el Caribe Estadounidense consecuentemente con los requisitos de la Ley Magnuson Stevens. El Consejo está comprometido a adelantar la administración colaborativa de estas pesquerías y apoyar los ecosistemas isleños a través de la educación, la extensión y el insumo de las partes interesadas.

VALORES FUNDAMENTALES • • • • • •

Mayordomía Colaboración Integridad Transparencia Justicia Respeto

METAS MANEJO Adelantar enfoques de manejo que promueven pesquerías y ecosistemas locales saludables, consideran las necesidades de las comunidades pesqueras isleñas y fomentan la colaboración entre los socios en el manejo.

SALUD DEL ECOSISTEMA Y DEL RECURSO Promover el use sostenible de los recursos marinos costeros locales en una forma en la que se mantenga la estructura y función ecológica local, y se posibilite la resiliencia de los recursos pesqueros.

ASUNTOS SOCIALES, CULTURALES Y ECONÓMICOS Asegurar que las decisiones de manejo consideren las características únicas y las necesidades de las comunidades pesqueras isleñas mientras se promueve el uso justo y equitativo del recurso.

COMUNICACIÓN Y EXTENSIÓN Involucrar, educar e informar a una variedad de audiencias para mejorar el entendimiento público y la participación en el proceso del Consejo.

Pagina 6

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

MANEJO Meta: Adelantar enfoques de manejo que promueven pesquerías y ecosistemas locales saludables, consideran las necesidades de las comunidades pesqueras isleñas y fomentan la colaboración entre los socios en el manejo. OBJETIVOS DE TODOS LOS DISTRITOS Objetivo 1: Apoyar el desarrollo de programas de recopilación, reporte y programas de monitoreo de datos que sean precisos, puntuales y costo-efectivos. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Mejorar los datos independientes de la pesquería a través de las colaboraciones. • Priorizar la recopilación de datos para especies sujetas a las vedas por temporada y por área. • Ampliar los esfuerzos de educación/extensión sobre la tecnología de reporte electrónico comercial. • Continuar la participación para reiniciar el Programa de Información Recreativa Marina (MRIP) en Puerto Rico. • Apoyar las mejoras del Centro de Ciencias Pesqueras del Sureste (SEFSC) y el Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (DRNA) en el muestreo comercial. • Apoyar el estudio realizado por SEFSC de los meros y pargos de profundidad independiente de la pesquería. • Apoyar los esfuerzos del gobierno local para aumentar el muestreo en los muelles y los agentes pesqueros. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Apoyar los esfuerzos del Servicio Nacional de Pesquerías Marinas (NOAA Fisheries) y el Departamento de Planificación y Recursos Naturales de las Islas Vírgenes Estadounidenses (USVI-DPNR) para mejorar el reporte de la pesca recreativa y establecer un estudio de MRIP en San Tomás/San John. • Apoyar los esfuerzos de SEFSC para trabajar con USVI-DPNR para diseñar y implementar un programa de muestreo de captura multimodal. • Priorizar la recopilación de datos para las especies sujetas a vedas por temporada y por área. • Apoyar los esfuerzos de USVI-DPNR para examinar las modificaciones y mejores de las licensias. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Apoyar los esfuerzos de NOAA Fisheries y de USVI DPNR para mejorar el reporte de la pesca recreacional y establecer un muestreo de MRIP en Santa Cruz en conformidad con el plan de implementación regional de MRIP. • Apoyar esfuerzos de USVI DPNR para revisar y modificar los requisitos para obtener la licencia a fines de mejorar el reporte de capturas. • Apoyar los esfuerzos de SEFSC para trabajar con DPNR para diseñar e implementar un programa de muestreo de captura multimodal. • Colaborar con USVI-DPNR en educación y extensión en lo relacionado al reporte preciso de las capturas. • Priorizar la recopilación de datos para las especies sujetas a vedas por temporada y por área. Pagina 7

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) •

Apoyar los esfuerzos de USVI DPNR para examinar los modificaciónes y mejores de las licensias.

Objetivo 2: Promover la participación de los pescadores y otros enfoques de investigación colaborativos a fines de atender necesidades de ciencia e información específicas para cada isla. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Desarrollar y priorizar una lista de las necesidades de investigación específicas para PR. • Trabajar junto a socios en la ciencia y el manejo y con los pescadores para priorizar los avalúos de abastos para especies que están sujetas a vedas de temporada o por área. • Colaborar con Sea Grant para asegurar que las necesidades específicas de investigación en Puerto Rico sean incluidas en las oportunidades de subvención. • Incorporar las observaciones de los pescadores en los avalúos de abastos. • Desarrollar un lista de necesidades de datos y de ciencia en Puerto Rico que puedan ser atendidas mediante la participación de los pescadores comerciales y recreativos. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia y los pescadores para desarrollar y priorizar una lista de necesidades de investigación específicas para San Tomás/San John. • Priorizar e involucrar pescadores en los avalúos de abasto que se necesita urgentemente para las especies sujetas a vedas de temporada y de áreas. • Promover estudios colaborativos sobre la efectividad del Banco de Grammanik y otras áreas cerradas. • Trabajar con el SEFSC para identificar especies clave para las cuales los pescadores pueden ayudar en la obtención de muestras biológicas. • Apoyar esfuerzos en conjunto entre SEFSC, DPNR y el Servicio de Parques Nacionales (NPS) para mejorar la información para los avalúos de abasto que tienen datos limitados (ej. estudios sobre la selectividad de las artes de pesca en San Tomás y San John, etc.). • Desarrollar materiales educativos para promover la comprensión de los pescadores de la ciencia y las necesidades de información. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Apoyar los estudios de selectividad del arte de pesca realizados en conjunto entre SEFSC, USVI-DPNR y NPS. • Identificar oportunidad para que los pescadores puedan contribuir con muestras biológicas de peces loro y de otras especies. • Apoyar la investigación realizada por socios en la ciencia académica para mejorar los avalúos de especies que tienen datos limitados. • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia para desarrollar una lista de necesidades de investigación específicas para Santa Cruz. • Asegurar que las áreas cerradas a la pesca estén correctamente marcadas por boyas (ej. Buck Island). • Desarrollar materiales educativos para promover la comprensión de los pescadores de la ciencia y las necesidades de información.

Pagina 8

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) Objetivo 3: Asegurar que las medidas de manejo promueven el cumplimiento regulatorio y fomentan la ejecución efectiva. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Revisar la aplicabilidad de las medidas de manejo de Puerto Rico. • Trabajar con DRNA-Puerto Rico para fomentar la consistencia regulatoria. • Trabajar con DNRA-Puerto Rico, NOAA Oficina de Aplicación de la Ley (OLE), Guardia Costera de los Estados Unidos (USCG) y las agencias marinas locales responsables por la ejecución de leyes y reglamentos a fines de apoyar la capacitación cruzada del personal. • Colaborar con los socios de manejo para desarrollar guías de cumplimiento comercial y recreacional para Puerto Rico. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Coordinar con NOAA OLE, USVI-DPNR y USCG la revisión de la capacidad de ejecución de las regulaciones existentes. • Apoyar el adiestramiento cruzado del personal de ejecución de leyes y reglamentos. • Identificar los vacíos en la ejecución en las regulaciones existentes en San Tomás/San John. • Promover el desarrollo de guías de cumplimiento claras y entendibles para las partes interesadas comerciales y recreacionales. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Coordinar con NOAA OLE y USVI DPNR el revisar la consistencia de las regulaciones existentes para las especies manejadas federalmente. • Apoyar el adiestramiento cruzado del personal de ejecución de leyes y reglamentos. • Identificar los vacíos en la ejecución dentro de las regulaciones ya existentes en Santa Cruz. • Revisar las regulaciones en términos de efectividad y/o redundancia. • Desarrollar guías de cumplimiento claras y entendibles para los pescadores comerciales y recreativos. • Asegurar que materiales educativos estén disponibles para los tomadores de decisiones (ej., legisladores) según sea necesario.

Objetivo 4: Colaborar con socios nacionales e internacionales para promover un manejo adaptativo y eficiente que considere diversos intereses de las comunidades. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Revisar regularmente la efectividad de las medidas de manejo existentes (áreas de desove/vedas) • Trabajar con socios para desarrollar objetivos claramente establecidos para las acciones de manejo • Atender los impactos de la pesca incidental en las relaciones del ecosistema. • Participar en el grupo de trabajo bajo la Comisión de Pesca del Atlántico Centro-Ocidental (COPACO) sobre el carrucho. • Evaluar medidas de manejo nuevas y existentes para propósitos de consistencia con la productividad del ecosistema local utilizando los informes sobre el estado del ecosistema.

Pagina 9

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Revisar y evaluar la efectividad de las vedas de temporada y de área existentes lo más pronto posible. • Reducir la pesca incidental y los desechos a través de modificaciones a las artes de pesca y a las restricciones por temporada. • Colaborar con DPNR para desarrollar medidas de manejo consistentes donde sea apropiado. • Asegurar que las medidas sirvan a la productividad del ecosistema local de San Tomás/San John. • Participar en foros internacionales tales como los esfuerzos de COPACO y del Mecanismo Regional de Pesca del Caribe (CRFM) para mejorar el manejo de los recursos de todo el Caribe. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Trabajar con NOAA Fisheries y DPNR para reducir la pesca incidental por medio de modificaciones a las artes y temporadas de pesca. • Trabajar con DPNR y con NOAA OLE para desarrollar regulaciones consistentes donde sea apropiado. • Asegurar que las medidas son adecuadas para la productividad del ecosistema local de Santa Cruz. • Involucrar tanto al Panel Asesor de Distrito (DAP) de Santa Cruz como al Comité Asesor de Pesca (FAC, por sus siglas en inglés) de Santa Cruz en la revisión y desarrollo de medidas de manejo que evalúan los impactos de la comunidad comercial y recreacional. • Asegurar que las medidas de manejo consideran y/o atienden los impactos potenciales del cambio climático. • Asegurar que los enfoques de manejo consideran los impactos de las especies invasivas. • Explorar las especies subutilizadas como una medida para reducir la presión sobre las especies que están siendo utilizadas completamente. • Apoyar el desarrollo de la coordinación interinstitucional para permitir los dispositivos de agregación de peces (FADs, por sus siglas en inglés).

Objetivo 5: Considerar los impactos potenciales del cambio climático en la eficacia de las medidas de manejo. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Utilizar los informes sobre el estado del ecosistema en Puerto Rico para informar el desarrollo de medidas de manejo. • Evaluar la información independiente de la pesquería acerca de los impactos y las tendencias relacionadas al clima. • Solicitar el insumo de los pescadores acerca de los cambios relacionados al clima en las especies y en los hábitats. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Utilizar los informes sobre el estado del ecosistema en San Tomás/San John para informar el desarrollo de medidas de manejo. • Evaluar la información independiente de la pesquería acerca de los impactos y las tendencias relacionadas al clima. • Solicitar el insumo de los pescadores acerca de los cambios relacionados al clima en las especies y en los hábitats. Pagina 10

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Utilizar los informes sobre el estado del ecosistema en Santa Cruz para informar el desarrollo de medidas de manejo. • Evaluar la información independiente de la pesquería acerca de los impactos y las tendencias relacionadas al clima. • Solicitar el insumo de los pescadores acerca de los cambios relacionados al clima en las especies y en los hábitats.

Pagina 11

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

SALUD DEL ECOSISTEMA Y DEL RECURSO Meta: Promover el uso sostenible de los recursos marinos costeros locales en una forma en la que se mantenga la estructura y función ecológica local, y se posibilite la resiliencia de los recursos pesqueros. OBJETIVOS DE TODOS LOS DISTRITOS Objetivo 6: Implementar el Plan del Ecosistema Pesquero como una hoja de ruta para las acciones futuras del Consejo dirigidas a mantener las relaciones ecológicas, los roles y los servicios de los ecosistemas isleños de Puerto Rico, San Tomás/San John y Santa Cruz. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Evaluar las vedas por temporada de desove existentes y las áreas cerradas (Bajo de Sico, Banco de Tourmaline, Abrir la Sierra) para determinar las contribuciones a la integridad del ecosistema. • Establecer un itinerario para evaluar y monitorear regularmente las vedas por temporada y área. • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia y con las partes interesadas para mejorar la información sobre el ecosistema local. • Establecer un proceso para incorporar información sobre el ecosistema en las medidas específicas de manejo para Puerto Rico. • Identificar preocupaciones sobre la ejecución que pueden impactar las relaciones ecológicas. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia y las partes interesadas para identificar vacíos y mejorar la información biológica y ecosistémica local para San Tomás/San John. • Evaluar las vedas de temporada de desove y los cierres de área existentes (ej. Grammanik Bank, Hind Bank) para determinar las contribuciones a la integridad del ecosistema. • Establecer un proceso para incorporar información y enfoques sobre el ecosistema en las medidas de manejo para San Tomás/San John. • Considerar enfoques ecosistémicos que son sensibles al cambio climático. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia y con las partes interesadas (ej. otras organizaciones nogubernamentales, The Nature Conservancy, Fundación de Restauración y Educación Oceánica del Caribe (CORE), pescadores comerciales/recreativos) para identificar vacíos y mejorar la información biológica local y ecosistémica para Santa Cruz . • Evaluar las vedas por temporada de desove y las áreas cerradas a la pesca (ej. sama, Lang Bank) para determinar las contribuciones a la integridad del ecosistema. • Establecer un proceso para incorporar información y enfoques basados en ecosistema en las medidas de manejo de STX. • Asegurar que los enfoques de manejo basados en ecosistema responden al cambio climático. • Explorar el uso de especies y recursos subutilizados y subdesarrollados para reducir la presión y mantener las relaciones ecológicas. Pagina 12

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) Objetivo 7: Identificar, manejar y proteger los arrecifes de coral y otros hábitats del recurso pesquero de Puerto Rico, San Tomás/San John y Santa Cruz. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Desarrollar en el Consejo políticas sobre los hábitats que atiendan los impactos del desarrollo costero, la erosión y la sedimentación, y otras formas de contaminación sobre los Hábitats Esenciales por los Peces (HEP). • Desarrollar materiales de extensión acerca de las consecuencias de la pérdida de hábitat causadas por impactos no-pesqueros (ej., erosión/sedimentación) y comunicar y colaborar con las agencias responsables por el manejo de esas actividades. • Apoyar los esfuerzos de mapeo del SEFSC y colaborar con socios en la ciencia para identificar las necesidades de mapeo de hábitats en Puerto Rico. • Trabajar con los socios de manejo para establecer metas claras para las revisiones de los HEP que se realizan cada 5 años. • Asegurar que las designaciones de HEP tomen en cuenta los roles/relaciones ecológicas de las especies • Apoyar proyectos que rehabiliten los hábitats costeros para compensar la pérdida o el daño de hábitat. • Colaborar con científicos y pescadores para evaluar los impactos de ciertos artes de pesca en los hábitats pesqueros. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Desarrollar, en el Consejo, políticas sobre los hábitats que atiendan los impactos a los HEP producidos por el desarrollo costero, la erosión/sedimentación y otras formas de contaminación que impactan los hábitats de STT/STJ. • Desarrollar materiales de extensión acerca de los efectos de la pérdida de hábitat causados por los impactos de actividades no pesqueras. • Trabajar junto a los socios de manejo en el establecimiento de metas claras para las revisiones de los HEP que se realizan cada 5 años. • Asegurar que las designaciones de HEP tomen en cuenta los roles y las relaciones ecológicas de las especies. • Utilizar la autoridad del comentar del Consejo para atender proyectos federalmente permitidos que pueden impactar hábitats ecológicamente sensitivos. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Desarrollar políticas de hábitats en el Consejo que atiendan los efectos del desarrollo costero, de la erosión/sedimentación y de otras formas de contaminación sobre los HEP que impactan los hábitats de Santa Cruz. • Apoyar modificaciones a las regulaciones sobre la zona territorial costera que reduzcan la erosión y la sedimentación. • Trabajar con los socios en el manejo para establecer metas claras para la revisión de los HEP que se realiza cada 5 años. • Asegurar que las designaciones de HEP tomen en cuenta los roles/relaciones ecológicas de las especies.

Pagina 13

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) • • • • •

Utilizar la autoridad que tiene el Consejo para comentar sobre HEP a fines de atender proyectos permitidos federalmente que pueden impactar hábitats ecológicamente sensitivos. Asegurar que los hábitats para juveniles están suficientemente protegidos. Promover la revisión regular de las áreas marinas manejadas (ej. Parque Marino del East End). Promover un plan de infraestructura de navegación. Promover amarres de un solo punto tanto en la costa como alta mar para proteger los HEP.

Objetivo 8: Colaborar con socios en el manejo para atender los asuntos de ejecución que puedan afectar las relaciones ecológicas. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Llevar a cabo esfuerzos de extensión con el personal de ejecución de NOAA OLE y DRNA sobre los impactos de las actividades de pesca ilegal sobre los recursos/hábitats pesqueros. • Llevar a cabo esfuerzos de extensión en las agencias de Puerto Rico acerca de los impactos del desarrollo no-pesquero sobre la estructura y función del ecosistema. • Realizar esfuerzos de extensión con la comunidad pesquera para comunicar los impactos de la pesca ilegal sobre la salud del recurso. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Llevar a cabo extensión junto al personal de ejecución de NOAA OLE y USVI-DPNR acerca de los impactos de las actividades de pesca ilegales sobre los recursos/hábitats pesqueros. • Realizar actividades de extensión para las agencias que otorgan permisos acerca de los efectos y el desarrollo de los impactos de actividades no pesqueras sobre la estructura/función del ecosistema. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Realizar actividades de extensión con el personal de ejecución de NOAA OLE y DPNR acerca de los impactos ecológicos de actividades pesqueras ilegales. • Realizar actividades de extensión con las agencias que otorgan permisos acerca de los impactos potenciales de las actividades no pesquero y desarrollo en la estructura y función del ecosistema. • Realizar esfuerzos de extensión con la comunidad de pesquera para comunicar los impactos de la pesca ilegal sobre la salud del recurso.

OBJECTIVOS DE PUERTO RICO Objetivo 9: Colaborar con los socios de manejo para atender los impactos de los desastres naturales (ej., los huracanes, los terremotos, floraciones de Sargazo) en la estructura y función del ecosistema. • Determinar la necesidad de datos para evaluar los impactos de los desastres naturales en las especies y en los hábitats. • Incorporar los efectos de los desastres naturales en el desarrollo de los Informes sobre el Estado de los Ecosistemas. • Evaluar la flexibilidad de los enfoques de manejo existentes para responder a los impactos sobre el ecosistema local causados por los huracanes y los terremotos.

Pagina 14

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) •

Establecer un proceso para recopilar las observaciones de los pescadores sobre los impactos locales de los desastres naturales.

OBJETIVOS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN Objetivo 10: Promover esfuerzos para crear y rehabilitar los hábitats del recurso pesquero que apoyan la estructura y la función del ecosistema. • Trabajar con los colaboradores de manejo federal y territorial y con las partes interesadas para identificar oportunidades para el mejoramiento del hábitat. • Explorar oportunidades de fondos del Servicio Federal de Pesca y Vida Silvestre (USFWS), del Programa de Remoción de Desechos Marinos de NOAA y de otras agencias federales para usar ciertos tipos de desechos en la creación de hábitat. • Identificar necesidades de restauración de hábitat para los programas de subvención de la Oficina para la Conservación del Hábitat de NOAA. Objetivo 11: Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia para identificar y atender los vacíos de datos e información ecológica. • Explorar los conjuntos de datos existentes para llenar los vacíos de información. • Comunicar las necesidades de información sobre el ecosistema de STT/STJ a los socios académicos. • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia para priorizar las necesidades de datos ecológicos, consistentemente con el Plan de Implementación Regional de Manejo de Pesquero Basada en el Ecosistema (MPBE) para el Caribe.

OBJETIVOS DE SANTA CRUZ Objetivo 12: Promover esfuerzos para rehabilitar y/o crear hábitats para el recurso pesquero que apoyen la estructura y la función del ecosistema. • Trabajar con los socios en el manejo a nivel federal y territorial y con otros para identificar oportunidades dirigidas a mejorar y restaurar el hábitat. • Explorar oportunidades que atiendan los impactos de las especies invasivas de los hábitats pesqueros de Santa Cruz. • Investigar el potencial de los dispositivos de agregación de peces (FAD, en inglés) para mitigar la pérdida de hábitat y colocar FAD donde sea apropiado. • Identificar necesidades de restauración de hábitat para los programas de subvención de la Oficina de Conservación de Hábitat de NOAA. Objetivo 13: Colaborar con los socios en el manejo para asegurar que los enfoques ecosistémicos responden a los cambios climáticos y ambientales. • Evaluar la flexibilidad de los enfoques de manejo actuales ante los impactos del cambio climático. • Trabajar con la comunidad más amplia del Caribe para identificar impactos potenciales que puede tener el cambio climático en las distribuciones de los hábitats y las especies.

Pagina 15

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

ASUNTOS SOCIALES, CULTURALES Y ECONÓMICOS Meta: Asegurar que las decisiones de manejo consideren las características únicas y las necesidades de las comunidades pesqueras isleñas mientras se promueve el uso justo y equitativo del recurso. OBJETIVOS DE TODOS LOS DISTRITOS Objetivo 14: Promover la recopilación y la diseminación de datos sociales y económicos que informen las decisiones de manejo. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Involucrar socios en la ciencia, pescadores, consumidores, vendedores al por mayor/distribuidores y el SSC para identificar y priorizar los vacíos de datos sociales y económicos y las prioridades de investigación para PR. • Trabajar con Sea Grant para asegurar que las prioridades de investigación social/económica sean incorporadas dentro de las oportunidades de subvención. • Usar los resultados de los estudios existentes/completados (ej. Avalúos sobre el Huracán María y el COVID-19, proyecto MARFIN) para informar decisiones futuras. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Involucrar a los socios en la ciencia y al Comité Científico y Estadístico (SSC, en inglés) en la identificación y la priorización de los vacíos da datos sociales y económicos y las prioridades de investigación para San Tomás/San John. • Trabajar con Sea Grant para asegurar la incorporación de las prioridades de investigación social/económica en las oportunidades de financiamiento. • Identificar y usar resultados de estudios existentes/completados sobre impacto socioeconómico (ej. huracanes Irma/María, avalúos del COVID). ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Involucrar a socios en la ciencia (SEFSC, investigadores académicos, Sea Grant, etc.) y al SSC para identificar y priorizar los vacíos de datos sociales y económicos y las prioridades de investigación para Santa Cruz. • Trabajar con Sea Grant para asegurar que las prioridades de investigación social/económica son incorporadas en las oportunidades de subvención. • Identificar y usar resultados de estudios existentes y completados (ej. Huracanes Irma/María, avalúos sobre el COVID). • Asegurar que los estudios científicos sociales y económicos nuevos o existentes colaboren y coordinen con USVI DPNR.

Pagina 16

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) Objetivo 15: Evaluar los impactos sociales, culturales y económicos de las decisiones/acciones de manejo a través de los grupos de usuarios. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Revisar y documentar los impactos sociales y económicos de las vedas de temporada y por áreas de agregación de desove existentes en PR sobre las parte interesadas de los sectores comercial, recreacional y de alquiler. • Asegurar que las medidas de manejo atienden las diferencias culturales a través de las comunidades pesqueras de PR. • Utilizar las herramientas en línea y redes sociales para incorporar las observaciones/experiencias de los pescadores y otras partes interesadas. • Evaluar las oportunidades de la pesca recreacional y la satisfacción a través de las comunidades de Puerto Rico. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Revisar y documentar los impactos sociales y económicos de las vedas por temporada y por áreas de desove ya existentes sobre las partes interesadas en el sector comercial, de alquiler y recreacional (ej., Grammanik Bank). • Asegurar que las medidas de manejo reconozcan y atiendan las diferencias a través de las comunidades pesqueras de San Tomás y San John. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Revisar y documentar los impactos sociales y económicos de las vedes y los cierres de áreas de desove en Santa Cruz sobre las partes interesadas en el sector comercial, de alquiler y recreacional (ej., Lang Bank). • Asegurar que los enfoques de manejo proveen acceso equitativo a los usuarios comerciales y recreacionales del recurso. • Trabajar con las partes interesadas para identificar y atender los conflictos de uso comercial y recreacional. • Valorar los impactos sociales y económicos del Monumento Nacional de Arrecife de Buck Island.

Objetivo 16: Promover esfuerzos que apoyen la estabilidad y las oportunidades sociales y económicas a través de los sectores y las comunidades de pescadores. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Apoyar los esfuerzos comunitarios para mejorar la infraestructura pesquera a través de Puerto Rico. • Apoyar y promover el desarrollo de un programa de reclutamiento y capacitación para pescadores jóvenes que fomente la entrada legal a la pesquería. • Considerar los enfoques de manejo que atienden las oportunidades y la satisfacción de la pesca recreacional. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Apoyar esfuerzos comunitarios para mejorar la infraestructura pesquera a través de San Tomás y San John, incluyendo lugares de desembarco y venta. Pagina 17

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) • •

Desarrollar materiales de educación/extensión para apoyar el uso de las redes sociales y de otros enfoques virtuales para mercadear las especies capturadas localmente. Considerar enfoques de manejo que atiendan la oportunidad y la satisfacción de la pesca recreativa.

ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Apoyar esfuerzos comunitarios para mejorar la infraestructura pesquera a través de Santa Cruz, incluyendo lugares de desembarco y venta. • Desarrollar materiales de educación/extensión para apoyar el uso de las redes sociales y de otros enfoques virtuales para mercadear las especies capturadas localmente. • Considerar enfoques de manejo que atiendan la oportunidad y la satisfacción de la pesca recreativa.

OBJETIVOS DE PUERTO RICO Objetivo 17: Considerar los impactos de la ejecución y la pesca ilegal en Puerto Rico sobre las oportunidades económicas y el bienestar social. • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia para documentar el impacto económico de las ventas ilegales y sin licencia de pescado en Puerto Rico. • Trabajar con los socios en el manejo para determinar dónde la ejecución adicional puede mejorar las condiciones económicas y/o la confianza entre los grupos de usuarios.

OBJETIVOS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN Objetivo 18: Considerar los impactos de la ejecución y de la pesca ilegal en la oportunidad económica y el bienestar social. • Colaborar con socios en la ciencia para documentar el impacto económico de la ventas ilegales y no autorizadas de pescado San Tomás/San John. • Trabajar con los socios de manejo para determinar dónde una mayor ejecución puede mejorar las condiciones económicas y/o la confianza entre los grupos de usuarios.

OBJETIVOS DE SANTA CRUZ Objetivo 41: Considerar los impactos de la no-regulación, la ejecución y la pesca ilegal sobre las oportunidades económicas y el bienestar social. • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia para documentar el impacto económico de las ventas de pescado ilegales y sin licencia en Santa Cruz. • Trabajar con los socios en el manejo para determinar dónde la ejecución adicional puede mejorar las condiciones económicas y/o la confianza entre los grupos de usuarios comerciales y recreacionales. • Educar a los dueños de restaurantes y hoteles sobre la importancia de comprar pesca de los pescadores con licencia.

Pagina 18

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

COMUNICACIÓN Y EXTENSIÓN Meta: Involucrar, educar e informar a una variedad de audiencias para mejorar el entendimiento público y la participación en el proceso del Consejo.

Objetivo 42: En coordinación con el OEAP, utilizar una variedad de herramientas de comunicación que consideren las características sociales, culturales y económicas de las audiencias meta. • Continuar utilizando las plataformas de redes sociales del Consejo y explorar las tecnologías en línea y las aplicaciones (WhatsApp, plantillas para correo electrónico) para transmitir la información y las actualizaciones. • Desarrollar un catálogo de comunidades, mercados, negocios e individuos con preferencias y necesidad de medios de comunicación tradicionales. • Mantener el contenido y la organización de la página electrónica del Consejo para mejorar su utilidad para una variedad de usuarios. • Asegurar que los materiales de comunicación y extensión tomen en cuenta las preferencias de idioma de las partes interesadas. • Coordinar con los socios de manejo, las organizaciones de pesca comercial y recreacional, las organizaciones no gubernamentales y los negocios costeros para expandir el alcance de las comunicaciones del Consejo a través de audiencias nuevas y existentes. • Considerar materiales de comunicación específicos para un sector y “amigables para los botes”. Objetivo 43: Promover la participación de una variedad de partes interesadas en el proceso del Consejo. • Incrementar la frecuencia de las comunicaciones del Consejo con anticipación sobre las reuniones y eventos del Consejo. • Usar una variedad de herramientas tradicionales, en línea y redes sociales para anunciar y recordar a las partes interesadas las reuniones y eventos del Consejo. • Expandir el uso de los seminarios web y las líneas de conferencia para promover oportunidades de acceso remoto, participación y educación. • Asegurar que las reuniones y los eventos están agendados para promover la máxima participación. • Considerar el desarrollo de formularios para cometarios sobre un asunto específico a fines de expandir las oportunidades para recibir el insumo público. • Realizar talleres sobre un asunto específico para promover el desarrollo colaborativo de enfoques de manejo. • Desarrollar un boletín o un resumen para resaltar los logros de las reuniones del Consejo y las acciones anticipadas. • Ampliar y mejorar la participación de los pescadores experimentados y jóvenes en el proceso del Consejo mediante el desarrollo y el apoyo de programas de extensión en las USVI. • Atraer otras partes interesadas, además de los pescadores, al proceso del Consejo para mejorar la toma de decisiones en beneficio de los recursos pesqueros.

Pagina 19

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) Objetivo 44: Mejorar el entendimiento y la concienciación del público y las partes interesadas sobre el manejo de las pesquerías, los asuntos actuales y el proceso del Consejo. • Ampliar los esfuerzos de extensión existentes a partes interesadas no-tradicionales (restaurantes, propietarios de colmados y agricultores, etc.). • Continuar apoyando los talleres del Programa de Educación sobre el Recurso Marino (MREP, en inglés) a través del Caribe Estadounidense. • Desarrollar enfoques de extensión y materiales específicos para pescadores recreacionales y comerciales que sean específicos para cada isla (Puerto Rico, San Tomás/San John, Santa Cruz). • Ampliar el rol de los enlaces de pesquerías para mejorar tanto el entendimiento del público como el de los pescadores acerca de asuntos pesqueros y el proceso del Consejo. • Coordinar con los socios en el manejo y en la ciencia para mejorar la claridad y la simplicidad de las presentaciones a fines de mejorar el entendimiento público. • Asociarse con otras organizaciones de extensión (ej. PEPCO, Sea Grant) y agencias federales (USCG, NPS, etc.) y con organizaciones de pesca comercial y recreativa, buceo y navegación para desarrollar y distribuir materiales educativos a las pescadores, a otros usuarios del recurso marino (ej. buzos) y al público general. • Llevar a cabo esfuerzos de extensión y talleres en persona y/o virtual para mejorar la participación de los pescadores y del público en el proceso del Consejo. • Explorar colaboraciones con organizaciones para recoger el conocimiento ecológico tradicional de las comunidades pesqueras del Caribe Estadounidense. • Crear un programa de orientación para informar a la comunidad pesquera sobre los roles de los diferentes socios en el manejo. • Desarrollar un mecanismo para coordinar el desarrollo de los esfuerzos de extensión del Consejo y los territoriales para asegurar mensajes consistentes sobre asuntos de pesca y otros temas según sea necesario. • Apoyar la expansión del Programa de Asesoría Marina Sea Grant en el USVI.

Pagina 20

CFMC Draft Strategic Plan Comment Summary

Comments on the Draft CFMC 2022-2026 Strategic Plan were accepted via Spanish and English online comment forms from Friday, August 6 through Friday, September 3, 2021. A total of three individuals provided comments. Vision, Mission, Core Values • One commenter stated that the Vision, Mission, and Core Values were not very inclusive, while another supported all three as written. Management • Regarding Objective 2, one commenter recommended gathering fisher input for this objective by gear and region, possibly via an electronic request for comments. • The same commenter also suggested development of an educational campaign, possibly through regional workshops combined with a digital component, to gather input for the strategy “Incorporate fisher input into stock assessments” noting that it was key for fishers to be heard in that process to strengthen confidence in management, as well as clarify uncertainties in quantification of [assessment] inputs with the knowledge of local commercial fishers. Ecosystem and Resource Health • One respondent agreed with all proposed objectives under the Ecosystem and Resource Health goal and supported the dialogue between the Council and Puerto Rico DRNA regarding non-fishing activities noted as a strategy under Draft Objective 17. • The same commenter supported monetary compensation of fishers for their contributions scientific projects evaluating ecosystem health and recommended this be a requirement in research proposals. This commenter also suggested the guides for RFPs (Requests for Proposals) include recognition of collaborating fishers for their contributions via co-authorship on publications or educational dissemination of their contributions. • Another commenter noted that Sargassum influxes have been negatively impacting coastal ecosystems since 2011 and suggested adding this to Objective 18 and its strategies. Social, Cultural, and Economic Issues • One commenter noted that this goal was essential to increase the confidence in and support of fisheries management by the commercial sector and to increase compliance with regulations. This respondent offered several suggestions specific to Puerto Rico: o Agreement with Draft Objectives 30-33, noting that collection of social and economic data to inform management was critical. o Communities should be conceptualized not only as geographic based on point of landing, but also by gear type and organizational mode (e.g., independent fishers vs. those associated with villas pesqueras) as these differences could be important in designing methods of communication and participation. o Conduct a study to determine the prevalence of fish mislabeling in order to understand how best to intervene with educational activities. o A better understanding of underutilized local markets is needed to strengthen food security of rural communities via fresh fish and seafood. o Efforts to promote recruitment of young fishers should include the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, together with university social workers.

PR DAP Meeting on Compatible Regulations EEZ-PR October 27 2021 th Report to the Council – 176 Nelson Crespo- DAP chair PR

Queen Conch

Queen Conch Fishery  Request to the Council to reassess queen conch closure in EEZ  Evaluate the possibility of re-opening the EEZ and have a re-evaluate the seasonal closure  Recommend local government for modifications in their jurisdiction

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

Seasonal Closure/Closed fishery EEZ (West of 64°34’ W) Minimum size 9 inches shell length or 3/8-inch lip thickness (No harvest of undersized conch is permitted.) Landed whole/Alive

EEZ 50 CFR 622.490-95

PR

Closed 2005

No harvest or possession August 1 through October 31

Closed 2005

YES

Closed 2005

YES but Administrative Order in place: can take out of the shell at sea

No imports ACL (0 lbs); PR 150 conch per day per registered commercial fishing vessel on which a licensed commercial fisher must be present.

CITES Permit 0

OPEN 150 conch/day

0

3 conch/pp up to 12/boat

Area restrictions (Abrir La Sierra, Inshore areas)

YES

YES

Gear Restrictions:. Hookah

YES

YES

Bag Limits Recreational

3

Lobster  Establish bag limit for the recreational sector in state waters  Regulate the use of nets in the state’s lobster fishery: high bycatch, high mortality of lobster  Regulate soak time  Regulate number of nets

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

Spiny lobster

EEZ

PR

No berried lobster

1985

1936

Minimum size 3.5” Carapace Length

1985

1983

Landed whole

1985

1936

No imports <3.5” CL (tail meat)

2009

2009

ACL (327,920 lbs)

2011

NO

Bag Limits Recreational (3 per person/day up to 10 maximum)

2011

NO

Gear restrictions: (1) No explosives, poisons, drugs, other chemicals, spears, hooks, or similar devices may be used to take lobsters. (2) No Hookah (3) No gill or trammel nets

YES (1,3)

YES (1,2)

Years with size limit >3.5”CL

36

38

4

Puerto Rico – Reglamento de Pesca 2010

Size limits for species new to management in the EEZ  To adopt size regulation in federal waters for white grunt, king (sierra carite) and cero (alasana) mackerels as established in PR regulations

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

5

Applies in the Puerto Rico EEZ

Recreational Bag limit in EEZ  Recommend the adoption of snapper, grouper, parrotfish combined recreational bag limit in state waters.

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

6

Mahi, wahoo and mackerels: Recreational bag limits

Bag limits for the recreational sector in the State waters of Puerto Rico (2010):

 Review bag limits applied in the state waters (dorado 5/15, wahoo/mackerels 5/15 combined)  Recommend compatibility (5/15 for dorado) of regulations after detailed assessment December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

Bag limit pp

Bag limit per boat

Dorado

10

30

Wahoo

5

10

Mackerels

5

10 7

Seasonal Closures  Grouper Unit 4: Needs more studies to evaluate closure.  Red hind seasonal closure leave as is.

 Snapper Unit 1 seasonal closure keep as is.  Snapper Unit 4 & 5: Need more studies, keep as is, closure working out.

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

Seasonal Closures in the Puerto Rico EEZ and State Waters that apply to both commercial and recreational fishing. Includes the months of the closures and the year(s) in which these were implemented or changed. EEZ PR Grouper Unit 4 Feb 1-April 30 Feb 1-April 30 (Year Implemented) 2005 2006 Feb-April Feb-April Yellowfin grouper Feb-April Tiger grouper Feb-April Red grouper Feb-April Black grouper Yellowmouth (new) Grouper Unit 6 1 Dec- Feb 1 Dec- Feb (Year implemented) 2005 2006 (1999) Red hind 1 Dec- Feb 1 Dec- Feb Snapper Unit 1 (Year Implemented) Silk snapper Vermillion Black Blackfin

Oct 1-Dec 31 2005 Oct-Dec Oct-Dec Oct-Dec Oct-Dec

Oct 1-Dec 31 2006 Oct-Dec

Snapper Unit 4 and 5 (Year Implemented) Mutton snapper Lane snapper

Apr 1- Jun 30 2005 April-June April-June

Apr 1- May 31 2006 April-May

Oct-Dec

8

Prohibited use

Fishing Gear

 Include regulations on bow and arrow for both EEZ and PR waters.

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

Gears Explosives Powerheads Dinamite C4 Poison Drugs Detergent Electric current Chemical Biological component Hookah SCUBA +spear Spearguns (docks/MPAs/night/<10 0' shore)

Regulated gear and year implemented for spiny lobster and reef fish in the US Caribbean EEZ and Puerto Rico (PR). EEZ PR 1981 (1936; 2004) 2004 1981 (1936; 2004) 2004 1981 (1936; 2004) 1994 (1936; 2004) 2004 2004 1994 (1936; 2004)

QC (1997)

2004 QC (2005) (2004 recreational) 2004

9

Nets Conduct a revision, an inventory of fishing gear and their impacts.

Nets Beach seines

 Request to evaluate the use of trammel net in state waters.

 Permits for trammel nets.

 Establish limited soak time for the nets

Fished in water; mesh size regulations >4.25" (108 mm) 3.25" (83 mm) 2.25" (57 mm) 2" (51 mm) 1.5" (38 mm)

calones segundos batidores bocheches buche

For Spiny Lobster

 Request to establish a maximum number of nets fished: No more than 3 nets per fisher in a 12-hour period.

Restrictions and prohibitions on the use of nets, long lines and other gears and year implemented (in parenthesis) in the US Caribbean EEZ and Puerto Rico (PR). EEZ Puerto Rico 2005 2004

Gill nets Trammel net Bait nets Nets +SCUBA Long lines

2005 2005 Allowed

> 2" mesh (51 mm) 0.25" (2004) Not Allowed (2004) < 3 miles long

*changes?

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

10

50 CFR 622.431

Traps  Discuss the use of plastic components in traps: only for the escape panel.  Need regulate milk crates being used as fish traps.  Identify sustainable materials for traps (wood crates)

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

A bare-wire fish trap that has hexagonal mesh openings must have a minimum mesh size of 1.5 inch in the smallest dimension measured between centers of opposite strands. A bare-wire fish trap that has other than hexagonal mesh openings or a fish trap of other than bare wire, such as coated wire or plastic, must have a minimum mesh size of 2.0 inch in the smallest dimension measured between centers of opposite strands. A fish trap used or possessed in the Caribbean EEZ must have a panel located on one side of the trap, excluding the top, bottom, and side containing the trap entrance. The opening covered by the panel must measure not less than 8 by 8 inches (20.3 by 20.3 cm). The mesh size of the panel may not be smaller than the mesh size of the trap. The panel must be attached to the trap with untreated jute twine with a diameter not exceeding 1⁄8 inch (3.2 mm). An access door may serve as the panel, provided it is on an appropriate side, it is hinged only at its bottom, its only other fastening is untreated jute twine with a diameter not exceeding 1⁄8 inch (3.2 mm), and such fastening is at the top of the door so that the door will fall open when such twine degrades. Jute twine used to secure a panel may not be wrapped or overlapped.

Compatible regulations for traps in the EEZ and Puerto Rico State waters. EEZ PR 2 x 2 in square; 1.5 in hex 8 x 8 in escape panel (1) jute 1/8 in (3mm) 16 in 18 gauge non-galvanized

11

Area regulations

PR

Prohibited to anchor, use nets, traps, lobster pots, and benthic longlines in Bajo de Cico, Abrir La Sierra and Tourmaline.

 Discuss each discrepancy by area for local government to adopt federal regulations  Recommend Council to study compatibility taking into consideration biology and socioeconomic factors  Conduct a vessel inventory

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

12

License and Permit requirements and year of implementation in the US Caribbean Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Puerto Rico for reef fish, queen conch and spiny lobster.

License permits  Suggest for federal to adopt state regulations. No need for another permit.  Evaluate license or permit valid in both jurisdictions.

 HMS outreach meetings with fishers.

EEZ

PR

Commercial Fishing License Required Implementation Year Changes in requirements Moratoria

NO

YES 1936 1998/2004

Recreational Fishing License Required Implementation Year

NO*

YES Not Yet (2017)

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.g ov/nnri/ Changes in requirements Moratoria Species Permits Queen Conch (S. gigas) Year implemented

1997/1998/2004

None

Permit C/R C 2004

Spiny lobster (P. argus) Year implemented

None

Permit C/R C 2004

SU2 (Queen and cardinal snappers) Year implemented

None

Permit C 2013

Legend: C=Commercial; R=Recreational; PR=Puerto Rico December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

* If you will be fishing on a private boat in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, you will probably need to register with us

13

Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition and Use Generic Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix including Draft Environmental Assessment Version 3. Final 176th Caribbean Fishery Management Council Regular Meeting December 7-8, 2021

Overview Issues Addressed in this Amendment:  Modify the definition of buoy gear in federal regulations to allow for the use of up to 25 hooks to fish commercially.  New: Limit the use of buoy gear to those fishing commercially.

New Issue: The Council would like to restrict use of the buoy gear to commercial fisheries only. Council members concerned about the potential for the use of buoy gear by recreational fishers fishing for non-managed species. - Recreational use of buoy gear limited or non-existent – (Buoy gear is very specialized) Buoy gear is an allowable gear for: - PR, STT/STJ, STX: commercial reef fish and pelagic fisheries (FMP) - PR, STT/STJ, STX: Non-FMP commercial fisheries and pelagic fisheries and Non-FMP recreational fisheries.

Purpose and Need Purpose: to modify the definition of buoy gear included in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 to allow for the use of a greater number of hooks with this gear type when fishing commercially for deep-water snappers and groupers managed under the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP, and to limit the use of the buoy gear to those fishing commercially. Need: To ensure that commercial fishermen fishing for deep-water snappers and groupers in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix can use the buoy gear with more than 10 hooks preferred by some fishermen, while protecting the deep-water reef fish resource and its habitat and minimizing user conflicts.

Action 1: Buoy Gear Prohibition for Recreational Fishing Alternative 1. No Action. Buoy gear is currently an authorized gear type for recreational harvest in the Caribbean as found in 50 CFR 600.725. Retain the authorized gear types for recreational harvest in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Alternative 2. Prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing recreationally in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix.

Alternative 1. No Action. Buoy gear is currently an authorized gear type for recreational harvest in the Caribbean as found in 50 CFR 600.725. Retain the authorized gear types for recreational harvest in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. • Would retain all gear types authorized for use in the recreational sector under each of the island-based FMPs. • Although buoy gear is an authorized gear for recreational harvest of non-FMP species only (i.e., species not managed by the Council), at present, there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear as defined in the regulations. • Any use of the gear by the recreational sector is unlikely because buoy gear is a very specialized commercial gear that is expensive and difficult to use.

Alternative 2. Prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing recreationally in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. • Proposes a broad prohibition for all recreational fisheries (i.e., managed and non-managed species) that would be implemented through federal regulations. Alternative 2 would eliminate: (a) any potential future conflicts between commercial and recreational user groups at the subject fishing grounds (b) any additional ecological/biological and physical effects that might accrue though additional (recreational fishing-related) pressure at those grounds and to those resources (c) any safety concerns potentially associated with the presence of a new (recreational) fleet at the deep-water reef fish fishing grounds, which may arise due to the specialized characteristics of the buoy gear operations.

Summary: Alternative 1 does not change any of the gear types authorized to fish recreationally, while Alternative 2 only affects one gear type (buoy gear) and its use by the recreational sector fishing for all species (managed and unmanaged). However, neither Alternative 1 nor Alternative 2 are expected to alter recreational fishing behavior in the short term as there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear in the EEZ.

Action 2: Modification of the Buoy Gear Definition Alternative 1. No Action. The definition of buoy gear specified in 50 CFR 622.2 with respect to the number of hooks allowed would not be changed and the number of hooks would remain at 10. Alternative 2. Modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector fishing for 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. EEZ in the Caribbean EEZ (i.e. the EEZ off PR, STT/STJ, STX) to allow the use of up to 25 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end for all authorized commercial fisheries.

Alternative 1. No Action. The definition of buoy gear specified in 50 CFR 622.2 would be retained. • The definition of buoy gear in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 would remain unchanged. • One of the specific requirements under this definition is that buoy gear cannot contain more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. • In components of each of the IBFMP fisheries where buoy gear is an authorized gear (e.g., commercial sector harvesting managed reef fish) — fishers must limit the gear to 10 hooks.

Alternative 2. Modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector 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. • Would increase the number of hooks allowed to be used up to 25 instead of 10. • This new maximum number of hooks would allow those fishing commercially for managed reef fish in federal waters to legally use the gear configuration employed by some in state waters and federal waters off Puerto Rico and the USVI. • The modification would only apply to those using this gear to fish commercially for managed reef fish species.

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. • Would increase the number of hooks allowed to be used up to 25 instead of 10 for all commercial fisheries where buoy gear is authorized. • Buoy gear as currently defined in 50 CFR 622.2 is authorized for: - commercial harvest of reef fish and pelagic species in the IBFMPs; - commercial and recreational harvest of non-FMP species and commercial non-FMP 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.

* This does not supersede any regulations applicable to HMS species.

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. Council members preliminary expressed support for Alternative 3.

Next Steps 1. Council to select Preferred Alternatives 2. Vote to submit amendment for Secretarial Review

Questions?

Queen Snapper (Cartucho) resting on the seafloor at 439 m on Dog Seamount in the Caribbean. Image: Ocean Exploration Trust and U.S. Geological Survey. https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/explorations/ex1502/background/snapper-grouper/welcome.html

Additional Slides

Buoy gear means fishing gear that fishes vertically in the water column that consists of a single drop line suspended from a float, from which no more than 10 hooks can be connected between the buoy and the terminal end, and the terminal end contains a weight that is no more than 10 lb (4.5 kg). The drop line can be rope (hemp, manila, cotton or other natural fibers; nylon, polypropylene, spectra or other synthetic material) or monofilament, but must not be cable or wire. The gear is free-floating and not connected to other gear or the vessel. The drop line must be no greater than 2 times the depth of the water being fished. All hooks must be attached to the drop line no more than 30 ft (9.1 m) from the weighted terminal end. These hooks may be attached directly to the drop line; attached as snoods (defined as an offshoot line that is directly spliced, tied or otherwise connected to the drop line), where each snood has a single terminal hook; or as gangions (defined as an offshoot line connected to the drop line with some type of detachable clip), where each gangion has a single terminal hook.

50 CFR 600.725(v) gear table and 50 CFR 622.2 definitions

Puerto Rico Reef Fish •

Snappers: black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, wenchman, cardinal, queen, lane, mutton, dog, schoolmaster, yellowtail, cubera*

•

Groupers: Nassau, goliath, coney, graysby, black, red, tiger, yellowfin, yellowmouth*, yellowedge, misty, red hind, rock hind

•

Parrotfishes: blue, midnight, rainbow, queen, princess, redtail, stoplight, redband, striped

•

Surgeonfishes: blue tang, ocean surgeonfish, doctorfish

•

Triggerfishes: ocean, queen, gray*

•

Wrasses: hogfish, puddingwife, Spanish hogfish

•

Angelfishes: queen, grey, French

•

Grunts: white grunt

•

Jacks: crevalle jack*, African pompano*, rainbow runner*

* New to management

18

St. Thomas/St John Reef Fish •

Snappers: black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, queen, lane, mutton, yellowtail

•

Groupers: Nassau, goliath, coney, red hind, black, red, tiger, yellowfin, yellowmouth*, yellowedge, misty

•

Parrotfishes: blue, midnight, rainbow, queen, princess, redtail, stoplight, redband, striped, redfin

•

Surgeonfishes: blue tang, ocean surgeonfish, doctorfish

•

Triggerfishes: queen

•

Wrasses: hogfish

•

Angelfishes: queen, grey, French

•

Grunts: white grunt, bluestriped, margate

•

Jacks: Blue runner

•

Porgies: jolthead, saucereye, sheepshead, sea bream

* New to management

19

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

20

Generic Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition and Use

Including Draft Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Version 3 December 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 and Use. 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 DNER DPNR 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 Department of Natural and Environmental Resources Department of Planning and Natural Resources 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 Actions and Alternatives Chapter 3. Affected Environment Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Chapter 7. List of Preparers Chapter 8. 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 ............................................................................................................................... VII List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ VIII Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1

What Action is Proposed? ................................................................................................ 1

1.2

Why is the Council Considering Action?......................................................................... 2

1.2.1

Statement of Purpose and Need ................................................................................ 3

1.3

Where Will the Action Have an Effect?........................................................................... 4

1.4

History of Federal Fisheries Management ....................................................................... 4

Chapter 2. 2.1

Proposed Actions and Alternatives ........................................................................... 8

Action 1: Buoy Gear Prohibition for Fishing Recreationally ......................................... 8

2.1.1

Proposed Alternatives for Action 1........................................................................... 8

2.1.2

Discussion of Action 1 Alternatives ......................................................................... 8

2.2

Action 2: Modification of the Buoy Gear Definition .................................................... 10

2.2.1

Proposed Alternatives for Action 2......................................................................... 10

2.2.2

Discussion of Action 2 Alternatives ....................................................................... 10

Chapter 3. Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 14 3.1

Description of the Physical Environment....................................................................... 14

3.1.1

Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 14

3.1.2

St. Thomas and St. John.......................................................................................... 14

3.1.3

St. Croix .................................................................................................................. 15

3.1.4

Habitat Environment and Essential Fish Habitat .................................................... 15

3.2

Description of the Biological and Ecological Environments ......................................... 18

3.2.1

Description of the Species Affected by this Amendment ....................................... 18

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Table of Contents V

3.2.2

Bycatch ................................................................................................................... 20

3.2.3

Protected Species .................................................................................................... 21

3.3 Description of the Deep-water Reef Fish Component of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix Fisheries ........................................................................................ 22 3.3.1

Deep-water Reef Fish Management........................................................................ 22

3.3.2 Description of the Deep-water Reef Fish Component of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix Fisheries Harvested with Vertical Bottom line/Buoy Gear 25 3.4

Description of the Economic Environment .................................................................... 39

3.4.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 39

3.4.2

Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 40

3.4.3

St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John ................................................................... 45

3.5

Description of the Social Environment .......................................................................... 50

3.5.1

Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 50

3.5.2

St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John ........................................................................ 56

3.6

Description of the Administrative Environment ............................................................ 62

3.6.1

Federal Fishery Management .................................................................................. 62

3.6.2

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Fisheries Management ................................. 63

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 65 4.1 Action 1: Buoy Gear Prohibition ....................................................................................... 65 4.1.1 Effects on the Physical Environment .......................................................................... 65 4.1.2 Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment..................................................... 65 4.1.3 Effects on the Economic Environment ....................................................................... 66 4.1.4 Effects on the Social Environment ............................................................................. 66 4.1.5 Effects on the Administrative Environment ............................................................... 67 4.2 Action 2: Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition ......................................................... 67 4.2.1 Effects on the Physical Environment .......................................................................... 67 4.2.2 Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment..................................................... 68 4.2.3 Effects on the Economic Environment ....................................................................... 70 4.2.4 Effects on the Social Environment ............................................................................. 71 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Table of Contents VI

4.2.5 Effects on the Administrative Environment ............................................................... 72 4.6

Cumulative Effects Analysis .......................................................................................... 74

Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review ......................................................................................... 79 5.1

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 79

5.2

Problems and Objectives ................................................................................................ 79

5.3

Impact of Management Measures .................................................................................. 81

5.4

Public Costs of Regulations ........................................................................................... 83

5.5

Determination of Significant Regulatory Action ........................................................... 83

Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis ........................................................................... 84 6.1

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 84

6.2

Statement of the need for, objective of, and legal basis for the proposed rule .............. 84

6.3 Identification of federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule ............................................................................................................................. 84 6.4 Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed action would apply............................................................................................................................... 85 6.5

Description and economic impacts of the compliance requirements of the proposed rule 86

Chapter 7. List of Preparers ......................................................................................................... 88 Chapter 8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted........................................... 89 Chapter 9. References .................................................................................................................. 90 Appendix A. List of Managed Reef Fish and Pelagic Stocks Included in Each of the Islandbased FMPs ................................................................................................................................. 100 Appendix B. Authorized Gear Types Under Each of the Island-based FMPs........................... 103 Appendix C. List of Species Identified in the Literature as Incidental Catch in the Deep-water Snapper/Grouper Fishery of Puerto Rico.................................................................................... 107

List of Tables Table 3.2.1. List of snapper and grouper species harvested in the commercial deep-water vertical bottom line component of the reef fish fishery in each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. ....................................................................................................................... 19 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Table of Contents VII

Table. 3.3.1. Annual catch limits applicable to the deep-water reef fish component. Values are in pounds whole weight. Species in bold text represent indicator stock selected for the stock complex. ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 3.3.2. Seasonal closures for snapper species in federal and state waters of Puerto Rico and the USVI. ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 3.3.3. Seasonal closures for grouper species in federal and state waters of Puerto Rico and the USVI. ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 3.3.4. Adjusted pounds (whole weight) of some deep-water snapper-grouper species landed in Puerto Rico each year (all gear types)........................................................................... 28 Table 3.3.5. Number of commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico that landed deep-water species each year (all gear types) in all Puerto Rico waters. ..................................................................... 29 Table 3.3.6. 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)............ 33 Table 3.5.1. Contemporary socioeconomic, demographic, and operational aspects of fishing in the USVI*. .................................................................................................................................... 58 Table 3.5.2. Summary information on multi-hook vertical set lines used to capture deep-water snappers and groupers in the USVI* ............................................................................................ 59

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. .......................................................................................... 4 Figure 3.3.1. Depiction of a vertical line (cala). ......................................................................... 26 Figure 3.4.1. Labor force and unemployment rate in Puerto Rico, 2012 – 2020........................ 41 Figure 3.4.2. Puerto Rico real GDP (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2020. ....................... 42 Figure 3.4.3. Puerto Rico’s GNI per capita (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2019............. 42 Figure 3.4.4. Arrival guests through August of each year, 2017 – 2020. .................................... 44 Figure 3.4.5. Monthly labor force, January 2019 – December 2020. ......................................... 44 Figure 3.4.6. Construction jobs in USVI, January 2017 – September 2019. .............................. 45 Figure 3.4.7. Employees in construction, mining and logging sector in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. ................................................................................................................................ 46

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Table of Contents VIII

Figure 3.4.8. Employees in the leisure and hospitality, manufacturing, and trade, transportation and utilities sectors in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. ...................................................... 47 Figure 3.4.9. Total USVI visitor arrivals, 2016 – 2020. ............................................................. 48 Figure 3.4.10. Annual change in real GDP, 2016 – 2020. .......................................................... 48 Figure 3.4.11. Annual change in rum exports to U.S.................................................................. 49 Figure 5.2.1. Annual ex-vessel revenue (2020 dollars) from landings of species harvested with buoy gear in Puerto Rico and trend (2-year moving average) of that revenue, 2012-2019. ......... 80 Figure 5.2.2 Annual commercial landings (lbs ww) and trend of those landings (2-year moving average) by all hook-and-line gear in St. Thomas/St. John, 2012 – 2019. ................................... 81 Figure 5.2.3. Annual commercial landings (lbs ww) in St. Croix by hook-and-line gear and trend (2-year moving average) of those landings, 2012 – 2019. .................................................. 81

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Table of Contents IX

Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1

What Action is 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 and 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). Later, at the 175th meeting, the Council requested staff to address in this amendment, prohibiting the use of buoy gear for recreational harvest. Recreational use of this gear type appears to be non-existent or minimal, and the Council is interested in limiting the use of the buoy gear to those fishing commercially. This amendment to the island-based FMPs includes two actions that would modify the current definition of buoy gear for federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean and the fisheries in which the buoy gear could be used. 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. 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 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 1. Introduction 1

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. In addition to buoy gear, other gear types authorized to commercially harvest reef fish include automatic reel, bandit reel, handline, longline, rod and reel, trap, pot, and spear. These gear types will be included in the regulations at 50 CFR 600.725(v) 1. Appendix A 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 the primary species targeted with buoy gear are included under this category. Buoy gear is also an authorized gear type for the commercial harvest of managed pelagic fish in each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix (See Appendix A for the list of managed pelagic fish). For the recreational sector, buoy gear is an authorized gear for the harvest of non-FMP species under each of the Puerto Rico. St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs. See Appendix B of this document for the List of Authorized Gears by FMP and fishery.

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 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-water snappers and groupers: cardinal and queen snapper, misty grouper up to 1500 ft (457m; 250 fathoms) and to a lesser degree for other species of snapper 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 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 2

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 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 fishermen’s preference, species targeted, fishing conditions, among other reasons. The use of any gear not listed as authorized for a fishery is prohibited, though persons can notify the Council of the intent to use the gear and proceed unless regulatory action is taken to prohibit the use of the gear (50 CFR 600.725(v)). The authorized gear types for those fishing commercially for reef fish and pelagic species managed under the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP are automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, rod and reel, trap, pot, spear, and this will be included in updates to the table in the regulations at 50 CFR 600.725(v). 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 buoy 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 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 greater number of hooks with this gear type when fishing commercially for deep-water snapper and groupers managed under the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP, and to limit the use of the buoy gear to those fishing commercially.

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

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. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, can use buoy gear with more than 10 hooks preferred by some fishermen, while protecting the deep-water reef fish resource and its habitat and minimizing user conflicts.

1.3

Where Will the Action Have an Effect?

Under the Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), the St. Thomas and 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 and St. John EEZ, described in detail in the St. Thomas and St. John FMP and incorporated herein by reference, ranges 3-200 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 (6-370 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 and St. John, and St. Croix management areas.

1.4

History of Federal Fisheries Management

Prior to development of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs, reef fish stocks and stock complexes throughout the U.S. Caribbean (included in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix EEZs) were managed within the Reef Fish FMP of Puerto Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 1. Introduction 4

Rico and the USVI (CFMC 1985), as amended. The original Reef Fish FMP included only shallow-water 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 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 and St. John fishery, and the St. Croix fishery is included in Appendix C of each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and 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 and 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 pelagic 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: 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 Shallow-water 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 (OY) 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) 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 1. Introduction 6

30 of each year; established seasonal closures (no fishing or possession), every year for silk, black, blackfin and vermillion snapper from October 1 through December 31 and for tiger, yellowfin, yellowedge, red and black grouper 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, and overfishing limits, 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 and 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. 2.1

Proposed Actions and Alternatives

Action 1: Buoy Gear Prohibition for Fishing Recreationally

In this action, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) considers prohibiting the use of buoy gear for recreational fishing under the Puerto Rico Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP, collectively known as the island-based FMPs.

2.1.1

Proposed Alternatives for Action 1

Alternative 1. No Action. Buoy gear is currently an authorized gear type for recreational harvest in the Caribbean as found in 50 CFR 600.725 3. Retain the authorized gear types for recreational harvest in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Alternative 2. Prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing recreationally in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix.

2.1.2

Discussion of Action 1 Alternatives

Under Alternative 1, the gear types authorized for recreational fishing under each of the islandbased FMPs would remain unchanged. The authorized gear types for fishing recreationally under each island-based FMP will be listed in 50 CFR part 600.725 4 and are listed in Appendix B and summarized below. The authorized gear types for fishing recreationally in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix include: 1) For Puerto Rico Reef Fish, St. Thomas and St. John Reef Fish, and St. Croix Reef Fish: dip net, handline, rod and reel, slurp gun, spear, trap, pot; 2) Puerto Rico Pelagics, St. Thomas and St. John Pelagics, and St. Croix Pelagics: spear, handline, longline, rod and reel; 3) Puerto Rico Spiny Lobster, St. Thomas and St. John Spiny Lobster, and St. Croix Spiny Lobster: trap, pot, dip net, hand harvest, snare; 4) Puerto Rico non-FMP pelagic species, St. Thomas and St. John non-FMP pelagic species, St. Croix non-FMP pelagic species: spear, handline, longline, rod and reel.; 6) Puerto Rico non-FMP species, St. Thomas and St. John non-FMP species, St. Croix non-FMP species: automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, rod and reel, spear, powerhead, hand harvest, cast net. 3 The list of authorized gear types will be updated when the rule implementing the island-based FMPs is finalized. The changes to be proposed are listed in Appendix B. 4 The list of authorized gear types will be updated when the rule implementing the island-based FMPs is finalized. The changes to be proposed are listed in Appendix B.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 8

In Action 1, the Council is considering whether to prohibit the use of buoy gear by the recreational sector. Alternative 1 would retain all gears authorized for use in the recreational sector under each of the island-based FMPs (Table 2.1), including buoy gear. 5 Although buoy gear (subject of this amendment) is an authorized gear for recreational harvest of non-FMP species only (i.e., species not managed by the Council), at present, there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear as defined in the regulations. Any use of the gear by the recreational sector is unlikely because buoy gear is a very specialized commercial gear that is expensive and difficult to use. Although, the use of buoy gear by the recreational sector appears unlikely in the present, in Alternative 2, the Council proposes to prohibit the use of this gear by the recreational sector to prevent any potential use to fish for any species of the Puerto Rico Fishery, the St. Thomas and St. John Fishery, and the St. Croix Fishery. Currently, buoy gear is an authorized gear for the recreational harvest of non-FMP species but Alternative 2 proposes a broad prohibition for all recreational fisheries (i.e., managed and non-managed species) that would be implemented through federal regulations. With respect to non-managed species, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) gives the Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) the authority to regulate fishing activity to support the conservation and management of fisheries. This could include regulations that pertain to fishing for non-managed species. Per the Magnuson-Stevens Act 303(b)(12) and (14), FMPs can "include management measures in the plan to conserve target and non-target species and habitats, considering the variety of ecological factors affecting fishery populations" and can "prescribe such other measures, requirements, or conditions and restrictions as are determined to be necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery." These provisions, taken together, provide broad discretion to manage fishing for non-managed species for the benefit of managed species. By taking this action the Council would like to prevent potential new resource use conflicts and ecological/biological and physical effects from the use of this gear type by the recreational sector in the future, should recreational fishermen begin using the gear. For example, Alternative 2 would eliminate: (a) any potential future conflicts between commercial and recreational user groups at the subject fishing grounds, (b) any additional ecological/biological and physical effects that might accrue though additional (recreational fishing-related) pressure at those grounds and to those resources (e.g., risk of overfishing the deep-water snapper/grouper resource; risks to managed species from misuse of the buoy gear; limit bycatch of managed species), and (c) any safety concerns potentially associated with the presence of a new 5

See definition of buoy gear in Section 1.1.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 9

(recreational) fleet at the deep-water reef fish fishing grounds, which may arise due to the specialized characteristics of the buoy gear operations. In summary, Alternative 1 does not change any of the gear types authorized for use by the recreational sector of each of the island-based fisheries while Alternative 2 only affects one gear type (buoy gear) and its use by the recreational sector fishing for all species (managed and unmanaged). However, neither Alternative 1 nor Alternative 2 are expected to alter recreational fishing behavior in the short term as there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear in the EEZ.

2.2

Action 2: Modification of the Buoy Gear Definition

In this action, the Council would modify the buoy gear definition for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries.

2.2.1

Proposed Alternatives for Action 2

Alternative 1. No Action. The definition of buoy gear specified in 50 CFR 622.2 with respect to the number of hooks allowed would not be changed and the number of hooks would remain at 10. Alternative 2. Modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector fishing for 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. EEZ in the Caribbean (i.e., 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 for all authorized fisheries.

2.2.2

Discussion of Action 2 Alternatives

Under Alternative 1, the definition of buoy gear in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 would not be changed with respect to fisheries in the US Caribbean EEZ. 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 10

applicable to fishing in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Thus, in components of the Puerto Rico Fishery, the St. Thomas and St. John Fishery, and the St. Croix Fishery where buoy gear is an authorized gear—namely, the commercial sector of those fishing for managed reef fish and the commercial sector of those fishing for managed pelagic species – and in the non-FMP fisheries included in the authorized gear table (see Appendix B) (i.e., the commercial and recreational non-FMP fisheries, and the commercial pelagic fishery) fishermen must limit the gear to 10 hooks. According to reports from fishermen, in state and federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, some fishermen fishing commercially for deep-water reef fish managed under the island-based FMPs, currently use a buoy gear configuration that is consistent to that as defined in the current federal regulations except for the maximum number of hooks. To be consistent with the current definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2, there must be no more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. 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 Council-managed reef fish or pelagic species, or in any other unmanaged (non-FMP) fisheries. Use of this gear with more than 10 hooks would continue to be prohibited in federal waters. Note that depending on the outcomes of Action 1 above, buoy gear might be removed from the list of authorized gear types in the non-FMP recreational fishery (See Appendix B for a list of authorized gear types by fishery under the island-based FMPs (regulatory updates forthcoming)). 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 and 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 off Puerto Rico and the USVI for federally managed reef fish to legally use the gear configuration employed by some in state waters. The modification would apply only to those using this gear type to fish commercially for federally 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 (i.e., FMP and non-FMP 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 11

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. These species usually are encountered as incidental catch, and they could include Council-managed pelagic species as well as non-managed 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 (nonFMP species) and for the commercial harvest of non-managed pelagic species in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Thus, under Alternative 2, the maximum number of hooks that could be used with buoy gear to commercially harvest Councilmanaged pelagic species as well as non-FMP managed species would continue to remain at 10. Commercial fishermen who on the same trip catch managed deep-water reef fish, Councilmanaged pelagics, and/or non-FMP managed species with buoy gear containing more than 10 hooks would not be able to retain lawfully any species other than Council-managed reef fish; the other species were caught with unlawful gear. Enforcement of gear restrictions could be difficult under Alternative 2, if during an intervention, buoy gear with more than 10 hooks is onboard with both managed reef fish and other species because it would be unknown if the gear with more than 10 hooks was used only where authorized (i.e., if it was limited to fishing commercially for the managed reef fish, or if it was used to fish for other species, where not authorized). To avoid enforcement complications for fishermen harvesting multiple species on a trip, the definition of buoy gear under Alternative 3 would allow up to 25 hooks under the definition of buoy gear in the EEZ in the U.S. Caribbean, regardless of target species. Thus, in all fisheries where buoy gear is authorized, this definition would apply. As mentioned above, buoy gear is an authorized gear type for those fishing commercially for reef fish and pelagic species managed under the island-based FMPs, for those fishing commercially for non-FMP species and non-FMP pelagic species in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Buoy gear is also an authorized gear for those fishing recreationally for non-FMP species, however, this authorization may change depending on the outcome of Action 1 described above (Buoy Gear Prohibition for the Recreational Sector). The definition of buoy gear under Alternative 3 would apply to all harvest in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ similar to the application of the definition under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 3, the other 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 12

Under either Alternatives2 or Alternative 3, the changes are limited to the definition of buoy gear, specifically the number of hooks, and do not alter any other gear types or specification of buoy gear. 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 species targeted or location (i.e., island), contrasting with Alternative 1, which maintains the limit at 10 hooks. However, Alternative 2 only applies to fishermen fishing commercially for managed reef fish with buoy gear, while both Alternatives 1 and 3 applies to all fishermen using authorized buoy gear in U.S. Caribbean waters.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 13

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 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 and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c), and are incorporated by reference and summarized below.

3.1

Description of the 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 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, Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 14

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).

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).

3.1.4

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 the island-based FMPs describes the preferred habitats for all reef fish species managed on each island/island group. 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 the island-based FMPs and is summarized below. Specific categories of EFH identified in the island-based FMPs, 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 15

estuarine water column. Additionally, marine/offshore EFH includes live/hard bottom habitats, 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 Caribbean Fishery Management Council (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 16

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]).

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 17

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). Pelagic Fish EFH in the St. Thomas and 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 outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by juveniles, adults, and larvae [for larvae, sargassum substrates only]).

3.2

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 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 while pursuing deep-water reef fish), which are incorporated herein by reference and summarized below. Reef fish and pelagic species are managed as stocks or stock complexes. See Appendix A for a complete list of species managed under the Reef Fish and Pelagic groups on each of the island-based FMPs.

3.2.1

Description of the Species Affected by this Amendment

The waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and 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 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 and 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 the island-based FMPs contain specific information about the distribution and habitat, life history, diet, reproduction and spawning characteristics for all species managed under the FMPs. Council-managed species fished with vertical bottom line gear (which includes buoy gear) include deep-water reef fish species such as snappers and groupers (Table 3.2.1). Species listed Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 18

in Table 3.2.1 are species within the Reef Fish component in each island-based FMP that occur in deeper-water habitats and are directly targeted by the commercial sector or indirectly harvested by commercial fishermen while pursuing target species. These species are expected to be affected by this amendment as they are fished 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 pelagic species are not included in Table 3.2.1. At present, there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear in the EEZ off Puerto Rico, St. Croix or St. Thomas and St. John and the availability of recreational data is limited, therefore, no species are described in this section that would be affected by Action 1. Table 3.2.1. List of snapper and grouper species harvested in the commercial deep-water vertical bottom line component of the reef fish fishery in each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Species Snappers

Puerto Rico FMP black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, wenchman, cardinal, queen

Groupers

yellowmouth, yellowedge, misty

St. Thomas/St. John FMP St. Croix FMP black, blackfin, silk, black, blackfin, vermilion, queen silk, vermilion, queen, cardinal, wenchman yellowmouth, yellowedge, misty misty

This list in not all inclusive, and only lists those species that have been identified by fishermen as being actively targeted commercially 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; Scharer-Umpierre 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 C 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 3.2.2 below.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 19

3.2.1.1 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 (Table 3.3.1).

3.2.2

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 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, 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 of reef fish species include: Year-round: Nassau grouper: No person may fish for or possess Nassau grouper in or from the EEZ around Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Such fish caught in the EEZ around Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix must be released immediately with a minimum of harm; • Goliath grouper: No person may fish for or possess goliath grouper in or from the EEZ around Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Such fish caught in the EEZ around Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix must be released immediately with a minimum of harm; • 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 immediately with a minimum of harm 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 specified closed seasons and closed areas established by island area. •

Section 3.3.1 above and Appendix C 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 and groupers harvested with vertical bottom line gear. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 20

3.2.3

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. 6 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 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.

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).

6

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 21

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.

3.3

Description of the Deep-water Reef Fish Component of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and 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.

3.3.1

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) (CFMC 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, which was one of the most economically valuable species commercially landed (CFMC 1993). Reef fish (including deep-water snappers and other deep-water reef fish) in federal waters are managed with annual catch limits (ACL) for Puerto Rico commercial and recreational sectors Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 22

and for all harvest in the St. Croix and in St. Thomas and St. John (Table 3.3.1), with an aggregate bag limit for recreational harvest, seasonal closure for certain species (Tables 3.3.2 and 3.3.3), 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 that includes a quota and a limit on the number of trips per year in Puerto Rico state waters (see Section 3.3.2.1 below). The commercial ACL set under the Reef Fish FMP for queen and cardinal snapper in Puerto Rico (Snapper Unit 2) was exceeded in 2013. As a result the commercial season for these species was closed from September 21, 2013 through December 31, 2013 in federal waters off Puerto Rico. Table. 3.3.1. Annual catch limits applicable to the deep-water reef fish component. Values are in pounds whole weight. Species in bold text represent indicator stock selected for the stock complex. Stock/Stock Complex Snapper 1 (black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, wenchman*) Snapper 2 (queen, cardinal**) PR Grouper 4 (black, red, tiger, yellowfin, yellowmouth) PR Grouper 5 (misty, yellowedge) 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)

Puerto Rico FMP

St. Croix FMP

St. Thomas/St. John FMP

Total ACL

Total ACL

Commercial ACL

Recreational ACL

424,009

111,943

61,455

20,090

257,236

24,974

7,911

568

2,492

5,867

N/A

N/A

15,327

4,225

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

701

N/A

N/A

N/A

77

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2,254

N/A

N/A

N/A

390

* Wenchman is not managed in federal waters off St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John. ** Cardinal snapper is not managed in federal waters off St. Croix or in St. Thomas and St. John.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 23

Table 3.3.2. Seasonal closures for snapper species in federal and state waters of Puerto Rico and the USVI. Silk, Black, Blackfin, Vermillion, Wenchman* Snappers Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John EEZ Puerto Rico state waters (only applies to silk and blackfin) USVI state waters (only applies to STT and STJ)

Closed Season

Open Season

Oct 1 – Dec 31

Jan 1 – Sep 30

Oct 1 – Dec 31

Jan 1 – Sep 30

Oct 1 – Dec 31

Jan 1 – Sep 30

* Wenchman is not managed in federal waters off St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John.

Table 3.3.3. Seasonal closures for grouper species in federal and state waters of Puerto Rico and the USVI. Red hind Grouper Puerto Rico EEZ (only applies to red hind fishing and possession west of 67°10' W. longitude) Puerto Rico state waters USVI state waters Yellowfin, Red, Tiger, Black, Yellowedge* Grouper Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. Thomas/St. John EEZ Puerto Rico state waters (only applies to yellowfin) USVI state waters

Closed Season Dec 1 – Last day Feb

Open Season Mar 1 – Nov 30

Dec 1 – Last day Feb No closure Closed Season

Mar 1 – Nov 30 Open year-round Open Season

Feb 1 – Apr 30 Feb 1 – Apr 30 Feb 1 – Apr 30

May 1 – Jan 31 May 1 – Jan 31 May 1 – Jan 31

*Yellowedge grouper is not managed in federal waters off St. Croix.

The commercial deep-water snapper and grouper reef fish component is artisanal and relatively small scale; however, it represents the largest finfish resource in terms of weight of landings and estimated dollar values in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (Tonioli and Agar 2011; Schärer 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 24

3.3.2

Description of the Deep-water Reef Fish Component of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix Fisheries Harvested with Vertical Bottom line/Buoy Gear

Deep-water reef fish, particularly deep-water snappers and groupers targeted by small-scale commercial fishermen, are typically harvested with hook-and-line gear. The type of hook-andline 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 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 2 stock complex in Puerto Rico and only queen snapper in St. Thomas and St. John and 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 for species in the Snapper 1 stock complex in St. Thomas and 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. 3.3.2.1

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).

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 25

Figure 3.3.1. Depiction of a vertical line (cala). (Source: Matos-Caraballo and Torres-Rosado 1989)

Cala (or fuete) is the common vertical bottom line configuration along the west coast (Figure 3.3.1). In a 2014 survey, Agar and Shivlani (2016) reported that on average surveyed fishermen 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 fishermen 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 fishermen reported that fishing trips averaged about 15 hours; although some said they fished up to 120 hours over a multi-day trip. 7 More recently, public testimony at Council meetings and through personal communication between NMFS staff with Puerto Rico fishermen indicate that in Puerto Rico (federal and state waters), 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. Fishermen 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. Fishermen 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 fishermen, in addition of the depth fished (depth depends on the 7

The median trip was 11 hours long.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 26

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 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 year-round (strong currents and weather events immensely affect the pursue of this fishery). The Council has identified a need to conduct an inventory of gear types for Puerto Rico fisheries that provide more recent information of gear types and methods in general. 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 federal and state waters target multiple species of fish and shellfish, including reef fish (especially snappers and groupers), coastal pelagics, deep-water pelagics, lobster, and conch. 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 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 3.3.4). Fishing occurs mainly over muddy bottoms and rocky benthic habitat (or hard) at water depths that range from 250 to 3,000 feet. Fishermen target deep-water snappers in shelf breaks and the edge of insular platforms, and along the seamount chains. Along the west coast of Puerto Rico, the majority of the vessels fishing with vertical bottom lines targeting queen and cardinal snapper (Snapper 2 stock complex) 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 1 stock complex) tend to fish Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 27

while anchored because these species are found in shallower waters (600 ft.; 183m; 100 fathoms) (E. Font, west coast deep-water snapper fishermen, testimony at Council meeting, August 2020; N. Crespo, west coast deep-water snapper fishermen, 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 fishermen are squid, sardines, ballyhoo, and miscellaneous tunas (blackfin, skipjack and little tunny) (Shivlani and Agar 2016). Table 3.3.4. Adjusted pounds (whole weight) of some deep-water snapper-grouper species landed in Puerto Rico each year (all gear types). Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Misty grouper 4,208 3,829 4,570 5,505 3,450 4,176 3,793 7,122 36,654

Yellowedge grouper 394 303 587 547 940 1,206 777 1,031 5,785

Black snapper 7,149 6,691 4,341 2,893 8,274 4,601 5,134 4,454 43,537

Blackfin snapper 5,338 6,270 7,930 6,302 9,830 8,201 10,647 10,264 64,781

Cardinal snapper 17,842 11,502 17,035 16,701 9,340 8,926 9,911 12,703 103,959

Queen snapper 166,779 97,030 157,443 164,037 115,088 86,195 102,303 152,448 1,041,323

Silk snapper 180,390 118,084 191,095 180,525 211,793 200,848 194,172 311,167 1,588,074

Vermilion snapper 11,222 7,266 12,269 14,104 13,386 11,561 13,220 14,403 97,432

C. Commercial Fishermen Participating in the Deep-water Vertical Bottom line/Buoy Gear Component of the Reef Fish Fishery Approximately 60 commercial fishermen currently possess the Deep-water Snapper Special Permit (See sub-section 3.3.2.3 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 fishermen. In 2019, a total of 354 fishermen reported using bottom line gear. Of those, 137 (39%) were from the North coast, 46 (13%) were from the East coast, 55 (16%) were from the South coast, and 156 (44%) were from the West coast (8 fishermen (2%) were reported as Inland) (Source: SERO 2021).

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 28

The deep-water buoy gear configuration is a very specialized and highly species-specific gear type (E. Font, west coast deep-water snapper fishermen, testimony at Council meeting, August 2020; N. Crespo, west coast deep-water fisher, pers. communication, February 2021) and it is mostly used by commercial fishermen usually in the deeper reefs. In addition to queen and cardinal snapper, the buoy gear configuration may also be used by commercial fishermen to harvest mid-depth reef species in the Snapper 1 stock complex (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 (See Table 3.3.7 in Subsection D below). Some furtive fishing may also occur of species in the Snapper 2 stock complex and Snapper 1 stock complex (e.g., harvest of queen and cardinal in state waters by non-permitted fishermen; harvest of any species by non-licensed fishermen). The number of commercial fishermen currently using deep-water vertical bottom line (cala) to fish for deepwater snappers and groupers is estimated to be around 200 (DNER staff, personal communication, February 2021). Within this estimate, an unknown number of fishermen 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 fishermen 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 the number of fishermen participating in the deep-water snapper fishery (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011a). Table 3.3.5 shows the number of fishermen 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 3.3.5. 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

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

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

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 29

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%. Agar and Shivlani (2016) list 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 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 2 stock complex) in patchy, deep-water 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 3.4.2.3 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. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 30

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 gear 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). 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 3.3.6 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 31

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 32

Table 3.3.6. 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 33

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 34

3.3.2.2

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 fishermen to catch deep-water 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 fishermen 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 3.5.2.1 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 hooks 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 35

fishermen use light for fishing at deep-water areas. A typical fishing trip 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 and 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 and 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 and 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). Fishermen 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 federal or state waters include silk snapper, blackfin snapper, misty grouper, wenchman, queen snapper, and other non-specified species. C. Commercial Fishermen Participating in the USVI Deep-water Buoy Gear Component of the Reef Fish Fishery In a census of USVI commercial fishermen, Kojis et al. 2017 noted that more fishermen on St. Croix than on St. Thomas and St. John owned multi-hook gear. The species caught with this Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 36

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 fishermen census, only one fisher from St. Thomas and St. John reported owning this gear while 45 St. Croix fishermen owned the gear (Kojis 2004). Kojis et al. (2017) further adds that in 2010, 2011, and 2016, three fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John, while in St. Croix 26 fishermen 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 fishermen using buoy gear in St. Croix is approximately 12, while in St. Thomas, the deep-drop buoy gear fishery is very small, with 2-4 fishermen currently pursuing this fishery. This range of fishermen is also within the range of fishermen reporting deep-water snappers in commercial landings data for the USVI. D. Fishing Areas The St. Thomas and 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 fishermen 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 fishermen surveyed fished exclusively in federal waters. The number and percentage of fishermen that fish primarily in territorial waters of St. Croix is more than in St. Thomas and 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 fishermen 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). Fishermen 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 and St. John fish in the north and south drops. 3.3.2.3

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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 37

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 nonresident 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 2 stock complex) 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 2 stock complex 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. Fishermen can only fish from vessels registered to fish commercially in Puerto Rico. As of December 2020, there were approximately 60 fishermen permitted. This has also been the approximate number of permitted fishermen in other years. Changes to the limited entry permit are being currently discussed by the DNER. 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 DPNR 2019). 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 Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) on a monthly basis, within two weeks Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 38

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 commercial fishing license within three years of June 2001 and have complied with catch reporting requirements.

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. 8 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

8

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.pdf

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 39

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). 9 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. 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

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). 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 3.4.1. 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]).

9

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/pr/newsroom/features/?cid=nrcseprd1420889

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 40

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)

1,250,000

0.0

Unemp Rate

Figure 3.4.1. Labor force and unemployment rate in Puerto Rico, 2012 – 2020. (Source: USDOL BLS)

Hurricane Maria caused incredibke damage to the agricultural sector in Puerto Rico. 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). 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. 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

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 41

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 Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 42

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 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. 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 43

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 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 3.4.5. 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).

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 44

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.

3.4.3

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 3.4.6, 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 Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 45

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. 10 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 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. 10

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 46

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 3.4.8). 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 3.4.8. 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

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 47

2020 were optimistic; however, that optimism was short-lived and visitor arrivals declined dramatically in 2020 11 (Figure 3.4.9).

3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Figure 3.4.9. 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 11

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 48

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 3.4.11).

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. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 49

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%. 12 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).

3.5

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.

3.5.1

Puerto Rico

The estimated 2017 total population of residents on the islands of Puerto Rico was 3,449,000 persons, 99% of whom identify as Hispanic (Kaiser Family Foundation 2017). Although fishing activities are 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. 3.5.1.1

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 12 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 50

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. 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 gear 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. 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 51

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, 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, Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 52

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 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 53

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: (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). Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 54

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). 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 55

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)

3.5.2

St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John

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, with median household income estimated at $37,254 in the islands and $57,617 on the continent that year (Kaiser Family Foundation 2017b). 3.5.2.1

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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 56

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 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 gear, 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 57

conduct of fishing-related activities, with little variation across the islands. As summarized in Table 3.5.1 below, Kojis et al. (2017) provide useful insight into the nature of contemporary commercial/artisanal fishing and fishery participants around the USVI. Table 3.5.1. 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 Mean Length of Fishing Vessel Mean Size of Outboard Engines % Using Twin-Engine Craft Present Value of Fishing Vessel and All Gear

St. Croix 56.9 26.7 2.7 Hispanic ↑ from Kojis (2004) 46% 39.3% 38.9% Higher 21.9 feet 90 hp ~50% $39,000

St. Thomas/St. John 55.0 30.8 2.5 French ↑ from Kojis (2004) 63% 44.7% 27.5% Lower 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 and 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 gear such as Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 58

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 Table 3.5.2, 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 3.5.2. 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

St. Croix

109

42/38.5%

6

0

33

12.2†

2.9

6.5

*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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 59

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 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 60

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.” 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

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 61

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 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.

3.6

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 Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 62

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 Fishery Management 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 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 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 each agency listed below is the primary administrative body with respect to the state’s natural Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 63

resources, all states cooperate with numerous state and federal regulatory agencies when managing marine resources. 3.6.2.1

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. 3.6.2.2

U.S. Virgin Islands

The 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://dpnr.vi.gov/

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 64

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4.1 Action 1: Buoy Gear Prohibition Summary of Management Alternatives Alternative 1. No Action. Retain the authorized gear types for recreational harvest in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Alternative 2. Prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing recreationally in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix.

4.1.1 Effects on the Physical Environment Alternative 1 would not change the allowable gear types authorized for harvest by the recreational fishing sector in the federal waters of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix. Alternative 2 would prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing on a recreational basis in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. No additional physical effects from the alternatives are expected. At present, there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to fish for deep-water reef fish or any other non-managed species. Buoy gear in the U.S. Caribbean is a highly specialized gear type used to fish commercially for deep-water reef fish and has a low potential for affecting the physical environment (e.g., entanglement, interactions with the bottom) because of the types of habitat (e.g., rocky outcrops), and depths (i.e., 400-1,200 ft) where it is used. Therefore, physical negative effects are not expected from the prohibition on the use of buoy gear by the recreational sector under Alternative 2. This action would not be expected to affect essential fish habitat for any species in Puerto Rico, St. Croix, or St. Thomas and St. John. When compared to Alternative 1, minor positive effects may be expected because Alternative 2 would eliminate any possibility of future interactions between the bottom and buoy gear from use by the recreational sector, though interactions are unlikely.

4.1.2 Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment Alternative 1 would not have any additional biological/ecological effects as it would not change the allowable gear types for recreational harvest. Because buoy gear is unlikely to be used by the recreational sector, no effects would be expected on the biological/ecological environment from Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 65

its prohibition for use by this sector under Alternative 2. Prohibiting the use of buoy gear would prevent any additional ecological/biological effects that might accrue though increased (recreational fishing-related) pressure at deep-water fishing grounds and to those resources (e.g., risk of overfishing the deep-water snapper/grouper resource; risks to managed species from misuse of the buoy gear; limit bycatch of managed species). Neither of the alternatives are 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 Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species or critical habitat that were not considered in the 2020 biological opinion. Action 1 is also 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, as the action would not change how the deep-water reef fish fisheries operate in the respective island management areas. When compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 is slightly more beneficial to the biological/ecological environment as it would prevent fishing activity by the recreational sector with buoy gear to support the conservation of target species and habitats.

4.1.3 Effects on the Economic Environment Alternative 1 would not change the authorized gear types for recreational harvest in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, and therefore would have no adverse or beneficial economic impact beyond the status quo (baseline). Alternative 2 would prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing recreationally in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. At present, there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear in the EEZ or that it would be used there in the future because buoy gear is a very specialized commercial gear. Therefore, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would have the same economic effects.

4.1.4 Effects on the Social Environment Alternative 1 would not alter the allowable gear types authorized for harvest by recreational fishing vessels in the federal waters of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix. Alternative 2 would prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing on a recreational basis in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Because buoy gear is not presently used by operators of individual recreational vessels, or by charter or guided fishing operations anywhere in the U.S. Caribbean, neither of these alternatives would have significant social impacts in the island regions of interest. However, should an operational and/or cultural shift on the part of individual recreational vessel owners or offshore charter fishing captains lead Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 66

to widespread use of buoy gear at the subject snapper/grouper grounds, there is potential for Alternative 1 to generate new resource use conflicts and ecological effects in the future. Although such outcomes appear unlikely in the present, Alternative 2 would eliminate: (a) any potential future conflicts between commercial and recreation-oriented user groups at the subject fishing grounds, (b) any additional ecological effects that might accrue though additional (recreation-related) pressure at those grounds and to those resources, and (c) any safety concerns potentially associated with the presence of a new (recreational) fleet at the grounds in question.

4.1.5 Effects on the Administrative Environment Alternative 1 is the status quo alternative and it is not expected to have any administrative effects. Alternative 2 would be expected to have short-term administrative effects from the preparation of this amendment and implementing regulations. No additional administrative effects are expected from Alternative 2.

4.2 Action 2: Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition Summary of Management Alternatives Alternative 1. No Action. The definition of buoy gear specified in 50 CFR 622.2 would not be changed. Alternative 2. Modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector fishing for 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 (i.e., the EEZ off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix) to allow the use of up to 25 hools connected between the buoy and the terminal end.

4.2.1 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). The gear is used in depths of 400-1,200 ft over rocky habitat, hangs vertical in the water column, and doesn’t drag on the bottom. The use of anchors while fishing with this gear is not common. For these reasons, no effects are expected from maintaining the definition of buoy gear in Alternative 1. Increasing the maximum number of hooks that can be used with the buoy gear in Alternatives 2 and 3 is not expected to increase

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 67

interactions with the bottom. This action is not expected to affect essential fish habitat for any species or critical habitat for ESA species in Puerto Rico, St. Croix, or St. Thomas and St. John.

4.2.2 Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment For Caribbean Fishery Management Council (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 U.S. Virgin Islands (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 and ecological effects are not expected under Alternative 1. Fishermen currently need to conform to the current definition (e.g. maximum of 10 hooks) to comply with federal regulations. Alternative 2 would increase the number of hooks that could be used with buoy gear to fish commercially only for Council-managed reef fish from 10 hooks up to 25 hooks. The magnitude of any additional biological and ecological effects is dependent on the extent that commercial fishermen increase the number of hooks deployed and that the increased number of hooks used translates to increased landings of Council-managed reef fish species. Increasing the number of hooks or setlines does not necessarily translate into higher catch as fishing depends on many environmental factors and experience/skill of the fishermen. If fishermen who use 10 or fewer hooks increase the number of hooks per setline and that increase translates into higher catch or landings, then that could increase the potential for over exploitation of the deep-water reef fish resource, as well as increase the potential for more bycatch and impacts to non-target species. 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 (ACL) and accountability measures and recreational bag limits. However, if there are deep-water reef fish fishermen who are fishing illegally and using more than 25 hooks, and they reduce the number of hooks to 25 or less and 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, then there could be some benefit to the biological/ecological environment of the reef fish target species by reducing fishing pressure. Alternative 3 would change the definition of buoy gear in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ to allow up to 25 hooks for all fisheries where the gear is authorized. Buoy gear is an authorized gear type for the commercial harvest of reef fish and pelagic species managed under the island-based Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 68

fishery management plans (FMP), for the commercial and recreational harvest of non-FMP species, and commercial harvest of non-managed pelagic species in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. The same effects discussed in Alternative 2 for using the gear to target Council-managed reef fish species would be expected for Alternative 3. With respect to those using the buoy gear to commercially target Council-managed reef fish (particularly deep-water snappers and groupers) and pelagics, and non-managed species, the magnitude of any biological and 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 extent that catch or landings of the target and non-target species increase as a result. Similar to Alternative 2, negative biological/ecological effects could be expected if an increase in the number of hooks translates into higher catch or landings for any of the target and the increase in catch or landings has the potential to overexploit the resource. However, this effect is not expected for coastal pelagics and other non-Council species (commercially and recreationally, as applicable) because few fishers target these species with buoy gear . 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 from hook-and-line gear are not commonly reported for the deep-water reef fish fishery or from other fisheries where buoy gear is authorized. Listed corals are also not expected to be affected by hook-and-line gear fishing for deep-water reef fish or other species where buoy gear is authorized 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 deployed to 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 Councilmanaged 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 biological/ecological 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. There is no information on the number of hooks fishermen are currently using. 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

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 69

would have the same biological/ecological effects because there would be no increase in fishing effort or associated landings or bycatch from any of the alternatives.

4.2.3 Effects on the Economic Environment Alternative 1 (No Action) would continue to define 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 as it applies to the commercial sector harvesting managed reef fish in the EEZ off Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas and St. John. The modified definition would allow up to 25 hooks per line connected between the buoy and the terminal end. By allowing an increase in the maximum number of hooks per line, Alternative 2 could generate additional landings of deep-water snappers and groupers and increased ex-vessel revenues from those landings, which in turn could generate 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, Alternative 2 could be problematic for commercial fishermen who presently harvest both deep-water reef fish and non-reef fish species with buoy gear, especially coastal pelagic species, on the same trip because the maximum number of hooks for harvesting coastal pelagic and other non-managed reef fish species would remain at 10 per line, and the modified gear could not be used to harvest these other species. Alternative 3 would modify the definition to allow up to 25 hooks per line regardless of target. Therefore, where buoy gear is an authorized gear—for example, for harvesting deep-water reef fish and non-reef fish species, such as coastal pelagics—fishermen could use up to 25 hooks. 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. There is currently insufficient information on the number of hooks fishermen are currently using. If commercial fishermen are fishing illegally and presently use as many hooks as they prefer, then Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would have the same economic effects because there would be no change 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).

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 70

4.2.4 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. The modified definition of buoy gear specified in Alternative 2 would allow for the use of as many as 25 hooks per buoyed line for commercial operations focused on harvest of federally managed reef fish. As recently discussed by Puerto Rico- and the USVI-based commercial 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 would be 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 commercial fishermen fishing for reef fish 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, and the gear use would not extend to those species. Regulatory/enforcement issues could result due to the fact that the Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 71

maximum allowable number of hooks that can be deployed to harvest other 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 wherever buoy gear is an authorized gear. Buoy gear is authorized for the commercial harvest of reef fish and pelagic species, and for certain non-managed species. This allows persons targeting reef fish with buoy gear to retain more species incidentally harvested in the fishery. In this respect, the alternative addresses multiple buoy-based commercial 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. Coupled with Alternative 2 under Action 1, Alternative 3 under Action 2 heightens the potential for commercial captains and crew to experience success, where this is defined to include: (a) the continuation of fishery-specific and seafood-related social and cultural practices in the islands, (b) the provision of food and earnings in family and community settings, and (c) minimized concerns regarding safety and social and ecological impacts at the fishing grounds. 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.

4.2.5 Effects on the Administrative Environment Alternative 1 is the status quo alternative and it is not expected to have any administrative effects. Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would be expected to have short-term 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 ACL(s) is exceeded, prompting a potential application of accountability measures (AM) 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 Councilmanaged deep-water reef fish), this scenario would be unlikely under harvest levels set under the island-based FMPs. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 72

Alternative 2 presents the potential for some regulatory and enforcement issues because commercial 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 would generally change and apply wherever buoy gear is an authorized gear. Buoy gear with up to 25 hooks could be used for, including the commercial harvest of multiple species and not just for the commercial reef fish fisheries under each island-based FMP.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 73

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 federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean and includes the communities of Puerto Rico and the 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. The impacts that are expected in that area from the proposed action – The proposed action would (1) prohibit the use of buoy gear for all recreational fishing in federal waters of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix; and (2) increase the maximum number of hooks that can be used with buoy gear. Buoy gear is authorized in managed and unmanaged fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean. The environmental consequences of the proposed action are analyzed in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2. Buoy gear is a gear type primarily used for the commercial harvest of deep-water snappers and groupers. Deep-water fishing with buoy gear is very specialized and practiced by a cohort of experienced commercial fishermen. It is unlikely that buoy gear is used to fish recreationally and it is a prohibited gear for recreational fishing, except for fishing for non-managed species in all three island-based fisheries. Prohibiting the use of buoy gear by the recreational sector (Action 1) is not expected to have any effects on the physical, biological/ecological, economic, and social environments because buoy gear is not a gear type used by the recreational sector. Prohibiting buoy gear use by the recreational sector would eliminate: (a) any potential future conflicts between commercial and recreation-oriented user groups at the subject fishing grounds, (b) any additional ecological/biological and physical effects that might accrue though additional (recreational fishing-related) pressure at those grounds and to those resources should recreational fisheries begin using the gear (e.g., risk of overfishing the deep-water snapper/grouper resource; risks to managed species from misuse of the buoy gear; limit bycatch of managed and unmanaged species), and (c) any safety concerns potentially associated with the presence of a Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 74

new (recreational) fleet at the deep-water reef fish fishing grounds which may arise due to the specialized characteristics of the buoy gear operations. Increasing the maximum number of hooks that could be used with buoy gear to 25 hooks (Action 2) is not expected to increase interactions with the bottom as this gear has a low potential for affecting the physical environment (e.g., entanglement) because of the types of habitat, and the depth where it is used. An increase in the number of hooks could result in fishermen maximizing their landings and this translates into higher landings and the potential for overexploiting the resource. But this is only expected if there is full compliance with the number of hooks currently allowed to be used. Overall, an increase in the number of hooks could be negative but minor for species incidentally caught while pursuing the deep-water reef fish fishery. If increasing the number of hooks does not cause a change in fishing effort and associated landings and revenues, no other impacts would be expected. Short-term administrative impacts would be expected from the preparation of this amendment and implementing regulations for both Action 1 and Action 2. Long-term administrative effects would be expected from Action 2 if by increasing the number of hooks to maximize landings or profit, landings of deep-water reef fish (or other Councilmanaged reef fish) increase to the point where an ACL(s) is exceeded, prompting a potential application of AMs and a closure for the affected species. Some enforcement challenges could be expected from modifying the number of hooks just for the commercial harvest of managed reef fish instead of for all harvest where buoy gear is an authorized gear as it difficult distinguishing legal harvest, but this challenge is eliminated by applying the hook modification to other fisheries within each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs. 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 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 75

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 reef fish, each island-based FMP retained management measures such as size limits, seasonal closures, and recreational bag limits and revised the management reference points. 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 the National Marine Fisheries Service (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. 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 and pelagic stocks of each of the islandbased FMPs. 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 76

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 reef fish and pelagic stocks in the future, 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. However, on-going efforts to establish a baseline of deep-water temperature and salinity profiles in areas fished by deep-water snapper fishers include engaging the fishers to participate in the data collection (CRCP). 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 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 77

4. The impacts or expected impacts from these other actions - The cumulative effects from managing fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean 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 deep-water stocks at a level that would allow the maximum benefits in yield and increased fishing opportunities to be achieved. 5. The overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate – Cumulative effects resulting from modifications to the buoy gear use in federal waters, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would be expected to be minimal in each island management areas. 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., buoy gear is not currently used by the recreational sector). 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. 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 (as available), life history studies, economic and social analyses, and other scientific observations.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 78

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 U.S. Virgin Islands (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 Code of Federal Regulations (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. Descriptions of the relevant components of the fisheries of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John and St. Croix are provided in Section 3.4. From 2012 through 2019, cala (bottom line) 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. 13 Average annual ex-vessel revenue in Puerto Rico from species harvested with buoy gear was $1,375,879 (2020 dollars) during the 8-year period from 2012 through 2019, and there was an increasing trend (Figure

All hook-and-line gear (bottom line (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. 13

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 79

5.2.1). 14 The constant-dollar price per pound increased from $2.39 in 2012 to $4. 44 in 2019 (2020 dollars) in Puerto Rico. 15

$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 5.2.1. Annual ex-vessel revenue (2020 dollars) from landings of species harvested with buoy 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 gear accounted for an annual average of 16% of all commercial landings by weight in St. Thomas and St. John, and 31% of landings by weight in St. Croix. Commercial landings (lbs ww) by all hook-and-line gear in St. Thomas and 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 5.2.2). During the same 8-year period, commercial landings (lbs ww) by hook-and-line gear in St. Croix declined considerably after the disastrous 2017 hurricane season (Figure 5.2.3). In 2018 and 2019, landings by hook-and-line gear 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. 14 15

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 80

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 5.2.2 Annual commercial landings (lbs ww) and trend of those landings (2-year moving average) by all hook-and-line gear 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 5.2.3. Annual commercial landings (lbs ww) in St. Croix by hook-and-line gear and trend (2-year moving average) of those landings, 2012 – 2019. (Source: NMFS SERO LAPPS 2021)

5.3

Impact of Management Measures

The proposed rule is composed of two actions. Action 1 would prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing recreationally in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. At present, there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or that it would be likely used there in the future. Buoy gear is a highly specialized commercial gear. Therefore, the first action would have the same economic effects as the status quo. Action 2 would modify the definition of buoy gear in federal regulations (50 CFR Part 622) in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Specifically, it would Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 81

increase the maximum number of hooks allowed from 10 to 25 per line. 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. 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 Action 2 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. 16 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 either 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 any 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 would increase the number of hooks used, and there would not be increases in landings and ex-vessel revenues from those landings. Hence, with 0% compliance, the economic effects of the proposed action would 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 per line, 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.

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. 16

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review 82

In summary, 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 of the 10-hook limit to zero economic benefit (beyond the baseline) if there is currently zero compliance with the 10-hook limit. The lower the rate of baseline compliance, the smaller the economic benefits of the proposed rule.

5.4

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, if any, to the private sector are discussed in Section 5.4 above. Total public costs associated with this action include Council and NMFS administrative costs of document preparation, meetings and review, which are estimated to total approximately $77,579 (2020 dollars).

5.5

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 83

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 84

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 in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). Both anglers (recreational fishermen) and commercial fishing businesses would be directly by the rule; however, anglers are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 601(6), whether fishing from for-hire fishing, private or leased vessels. Therefore, estimates of the number of anglers affected by the rule and impacts on them are not provided here. 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 and St. John, and St. Croix are small. The rule would directly apply to those small businesses that operate fishing vessels that use buoy gear in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John. Buoy gear is a highly specialized commercial gear. Commercial fishermen who harvest deep-water reef fish and other species, such as Council-managed pelagic species, have traditionally used buoy gear locally known as “cala con boya” in Puerto Rico and as “deep-drop buoy gear” in the USVI. Therefore, estimates of the numbers of small businesses that use buoy gear in federal waters are based on the numbers/percentages of fishermen who report fishing in federal waters and targeting deep-water reef fish or reef fish. 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 the fishermen/small businesses target reef fish, and approximately 56% target deep-water snapper. It is estimated that from 214 (56%) to 295 (77% of the 383 active small commercial fishing businesses that operate in federal waters off of Puerto Rico may be directly affected the proposed rule. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 85

The most recent Census of Licensed Fishers of the U.S. Virgin Islands 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. An estimated 80.7% (96) of the 119 licensed fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John and 52.5% (74) of the 141 licensed commercial fishermen in St. Croix were active (Kojis et al. 2017). Kojis et al. (2017) found that 14.8% of licensed fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John and 52.3% of licensed fishermen in St. Croix harvest deep-water snapper. Hence, an estimated 14 (14.8%) of 96 active small commercial fishing businesses in St. Thomas and St. John and an estimated 39 (52.3%) of 74 active 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 is composed of two actions. Action 1 would directly affect anglers and, as such, would have no impact on any small entities. Action 2 would directly affect small commercial fishing businesses by modifying the definition of buoy gear. 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. 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%). 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 and have increased landings and revenues (gross and net).

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 86

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 numbers of hooks deployed. Nonetheless, NMFS expects some small businesses would increase the number of hooks they use, which would increase their landings and revenues. With no compliance, NMFS expects none of the small businesses that currently use buoy gear in the EEZ would change the number of hooks used because they currently use the maximum number of hooks they prefer to use, and no more than 25 per line. So, there would be no changes in landings and dockside revenues from those landings. Hence, with 0% compliance, the economic impact could be the same as the no-action alternative. However, even with 0% compliance, there could be small businesses that currently use more than 10, but less than 25, hooks per line, and an unknown number of those small businesses could increase the number of hooks they use, which would increase their landings and revenues, but less than if there were 50% compliance. 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. Hence, there would be no beneficial economic impact if there is currently no compliance and none of the small businesses increase the number of hooks they presently deploy. However, NMFS expects at least some small businesses would increase the number of hooks they use so as to increase their landings and revenues.

Significance of economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities The proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small commercial fishing businesses of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and 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 87

Chapter 7. List of Preparers Table 7.1. List of Interdisciplinary Plan Team (IPT) Members Name

Agency

Title

María del Mar López-Mercer

NMFS/SFD

IPT Co-Lead / Fishery Biologist

Graciela García-Moliner

CFMC

IPT Co-Lead / Habitat Specialist

Sarah Stephenson

NMFS/SFD

Fishery Biologist

John McGovern

NMFS/SFD

SFD Assistant Regional Administrator

Denise Johnson

NMFS/SFD

Economist

Edward Glazier

NMFS/SFD

Social Scientist

Jocelyn D’Ambrosio

NOAA/GC

Attorney

Scott Sandorf

NMFS/SFD

Technical Writer

Patrick O’Pay

NMFS/PRD

Fishery Biologist

Michael Larkin

NMFS/SFD

Data Analyst

Nancy Cummings

NMFS/SEFSC

Fishery Biologist

Loren Remsberg

NOAA/GC

Enforcement Attorney

Brent Stoffle

NMFS/SEFSC

Anthropologist

Miguel Borges

NMFS/OLE

Assistant Special Agent

Mike Jepson

NMFS/SFD

Social Sciences Branch Chief

Jose Rivera

NMFS/HCD

Fishery Biologist

CFMC = Caribbean Fishery Management Council, GC = General Counsel, HCD = Habitat Conservation Division, NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act, NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, OLE= Office of Law Enforcement, PRD = Protected Resources Division, SERO = Southeast Regional Office, SER = Southeast Region, SFD = Sustainable Fisheries Division, SEFSC = Southeast Fisheries Science Center

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 7. List of Preparers 88

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 89

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 90

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 91

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. DPNR (Department of Planning and Natural Resources) Division of Fish & Wildlife. 2019. Commercial & Recreational Fishers’ Information Handbook. Available at https://dpnr.vi.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/DFW-Fisher-Handbook-2019.pdf. 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. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 9. References 92

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. 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 9. References 93

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 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-07/puerto-rico-board-releases-emergencyfunds-after-earthquake. Keithly, W. 2013 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 9. References 94

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. 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. 1974. 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. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 9. References 95

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. 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 9. References 96

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 María 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. 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 9. References 97

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. 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 9. References 98

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 99

Appendix A. List of Managed Reef Fish and Pelagic Stocks Included in Each of the Island-based FMPs 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

•

Barracudas: great barracuda

Dolphinfish: dolphin, pompano dolphin Mackerels and Tunas (Scombridae): little tunny, blackfin tuna, king mackerel, cero mackerel, wahoo

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Appendix A 100

St. Thomas and 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 Angelfishes: queen, grey, French Grunts: white grunt, bluestriped, margate Jacks: Blue runner

Porgies: jolthead, saucereye, sheepshead, sea bream * New to management

St. Thomas and St. John Pelagics *All new to management

• •

Dolphinfish: dolphin Mackerels and Tunas (Scombridae): wahoo

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

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Appendix A 101

St. Croix Pelagics *All new to management

• •

Dolphinfish: dolphin Mackerels and Tunas (Scombridae): wahoo

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Appendix A 102

Appendix B. Authorized Gear Types Under Each of the Islandbased FMPs The following table reflects changes to be proposed to § 600.725(v) under V. Caribbean Fishery Management to implement the island-based FMPs. As of December 1, 2021, the changes have not been proposed and the table in the regulations reflects management under four U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs. The Secretary of Commerce approved the island-based FMPs in September 2020, and the island-based FMPs replace the U.S. Caribbean-wide FMPs. Regulatory updates to implement the island-based FMPs, including the draft changes to the table below, are forthcoming in a notice of proposed rulemaking, which will be subject to public comment. Fishery *******

Authorized gear types

V. Caribbean Fishery Management Council 1. Exclusive Economic Zone around Puerto Rico A. Puerto Rico Reef Fish Fishery (FMP): i. Automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, i. Commercial fishery longline, rod and reel, trap, pot, spear. ii. Dip net, handline, rod and reel, slurp gun, spear, ii. Recreational fishery trap, pot. B. Puerto Rico Pelagic Fishery (FMP): i. Automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, i. Commercial fishery longline, rod and reel, gillnet. ii. Recreational fishery ii. Spear, handline, longline, rod and reel. C. Puerto Rico Spiny Lobster Fishery (FMP): i. Commercial fishery i. Trap, pot, dip net, hand harvest, snare. ii. Recreational fishery ii. Trap, pot, dip net, hand harvest, snare. D. Puerto Rico Coral Reef Resources No harvest or possession in the EEZ. Fishery (FMP): E. Puerto Rico Queen Conch Fishery No harvest or possession in the EEZ. (FMP): F. Puerto Rico Commercial Pelagic Gillnet, automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, Fishery (Non-FMP): handline, longline, rod and reel. G. Puerto Rico Recreational Pelagic Spear, handline, longline, rod and reel. Fishery (Non-FMP): Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Appendix B 103

Fishery H. Puerto Rico Commercial Fishery (Non-FMP)

Authorized gear types Automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, rod and reel, trawl, gillnet, cast net, spear. Automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, rod and reel, spear, powerhead, hand harvest, cast net.

I. Puerto Rico Recreational Fishery (Non-FMP) 2. Exclusive Economic Zone around St. Croix A. St. Croix Reef Fish Fishery (FMP):

i. Automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, rod and reel, trap, pot, spear. ii. Dip net, handline, rod and reel, slurp gun, spear, trap, pot.

i. Commercial fishery ii. Recreational fishery B. St. Croix Pelagic Fishery (FMP):

i. Automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, rod and reel, gillnet. ii. Spear, handline, longline, rod and reel.

i. Commercial fishery

ii. Recreational fishery C. St. Croix Spiny Lobster Fishery (FMP): i. Commercial fishery i. Trap, pot, dip net, hand harvest, snare. ii. Recreational fishery ii. Trap, pot, dip net, hand harvest, snare. D. St. Croix Coral Reef Resource No harvest or possession in the EEZ. Fishery (FMP): E. St. Croix Queen Conch Fishery (FMP): i. Commercial fishery i. Hand harvest. ii. Recreational fishery ii. Hand harvest. F. St. Croix Commercial Pelagic Fishery Gillnet, automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, (Non-FMP) handline, longline, rod and reel. G. St. Croix Recreational Pelagic Fishery Spear, handline, longline, rod and reel. (Non-FMP) H. St. Croix Commercial Fishery (Non- Automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, FMP) longline, rod and reel, trawl, gillnet, cast net, spear. Automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, I. St. Croix Recreational Fishery (Nonlongline, rod and reel, spear, powerhead, hand FMP) harvest, cast net. 3. Exclusive Economic Zone around St. Thomas and St. John Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Appendix B 104

Fishery A. St. Thomas and St. John Reef Fish Fishery (FMP):

Authorized gear types

i. Automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, rod and reel, trap, pot, spear. ii. Dip net, handline, rod and reel, slurp gun, spear, trap, pot.

i. Commercial fishery ii. Recreational fishery B. St. Thomas and St. John Pelagic Fishery (FMP):

i. Automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, rod and reel, gillnet. ii. Spear, handline, longline, rod and reel.

i. Commercial fishery

ii. Recreational fishery C. St. Thomas and St. John Spiny Lobster Fishery (FMP): i. Commercial fishery i. Trap, pot, dip net, hand harvest, snare. ii. Recreational fishery ii. Trap, pot, dip net, hand harvest, snare. D. St. Thomas and St. John Coral Reef No harvest or possession in the EEZ. Resource Fishery (FMP): E. St. Thomas and St. John Queen Conch No harvest or possession in the EEZ. Fishery (FMP): F. St. Thomas and St. John Commercial Gillnet, automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, Pelagic Fishery (Non-FMP) handline, longline, rod and reel. G. St. Thomas and St. John Recreational Spear, handline, longline, rod and reel. Pelagic Fishery (Non-FMP) H. St. Thomas and St. John Commercial Automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, Fishery (Non-FMP) longline, rod and reel, trawl, gillnet, cast net, spear. Automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, I. St. Thomas and St. John Recreational longline, rod and reel, spear, powerhead, hand Fishery (Non-FMP) harvest, cast net. ******* Federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 also define other allowable gear types under the hook-andline 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Appendix B 105

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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Appendix B 106

Appendix C. 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., Appeldoorn, 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. Schärer-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 C 107

Reference: Schärer-Umpierre, M.T., Peña-Alvarado, N., Smith, S.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), Atlantic 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 C 108

DEEP WATER SQUID OPPORTUNITY Capt. Marcos Hanke B.A., Marine Biologist, UPRH CFMC Chair Charter Operator December 8, 2021

Special thanks to Puerto Rico Sea Grant and the Caribbean Fishery Management Council for the disposition to follow up and support this initiative by helping with the outreach efforts. Photos: Marcos Hanke, Collin Butler and Danny Suárez

DEEP WATER SQUID OPPORTUNITY

Vocabulary • Squid jigs: weighted or unweighted artificial lure with 2 or more parachute squid hooks.

• Terminal depth: the depth where the squid jigs are set on the water column. • Bottom depth: the depth at the fishing site.

DEEP WATER SQUID OPPORTUNITY BACKGROUND • It started in 2017 to explore deep water squid fishing opportunity for commercial and recreational fishers. • The starting reference was based on the online publications and tutorial videos from Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). This effort was mainly for commercial fishers. • Except in PR and USVI, many islands in the Caribbean are already fishing artisan for deep water squids. Dominican Republic, Antigua, and Granada are some examples. • The most important guidance was provided by Michell Lay, Antigua Fisherman and Michiro Ishida (JICA) via phone call. Photo courtesy: Danny Súarez, swordfish expert. This was an incidental catch fishing for swordfish

DEEP WATER SQUID OPPORTUNITY GENERAL INFORMATION • Incidental catches and some targeted landings were sold from $8 to $12 per pound in PR, similar to conch prices. In USVI the introductory price on processed squid is $16 per pound • This local exploratory fishing opportunity, includes recreational and commercial sector, as well. • Part of this initiative is to develop local expertise and rigging adaptations, such as: finding the best fishing areas, manufacture local terminal tackle, testing different reels, create added value to existing fishery and adapting to recreational anglers applications. • The Deep Water Squid is a natural alternative and sustitute to culinary applications made with conch and octopus. It is extremely versatile!

Characteristics of this Species and the Fishing Methods • Based on its biology, it shows resilient characteristics: fast growing rate, lives approx. 1 year, wide distribution on the Caribbean and Atlantic area.

• Potentially resilient to climate change (warming of surface waters) • Low fishing pressure true out the range, mostly fished artisanaly, 2 squid are targeted • Can reduce or redirect shallow water effort, specially on conch and octopus. • Minimum bycatch. • Easily combined with other pelagic fishing methods

Cont.: Characteristics of this Species and the Fishing Methods • Great incentive to add value and help to engage local fishers to pelagic resource. The opportunity includes the Caribbean pelagic multi-species approach (deep water squids, swordfish, wahoo, tuna and Mahi ). The shallow insular platform is not the only alternative! • Fished on very deep waters. Gear don’t interact with the bottom, it does not add pressure to benthic habitats. Jigs are set on the water column. • Management considerations: Very similar gear description used for deep water snapper and swordfish. The main change is on the terminal tackle which use 2 squid jigs and light. • Add economic opportunity: deep water snapper and swordfish fishers.

TYPICAL FISHING AREA • Deep waters on the Caribbean and the Atlantic (1200’ to 3000’plus) • Water column: Squidjigs are set between (1000’ and 1500’)

Foto: Collin Butler, DAP-STT/STJ

GEAR • Gear is fished drifting either from the boat or using buoys riggs • Electric reel or manual retrieval • Mainline: 80’ to 200’+

• Main leader 130# to 400# • WP Light • Elastic cord * optional • 2 Squidjigs: 1 neutral boyant and 1 weighted(4 pound+) TERMINAL TACKLE COST:(L.L.snap,main line,2 jigs,light) Est.Home made: $25 to $50 Est.Imported: $60 to $200

Culinary and Market Versatility

Photo: Collin Butler, DAP-STT/STJ

• All parts of the squid that can be utilized(DBS/29#/23meat) • How to preserve the catch and process the product • Holds freezing which helps on the product to reach the best texture and quality. Allow for marketing flexibility.

Information on the First 8 Recreational Exploratory Trips

• First 3 exploratory trips, with light, 2 squid jigs with 2 small hooks (1” diam.), terminal depth: 1000’ and 1200’ on the water column, bottom depth between 1700’ and 2700’ depth range. Just one piece of tentacle but 3 other strikes that do not hook.

• Last 5 exploratory trips, with light, 2 Squid jigs with 2 large hooks(2”diam.), terminal depth:1200’ and 1900’ on the water column, bottom depth: 2500’ and 3500’ depth range. Land 4 Neon Squid and 1 DBS*. Land squids on all last 5 trips and hook up many others that pull the hook. Land squid every 4.8 hours per line. • The we are more productive now, but we expect better numbers soon! It’s already very valuable and attractive to recreational fishers!

Game Changer! DAP-STT member request more information the after CFMC social media post. This post was about the new fishing opportunity for deep water squids. Capt. Collin Butler showed very quick his knowledge and expertise on pelagic species, generating great information and fishing results catching deepwater squids. He has the proper gear and innovative mentality to fish for deep water squid commercially. This is a great example how across our US Caribbean jurisdiction fishers from all sectors and areas can help each other to create better and more resilient fishing opportunities. Capt. Collin Butler will share some results with us!

Commercial St. Thomas Exploratory Trips Collin Butler (STT/STJ DAP) • First 3 trips ( 1st- no hook up, 2nd-two hookup, 3rd- 8 squids) • 3rd trip:8 squids (6 neon and 2 DBS)* Total pounds 92, each DBS weighted 24 pounds. All 8 was caught on this same trip after some rigging and adjustments. • Verbal new trip update! • Tuna trip spent 100 gallons of gas. Squid fishing spent 20 gallons of gas. • The first processed squid batch was sold for an introductory price of $16 per pound. • The biggest squid represent approx. $300

Update Recommendation for Recreational • Combine 2 rods: one for squid and one for sword fish or squid at different depth. • Use weighted squid jigs from 6 to 10 pounds to compensate boat drift. • Light positioned at 15’ to 18’+ from the neutral jig • Use long tip-flex rod with 15’ rubber cord and/or 100’ of Momoi 80# line. • Use a big deep net or long 4”gaff.

Update Recommendation for Commercial Fishers • Fish with 3 to 5 buoy sets. • Combine fishing for squids and swordfish. Make sure you are fully ready for tuna, wahoo and mahi during the trip; maximize efficiency. • Use weighted squid jigs from 4 to 10 pound. • Light positioned 15’ to 18’+ from the neutral jig. • Use a long flexible rod, 15’ rubber cord and/or 100 feet of monofilament (Momoi 130# ) • Use light drag or pull by hand. • Use long 4” gaff or big deep net. • Using the weighted squid jig as part of swordfish rig, show some promising results. • The depth range where squids where caught range from 1900’ to 3500’+.

Challenges and Future Exploratory Research • Recommend formal exploratory data collection to establish, seasonality, biological data, abundance for both common species, market potential, price range, gear description and other important data.

IMPORTANT: This four-year voluntary private effort aim

to support all fishing sectors of the US Caribbean. Let's promote the new opportunities in a sustainable and collaborative way!

QUESTIONS! TL 73 inches

DAP STT/STJ Recommendations Annual Catch limits for species managed in the EEZ

Federal Regulations Leave as is

Territorial regulations Review STT/STJ Territorial water regulations for urchins, cucumbers and corals (no harvest?) Territorial Regulations specified for each fish species as in STT/STJ IBFMP

Aquarium Trade species

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

All commercially-harvested species All commercially-harvested species be illegal be illegal for the aquarium trade for the aquarium trade

1

DAP STT/STJ Recommendations

Federal Regulations

Territorial regulations

Closed Fisheries: Nassau Grouper

Closed Fishery (>30 years) NEED ASSESSMENT

Closed Fishery (>15 years) NEED ASSESSMENT

Queen Conch

Closed Fishery Seasonal Closure (West of 64°34’ W) Reassess: no harvest or possession June 1 Review queen conch population; through October 31 and 50,000 lb. quota involve fishers

Size Limits: Yellowtail snapper

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

12” TL

To adopt in territorial waters the minimum size of 12 inches total length as written in Federal Regulation 2

DAP STT/STJ Recommendations

Federal Regulations

Territorial regulations

Red, Black, Tiger, Yellowfin, and Yellowedge Grouper

Seasonal closure in place since 2005

Recommendation: Assessment and evaluation of seasonal closures

Snappers Seasonal Closures (lane and mutton) (deep water snappers)

To revisit all closed season

Revisit all closed seasons; deep-water snapper fishery can be developed

Seasonal Closures:

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

3

Seasonal Closures in the St. Thomas/St. John EEZ and Territorial Waters that apply to both commercial and recreational fishing. Includes the months of the closures and the year(s) in which these were implemented or changed. EEZ STT/STJ Grouper Unit 4 Feb 1-April 30 Feb 1-April 30 (Year Implemented) 2005 2006 Feb-April Feb-April Yellowfin grouper Feb-April Feb-April Tiger grouper Feb-April Feb-April Red grouper Feb-April Feb-April Black grouper Grouper Unit 5 (Year implemented) Yellowedge Misty Yellowmouth

Feb 1-April 30 2005 Feb-April

Feb 1-April 30 2006 Feb-April

Snapper Unit 1 (Year Implemented) Silk snapper Vermillion Black Blackfin

Oct 1-Dec 31 2005 Oct-Dec Oct-Dec Oct-Dec Oct-Dec

Oct 1-Dec 31 2006 Oct-Dec Oct-Dec Oct-Dec Oct-Dec

Snapper Unit 3 (Year Implemented) Mutton snapper* Lane snapper*

Apr 1- Jun 30 2005 April-June April-June

Apr 1- Jun 30 2006 April-June April-June

DAP STT/STJ Recommendations Recreational Bag limits: To have compatibility in EEZ and territorial waters

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

Federal Regulations

Territorial regulations

Establish bag limit, for all new species under management, for the recreational fishery (dolphinfish, etc.)

Establish bag limits for the recreational fisheries, for all fish harvested in state waters (red hind, snappers, dolphinfish, etc.)

5

DAP STT/STJ Recommendations Traps

Federal Regulations

Territorial regulations

Adopt trap mesh size as in territorial waters (2.0 inches only)

Request language to retain berried lobster in traps

Recreational guys should not be allowed fish or lobster traps in the EEZ and territorial waters

Permits

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

Establish Fishing permits in federal waters

7

DAP STT/STJ Recommendations

Federal Regulations

Review changes to the licensing moratorium of the Territory

Fishing license

Federal Permits

December 7, 2021 - 176th DAP reports

Territorial regulations

Establish fishing permit in federal waters

Establish compatible permit in territorial waters

8

CONSEJO DE ADMINISTRACIÓN PESQUERA DEL CARIBE BORRADOR DEL PLAN ESTRATÉGICO 2022-2026 2021 diciembre

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

ÍNDICE DE CONTENIDOS ACRÓNIMOS................................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCCIÓN ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 ORGANIZACIÓN DEL PLAN............................................................................................................................................. 5 VISIÓN ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 MISIÓN ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 VALORES FUNDAMENTALES .......................................................................................................................................... 6 METAS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 MANEJO.......................................................................................................................................................................................6 SALUD DEL ECOSISTEMA Y DEL RECURSO.............................................................................................................................................6 ASUNTOS SOCIALES, CULTURALES Y ECONÓMICOS ...............................................................................................................................6 COMUNICACIÓN Y EXTENSIÓN ..........................................................................................................................................................6 MANEJO ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 SALUD DEL ECOSISTEMA Y DEL RECURSO ......................................................................................................................12 ASUNTOS SOCIALES, CULTURALES Y ECONÓMICOS .......................................................................................................16 COMUNICACIÓN Y EXTENSIÓN .....................................................................................................................................19

Pagina 2

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

ACRÓNIMOS CFMC COPACO CRFM DAP DPNR DRNA FAC FAD FEP HEP IBFMP MPBE MREP MRIP MSA NOAA Fisheries NPS OEAP OLE PEPCO SEFSC SSC USCG USFWS USVI ZEE

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe Comisión de Pesca del Atlántico Centro-Occidental Mecanismo Regional de Pesca del Caribe Panel de Asesor Distrito Departamento de Planificación y Recursos Naturales (Islas Vírgenes Estadounidenses) Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (Puerto Rico) Comité Asesor de Pesca Dispositivos de Agregación de Peces Plan de Ecosistemas Pesqueros Hábitats Esenciales de Peces Plan de Manejo de Pesquería Basado en Isla Manejo Pesquero Basado en el Ecosistema Programa de Educación sobre el Recurso Marino Programa de Información Recreativa Marina Ley Magnuson Stevens Servicio Nacional de Pesquerías Marinas Servicio de Parques Nacionales Panel Asesor de Extensión y Educación Oficina de Aplicación de la Ley Programa de Educación para Pescadores Comerciales Centro de Ciencias Pesqueras del Sureste Comité Científico y Estadístico Guardia Costera de los Estados Unidos Servicio Federal de Pesca y Vida Silvestre Islas Vírgenes Estadounidenses Zona Económica Exclusiva

Pagina 3

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

INTRODUCCIÓN El Consejo de Administración Pesquera del Caribe (Consejo del Caribe, o CFMC) es responsable por la conservación y el manejo de los recursos pesqueros dentro de la jurisdicción federal del Caribe Estadounidense, que incluye a Puerto Rico y las Islas Vírgenes Estadounidenses. El Consejo del Caribe es uno de los ocho consejos regionales establecidos en 1976 por la Ley de Conservación y Administración Pesquera, más tarde rebautizada como Ley Magnuson-Stevens (MSA, en inglés). Además de los consejos, la MSA también creó la Zona Económica Exclusiva (ZEE), un área que se extiende desde el límite hacia el mar de los estados y territorios costeros hasta las 200 millas náuticas. La MSA estableció una autoridad soberana sobre la mayoría de los recursos pesqueros en la ZEE, una responsabilidad que es compartida entre el Secretario de Comercio Estadounidense y los consejos regionales. El Consejo del Caribe recomienda medidas de manejo por los recursos pesqueros dentro de su jurisdicción mediante el desarrollo de planes de manejo de pesquerías, que deben ser revisados y aprobados por el Secretario de Comercio antes de ser aplicados por el Servicio Nacional de Pesquerías Marinas (NOAA Fisheries). Todas las recomendaciones del Consejo se desarrollan en un proceso abierto y público, y deben ser consistentes con las diez normas nacionales contenidas en el MSA. El Consejo del Caribe está compuesto por siete miembros con derecho a voto. Esto incluye a cuatro miembros públicos con derecho a voto nombrados por el Secretario, con conocimientos de pesca comercial, pesca recreativa o conservación de los recursos marinos del Caribe Estadounidense. Los tres miembros con derecho a voto restantes incluyen a los principales funcionarios con responsabilidad de administración de pesquerías marinas para el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico y el Territorio de las Islas Vírgenes Estadounidense (o sus designados), y al Administrador Regional del Sudeste de Pesquerías de la NOAA. El Consejo también tiene tres miembros sin derecho a voto que representan a la Guardia Costera de los Estados Unidos, el Servicio Federal de Pesca y Vida Silvestre y el Secretario de Estado Estadounidense. El desarrollo de medidas para mantener unos recursos pesqueros saludables que satisfagan las necesidades de los pescadores y del público en general es un proceso inclusivo. El Comité Científico y Estadístico (SSC, en inglés) del Consejo examina la información biológica, estadística, social y económica, y proporciona asesoramiento técnico especializado para garantizar que las decisiones del Consejo se basen en la mejor información científica disponible. Además, el Consejo cuenta con paneles asesores que le ayudan a establecer metas y objetivos de manejo de pesquerías, así como enfoques de divulgación y educación, y para hacer aportaciones sobre los valores culturales y las necesidades económicas de las comunidades pesqueras insulares. Cada panel asesor contiene una representación equilibrada de los intereses de la pesca y las partes interesadas y desempeña una importante función de comunicación para los afectados por las decisiones del Consejo. El Consejo del Caribe evaluó recientemente su marco de administración y está pasando de un enfoque específico para cada especie a uno que se centra en las características únicas de los recursos pesqueros y las comunidades pesqueras de cada uno de sus tres distritos insulares (Puerto Rico, Santo Tomás/San Juan, Santa Cruz). Este nuevo marco se detalla en los Planes de Manejo Pesquerías por Isla (IBFMPs, en inglés) recientemente aprobados por el Consejo. Además, el Consejo está desarrollando un Plan de Ecosistemas Pesqueros (FEP, en inglés) que guiará la implementación de su nuevo marco de gestión utilizando un enfoque basado en el ecosistema. Este plan estratégico establece metas y objetivos para estos esfuerzos de importancia crítica y sirve como hoja de ruta para las actividades futuras que promoverán la aplicación efectiva, así como la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas para las partes interesadas del Consejo.

Pagina 4

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

ORGANIZACIÓN DEL PLAN La organización del plan estratégico refleja tanto las metas colectivas como las necesidades distintivas de los tres distritos insulares que comprenden la jurisdicción del Consejo. La Visión, la Misión y los Valores Fundamentales incorporan un futuro, propósito y enfoque comunes. Las declaraciones de objetivos reflejan amplias áreas de enfoque necesarias para lograr la visión del Consejo al tiempo que se adaptan a las diferentes prioridades de cada distrito insular. Todos se desarrollaron con amplia aportación, los paneles asesores y las partes interesadas. Para tres de las metas (Manejo; Salud del Ecosistema y del Recurso; Asuntos Sociales, Culturales y Económicos), se desarrollaron objetivos y estrategias específicos por la isla para abordar las características y necesidades de cada distrito. Varios objetivos evolucionaron para ser idénticos en todos los distritos insulares, lo que indica prioridades superpuestas. En tales casos, los objetivos se han consolidado de modo que solo están representadas las estrategias específicas de la isla. El Consejo también determinó que el objetivo de Comunicación y Divulgación abarca una de sus responsabilidades más importantes y concluyó que los objetivos y estrategias eran relevantes en toda su jurisdicción, y no específicos de una isla o distrito.

Pagina 5

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

VISIÓN Ecosistemas isleños, pesquerías y comunidades pesqueras prósperas y resilientes que proveen beneficios culturales, sociales y económicos para todos.

MISIÓN El Consejo de Administración Pesquera del Caribe conserva, restaura y maneja los recursos pesqueros en el Caribe Estadounidense consecuentemente con los requisitos de la Ley Magnuson Stevens. El Consejo está comprometido a adelantar la administración colaborativa de estas pesquerías y apoyar los ecosistemas isleños a través de la educación, la extensión y el insumo de las partes interesadas.

VALORES FUNDAMENTALES • • • • • •

Mayordomía Colaboración Integridad Transparencia Justicia Respeto

METAS MANEJO Adelantar enfoques de manejo que promueven pesquerías y ecosistemas locales saludables, consideran las necesidades de las comunidades pesqueras isleñas y fomentan la colaboración entre los socios en el manejo.

SALUD DEL ECOSISTEMA Y DEL RECURSO Promover el use sostenible de los recursos marinos costeros locales en una forma en la que se mantenga la estructura y función ecológica local, y se posibilite la resiliencia de los recursos pesqueros.

ASUNTOS SOCIALES, CULTURALES Y ECONÓMICOS Asegurar que las decisiones de manejo consideren las características únicas y las necesidades de las comunidades pesqueras isleñas mientras se promueve el uso justo y equitativo del recurso.

COMUNICACIÓN Y EXTENSIÓN Involucrar, educar e informar a una variedad de audiencias para mejorar el entendimiento público y la participación en el proceso del Consejo.

Pagina 6

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

MANEJO Meta: Adelantar enfoques de manejo que promueven pesquerías y ecosistemas locales saludables, consideran las necesidades de las comunidades pesqueras isleñas y fomentan la colaboración entre los socios en el manejo. OBJETIVOS DE TODOS LOS DISTRITOS Objetivo 1: Apoyar el desarrollo de programas de recopilación, reporte y programas de monitoreo de datos que sean precisos, puntuales y costo-efectivos. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Mejorar los datos independientes de la pesquería a través de las colaboraciones. • Priorizar la recopilación de datos para especies sujetas a las vedas por temporada y por área. • Ampliar los esfuerzos de educación/extensión sobre la tecnología de reporte electrónico comercial. • Continuar la participación para reiniciar el Programa de Información Recreativa Marina (MRIP) en Puerto Rico. • Apoyar las mejoras del Centro de Ciencias Pesqueras del Sureste (SEFSC) y el Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (DRNA) en el muestreo comercial. • Apoyar el estudio realizado por SEFSC de los meros y pargos de profundidad independiente de la pesquería. • Apoyar los esfuerzos del gobierno local para aumentar el muestreo en los muelles y los agentes pesqueros. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Apoyar los esfuerzos del Servicio Nacional de Pesquerías Marinas (NOAA Fisheries) y el Departamento de Planificación y Recursos Naturales de las Islas Vírgenes Estadounidenses (USVI-DPNR) para mejorar el reporte de la pesca recreativa y establecer un estudio de MRIP en San Tomás/San John. • Apoyar los esfuerzos de SEFSC para trabajar con USVI-DPNR para diseñar y implementar un programa de muestreo de captura multimodal. • Priorizar la recopilación de datos para las especies sujetas a vedas por temporada y por área. • Apoyar los esfuerzos de USVI-DPNR para examinar las modificaciones y mejores de las licensias. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Apoyar los esfuerzos de NOAA Fisheries y de USVI DPNR para mejorar el reporte de la pesca recreacional y establecer un muestreo de MRIP en Santa Cruz en conformidad con el plan de implementación regional de MRIP. • Apoyar esfuerzos de USVI DPNR para revisar y modificar los requisitos para obtener la licencia a fines de mejorar el reporte de capturas. • Apoyar los esfuerzos de SEFSC para trabajar con DPNR para diseñar e implementar un programa de muestreo de captura multimodal. • Colaborar con USVI-DPNR en educación y extensión en lo relacionado al reporte preciso de las capturas. • Priorizar la recopilación de datos para las especies sujetas a vedas por temporada y por área. Pagina 7

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) •

Apoyar los esfuerzos de USVI DPNR para examinar los modificaciónes y mejores de las licensias.

Objetivo 2: Promover la participación de los pescadores y otros enfoques de investigación colaborativos a fines de atender necesidades de ciencia e información específicas para cada isla. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Desarrollar y priorizar una lista de las necesidades de investigación específicas para PR. • Trabajar junto a socios en la ciencia y el manejo y con los pescadores para priorizar los avalúos de abastos para especies que están sujetas a vedas de temporada o por área. • Colaborar con Sea Grant para asegurar que las necesidades específicas de investigación en Puerto Rico sean incluidas en las oportunidades de subvención. • Incorporar las observaciones de los pescadores en los avalúos de abastos. • Desarrollar un lista de necesidades de datos y de ciencia en Puerto Rico que puedan ser atendidas mediante la participación de los pescadores comerciales y recreativos. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia y los pescadores para desarrollar y priorizar una lista de necesidades de investigación específicas para San Tomás/San John. • Priorizar e involucrar pescadores en los avalúos de abasto que se necesita urgentemente para las especies sujetas a vedas de temporada y de áreas. • Promover estudios colaborativos sobre la efectividad del Banco de Grammanik y otras áreas cerradas. • Trabajar con el SEFSC para identificar especies clave para las cuales los pescadores pueden ayudar en la obtención de muestras biológicas. • Apoyar esfuerzos en conjunto entre SEFSC, DPNR y el Servicio de Parques Nacionales (NPS) para mejorar la información para los avalúos de abasto que tienen datos limitados (ej. estudios sobre la selectividad de las artes de pesca en San Tomás y San John, etc.). • Desarrollar materiales educativos para promover la comprensión de los pescadores de la ciencia y las necesidades de información. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Apoyar los estudios de selectividad del arte de pesca realizados en conjunto entre SEFSC, USVI-DPNR y NPS. • Identificar oportunidad para que los pescadores puedan contribuir con muestras biológicas de peces loro y de otras especies. • Apoyar la investigación realizada por socios en la ciencia académica para mejorar los avalúos de especies que tienen datos limitados. • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia para desarrollar una lista de necesidades de investigación específicas para Santa Cruz. • Asegurar que las áreas cerradas a la pesca estén correctamente marcadas por boyas (ej. Buck Island). • Desarrollar materiales educativos para promover la comprensión de los pescadores de la ciencia y las necesidades de información.

Pagina 8

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) Objetivo 3: Asegurar que las medidas de manejo promueven el cumplimiento regulatorio y fomentan la ejecución efectiva. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Revisar la aplicabilidad de las medidas de manejo de Puerto Rico. • Trabajar con DRNA-Puerto Rico para fomentar la consistencia regulatoria. • Trabajar con DNRA-Puerto Rico, NOAA Oficina de Aplicación de la Ley (OLE), Guardia Costera de los Estados Unidos (USCG) y las agencias marinas locales responsables por la ejecución de leyes y reglamentos a fines de apoyar la capacitación cruzada del personal. • Colaborar con los socios de manejo para desarrollar guías de cumplimiento comercial y recreacional para Puerto Rico. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Coordinar con NOAA OLE, USVI-DPNR y USCG la revisión de la capacidad de ejecución de las regulaciones existentes. • Apoyar el adiestramiento cruzado del personal de ejecución de leyes y reglamentos. • Identificar los vacíos en la ejecución en las regulaciones existentes en San Tomás/San John. • Promover el desarrollo de guías de cumplimiento claras y entendibles para las partes interesadas comerciales y recreacionales. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Coordinar con NOAA OLE y USVI DPNR el revisar la consistencia de las regulaciones existentes para las especies manejadas federalmente. • Apoyar el adiestramiento cruzado del personal de ejecución de leyes y reglamentos. • Identificar los vacíos en la ejecución dentro de las regulaciones ya existentes en Santa Cruz. • Revisar las regulaciones en términos de efectividad y/o redundancia. • Desarrollar guías de cumplimiento claras y entendibles para los pescadores comerciales y recreativos. • Asegurar que materiales educativos estén disponibles para los tomadores de decisiones (ej., legisladores) según sea necesario.

Objetivo 4: Colaborar con socios nacionales e internacionales para promover un manejo adaptativo y eficiente que considere diversos intereses de las comunidades. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Revisar regularmente la efectividad de las medidas de manejo existentes (áreas de desove/vedas) • Trabajar con socios para desarrollar objetivos claramente establecidos para las acciones de manejo • Atender los impactos de la pesca incidental en las relaciones del ecosistema. • Participar en el grupo de trabajo bajo la Comisión de Pesca del Atlántico Centro-Ocidental (COPACO) sobre el carrucho. • Evaluar medidas de manejo nuevas y existentes para propósitos de consistencia con la productividad del ecosistema local utilizando los informes sobre el estado del ecosistema.

Pagina 9

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Revisar y evaluar la efectividad de las vedas de temporada y de área existentes lo más pronto posible. • Reducir la pesca incidental y los desechos a través de modificaciones a las artes de pesca y a las restricciones por temporada. • Colaborar con DPNR para desarrollar medidas de manejo consistentes donde sea apropiado. • Asegurar que las medidas sirvan a la productividad del ecosistema local de San Tomás/San John. • Participar en foros internacionales tales como los esfuerzos de COPACO y del Mecanismo Regional de Pesca del Caribe (CRFM) para mejorar el manejo de los recursos de todo el Caribe. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Trabajar con NOAA Fisheries y DPNR para reducir la pesca incidental por medio de modificaciones a las artes y temporadas de pesca. • Trabajar con DPNR y con NOAA OLE para desarrollar regulaciones consistentes donde sea apropiado. • Asegurar que las medidas son adecuadas para la productividad del ecosistema local de Santa Cruz. • Involucrar tanto al Panel Asesor de Distrito (DAP) de Santa Cruz como al Comité Asesor de Pesca (FAC, por sus siglas en inglés) de Santa Cruz en la revisión y desarrollo de medidas de manejo que evalúan los impactos de la comunidad comercial y recreacional. • Asegurar que las medidas de manejo consideran y/o atienden los impactos potenciales del cambio climático. • Asegurar que los enfoques de manejo consideran los impactos de las especies invasivas. • Explorar las especies subutilizadas como una medida para reducir la presión sobre las especies que están siendo utilizadas completamente. • Apoyar el desarrollo de la coordinación interinstitucional para permitir los dispositivos de agregación de peces (FADs, por sus siglas en inglés).

Objetivo 5: Considerar los impactos potenciales del cambio climático en la eficacia de las medidas de manejo. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Utilizar los informes sobre el estado del ecosistema en Puerto Rico para informar el desarrollo de medidas de manejo. • Evaluar la información independiente de la pesquería acerca de los impactos y las tendencias relacionadas al clima. • Solicitar el insumo de los pescadores acerca de los cambios relacionados al clima en las especies y en los hábitats. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Utilizar los informes sobre el estado del ecosistema en San Tomás/San John para informar el desarrollo de medidas de manejo. • Evaluar la información independiente de la pesquería acerca de los impactos y las tendencias relacionadas al clima. • Solicitar el insumo de los pescadores acerca de los cambios relacionados al clima en las especies y en los hábitats. Pagina 10

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Utilizar los informes sobre el estado del ecosistema en Santa Cruz para informar el desarrollo de medidas de manejo. • Evaluar la información independiente de la pesquería acerca de los impactos y las tendencias relacionadas al clima. • Solicitar el insumo de los pescadores acerca de los cambios relacionados al clima en las especies y en los hábitats.

Pagina 11

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

SALUD DEL ECOSISTEMA Y DEL RECURSO Meta: Promover el uso sostenible de los recursos marinos costeros locales en una forma en la que se mantenga la estructura y función ecológica local, y se posibilite la resiliencia de los recursos pesqueros. OBJETIVOS DE TODOS LOS DISTRITOS Objetivo 6: Implementar el Plan del Ecosistema Pesquero como una hoja de ruta para las acciones futuras del Consejo dirigidas a mantener las relaciones ecológicas, los roles y los servicios de los ecosistemas isleños de Puerto Rico, San Tomás/San John y Santa Cruz. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Evaluar las vedas por temporada de desove existentes y las áreas cerradas (Bajo de Sico, Banco de Tourmaline, Abrir la Sierra) para determinar las contribuciones a la integridad del ecosistema. • Establecer un itinerario para evaluar y monitorear regularmente las vedas por temporada y área. • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia y con las partes interesadas para mejorar la información sobre el ecosistema local. • Establecer un proceso para incorporar información sobre el ecosistema en las medidas específicas de manejo para Puerto Rico. • Identificar preocupaciones sobre la ejecución que pueden impactar las relaciones ecológicas. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia y las partes interesadas para identificar vacíos y mejorar la información biológica y ecosistémica local para San Tomás/San John. • Evaluar las vedas de temporada de desove y los cierres de área existentes (ej. Grammanik Bank, Hind Bank) para determinar las contribuciones a la integridad del ecosistema. • Establecer un proceso para incorporar información y enfoques sobre el ecosistema en las medidas de manejo para San Tomás/San John. • Considerar enfoques ecosistémicos que son sensibles al cambio climático. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia y con las partes interesadas (ej. otras organizaciones nogubernamentales, The Nature Conservancy, Fundación de Restauración y Educación Oceánica del Caribe (CORE), pescadores comerciales/recreativos) para identificar vacíos y mejorar la información biológica local y ecosistémica para Santa Cruz . • Evaluar las vedas por temporada de desove y las áreas cerradas a la pesca (ej. sama, Lang Bank) para determinar las contribuciones a la integridad del ecosistema. • Establecer un proceso para incorporar información y enfoques basados en ecosistema en las medidas de manejo de STX. • Asegurar que los enfoques de manejo basados en ecosistema responden al cambio climático. • Explorar el uso de especies y recursos subutilizados y subdesarrollados para reducir la presión y mantener las relaciones ecológicas. Pagina 12

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) Objetivo 7: Identificar, manejar y proteger los arrecifes de coral y otros hábitats del recurso pesquero de Puerto Rico, San Tomás/San John y Santa Cruz. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Desarrollar en el Consejo políticas sobre los hábitats que atiendan los impactos del desarrollo costero, la erosión y la sedimentación, y otras formas de contaminación sobre los Hábitats Esenciales por los Peces (HEP). • Desarrollar materiales de extensión acerca de las consecuencias de la pérdida de hábitat causadas por impactos no-pesqueros (ej., erosión/sedimentación) y comunicar y colaborar con las agencias responsables por el manejo de esas actividades. • Apoyar los esfuerzos de mapeo del SEFSC y colaborar con socios en la ciencia para identificar las necesidades de mapeo de hábitats en Puerto Rico. • Trabajar con los socios de manejo para establecer metas claras para las revisiones de los HEP que se realizan cada 5 años. • Asegurar que las designaciones de HEP tomen en cuenta los roles/relaciones ecológicas de las especies • Apoyar proyectos que rehabiliten los hábitats costeros para compensar la pérdida o el daño de hábitat. • Colaborar con científicos y pescadores para evaluar los impactos de ciertos artes de pesca en los hábitats pesqueros. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Desarrollar, en el Consejo, políticas sobre los hábitats que atiendan los impactos a los HEP producidos por el desarrollo costero, la erosión/sedimentación y otras formas de contaminación que impactan los hábitats de STT/STJ. • Desarrollar materiales de extensión acerca de los efectos de la pérdida de hábitat causados por los impactos de actividades no pesqueras. • Trabajar junto a los socios de manejo en el establecimiento de metas claras para las revisiones de los HEP que se realizan cada 5 años. • Asegurar que las designaciones de HEP tomen en cuenta los roles y las relaciones ecológicas de las especies. • Utilizar la autoridad del comentar del Consejo para atender proyectos federalmente permitidos que pueden impactar hábitats ecológicamente sensitivos. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Desarrollar políticas de hábitats en el Consejo que atiendan los efectos del desarrollo costero, de la erosión/sedimentación y de otras formas de contaminación sobre los HEP que impactan los hábitats de Santa Cruz. • Apoyar modificaciones a las regulaciones sobre la zona territorial costera que reduzcan la erosión y la sedimentación. • Trabajar con los socios en el manejo para establecer metas claras para la revisión de los HEP que se realiza cada 5 años. • Asegurar que las designaciones de HEP tomen en cuenta los roles/relaciones ecológicas de las especies.

Pagina 13

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) • • • • •

Utilizar la autoridad que tiene el Consejo para comentar sobre HEP a fines de atender proyectos permitidos federalmente que pueden impactar hábitats ecológicamente sensitivos. Asegurar que los hábitats para juveniles están suficientemente protegidos. Promover la revisión regular de las áreas marinas manejadas (ej. Parque Marino del East End). Promover un plan de infraestructura de navegación. Promover amarres de un solo punto tanto en la costa como alta mar para proteger los HEP.

Objetivo 8: Colaborar con socios en el manejo para atender los asuntos de ejecución que puedan afectar las relaciones ecológicas. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Llevar a cabo esfuerzos de extensión con el personal de ejecución de NOAA OLE y DRNA sobre los impactos de las actividades de pesca ilegal sobre los recursos/hábitats pesqueros. • Llevar a cabo esfuerzos de extensión en las agencias de Puerto Rico acerca de los impactos del desarrollo no-pesquero sobre la estructura y función del ecosistema. • Realizar esfuerzos de extensión con la comunidad pesquera para comunicar los impactos de la pesca ilegal sobre la salud del recurso. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Llevar a cabo extensión junto al personal de ejecución de NOAA OLE y USVI-DPNR acerca de los impactos de las actividades de pesca ilegales sobre los recursos/hábitats pesqueros. • Realizar actividades de extensión para las agencias que otorgan permisos acerca de los efectos y el desarrollo de los impactos de actividades no pesqueras sobre la estructura/función del ecosistema. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Realizar actividades de extensión con el personal de ejecución de NOAA OLE y DPNR acerca de los impactos ecológicos de actividades pesqueras ilegales. • Realizar actividades de extensión con las agencias que otorgan permisos acerca de los impactos potenciales de las actividades no pesquero y desarrollo en la estructura y función del ecosistema. • Realizar esfuerzos de extensión con la comunidad de pesquera para comunicar los impactos de la pesca ilegal sobre la salud del recurso.

OBJECTIVOS DE PUERTO RICO Objetivo 9: Colaborar con los socios de manejo para atender los impactos de los desastres naturales (ej., los huracanes, los terremotos, floraciones de Sargazo) en la estructura y función del ecosistema. • Determinar la necesidad de datos para evaluar los impactos de los desastres naturales en las especies y en los hábitats. • Incorporar los efectos de los desastres naturales en el desarrollo de los Informes sobre el Estado de los Ecosistemas. • Evaluar la flexibilidad de los enfoques de manejo existentes para responder a los impactos sobre el ecosistema local causados por los huracanes y los terremotos.

Pagina 14

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) •

Establecer un proceso para recopilar las observaciones de los pescadores sobre los impactos locales de los desastres naturales.

OBJETIVOS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN Objetivo 10: Promover esfuerzos para crear y rehabilitar los hábitats del recurso pesquero que apoyan la estructura y la función del ecosistema. • Trabajar con los colaboradores de manejo federal y territorial y con las partes interesadas para identificar oportunidades para el mejoramiento del hábitat. • Explorar oportunidades de fondos del Servicio Federal de Pesca y Vida Silvestre (USFWS), del Programa de Remoción de Desechos Marinos de NOAA y de otras agencias federales para usar ciertos tipos de desechos en la creación de hábitat. • Identificar necesidades de restauración de hábitat para los programas de subvención de la Oficina para la Conservación del Hábitat de NOAA. Objetivo 11: Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia para identificar y atender los vacíos de datos e información ecológica. • Explorar los conjuntos de datos existentes para llenar los vacíos de información. • Comunicar las necesidades de información sobre el ecosistema de STT/STJ a los socios académicos. • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia para priorizar las necesidades de datos ecológicos, consistentemente con el Plan de Implementación Regional de Manejo de Pesquero Basada en el Ecosistema (MPBE) para el Caribe.

OBJETIVOS DE SANTA CRUZ Objetivo 12: Promover esfuerzos para rehabilitar y/o crear hábitats para el recurso pesquero que apoyen la estructura y la función del ecosistema. • Trabajar con los socios en el manejo a nivel federal y territorial y con otros para identificar oportunidades dirigidas a mejorar y restaurar el hábitat. • Explorar oportunidades que atiendan los impactos de las especies invasivas de los hábitats pesqueros de Santa Cruz. • Investigar el potencial de los dispositivos de agregación de peces (FAD, en inglés) para mitigar la pérdida de hábitat y colocar FAD donde sea apropiado. • Identificar necesidades de restauración de hábitat para los programas de subvención de la Oficina de Conservación de Hábitat de NOAA. Objetivo 13: Colaborar con los socios en el manejo para asegurar que los enfoques ecosistémicos responden a los cambios climáticos y ambientales. • Evaluar la flexibilidad de los enfoques de manejo actuales ante los impactos del cambio climático. • Trabajar con la comunidad más amplia del Caribe para identificar impactos potenciales que puede tener el cambio climático en las distribuciones de los hábitats y las especies.

Pagina 15

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

ASUNTOS SOCIALES, CULTURALES Y ECONÓMICOS Meta: Asegurar que las decisiones de manejo consideren las características únicas y las necesidades de las comunidades pesqueras isleñas mientras se promueve el uso justo y equitativo del recurso. OBJETIVOS DE TODOS LOS DISTRITOS Objetivo 14: Promover la recopilación y la diseminación de datos sociales y económicos que informen las decisiones de manejo. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Involucrar socios en la ciencia, pescadores, consumidores, vendedores al por mayor/distribuidores y el SSC para identificar y priorizar los vacíos de datos sociales y económicos y las prioridades de investigación para PR. • Trabajar con Sea Grant para asegurar que las prioridades de investigación social/económica sean incorporadas dentro de las oportunidades de subvención. • Usar los resultados de los estudios existentes/completados (ej. Avalúos sobre el Huracán María y el COVID-19, proyecto MARFIN) para informar decisiones futuras. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Involucrar a los socios en la ciencia y al Comité Científico y Estadístico (SSC, en inglés) en la identificación y la priorización de los vacíos da datos sociales y económicos y las prioridades de investigación para San Tomás/San John. • Trabajar con Sea Grant para asegurar la incorporación de las prioridades de investigación social/económica en las oportunidades de financiamiento. • Identificar y usar resultados de estudios existentes/completados sobre impacto socioeconómico (ej. huracanes Irma/María, avalúos del COVID). ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Involucrar a socios en la ciencia (SEFSC, investigadores académicos, Sea Grant, etc.) y al SSC para identificar y priorizar los vacíos de datos sociales y económicos y las prioridades de investigación para Santa Cruz. • Trabajar con Sea Grant para asegurar que las prioridades de investigación social/económica son incorporadas en las oportunidades de subvención. • Identificar y usar resultados de estudios existentes y completados (ej. Huracanes Irma/María, avalúos sobre el COVID). • Asegurar que los estudios científicos sociales y económicos nuevos o existentes colaboren y coordinen con USVI DPNR.

Pagina 16

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) Objetivo 15: Evaluar los impactos sociales, culturales y económicos de las decisiones/acciones de manejo a través de los grupos de usuarios. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Revisar y documentar los impactos sociales y económicos de las vedas de temporada y por áreas de agregación de desove existentes en PR sobre las parte interesadas de los sectores comercial, recreacional y de alquiler. • Asegurar que las medidas de manejo atienden las diferencias culturales a través de las comunidades pesqueras de PR. • Utilizar las herramientas en línea y redes sociales para incorporar las observaciones/experiencias de los pescadores y otras partes interesadas. • Evaluar las oportunidades de la pesca recreacional y la satisfacción a través de las comunidades de Puerto Rico. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Revisar y documentar los impactos sociales y económicos de las vedas por temporada y por áreas de desove ya existentes sobre las partes interesadas en el sector comercial, de alquiler y recreacional (ej., Grammanik Bank). • Asegurar que las medidas de manejo reconozcan y atiendan las diferencias a través de las comunidades pesqueras de San Tomás y San John. ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Revisar y documentar los impactos sociales y económicos de las vedes y los cierres de áreas de desove en Santa Cruz sobre las partes interesadas en el sector comercial, de alquiler y recreacional (ej., Lang Bank). • Asegurar que los enfoques de manejo proveen acceso equitativo a los usuarios comerciales y recreacionales del recurso. • Trabajar con las partes interesadas para identificar y atender los conflictos de uso comercial y recreacional. • Valorar los impactos sociales y económicos del Monumento Nacional de Arrecife de Buck Island.

Objetivo 16: Promover esfuerzos que apoyen la estabilidad y las oportunidades sociales y económicas a través de los sectores y las comunidades de pescadores. ESTRATEGIAS DE PUERTO RICO • Apoyar los esfuerzos comunitarios para mejorar la infraestructura pesquera a través de Puerto Rico. • Apoyar y promover el desarrollo de un programa de reclutamiento y capacitación para pescadores jóvenes que fomente la entrada legal a la pesquería. • Considerar los enfoques de manejo que atienden las oportunidades y la satisfacción de la pesca recreacional. ESTRATEGIAS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN • Apoyar esfuerzos comunitarios para mejorar la infraestructura pesquera a través de San Tomás y San John, incluyendo lugares de desembarco y venta. Pagina 17

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) • •

Desarrollar materiales de educación/extensión para apoyar el uso de las redes sociales y de otros enfoques virtuales para mercadear las especies capturadas localmente. Considerar enfoques de manejo que atiendan la oportunidad y la satisfacción de la pesca recreativa.

ESTRATEGIAS DE SANTA CRUZ • Apoyar esfuerzos comunitarios para mejorar la infraestructura pesquera a través de Santa Cruz, incluyendo lugares de desembarco y venta. • Desarrollar materiales de educación/extensión para apoyar el uso de las redes sociales y de otros enfoques virtuales para mercadear las especies capturadas localmente. • Considerar enfoques de manejo que atiendan la oportunidad y la satisfacción de la pesca recreativa.

OBJETIVOS DE PUERTO RICO Objetivo 17: Considerar los impactos de la ejecución y la pesca ilegal en Puerto Rico sobre las oportunidades económicas y el bienestar social. • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia para documentar el impacto económico de las ventas ilegales y sin licencia de pescado en Puerto Rico. • Trabajar con los socios en el manejo para determinar dónde la ejecución adicional puede mejorar las condiciones económicas y/o la confianza entre los grupos de usuarios.

OBJETIVOS DE SAN TOMÁS/SAN JOHN Objetivo 18: Considerar los impactos de la ejecución y de la pesca ilegal en la oportunidad económica y el bienestar social. • Colaborar con socios en la ciencia para documentar el impacto económico de la ventas ilegales y no autorizadas de pescado San Tomás/San John. • Trabajar con los socios de manejo para determinar dónde una mayor ejecución puede mejorar las condiciones económicas y/o la confianza entre los grupos de usuarios.

OBJETIVOS DE SANTA CRUZ Objetivo 41: Considerar los impactos de la no-regulación, la ejecución y la pesca ilegal sobre las oportunidades económicas y el bienestar social. • Colaborar con los socios en la ciencia para documentar el impacto económico de las ventas de pescado ilegales y sin licencia en Santa Cruz. • Trabajar con los socios en el manejo para determinar dónde la ejecución adicional puede mejorar las condiciones económicas y/o la confianza entre los grupos de usuarios comerciales y recreacionales. • Educar a los dueños de restaurantes y hoteles sobre la importancia de comprar pesca de los pescadores con licencia.

Pagina 18

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026)

COMUNICACIÓN Y EXTENSIÓN Meta: Involucrar, educar e informar a una variedad de audiencias para mejorar el entendimiento público y la participación en el proceso del Consejo.

Objetivo 42: En coordinación con el OEAP, utilizar una variedad de herramientas de comunicación que consideren las características sociales, culturales y económicas de las audiencias meta. • Continuar utilizando las plataformas de redes sociales del Consejo y explorar las tecnologías en línea y las aplicaciones (WhatsApp, plantillas para correo electrónico) para transmitir la información y las actualizaciones. • Desarrollar un catálogo de comunidades, mercados, negocios e individuos con preferencias y necesidad de medios de comunicación tradicionales. • Mantener el contenido y la organización de la página electrónica del Consejo para mejorar su utilidad para una variedad de usuarios. • Asegurar que los materiales de comunicación y extensión tomen en cuenta las preferencias de idioma de las partes interesadas. • Coordinar con los socios de manejo, las organizaciones de pesca comercial y recreacional, las organizaciones no gubernamentales y los negocios costeros para expandir el alcance de las comunicaciones del Consejo a través de audiencias nuevas y existentes. • Considerar materiales de comunicación específicos para un sector y “amigables para los botes”. Objetivo 43: Promover la participación de una variedad de partes interesadas en el proceso del Consejo. • Incrementar la frecuencia de las comunicaciones del Consejo con anticipación sobre las reuniones y eventos del Consejo. • Usar una variedad de herramientas tradicionales, en línea y redes sociales para anunciar y recordar a las partes interesadas las reuniones y eventos del Consejo. • Expandir el uso de los seminarios web y las líneas de conferencia para promover oportunidades de acceso remoto, participación y educación. • Asegurar que las reuniones y los eventos están agendados para promover la máxima participación. • Considerar el desarrollo de formularios para cometarios sobre un asunto específico a fines de expandir las oportunidades para recibir el insumo público. • Realizar talleres sobre un asunto específico para promover el desarrollo colaborativo de enfoques de manejo. • Desarrollar un boletín o un resumen para resaltar los logros de las reuniones del Consejo y las acciones anticipadas. • Ampliar y mejorar la participación de los pescadores experimentados y jóvenes en el proceso del Consejo mediante el desarrollo y el apoyo de programas de extensión en las USVI. • Atraer otras partes interesadas, además de los pescadores, al proceso del Consejo para mejorar la toma de decisiones en beneficio de los recursos pesqueros.

Pagina 19

Consejo de Administración Pesqueros del Caribe • BORRADOR del Plan Estratégico (2022-2026) Objetivo 44: Mejorar el entendimiento y la concienciación del público y las partes interesadas sobre el manejo de las pesquerías, los asuntos actuales y el proceso del Consejo. • Ampliar los esfuerzos de extensión existentes a partes interesadas no-tradicionales (restaurantes, propietarios de colmados y agricultores, etc.). • Continuar apoyando los talleres del Programa de Educación sobre el Recurso Marino (MREP, en inglés) a través del Caribe Estadounidense. • Desarrollar enfoques de extensión y materiales específicos para pescadores recreacionales y comerciales que sean específicos para cada isla (Puerto Rico, San Tomás/San John, Santa Cruz). • Ampliar el rol de los enlaces de pesquerías para mejorar tanto el entendimiento del público como el de los pescadores acerca de asuntos pesqueros y el proceso del Consejo. • Coordinar con los socios en el manejo y en la ciencia para mejorar la claridad y la simplicidad de las presentaciones a fines de mejorar el entendimiento público. • Asociarse con otras organizaciones de extensión (ej. PEPCO, Sea Grant) y agencias federales (USCG, NPS, etc.) y con organizaciones de pesca comercial y recreativa, buceo y navegación para desarrollar y distribuir materiales educativos a las pescadores, a otros usuarios del recurso marino (ej. buzos) y al público general. • Llevar a cabo esfuerzos de extensión y talleres en persona y/o virtual para mejorar la participación de los pescadores y del público en el proceso del Consejo. • Explorar colaboraciones con organizaciones para recoger el conocimiento ecológico tradicional de las comunidades pesqueras del Caribe Estadounidense. • Crear un programa de orientación para informar a la comunidad pesquera sobre los roles de los diferentes socios en el manejo. • Desarrollar un mecanismo para coordinar el desarrollo de los esfuerzos de extensión del Consejo y los territoriales para asegurar mensajes consistentes sobre asuntos de pesca y otros temas según sea necesario. • Apoyar la expansión del Programa de Asesoría Marina Sea Grant en el USVI.

Pagina 20

CARIBBEAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Draft 2022-2026 Strategic Plan December 2021

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 PLAN ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................................................................... 5 VISION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 MISSION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 CORE VALUES ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 GOAL STATEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 MANAGEMENT ..............................................................................................................................................................................6 ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH .................................................................................................................................................6 SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES .........................................................................................................................................6 COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH ...................................................................................................................................................6 MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH ...........................................................................................................................11 SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES ..................................................................................................................15 COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH .............................................................................................................................18

Page 2

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

ACRONYMS CFMC CRFM DAP DPNR DRNA EBFM EEZ EFH FAD FEP IBFMP MREP MSA NOAA NPS OEAP OLE PEPCO SEFSC SSC USCG USFWS USVI WECAFC

Caribbean Fishery Management Council Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism District Advisory Panel Department of Planning and Natural Resources (U.S. Virgin Islands) Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (Puerto Rico) Ecosystem Based Fishery Management Exclusive Economic Zone Essential Fish Habitat Fish Aggregating Device Fishery Ecosystem Plan Island-Based Fishery Management Plan Marine Resource Education Program Magnuson Stevens Act National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Park Service Outreach and Education Advisory Panel Office of Law Enforcement Programa de Educación para Pescadores Comerciales (Educational Program for Commercial Fishers) Southeast Fisheries Science Center Scientific and Statistical Committee U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Virgin Islands Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission

Page 3

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

INTRODUCTION The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Caribbean Council, or CFMC) is responsible for the conservation and management of fishery resources within the federal jurisdiction of the U.S. Caribbean, which includes Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Caribbean Council is one of eight regional councils established in 1976 by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, later renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). In addition to the councils, the MSA also created the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), an area that extends from the seaward boundary of coastal states and territories out to 200 nautical miles. The MSA established sovereign authority over most fishery resources in the EEZ, a responsibility that is shared between the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and the regional councils. The Caribbean Council recommends management measures for fishery resources within its jurisdiction through the development of fishery management plans, which must be reviewed and approved by the Secretary of Commerce before being implemented by NOAA Fisheries. All Council recommendations are developed in an open, public process and must be consistent with the ten national standards contained in the MSA. The Caribbean Council is comprised of seven voting members. This includes four public voting members appointed by the Secretary with knowledge of commercial fishing, recreational fishing, or conservation of marine resources of the U.S. Caribbean. The remaining three voting members include the principal officials with marine fishery management responsibility for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (or their designees), and the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Administrator. The Council also has three non-voting members representing the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Secretary of State. Development of measures to maintain healthy fishery resources that meet the needs of fishers and the general public is an inclusive process. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviews biological, statistical, social, and economic information and provides expert technical advice to ensure that Council decisions are based the best scientific information available. Additionally, the Council has advisory panels to assist it in establishing fishery management goals and objectives, as well as outreach and education approaches, and to provide input on cultural values and economic needs of island fishing communities. Each advisory panel contains a balanced representation of fishery and stakeholder interests and serves an important communication role for those affected by the Council’s decisions. The Caribbean Council recently evaluated its management framework and is transitioning from a species-specific approach to one that is focused on the unique characteristics of the fishery resources and fishing communities of each of its three island districts (Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St.John, St. Croix). This new framework is detailed in the Council’s recently approved Island-Based Fishery Management Plans (IBFMPs). Additionally, the Council is developing a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) that will guide implementation of its new management framework using an ecosystem-based approach. This strategic plan establishes goals and objectives for these critically important efforts and serves as a roadmap for future activities that will promote effective implementation, as well as transparency and accountability for the Council’s stakeholders.

Page 4

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

PLAN ORGANIZATION The organization of the strategic plan reflects both the collective goals and distinctive needs of the three island districts that comprise the Council’s jurisdiction. The Vision, Mission, and Core Values incorporate a common future, purpose, and approach. The Goal Statements reflect broad areas of focus necessary to achieve the Council’s Vision while accommodating the differing priorities of each island district. All were developed with extensive Council, advisory panel, and stakeholder input. For three of the goals (Management; Ecosystem and Resource Health; Social, Cultural, and Economic Issues), island-specific objectives and strategies were developed to address the characteristics and needs of each district. Several objectives evolved to be identical across island districts, indicating overlapping priorities. In such instances, objectives have been consolidated so that only the island-specific strategies are represented. The Council also determined that the Communication and Outreach goal encompasses one of its most important responsibilities and concluded the objectives and strategies were relevant throughout its jurisdiction, and not specific to one island or district.

Page 5

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

VISION Thriving and resilient island ecosystems, fisheries, and fishing communities that provide cultural, social, and economic benefits for all.

MISSION The Caribbean Fishery Management Council conserves, restores and manages fishery resources in the U.S. Caribbean consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Act. The Council is committed to advancing the collaborative stewardship of these fisheries and supporting island ecosystems through education, outreach, and stakeholder input.

CORE VALUES The following core values guide all Council decisions: • • • • • •

Stewardship Collaboration Integrity Transparency Fairness Respect

GOAL STATEMENTS MANAGEMENT Advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners.

ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources.

SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use.

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process.

Page 6

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

MANAGEMENT Goal: Advance management approaches that promote healthy local fisheries and ecosystems, consider the needs of island fishing communities, and foster collaboration among management partners. CROSS-DISTRICT OBJECTIVES Objective 1: Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and cost-effective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Improve fishery-independent data through partnerships. • Prioritize data collection for species subject to seasonal and area closures. • Expand education and outreach on commercial electronic reporting technology. • Continue participation in re-initiation of the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) in Puerto Rico. • Support Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) and Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (DRNA) improvements to commercial sampling. • Support the SEFSC fishery-independent deep-water snapper-grouper survey. • Support local government efforts to increase port sampling and port agents. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Support NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) efforts to improve recreational reporting and establish an MRIP survey in St. Thomas/St. John. • Support SEFSC efforts to work with DPNR to design and implement a multi-mode catch sampling program. • Prioritize data collection for species subject to seasonal and area closures. • Support USVI DPNR efforts to examine licensing modifications and improvements. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Support NOAA Fisheries and USVI DPNR efforts to improve recreational reporting, port sampling, and review previous pilot efforts to establish an MRIP-certified survey in St. Croix as per the MRIP regional implementation plan. • Support efforts by USVI DPNR to review and modify licensing requirements to improve catch reporting. • Support SEFSC efforts to work with USVI DPNR to design and implement a multi-mode catch sampling program. • Collaborate with USVI DPNR on education and outreach regarding accurate catch reporting. • Prioritize data collection for species subject to seasonal and area closures. • Support USVI DPNR efforts to modernize and improve the licensing system.

Page 7

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 2: Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Develop and prioritize a list of Puerto Rico-specific research needs. • Work with science and research partners and with fishers to prioritize stock assessments for species subject to seasonal and area closures. • Collaborate with Sea Grant to ensure Puerto Rico-specific research needs are included in grant opportunities. • Incorporate fisher observations into stock assessments. • Develop a list of Puerto Rico science and data needs that could be addressed using commercial and recreational fisher involvement. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Collaborate with science partners and fishers to develop and prioritize a St. Thomas/St. John-specific list of research needs. • Prioritize and involve fishers in urgently needed stock assessments for species subject to seasonal and area closures. • Encourage collaborative studies on the effectiveness of Grammanik Bank and other closed areas. • Work with the SEFSC to identify key species for which fishers could assist in obtaining biological samples. • Support joint SEFSC, USVI DPNR, and National Park Service (NPS) efforts to improve information for datalimited stock assessments (e.g., gear selectivity studies in St. Thomas/St. John etc.). • Develop educational materials to promote fisher understanding of science and information needs. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Support joint SEFSC, USVI DPNR, and NPS gear selectivity studies in St. Croix. • Identify opportunities for fishers to contribute to biological samples for parrotfish and other species. • Support research by academic science partners to improve data-limited species assessments. • Collaborate with science partners and fishers to develop and prioritize a St. Croix-specific list of research needs. • Ensure that closed areas are correctly marked by buoys (e.g., Buck Island). • Develop educational materials to promote fisher understanding of science and information needs.

Objective 3: Ensure that management measures encourage regulatory compliance and foster effective enforcement. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Review enforceability of existing Puerto Rico management measures. • Work with Puerto Rico DRNA to foster regulatory consistency. • Work with Puerto Rico DRNA, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and local marine enforcement agencies to support cross-training of personnel.

Page 8

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan •

Collaborate with management partners to develop commercial and recreational compliance guides for Puerto Rico.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Coordinate with NOAA OLE, USVI DPNR and USCG to review enforceability of existing regulations. • Support cross-training of enforcement personnel and joint enforcement efforts through memoranda of understanding. • Identify enforcement gaps in existing St. Thomas/St. John regulations. • Promote development of clear, understandable compliance guides for commercial and recreational stakeholders. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Coordinate with NOAA OLE, USVI DPNR, and the USCG to review consistency of existing regulations for federally managed species. • Support cross-training of enforcement personnel. • Identify enforcement gaps for existing St. Croix regulations. • Review regulations for effectiveness and/or redundancy. • Develop clear, understandable compliance guides for commercial and recreational fishers and other stakeholders. • Ensure that educational materials are available for decision-makers (e.g., legislators) as needed.

Objective 4: Collaborate with domestic and international partners to promote adaptive and efficient management that considers diverse community interests. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Regularly review effectiveness of existing management measures (e.g., spawning areas and closures). • Work with partners to develop clearly stated objectives for management actions. • Address impacts of bycatch on ecosystem relationships. • Participate in Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) queen conch workgroup. • Evaluate new and existing management measures for consistency with local ecosystem productivity using Ecosystem Status Reports. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Review and evaluate the effectiveness of existing seasonal and area closures as soon as possible. • Reduce bycatch and waste through gear modifications and seasonal restrictions. • Collaborate with USVI DPNR to develop consistent management measures where appropriate. • Ensure management measures accommodate St. Thomas/St. John local ecosystem productivity. • Participate in international forums such as WECAFC and the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) efforts to improve understanding and management of Caribbean-wide resources.

Page 9

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Work with NOAA Fisheries and USVI DPNR to reduce bycatch through gear and seasonal modifications. • Work with USVI DPNR and NOAA OLE to develop consistent regulations where appropriate. • Ensure management measures accommodate St. Croix local ecosystem productivity. • Involve both the St. Croix District Advisory Panel (DAP) and Fisheries Advisory Committee (FAC) in review and development of management measures to evaluate commercial and recreational community impacts. • Ensure that management measures consider and/or address the potential impacts of climate change. • Ensure that management approaches consider the impacts of invasive species. • Explore underutilized species as a means to reduce pressure on currently fully utilized species. • Support the development of interagency coordination for permitting of Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) deployment.

Objective 5: Consider the potential impacts of climate change on the efficacy of management measures. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Use Puerto Rico Ecosystem Status Reports to inform development of management measures. • Evaluate fishery-independent information for climate-related impacts and trends. • Solicit fisher input regarding climate-related changes in species and habitats. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Use USVI (St. Thomas/St. John) Ecosystem Status Reports to inform development of management measures. • Evaluate fishery-independent information for climate-related impacts and trends. • Solicit fisher input regarding climate-related changes in species and habitats. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Use USVI (St. Croix) Ecosystem Status Reports to inform development of management measures. • Evaluate fishery-independent information for climate-related impacts and trends. • Solicit fisher input regarding climate-related changes in species and habitats

Page 10

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

ECOSYSTEM AND RESOURCE HEALTH Goal: Promote sustainable utilization of local marine resources in a manner that maintains local ecological structure and function and provides for resilient fishery resources. CROSS-DISTRICT OBJECTIVES Objective 6: Implement the Fishery Ecosystem Plan as a roadmap for future Council actions to maintain the ecological relationships, roles, and services of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix island ecosystems. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Evaluate existing spawning season closures and closed areas (e.g., Bajo de Sico, Tourmaline Bank, Abrir la Sierra) to determine contributions to ecosystem integrity. • Establish a schedule to regularly evaluate and monitor closed seasons and areas. • Collaborate with science partners and stakeholders to improve local ecosystem information. • Establish a process to incorporate ecosystem information and approaches into management measures specific to Puerto Rico. • Identify enforcement concerns that may impact ecological relationships. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Collaborate with science partners and stakeholders to identify gaps and improve local biological and ecosystem information for St. Thomas/St. John. • Evaluate existing spawning season closures and closed areas (e.g., Grammanik Bank, Hind Bank) to determine contributions to ecosystem integrity. • Establish a process to incorporate ecosystem information and approaches into management measures for St. Thomas/St. John. • Consider ecosystem approaches that are responsive to climate change. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Collaborate with science partners and stakeholders (e.g., other nongovernmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy, Caribbean Oceanic Restoration & Education Foundation, commercial/recreational fishers) to identify gaps and prioritize ecological data needs to improve local biological and ecosystem information for St. Croix. • Evaluate existing spawning season closures and closed areas (e.g., mutton snapper, Lang Bank) to determine contributions to ecosystem integrity. • Establish a process to incorporate ecosystem information and approaches into management measures for St. Croix. • Ensure that ecosystem-based management approaches are responsive to climate change. • Explore use of underutilized and underdeveloped species and resources to reduce pressure and maintain ecological relationships.

Page 11

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 7: Identify, manage, and protect coral reef and other fishery resource habitats of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Develop Council habitat policies that address impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) from coastal development, erosion and sedimentation, and other forms of pollution. • Develop outreach materials on the impacts of habitat loss from non-fishing activities (e.g., erosion/sedimentation) and communicate and collaborate with agencies responsible for managing these activities. • Support SEFSC mapping efforts and collaborate with science partners to identify Puerto Rico habitat mapping needs. • Work with management partners to establish clear goals for five-year EFH reviews. • Ensure that EFH designations account for ecological roles and relationships of species. • Support projects that rehabilitate fishery habitats to offset habitat loss or damage. • Collaborate with scientists and fishers to assess the impact of certain fishing gears on fishery habitats. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Develop Council habitat policies that address impacts to EFH from coastal development, erosion/sedimentation, and other forms of pollution that impact St. Thomas/St. John habitats • Develop outreach materials on impacts of habitat loss from non-fishing impacts. • Work with management partners to establish clear goals for 5-year EFH reviews. • Ensure that EFH designations account for ecological roles and relationships of species. • Utilize the Council's EFH comment authority to address federally permitted projects that may impact ecologically sensitive habitats. ST. CROIX • Develop Council habitat policies that address impacts to EFH from coastal development, erosion and sedimentation, and other forms of pollution that impact St. Croix habitats. • Support modifications to territorial coastal zone regulations that reduce sedimentation and erosion. • Work with management partners to establish clear goals for five-year EFH reviews. • Ensure that EFH designations account for ecological roles and relationships of species. • Use the Council's EFH comment authority to address federally permitted projects that may impact ecologically sensitive habitats. • Ensure that juvenile habitats are sufficiently protected. • Promote the regular review of marine managed areas (e.g., East End Marine Park). • Promote a boating infrastructure plan. • Promote single point moorings both inshore and offshore to protect EFH.

Page 12

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 8: Collaborate with management partners to address enforcement concerns that may affect ecological relationships. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Conduct outreach with NOAA OLE and Puerto Rico DRNA enforcement personnel regarding impacts of illegal fishing activities on fishery resources and habitats. • Conduct outreach to Puerto Rico agencies on the impacts of non-fishing activities and development on ecosystem structure and function. • Conduct outreach with the fishing community to communicate the impacts of illegal fishing on the health of the resource. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Conduct outreach with NOAA OLE and USVI DPNR enforcement personnel regarding impacts of illegal fishing activities on fishery resources and habitats. • Conduct outreach to permitting agencies on impacts of non-fishing activities and development on ecosystem structure and function. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Conduct outreach with NOAA OLE and USVI DPNR enforcement personnel regarding ecological impacts of illegal fishing activities. • Conduct outreach to permitting agencies on potential impacts of non-fishing activities and development on ecosystem structure and function. • Conduct outreach with the fishing community to communicate the impacts of illegal fishing on the health of the resource.

PUERTO RICO OBJECTIVES Objective 9: Collaborate with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, Sargassum blooms) on ecosystem structure and function. • Determine data needed to evaluate impacts of natural disasters on species and habitats. • Incorporate effects of natural disasters into the development of Ecosystem Status Reports. • Evaluate the flexibility of existing management approaches to respond to local ecosystem impacts from hurricanes and earthquakes. • Establish a process to collect fisher observations on local impacts of natural disasters.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN OBJECTIVES Objective 10: Encourage efforts to create and rehabilitate fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function. • Work with federal and territorial management partners and stakeholders to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement. • Explore opportunities for funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA's Marine Debris Removal Program, and other federal agencies to use certain types of marine debris for habitat creation. • Identify habitat restoration needs for NOAA's Office of Habitat Conservation grant programs.

Page 13

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan Objective 11: Collaborate with science partners to identify and address ecological data and information gaps. • Explore existing datasets to fill information gaps. • Communicate St. Thomas/St. John ecosystem information needs to academic partners. • Collaborate with science partners to prioritize ecological data needs, consistent with NOAA's Caribbean Regional Ecosystem Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Implementation Plan.

ST. CROIX OBJECTIVES Objective 12: Encourage efforts to rehabilitate and/or create fishery resource habitats that support ecosystem structure and function. • Work with federal and territorial management partners and others to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement and restoration. • Explore opportunities to address the impacts of invasive species on St. Croix fishery habitats. • Investigate the potential of FADs to mitigate habitat losses and deploy FADs where appropriate. • Identify habitat restoration needs for NOAA's Office of Habitat Conservation grant programs. Objective 13: Collaborate with management partners to ensure that ecosystem approaches are responsive to climate change, environmental changes, and natural disasters. • Evaluate flexibility of current management approaches to climate change impacts. • Work with the broader Caribbean community to identify potential impacts to habitats and species distributions from climate change.

Page 14

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES Goal: Ensure that management decisions consider the unique characteristics and needs of island fishing communities while promoting fair and equitable resource use. CROSS-DISTRICT OBJECTIVES Objective 14: Promote the collection and dissemination of social and economic data that informs management decisions. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Engage science partners, fishers, consumers, wholesalers/distributors, and the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to identify and prioritize social and economic data gaps and research priorities for Puerto Rico. • Work with Sea Grant to ensure social and economic research priorities are incorporated into funding opportunities. • Use results from existing and completed studies (e.g., Hurricane Maria & COVD-19 assessments, Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN) project) to inform future decisions. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Engage science partners and the SSC to identify and prioritize social and economic data gaps and research priorities for St. Thomas/St. John. • Work with Sea Grant to ensure social and economic research priorities are incorporated into funding opportunities. • Identify and use results from existing and completed socioeconomic impact studies (e.g., Hurricanes Irma/Maria, COVID assessments). ST. CROIX • Engage science partners (SEFSC, academic researchers, Sea Grant, etc.) and the SSC to identify and prioritize social and economic data gaps and research priorities for St. Croix. • Work with Sea Grant to ensure social and economic research priorities are incorporated into funding opportunities. • Identify and use results from existing and completed studies (e.g., Hurricanes Irma/Maria, COVID assessments). • Ensure that new or existing social and economic science studies collaborate and coordinate with USVI DPNR.

Objective 15: Evaluate the social, cultural, and economic impacts of management decisions and actions across user groups. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Review and document the social and economic impacts of existing Puerto Rico closed seasons and spawning areas on commercial, for-hire, and recreational stakeholders. Page 15

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • • • •

Ensure that management measures address cultural differences across Puerto Rico's fishing communities. Use online tools and social media to incorporate fisher and other stakeholder observations and experiences. Assess recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction across Puerto Rico communities. Consider the contributions of fishers with respect to stewardship of the resource and ecosystem in the development and evaluation of management decisions.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Review and document the social and economic impacts of existing St. Thomas/St. John closed seasons and spawning areas on commercial, for-hire, and recreational stakeholders (e.g., Grammanik Bank). • Ensure that management measures acknowledge and address differences across the fishing communities of St. Thomas/St. John. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Review and document the social and economic impacts of existing St. Croix closed seasons and spawning areas on commercial, for-hire, and recreational stakeholders (e.g., Lang Bank). • Ensure that management approaches provide equitable access for commercial and recreational resource users. • Work with stakeholders to Identify and address commercial and recreational user conflicts. • Assess the social and economic impacts of the Buck Island Reef National Monument expansion on recreational and commercial fishers.

Objective 16: Promote efforts that support social and economic opportunity and stability across sectors and fishing communities. PUERTO RICO STRATEGIES • Support community efforts to improve fishing infrastructure across Puerto Rico. • Support and promote development of a recruitment and training program for young fishers that encourages legal entry into the fishery. • Consider management approaches that address recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction. ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN STRATEGIES • Support community efforts to improve fishing infrastructure across STT and STJ, including landing and market sites. • Develop education and outreach materials to support the use of social media and other virtual approaches to marketing locally caught species. • Consider management approaches that address recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction. ST. CROIX STRATEGIES • Support community efforts to improve fishing infrastructure across St. Croix, including landing and market sites.

Page 16

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • •

Develop education and outreach materials to support the use of social media and other virtual approaches to marketing locally caught species. Consider management approaches that address recreational fishing opportunity and satisfaction.

PUERTO RICO OBJECTIVES Objective 17: Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in Puerto Rico on economic opportunity and social well-being. • Collaborate with science partners to document the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed sales of fish in Puerto Rico. • Work with management partners to determine where additional enforcement could improve economic conditions and/or trust among user groups.

ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN OBJECTIVES Objective 18: Consider the impacts of enforcement and illegal fishing in St. Thomas and St. John on economic opportunity and social well-being. • Collaborate with science partners to document the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed sales of fish in St. Thomas/St. John. • Work with management partners to determine where additional enforcement could improve economic conditions and/or trust among user groups.

ST. CROIX OBJECTIVES Objective 19: Consider the impacts of non-regulation, enforcement, and illegal fishing in St. Croix on economic opportunity and social well-being. • Collaborate with science partners to document the economic impact of illegal and unlicensed sales of fish in St. Croix. • Work with management partners to determine where additional enforcement could improve economic conditions and/or trust among commercial and recreational user groups. • Educate hoteliers and restauranteurs on the importance of purchasing fish from licensed commercial fishers.

Page 17

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH Goal: Engage, educate, and inform a variety of audiences to improve public understanding and participation in the Council process. Objective 20: Use a variety of communication tools that consider the social, cultural, and economic characteristics of target audiences in coordination with the Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP). • Continue use of the Council's social media platforms and explore online and app-based technologies (e.g., WhatsApp, email templates) to convey information and updates. • Develop a catalogue of communities, markets, businesses, and individuals with preferences and need for traditional media tools. • Maintain the content and organization of the Council's website to enhance its utility to a variety of users. • Ensure that communication and outreach materials account for stakeholder language preferences. • Coordinate with management partners, commercial and recreational fishing organizations and fishers, nongovernmental organizations, and coastal businesses to expand the scope of Council communications across new and existing audiences. • Consider sector-specific and "boat-friendly" communication materials. Objective 21: Promote participation of a variety of stakeholders in the Council process. • Increase the frequency of Council communications in advance of meetings or events. • Use a variety of traditional, online, and social media tools to advertise and remind stakeholders of Council meetings and events. • Expand the use of webinars and conference lines to provide opportunities for remote access, participation, and education. • Ensure that meetings and events are scheduled to encourage maximum participation. • Consider development of issue-specific online comment forms to expand opportunities for public input. • Conduct issue-specific workshops to promote collaborative development of management approaches. • Develop a newsletter or summary to highlight Council meeting outcomes and anticipated actions. • Expand and improve participation by experienced and young fishers in the Council process through the development and support of territorial outreach programs in the USVI. • Attract other stakeholders, in addition to fishers, into the Council process to improve decision-making for the benefit of fishery resources. Objective 22: Improve public and stakeholder understanding and awareness of fisheries management, current issues, and the Council process. • Expand existing non-traditional stakeholder outreach efforts (e.g., restaurants, small-scale grocery store owners, and farmers, etc.). • Continue support of the Marine Resource Education Program (MREP) workshops throughout the U.S. Caribbean. • Develop island-specific (Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, St. Croix) outreach approaches and materials for recreational and commercial fishers.

Page 18

Caribbean Fishery Management Council • DRAFT 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • • •

• • • • •

Expand the role of fisheries liaisons to improve both fisher and public understanding of fisheries issues and the Council process. Coordinate with management and science partners to improve the clarity and simplicity of presentations to improve public understanding. Partner with other outreach organizations (e.g., PEPCO, Sea Grant) and federal agencies (e.g., USCG, NPS, etc.) and commercial and recreational fishing, diving, and boating organizations to develop and distribute educational materials to fishers, other marine resource users (e.g., divers), and the general public. Conduct in-person and/or virtual outreach meetings and workshops to improve fisher and public engagement in the Council process. Explore partnerships with organizations to capture traditional ecological knowledge of U.S. Caribbean fishing communities. Create an orientation program to inform the fishing community of the roles of the different management partners. Develop a mechanism to coordinate development of Council and territorial outreach efforts to ensure consistent messaging on fishery issues and other topics as needed. Support the expansion of the Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program in the USVI.

Page 19

2022-2026 Strategic Plan Caribbean Fishery Management Council December 7, 2021

Overview

• Previous actions • Review of public comments • Review of recommended changes • ACTION: Approval of final 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • Draft 2021 Implementation Plan

2

Previous Actions • March 2021: DAP review of draft island-specific objectives, initial feedback on strategies.

• April 2021: Council selection of draft Vision, Mission, and Goal statements, approval of island-specific objectives reviewed by DAPs.

• June 2021: DAP final review and edits to island-specific strategies.

• July 2021: Council review and approval of draft Strategic Plan for public input (August-September).

• TODAY: Review suggested edits and approve final Strategic Plan 3

Public Comment Summary • Online public comment form (Spanish and English) open August 6 — September 3

• Three comments received • One recommended language change • Many suggestions to enhance implementation of various strategies

• No comments on Communication and Outreach

4

Public Comment Summary • Vision, Mission, Core Values - One comment stated they were not very inclusive, one supported all as written

• Management - Gather fisher input for collaborative research by gear and region - Develop educational campaign using regional workshops to gather fisher input for stock assessments

• Ecosystem and Resource Health - Support dialogue between Council and Puerto Rico agencies on impacts of non-fishing activities

- Compensate fishers monetarily for participation in ecosystem research, and recognize contributions in publications

- Add Sargassum influxes to natural disasters in Puerto Rico objective 5

Public Comment Summary • Social, Cultural, and Economic Issues - Overall goal is essential to increase confidence in management and compliance with regulations by commercial sector

- Multiple suggestions specific to Puerto Rico: ‣ Consider communities by gear type, mode, geography ‣ Conduct study on fish mislabeling ‣ Strengthen food security through better understanding of underutilized local markets

‣ Include university social workers and Department of Correction and Rehabilitation in efforts to promote recruitment of young fishers.

6

Recommended Changes • Consolidate objectives that are identical across all districts, maintain island-specific strategies - Management: All five objectives identical - Ecosystem and Resource Health: Three objectives identical, one PR-specific, two STT/STJ-specific, two STX-specific (8 total)

- Social, Cultural, and Economic Issues: Three objectives identical, one island-specific objective for each district (6 total)

7

Recommended Changes • Ecosystem and Resource Health: Insert “(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, Sargassum blooms)” in Objective 9 (Puerto Rico)

- Response to public comment Objective 9. Collaborate with management partners to address the impacts of natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, Sargassum blooms) on ecosystem structure and function.

• Social, Cultural, and Economic Issues: Insert “and dissemination” in Objective 14

- Originally added by STX DAP Objective 14. Promote the collection and dissemination of social and economic data that informs management decisions.

8

Discussion and Council Action •

Questions/Discussion

•

Council Action: Approval of 2022-2026 CFMC Strategic Plan with recommended changes

9

Draft 2022 Implementation Plan Purpose… • A tool that complements 2022-2026 Strategic Plan • Identifies and prioritizes 2022 activities necessary to achieve Council’s goals and objectives

• New and ongoing activities mapped to objectives • Aligns activities with available resources • Allows Council to track progress annually • Provides stakeholders with comprehensive view of how activities contribute to Vision

• Not all activities can be addressed at the same time! 10

Draft 2022 Implementation Plan Process… • Three groups are proposed to assist the Council in identification, prioritization, and tracking of annual activities - OEAP: track and recommend communication & outreach priorities - 5-Year SP IPT: SERO, SEFSC, CFMC staff to review and help prioritize science needs and tasks

- 5-Year SP AP: Subset of Council members & DAP chairs to review OEAP and IPT priorities, other management projections, and provide recommendations to Council for approval

• Annual process to prioritize activities in an appropriate sequence for available resources

• Council action: Approval of workgroup-type process to identify Implementation Plan priorities 11

Example Implementation Activities Table Objective

2022 Priority Tasks and Activities

Timeframe

Lead Organization

Participate in selection of a modified non-commercial fishing survey for Puerto Rico (PR).

Ongoing

OST

Participate in development of a new non-commercial/ fishery dependent survey in the USVI (STT-STJ, STX)

Ongoing

OST

Support SEFSC rapid sampling electronic monitoring pilot in the U.S. Caribbean (PR, STT-STJ, STX) Support improvements to Puerto Rico commercial port sampling recommendations from MER report (PR)

2022

Partner

Ongoing

OST/SEFSC

USVI port sampling design activities (STT-STJ, STX)

Ongoing

OST/SEFSC

Promote DRNA commercial e-reporting outreach (PR)

Ongoing

Support completion of queen triggerfish assessment, SEDAR 80 (PR, STT-STJ, STX)

2022

Provide support for lane snapper life history sampling by USC (PR, STT-STJ, STX). *Also meets #11

2022

All Districts 1. Support the development and implementation of accurate, timely, and costeffective data collection, reporting, and monitoring programs.

2. Promote fisher involvement and other collaborative research approaches to meeting island-specific science and information needs.

12

Funding Source

Questions? Michelle Duval michelle@mellivoraconsulting.com

13

CFMC Draft Strategic Plan Comment Summary

Comments on the Draft CFMC 2022-2026 Strategic Plan were accepted via Spanish and English online comment forms from Friday, August 6 through Friday, September 3, 2021. A total of three individuals provided comments. Vision, Mission, Core Values • One commenter stated that the Vision, Mission, and Core Values were not very inclusive, while another supported all three as written. Management • Regarding Objective 2, one commenter recommended gathering fisher input for this objective by gear and region, possibly via an electronic request for comments. • The same commenter also suggested development of an educational campaign, possibly through regional workshops combined with a digital component, to gather input for the strategy “Incorporate fisher input into stock assessments” noting that it was key for fishers to be heard in that process to strengthen confidence in management, as well as clarify uncertainties in quantification of [assessment] inputs with the knowledge of local commercial fishers. Ecosystem and Resource Health • One respondent agreed with all proposed objectives under the Ecosystem and Resource Health goal and supported the dialogue between the Council and Puerto Rico DRNA regarding non-fishing activities noted as a strategy under Draft Objective 17. • The same commenter supported monetary compensation of fishers for their contributions scientific projects evaluating ecosystem health and recommended this be a requirement in research proposals. This commenter also suggested the guides for RFPs (Requests for Proposals) include recognition of collaborating fishers for their contributions via co-authorship on publications or educational dissemination of their contributions. • Another commenter noted that Sargassum influxes have been negatively impacting coastal ecosystems since 2011 and suggested adding this to Objective 18 and its strategies. Social, Cultural, and Economic Issues • One commenter noted that this goal was essential to increase the confidence in and support of fisheries management by the commercial sector and to increase compliance with regulations. This respondent offered several suggestions specific to Puerto Rico: o Agreement with Draft Objectives 30-33, noting that collection of social and economic data to inform management was critical. o Communities should be conceptualized not only as geographic based on point of landing, but also by gear type and organizational mode (e.g., independent fishers vs. those associated with villas pesqueras) as these differences could be important in designing methods of communication and participation. o Conduct a study to determine the prevalence of fish mislabeling in order to understand how best to intervene with educational activities. o A better understanding of underutilized local markets is needed to strengthen food security of rural communities via fresh fish and seafood. o Efforts to promote recruitment of young fishers should include the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, together with university social workers.

OVERVIEW OF EFFORTS TO FILL CRITICAL LIFE HISTORY INFORMATION GAPS FOR DATA-POOR REEF FISHES: UPCOMING SEDAR SPECIES Jesús Rivera Hernández and Virginia Shervette Collaborating researchers and fishers: Noemí Peña Alvarado and Wilson Santiago Soler, Puerto Rico DNER; Kate Overly, NMFS Panama City; Julien Magras, St. Thomas/St. John Fishermen’s Association; Nicky Martinez, Omar Hughes, Bobby Thomas; Carlos Velazquez, Marcos Henke

• Age is fundamental in estimating life history parameters • Accurate age data are required to estimate growth, longevity, and mortality

Novel Approaches to Age Validation in DataPoor U.S. Caribbean Reef Fishes • Established age estimation protocols validated via bomb radiocarbon for 20 species

Top landed reef fishes (ranked by total lbs landed) we are currently investigating for reproductive biology, population demographics, growth, and population connectivity/stock structure

STT/J 1. Queen triggerfish 2. Red hind 3. Yellowtail snapper 4. Blue runner 6. White grunt 10. Scrawled cowfish 11. Redtail parrotfish 12. Stoplight parrotfish 13. Mutton snapper 14. Coney 15 Bar jack 17. Hogfish 20. Blackfin snapper 23. Lane snapper

STX 1. Stoplight parrotfish 2. Yellowtail parrotfish 3. Redtail parrotfish 4. Queen triggerfish 5. Red hind 7. Princess parrotfish 8. Coney 9. Queen parrotfish 10. Redband parrotfish 11. Blackfin snapper 12. Yellowtail snapper 14. White grunt 18. Mutton snapper 23. Lane snapper

PR 1. Silk snapper 2. Yellowtail snapper 3. Queen snapper 4. Lane snapper 5. Queen triggerfish 6. Hogfish 7. Red hind 8. Boxfishes 9. Mutton snapper 10. Stoplight parrotfish 11. Bar jack 12. Cardinal 13. Vermilion snapper 14. Blackfin snapper 20. Coney

Top landed reef fishes (ranked by total lbs landed) we are currently investigating for reproductive biology, population demographics, growth, and population connectivity/stock structure

STT/J 1. Queen triggerfish 2. Red hind 3. Yellowtail snapper 4. Blue runner 6. White grunt 10. Scrawled cowfish 11. Redtail parrotfish 12. Stoplight parrotfish 13. Mutton snapper 14. Coney 15 Bar jack 17. Hogfish 20. Blackfin snapper 23. Lane snapper

STX 1. Stoplight parrotfish 2. Yellowtail parrotfish 3. Redtail parrotfish 4. Queen triggerfish 5. Red hind 7. Princess parrotfish 8. Coney 9. Queen parrotfish 10. Redband parrotfish 11. Blackfin snapper 12. Yellowtail snapper 14. White grunt 18. Mutton snapper 23. Lane snapper

PR 1. Silk snapper 2. Yellowtail snapper 3. Queen snapper 4. Lane snapper 5. Queen triggerfish 6. Hogfish 7. Red hind 8. Boxfishes 9. Mutton snapper 10. Stoplight parrotfish 11. Bar jack 12. Cardinal 13. Vermilion snapper 14. Blackfin snapper 20. Coney

QUEEN TRIGGERFISH • Currently undergoing assessment for entire U.S. Caribbean • Validation of otolith age estimates via Δ14 C analysis: longevity nearly tripled from 14 to 40 y (23 y Caribbean waters) • Investigating population connectivity between NC/SC, FL, and U.S. Caribbean waters Rivera Hernandez JM, Pena Alvarado N, Correa Velez K, Nemeth R, Appeldoorn R, Shervette V. 2019. Queen Triggerfish Balistes vetula reproductive biology in U.S. Caribbean waters. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 148: 134-147. Shervette VR, Rivera Hernandez (In Press). Queen triggerfish: radiocarbon validation of otolith-based age estimates, growth, and updated longevity PLOSONE. Rivera Hernandez JM, Shervette VR (In Prep). Queen triggerfish Balistes vetula population demographics in the northern Caribbean.

Left and right sagittal otoliths from two queen triggerfish samples. Note the unusual shape/morphology and the small and fragile nature of these otolith types.

Stevens et al. 2019. Life history demographic parameter synthesis for exploited Florida and Caribbean coral reef fishes. Synthesized life history information for 84 commercially exploited tropical reef fish species from Florida and the U.S. Caribbean and attempted to identify a useable set of life history parameters for each species that included life span, length at age, and maturity.

Top landed reef fishes (ranked by total lbs landed) we are currently investigating for reproductive biology, population demographics, growth, and population connectivity/stock structure

STT/J 1. Queen triggerfish 2. Red hind 3. Yellowtail snapper 4. Blue runner 6. White grunt 10. Scrawled cowfish 11. Redtail parrotfish 12. Stoplight parrotfish 13. Mutton snapper 14. Coney 15 Bar jack 17. Hogfish 20. Blackfin snapper 23. Lane snapper

STX 1. Stoplight parrotfish 2. Yellowtail parrotfish 3. Redtail parrotfish 4. Queen triggerfish 5. Red hind 7. Princess parrotfish 8. Coney 9. Queen parrotfish 10. Redband parrotfish 11. Blackfin snapper 12. Yellowtail snapper 14. White grunt 18. Mutton snapper 23. Lane snapper

PR 1. Silk snapper 2. Yellowtail snapper 3. Queen snapper 4. Lane snapper 5. Queen triggerfish 6. Hogfish 7. Red hind 8. Boxfishes 9. Mutton snapper 10. Stoplight parrotfish 11. Bar jack 12. Cardinal 13. Vermilion snapper 14. Blackfin snapper 20. Coney

Stoplight Parrotfish STX Ageing method validated via bomb radiocarbon; maximum age 17 y Preliminary parrotfish genomics work indicates no major population structure for U.S. Caribbean STX Fishery: Majority of stoplight caught via spearfishing at depths < 25 m Sampling: • STX F-D = 790; need F-I collections including juveniles and fish from deeper sites than where typically speared • STT/J + PR + STX = 1939 total from a combination of depths • Questions for SSC; sample collections

Top landed reef fishes (ranked by total lbs landed) we are currently investigating for reproductive biology, population demographics, growth, and population connectivity/stock structure

STT/J 1. Queen triggerfish 2. Red hind 3. Yellowtail snapper 4. Blue runner 6. White grunt 10. Scrawled cowfish 11. Redtail parrotfish 12. Stoplight parrotfish 13. Mutton snapper 14. Coney 15 Bar jack 17. Hogfish 20. Blackfin snapper 23. Lane snapper

STX 1. Stoplight parrotfish 2. Yellowtail parrotfish 3. Redtail parrotfish 4. Queen triggerfish 5. Red hind 7. Princess parrotfish 8. Coney 9. Queen parrotfish 10. Redband parrotfish 11. Blackfin snapper 12. Yellowtail snapper 14. White grunt 18. Mutton snapper 23. Lane snapper

PR 1. Silk snapper 2. Yellowtail snapper 3. Queen snapper 4. Lane snapper 5. Queen triggerfish 6. Hogfish 7. Red hind 8. Boxfishes 9. Mutton snapper 10. Stoplight parrotfish 11. Bar jack 12. Cardinal 13. Vermilion snapper 14. Blackfin snapper 20. Coney

Yellowtail snapper 2022/2023 RP and STT/J

In preparation for stock assessment current data/sample gaps: PR F-D: 129 PR F-I: 832 STT/J F-D: 304 STT/J F-I: 11

Top landed reef fishes (ranked by total lbs landed) we are currently investigating for reproductive biology, population demographics, growth, and population connectivity/stock structure

STT/J 1. Queen triggerfish 2. Red hind 3. Yellowtail snapper 4. Blue runner 6. White grunt 10. Scrawled cowfish 11. Redtail parrotfish 12. Stoplight parrotfish 13. Mutton snapper 14. Coney 15 Bar jack 17. Hogfish 20. Blackfin snapper 23. Lane snapper

STX 1. Stoplight parrotfish 2. Yellowtail parrotfish 3. Redtail parrotfish 4. Queen triggerfish 5. Red hind 7. Princess parrotfish 8. Coney 9. Queen parrotfish 10. Redband parrotfish 11. Blackfin snapper 12. Yellowtail snapper 14. White grunt 18. Mutton snapper 23. Lane snapper

PR 1. Silk snapper 2. Yellowtail snapper 3. Queen snapper 4. Lane snapper 5. Queen triggerfish 6. Hogfish 7. Red hind 8. Boxfishes 9. Mutton snapper 10. Stoplight parrotfish 11. Bar jack 12. Cardinal 13. Vermilion snapper 14. Blackfin snapper 20. Coney

Hogfish PR and STT/J Important considerations for sampling design and interpretation of results: For STT/J: more samples needed from both fisheries-dependent and – independent collections For PR: big and small fish; opportunistic F-I

Top landed reef fishes (ranked by total lbs landed) we are currently investigating for reproductive biology, population demographics, growth, and population connectivity/stock structure

STT/J 1. Queen triggerfish 2. Red hind 3. Yellowtail snapper 4. Blue runner 6. White grunt 10. Scrawled cowfish 11. Redtail parrotfish 12. Stoplight parrotfish 13. Mutton snapper 14. Coney 15 Bar jack 17. Hogfish 20. Blackfin snapper 23. Lane snapper

STX 1. Stoplight parrotfish 2. Yellowtail parrotfish 3. Redtail parrotfish 4. Queen triggerfish 5. Red hind 7. Princess parrotfish 8. Coney 9. Queen parrotfish 10. Redband parrotfish 11. Blackfin snapper 12. Yellowtail snapper 14. White grunt 18. Mutton snapper 23. Lane snapper

PR 1. Silk snapper 2. Yellowtail snapper 3. Queen snapper 4. Lane snapper 5. Queen triggerfish 6. Hogfish 7. Red hind 8. Boxfishes 9. Mutton snapper 10. Stoplight parrotfish 11. Bar jack 12. Cardinal 13. Vermilion snapper 14. Blackfin snapper 20. Coney

Queen snapper PR Fisheries-Dependent (Shervette/Rivera Hernandez/Santiago Soler): 491 Fisheries-Independent (David/Overly): 110 Fisheries-Independent (Smith/Ault): 45

From Overly 2021 thesis

(A) Growth function fit to observed size at age data for our U.S. Caribbean blackfin snapper samples. (B) von Bertalanffy growth curves for our U.S. Caribbean samples compared to the growth curve from Burton et al. (2016) for FL-Caribbean blackfin samples. A

B

Maximum age = 45 y

Caught 2016 south of St. Thomas FL 405 mm Female

PR Fishers: Carlos Velasquez, Marcos Henke, Macho Rodriguez, Junior Lugo, Javier Vadilla STT/J Fishers: Julien Magras, Tony Blanchard, Danny Berry, Ledee Brothers, Bobby Vente STX Fishers: Gerson Martinez, Nick Jr., Bobby Thomas, Tom Daley, Omar Hughes PRDNER Fisheries Laboratory: Noemi Peña, Veronica Seda, Wilfredo Torres, Wilson Santiago Soler, Luis Rivera

The Nature Conservancy in St. Croix Fish/Fisheries Conservation Lab: Kayley Kirkland and Jordan Henderson UVI/VIMS/UPR: Rick Nemeth, John Hoenig, Daniel Gonzales Richard Appeldoorn FishCon Lab Affiliated Students: Sara Thomas, UVI Graham Wagner, CofC David Jones, CofC

Acknowledgements Special thanks to: Kate Overly and Nancie Cummings, NOAA NMFS SESFC, and Kelly Donnelly, NOAA Fisheries NOAA MARFIN Awards NA15NMF4330153 and NA15NMF4330157 NOAA S-K Award NA18NMF4270203 NOAA CRP Award NA17NMF4540137

VP Office of Research ASPIRE Grant

SERO

Options for Council Consideration to Modify the Timing of the Accountability Measure for Spiny Lobster in Puerto Rico

176th Caribbean Fishery Management Council Meeting December 2021

Accountability Measures (AM) The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that accountability measures (AM) be established for all federally managed stocks. AMs are management controls to prevent annual catch limits (ACL) from being exceeded and to correct or mitigate overages of the ACL if they occur. ACLs and AMs for Council-managed stocks were set under the 2010 and 2011 ACL Amendments; effective 2012. •

AMs separated into 2 parts: the trigger (years of landings used) and application (timing of closure) U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 2

Spiny Lobster Harvest in Puerto Rico Spiny Lobster Annual Landings

Adjusted Landings (lb)

500000

PR FMP ACL Amendment ACL SL FMP ACL

400000

300000

200000

100000

0 2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

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

Spiny Lobster AM Application Set under the 2011 ACL Amendment: • End on December 31st of the closure year and extend backward into the year for the number of days necessary to achieve the required reduction in landings. Revised under the 2016 Timing of AMs Amendment: • End on September 30th of the closure year and extend backward toward the beginning of the year for the number of days necessary to achieve the required reduction in landings. • If the required fishing season reduction exceeds the period of January 1 through September 30, additional fishing season reduction will be applied from October 1 forward. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 4

Spiny Lobster AM Closures AM-based closure only applicable in federal waters (9-200 nm). State waters (0-9 nm) remain open to harvest of spiny lobster. Discussion at the August 2021 Council meeting brought up concerns from fishermen surrounding the timing of the closure and compatibility in state waters. The Council requested that staff examine alternative times when AMs could be applied for spiny lobster under the Puerto Rico FMP.

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

Puerto Rico Spiny Lobster Landings Average Landings from 2012-2019 by Month

45000

2012-2019 Average

40000

Adjusted Landings (lb)

35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

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

Options for Consideration No Action – Any AM triggered would continue to be applied from September 30th backward and if more time required, from October 1st forward. Option 1 – close from December 31 - backward Option 2 – close from July 31 – backward Option 3 – close from January 1 - forward

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 7

Option 1: close from December 31 - backward • As landings are lowest in December and November, the required closure (based on average fishing rates during those months) may be longer than a closure under the status quo (higher landings in August and September). • This option would give fishers the greatest amount of time to react to/prepare for an AM-based closure if the FR notice is published at the beginning of the year. • Could overlap with queen conch closure in state waters (Aug 1 – Oct 31), if required AM closure period runs into October. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 8

Option 2: close from July 31 - backward • Similar to current AM, could close from August - forward if more time was needed to avoid exceeding the ACL. • Landings in April - July are lower than landings in August – October, so the required closure period may be longer than the status quo but shorter than Option 1. • This option would give fishers less time to react to/prepare for an AM-based closure than the current approach. • Would not overlap with QC closure unless the January 1 July 31 period was not long enough to ensure that landings again do not exceed the ACL. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 9

Option 3 - close from January 1 - forward • Landings in January - March are higher, so the required closure may be shorter than under Option 2 or Option 1. • This option would require the FR notice publish in the prior calendar year, which could be problematic if final landings are not available in time. • This option gives fishers the least amount of time to react to/prepare for an AM-based closure. • If the required closure extends into March, it could coincide with Holy Week. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 10

Other Management Options Given the history of spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico, the ACLs approved under the Spiny Lobster Framework Amendment (below), and the lack of compatible ACLs or closures in state waters, there is a high likelihood that catch will exceed the spiny lobster ACL in future years. ACL 2022-2023 = 369,313 pounds ACL 2024+ = 366,965 pounds

The Council may want to consider other options such as a fixed seasonal closure to ensure that ACLs are not exceeded on a regular basis. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 11

Other Management Options Continued

Spiny lobster closed seasons across the Caribbean region from north to south. Source (https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps_oa/m671p129.pdf) U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 12

State versus Federal Spiny Lobster Landings The majority of spiny lobster are harvested from state waters each year.

Year State Waters (0 to 9 NM) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

101,092 196,874 290,573 327,659 392,611 256,778 482,198 439,531

Federal Unknown Waters (9 to 200 NM) 42,823 241,896 21,052 57,499 29,333 56,872 36,403 54,211 32,867 23,754 18,898 7,544 23,945 14,686 38,808 10,629

ACL for spiny lobster in Puerto Rico under the Spiny Lobster FMP = 327,920 lb. ACL for spiny lobster under the Amendment to the Puerto Rico FMP (2021-2023) = 369,313 lb. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 13

Next Steps Develop options into Amendment? • Consider other options for Puerto Rico spiny lobster AM • Include option for fixed seasonal closure Request compatible regulations? Questions?

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 14

Sargassum & EFH Caribbean Fishery Management Council – December 2021 Presentation by:

David Dale, Essential Fish Habitat Coordinator Southeast Region National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Objectives • Briefly introduce the Southeast Region’s Habitat Conservation Division • Clarify when & where Sargassum is essential fish habitat (EFH) • Clarify when an EFH consultation is, or is not, needed • Discuss other issues regarding Sargassum as EFH • Respond to questions Page 2

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division Southeast Region

Gulf of Mexico Branch Galveston (TX) Baton Rouge (LA, MS, AL) St. Petersburg (FL)

Page 3

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Atlantic & Caribbean Beaufort (NC) Charleston (SC & GA) West Palm Beach (FL) San Juan (PR) St. Croix (USVI)

Page 4

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Habitat Conservation Division Priorities Habitat Conservation - docks/seawalls - residential/commercial - port/navigation - infrastructure/energy Habitat Restoration - wetland loss - fish passage - GOM restoration Partnerships - SJBEP & CRCP Page 5

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Definitions: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [16 U.S.C. 1802 Sec. 3(10)] The term “essential fish habitat” means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity. [16 U.S.C. 1853 Sec. 303(a)(7)] Secretary and Councils to identify EFH [16 U.S.C. 1855 Sec. 305(b)] Federal agencies to consult regarding affects to EFH - NMFS to minimize effects of fishing Page 6

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Definitions: EFH Final Rule [50 C.F.R. 600.10] Expands on definition of EFH: “Waters” include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; “Substrate” includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; “Necessary” means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and “Spawning, breeding feeding, or growth to maturity” covers a species’ full life cycle.

Page 7

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Definitions: EFH Final Rule [50 C.F.R. 600.810] “Healthy ecosystem” means an ecosystem where ecological productive capacity is maintained, diversity of the flora and fauna is preserved, and the ecosystem retains the ability to regulate itself. Such an ecosystem should be similar to comparable, undisturbed ecosystems with regard to standing crop, productivity, nutrient dynamics, trophic structure, species richness, stability, resilience, contamination levels, and the frequency of diseased organisms.

Page 8

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

CFMC EFH Designations: • Original Designations in 1998 • Revised in 2004/2005 •

EFH described using life history-habitat associations

• Reviewed in 2011/2012 & 2018/2020 • Island-based FMPs (2020)

Highly Migratory Species (HMS): Billfish, Tuna, Sharks

• Original Designations in 1999 • Reviewed & Revised in 2009 & 2017 •

Page 9

probability boundary using point/distribution data from fishery independent surveys and research

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

CFMC EFH Designations 2004/2005: For reef fish: EFH 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). Identified substrates included wetlands, mangroves, seagrass, benthic algal plains, mixed submerged aquatic vegetation, drift algae, coral reefs, sand-shell, mud and soft bottom habitats, hard bottom habitat and rubble.

Page 10

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

CFMC EFH Designations IBFMP: EFH for the gray triggerfish (Balistes capriscus) (Triggerfish stock complex) in the Puerto Rico FMP consists of all waters and sargassum from mean high water to the outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by the larvae) and coral reefs and sargassum substrates from mean high water to 100 fathoms (habitats used by eggs (only the coral reef substrate where the nest are built) and juveniles and adults).

Page 11

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

So Sargassum is EFH… • Designation does NOT prohibit harvest • Only triggers a requirement to consult if… a federal agency is funding, permitting/ licensing, or undertaking an action which may adversely affect EFH [16 U.S.C. Sec. 305(b)(2)]

• “Adverse effect” means any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. [50 C.F.R 600.810(a)]

Page 12

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

EFH Consultation Steps [50 C.F.R. 600.920] • Federal agency provides an EFH Assessment • NMFS required to recommend measures that can be taken to conserve EFH (EFH CRs) [16 U.S.C. Sec. 305(b)(4)(A)]

• Councils may provide CRs as well • Federal agency is required to respond to NMFS [16 U.S.C. Sec. 305(b)(4)(B) & 50 CFR 600.920(k)]

• Agency is not bound by NMFS EFH CRs but must explain, in writing, reasons for not adopting EFH CRs • EFH CRs provided to state/territory agencies do not trigger response requirement Page 13

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Also Sargassum Related • South Atlantic Fishery Management Council • 2003 Fishery Management Plan • U.S. Department of Energy • harvest & propagation for biofuels • EFH or HAB? • research to explore when Sargassum biomass should be considered a harmful algal bloom (HAB) • ESA & by-catch considerations

Page 14

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Questions David.Dale@noaa.gov Direct: 727-551-5736 HCD Main: 727-824-5317

Page 15

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service

Modifications to the Timing of the Red Hind Seasonal and Area Closures in Federal Waters off Puerto Rico

Draft Options/Decision Paper For an Amendment to the Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan for Federal Waters off Puerto Rico December 2021

Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 2 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 2 1. Background ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1

Guidance from 174th Council Meeting ............................................................................. 6

1.2

History of Federal Management ....................................................................................... 6

2. Potential Actions and Management Options.............................................................................. 8 2.1 Action 1: Timing of the red hind seasonal closure and area closures in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Puerto Rico. ....................................................................................... 8 2.2 Action 2: Extension of the area included for the red hind seasonal closure in the Puerto Rico EEZ. .................................................................................................................................. 15 3. References ................................................................................................................................ 16

List of Tables Table 1.1. Summary of the history of management for the red hind grouper. .............................. 7 Table 2.1. Pros and cons of a shift in the date of the seasonal closure and/or area closures in western Puerto Rico from Dec 1 – last day of Feb (Option 1 [no action]) to Dec 15 – Mar 15 (Option 2, Sub-options 2a-2c), each year. .................................................................................... 14

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Red hind adjusted annual commercial landings by Puerto Rico coast. ...................... 4 Figure 2.1. Location of the red hind seasonal closure in western of Puerto Rico...................... 10 Figure 2.2. Location of the red hind seasonal spawning area closures in western Puerto Rico. 10 Figure 2.3. Commercial adjusted landings of red hind averaged by month for 2010-2019 in the west coast of Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 2.4. Recreational estimated landings of red hind averaged by two-month wave from 2010 through 2017 in Puerto Rico. ............................................................................................... 12 Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

2

Figure 2.5. Commercial adjusted landings of red hind during March 1-15 and March 16-31 for 2010 through 2019. Yellow circles note years where red hind was present at a spawning aggregation (west coast of Puerto Rico) in March per Schärer et al. (2021). Asterisks note the years when Lent started during the period of March 1-15. ........................................................... 13

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

3

1. Background The red hind, Epinephelus guttatus, is one of the most abundant grouper species landed by commercial and recreational fishermen in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico commercial red hind landings in 2019 totaled 48,648 pounds (lb) whole weight (ww); there are no recent recreational landings reported for the species. The top landing areas for the red hind are from the east and west coasts of Puerto Rico (Figure 1.1). In 2019, the east coast contributed 49% of red hind landings (adjusted) while the west coast contributed to 32%.

35000 WEST EAST SOUTH NORTH

Adjusted Landings (lb)

30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Figure 1.1. Red hind adjusted annual commercial landings by Puerto Rico coast. The red hind is protogynous, which means that it changes sex from female to male based on environmental cues (e.g., social cues), at approximately 28 centimeters (cm) (11.02 inches) fork length (Sadovy et al. 1994; Schärer et al. 2021). The red hind female attains 50% maturity at 215 millimeters (mm) (8.46 inches) fork length. Red hind have a complex social structure and reproductive behavior. Red hind form transient spawning aggregations that follow a lunar cycle (Colin et al. 1987; Shapiro et al. 1993; Sadovy et al. 1994 in Appeldoorn et al. 2019), depending on when the full moon occurs each month in relation to the winter solstice (Nemeth et al. 2007). Reproductive individuals aggregate to spawn in established aggregations in Puerto Rico, which take place between December and February-March. At the aggregation, males arrive first and defend their territories while waiting for females to arrive. Some important aspects of the reproduction is that female fecundity increases with size, but there needs to be a sufficient

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

4

number of males to fertilize eggs. Both males and large females remain at the aggregation after the spawning season before migrating to their home ranges (Schärer et al. 2021). The predictability of grouper aggregations makes them extremely vulnerable to overfishing, which can result in a decrease in stock size, mean length, recruitment, diminished density and biomass, female biased sex ratios, or complete disappearance of the aggregation (Beets & Friedlander 1992; Sadovy & Figuerola 1992; Sadovy 1994; Aguilar-Perera & Aguilar-Dávila 1996; Coleman et al. 1996; Sadovy & Domeier 2005; Aguilar-Perera 2006 in Rowell et al. 2012). In western Puerto Rico, spawning occurs in aggregations at several sites within loosely defined areas located towards the edge of the insular platform (Sadovy et al. 1994). Red hind have a determined spawning season from December to February as reported by Sadovy et al. (1994). Histological analyses of reproductive tissue obtained from red hind between 2010 and 2017 support the spawning season period, finding spawning capable females from December until February and a small percentage in March (Red hind F48-2017, unpublished report). The largest proportion of spawning capable red hind were from December. Early post-spawned individuals were found in Jan-March (Red hind F48-2017). Additional information on the reproductive potential of red hind in the west coast during the spawning months is needed. Red hind catches in western Puerto Rico constitute a substantial proportion of local grouper catches and very likely depend on 'healthy' aggregations in managed areas (CFMC 1996), for example in Bajo de Sico, Abrir La Sierra Bank, Tourmaline Bank, and Boya 4 (west of Puerto Rico, see Section 2). In the 1990’s, red hind in western Puerto Rico showed evidence of growth and possible recruitment overfishing, and showed a decline in landings, prompting the enactment of conservative management measures to protect the stock from overfishing (see below). Long-term acoustic monitoring and surveys of red hind at Abrir la Sierra have shown that peak aggregations consistently occur days after the full moon (Appeldoorn et al. 2019). Research conducted in western Puerto Rico suggests that because red hind spawning is associated with the lunar cycle, with peaks during the full moon, spawning activities or behavior may still be occurring during the full moon/new moon of late February/March. For example, Appeldoorn et al. (2019) suggest that two spawning events could occur during one lunar cycle, and added that extended periods of red hind calling activity have been identified in at least four lunar cycles over 8 years of recordings at Abrir La Sierra (2007, 2013, 2014, 2016) indicating that this pattern may be common. March is not included in the current dates of the annual seasonal closure (December 1 through the last day of February) or in the area closures in Abrir La Sierra Bank and Tourmaline Bank. A shift in the seasonal closure dates from December 15 to March 15 could provide protection to spawning red hind as well as to individuals that remain in the aggregation after spawning. For example, Schärer et al. (2021) discussed that for 63% of the Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

5

past 11 years, red hind were present at the Abrir La Sierra aggregation after March 1. Further, Schärer et al. (2021) estimated that the potential aggregation peak could occur outside of the current seasonal closed period for 80% of the next 10 years because of when the full moon occurs. The researchers also discuss that shifts in the aggregation timing may be due to low abundances, hyperstability (i.e., when the fishery catch rate stays stable while the fish population declines), and temperature/current variations.

1.1 Guidance from 174th Council Meeting The Caribbean Fishery Management Council’s (Council) Scientific and Statistic Committee (SSC) met in July 14, 2021, and discussed the timing of the spawning season for red hind in the west coast of Puerto Rico. The SSC voted to recommend the Council prepare an amendment to the Comprehensive Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Puerto Rico Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; Puerto Rico FMP) to shift the dates for the seasonal closure prohibiting fishing for or possessing red hind in or from federal waters west of 67°10' W longitude and in the area closures prohibiting all fishing in federal waters in the Tourmaline Bank and Abrir la Sierra Bank red hind spawning aggregation areas to December 15 - March 15, each year. The SSC recommended this action to reduce the impact on the red hind spawning stock at the west coast spawning aggregations at the end of their reproductive period, due to a possible shift in the timing of the aggregation. The SSC noted that red hind spawning aggregations do not form before December 15, but spawning aggregations can remain intact after March 1. To measure the benefits of management measures for the red hind population off the west coast of Puerto Rico, the SSC also recommended the Council support the implementation of continued, longterm monitoring of spawning aggregations. At their 174th Council meeting held in July 21, 2021, the Council requested staff to prepare an options paper that would discuss modifying the seasonal closure for fishing for or possession of red hind in federal waters west of 67° 10' W longitude and the seasonal closure for the Tourmaline Bank and Abrir la Sierra Bank red hind spawning aggregation areas.

1.2

History of Federal Management

Prior to the development of the Puerto Rico FMP, red hind in the Puerto Rico EEZ was managed under the Reef Fish FMP (CMFC 1985), as amended. The history of management actions taken to date under the Reef Fish FMP are summarized in Appendix A of Puerto Rico FMP. Table 1.1 below provides a summary of actions related to the red hind. Red hind in the EEZ off Puerto Rico is managed with 1) a seasonal closure in federal waters west of 67° 10’W from December 1 through the last day of February, where all fishing for and Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

6

possession of red hind is prohibited during this period; 2) seasonal area closures in two areas off the west coast of Puerto Rico where spawning aggregations have been identified: Abrir La Sierra Bank and Tourmaline Bank; these areas are closed to all fishing from December 1 through the last day of February; and 3) in Bajo de Sico, which is closed to fishing for or possessing all Council-managed reef fish from October 1 through March 31. Red hind is also managed with annual catch limits applicable to each of the recreational and commercial sectors, and as part of an aggregate recreational bag limit applicable to groupers, snappers, and parrotfishes, combined (CFMC 2019). In Puerto Rico territorial waters, red hind is managed with a closure on all fishing and possession from December 1 through February 28, each year. Unlike the federal closure, the closure in territorial waters is not limited to the the west coast of Puerto Rico, but covers all territorial waters off all coasts. Table 1.1. Summary of the history of management for the red hind grouper. Action

FMP/Amendment

Red hind added to management as part of Reef Fish FMP the Reef Fish Grouper unit No harvest or possession of live red hind for Amendment 2 Reef Fish FMP Aquarium Trade Establishment of Tourmaline Bank (T) Red Amendment 2 Reef Fish FMP Hind Spawning Aggregation Area Regulatory Amendment 2 Reef Tourmaline Bank - Resizing Fish FMP Establishment of Abrir La Sierra (A) Bank Regulatory Amendment 2 Reef Red Hind Spawning Aggregation Area Fish FMP Establishment of Bajo de Sico (B) Red Hind Regulatory Amendment 2 Reef Fish FMP Spawning Aggregation Area No use of bottom gear in A, B, T and other spawning aggregation areas in USVI yearround; anchor retrieval system required, no Amendment 3 Reef Fish (SFA filleting at seas, no gillnets or trammel nets; Amendment) Red hind seasonal closure Dec 1 through last day of Feb in west coast of Puerto Rico Modification of timing of Bajo de Sico closure and prohibition on fishing for all Regulatory Amendment 3 Reef Council-managed reef fish; Anchoring Fish FMP prohibited Establishment of annual catch limits (ACL), 2010 ACL Amendment bag limits, and accountability measures

Date

Original Closure date

1985

--

1993

--

Dec 1- Feb 28 closure* 1996-97 Same as (eff) original Dec 1- Feb 1996 28 closure* Dec 1- Feb 1996 28 closure (see below) 1993

2005

Dec 1 – Last day of Feb

2010

Oct 1 – Mar 31

2012

N/A

* The Puerto Rico FMP corrects this date to note that the closure goes through the last day of February.

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

7

2. Potential Actions and Management Options 2.1

Action 1: Timing of the red hind seasonal closure and area closures in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Puerto Rico.

Option 1. No action. The dates of the seasonal closure and area closures for red hind in the EEZ off Puerto Rico would not be changed. The seasonal closure west of 67°10' W longitude and the seasonal area closures of the red hind spawning aggregation areas of Tourmaline Bank and Abrir La Sierra Bank would occur from December 1 through the last day of February, each year. Option 2. Change the seasonal closure period for red hind in the EEZ off Puerto Rico under the following sub-options to December 15 through March 15, each year. Sub-Option a. Red hind seasonal closure west of 67°10' W longitude Sub-Option b. Red hind spawning aggregation area of Tourmaline Bank (partially in federal waters) Sub-Option c. Red hind spawning aggregation area of Abrir La Sierra Bank (completely in federal waters) Option 3 1. Change the closure period for the seasonal fishing and possession of red hind in the EEZ off Puerto Rico and/or the area-based closures of Tourmaline Bank and Abrir La Sierra only for certain years based on the lunar cycle (pre-identified and codified in the regulations). Reevaluate the closure period every 5 years. Discussion Option 1 would not change the timing for the seasonal closure prohibiting fishing for or possessing red hind in federal waters west of 67°10' W longitude (referred to as the “seasonal closure”) (Figure 2.1) and for the seasonal area closures prohibiting all fishing in federal waters in the Tourmaline Bank and Abrir La Sierra Bank red hind spawning aggregation areas (referred to as the “area closures”) (Figure 2.2), all of which take place from December (Dec) 1 through the last day of February (Feb), each year. The seasonal closure and area closures were established to protect the red hind resource during the identified peak spawning periods in western Puerto Rico. The timing of the seasonal closure is consistent with the Dec 1 – Feb 28 red hind seasonal closure in territorial waters off Puerto Rico, however the scope is different; the 1

This option could be further developed depending on Council interest.

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

8

EEZ closure only applies to the west coast while the territorial closure applies to all Puerto Rico waters, including waters off the other three coasts. For the Abrir La Sierra and Tourmaline Bank closed areas, the timing of the federal closure is consistent with the territorial red hind closure. However, here too the scope is different; both Abrir La Sierra and Tourmaline Bank are closed to all fishing in federal waters during this period. Abrir La Sierra is completely within federal waters, so there is no overlapping territorial jurisdiction for this area. Tourmaline Bank, however, spans federal and territorial waters and there is no compatible closure regulation prohibiting all fishing in the territorial portion of the Tourmaline Bank. In the territorial portion of Tourmaline Bank, the prohibition is limited to fishing for red hind. Option 2 would shift the dates of the red hind seasonal closure (Sub-option a), the Tourmaline Bank area closure (Sub-option b), and/or the Abrir La Sierra Bank area closure (Sub-option c) in federal waters off Puerto Rico from the current date of Dec 1 through last day of Feb, to Dec 15 through Mar 15. While the historically identified peak spawning periods (Jan/Feb) would still be included within the closure(s) as in Option 1, Option 2 (under all sub-options) would allow for the inclusion of a later potential spawning peak period that is not currently included in the existing regulations at 50 CFR part 622. Red hind spawning activities have been linked to lunar cycles, depending on when the full moon occurs each month in relation to the winter solstice (Nemeth et al. 2007), and exhibits peaks in activity during the full moon. A spawning event that occurs during a full moon period at the end of Feb or the beginning of Mar, depending on the year, may not be included in the current dates of the seasonal closure and seasonal area closures. Shifting the dates may provide protection not only to spawners during this period, but also to reproductively viable red hind that remain in the aggregation after spawning. Shifting the date for the seasonal closure (Sub-option a) and not for the area closures (Sub-options b and c) would still protect red hind in the closed areas from Dec 1-Dec 14 as red hind would not be allowed to be fished or possessed while the areas are closed to all fishing. However, by not selecting Sub-options b and c, fishing for other species in federal waters in Tourmaline Bank (Sub-option b) and Abrir La Sierra (Sub-option c) would be allowed during the Mar 1 to Mar 15 time period, and this could allow bycatch mortality of red hind in these areas. Therefore, shifting the date for all three sub-options would provide the most protection to red hind during the spawning season, as no fishing would be allowed in Tourmaline and Abrir La Sierra, removing the potential for red hind bycatch during the closure. Consistent regulations between all these areas would provide the greatest degree of protection by facilitating enforcement and avoiding confusion among users. Note that a change in the seasonal closure date would make it incompatible with the red hind seasonal closure in territorial waters off Puerto Rico (no compatible area closure exists prohibiting all fishing in the territorial portion of Tourmaline Bank).

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

9

Option 3 would allow changing the date of the seasonal closure and/or area closures only during certain years based on the lunar cycle. These years would need to be pre-identified and codified in the regulations. The Dec 1- last day of Feb closure date would remain unchanged during the rest of the years. This option could be further developed depending on Council interest.

Figure 2.1. Location of the red hind seasonal closure in western of Puerto Rico.

Figure 2.2. Location of the red hind seasonal spawning area closures in western Puerto Rico.

Preliminary Analysis Figure 2.3 shows commercial red hind adjusted average landings by month for 2010-2019 from the west coast of Puerto Rico. The highest landings of red hind are reported from August through October (3,118 - 3,266 lb ww). March and November show the lowest average landings from 2010-2019 outside the red hind closure dates (Dec 1 – last day of Feb) (1,536 lb ww and 1,589 lb ww, respectively). Figure 2.4 shows the average recreational landings from 2010-2017 2 by two-month waves. Highest recreational landings are in the March-April wave (Approx 4,300 lb ww). Shifting the closure to Dec 15 to March 15 (Option 2) may not be expected to 2

No recent recreational landings are available.

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

10

substantially affect red hind commercial landings in the west coast, as average west coast March landings are low when compared to other months of the year. It is unknown what proportion of the recreational landings come from the west coast of Puerto Rico and how this action would affect those landings. Socio-economic factors such as a higher demand for fish during the Lent period could also be included in a future analysis. Table 2.1 lists a summary of pros and cons for Options 1 and 2.

Figure 2.3. Commercial adjusted landings of red hind averaged by month for 2010-2019 in the west coast of Puerto Rico.

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

11

Figure 2.4. Recreational estimated landings of red hind averaged by two-month wave from 2010 through 2017 in Puerto Rico. In 2011, 2013, 2018, and 2019, adjusted commercial landings during the first 15 days of March were higher than those in the second half of March (Figure 2.5). Schärer et al. (2021) notes that red hind were present in aggregations in March in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018, and 2019, and that few years had red hind present at the spawning aggregations prior to December 15. Based on the lunar cycle, Schärer et al. (2021) notes that from 2022-2031, except for 2025 and 2028, spawning aggregations may form in early March.

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

12

1400 Mar 1-15 Mar 16-31

1200

Adjusted Landings (pounds)

1000 800 600 400 200 0 2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Figure 2.5. Commercial adjusted landings of red hind during March 1-15 and March 16-31 for 2010 through 2019. Yellow circles note years where red hind was present at a spawning aggregation (west coast of Puerto Rico) in March per Schärer et al. (2021). Asterisks note the years when Lent started during the period of March 1-15.

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

13

Table 2.1. Pros and cons of a shift in the date of the seasonal closure and/or area closures in western Puerto Rico from Dec 1 – last day of Feb (Option 1 [no action]) to Dec 15 – Mar 15 (Option 2, Sub-options 2a-2c), each year. Shift closure from Dec 1 – last day of Feb to Dec 15 - Mar 15 Change dates for all Sub-Options: 2a red hind seasonal closure; 2b Tourmaline Bank; and 2c Abrir la Sierra

Pros

•

May cover all spawning events of red hind on west coast

•

Would have compatibility between seasonal and area closures in federal waters

•

Change dates for seasonal closure (2a) only. Dates for area closures (2b, 2c) remain unchanged.

Cons

Reduce bycatch of red hind during spawning in Tourmaline and Abrir la Sierra from March 1-15

•

Would allow for catch of red hind Dec 1- Dec 15 in all federal waters off the west coast

•

Would allow all fishing to continue in Abrir la Sierra and Tourmaline through Dec 14th

•

Would not change current regulations for Abrir la Sierra and Tourmaline. Open to all fishing except red hind Mar 1-15

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

14

•

Enforcement issues - federal and state regulations prohibiting fishing for and possessing red hind would not be fully compatible (different dates)

•

Would not be able to fish for any species in Tourmaline or Abrir la Sierra until March 16

•

Would allow for catch of red hind Dec 1- Dec 15 (removal of spawners before spawning)

•

Other parameters may affect spawning other than the lunar cycle

•

Enforcement issues - would not have compatibility between seasonal and area closures in federal waters or between federal and state waters

•

Could continue to allow bycatch of red hind in Tourmaline and Abrir La Sierra from Mar 1-15

2.2

Action 2: Extension of the area included for the red hind seasonal closure in the Puerto Rico EEZ.

Option 1. No Action. The area where the December 1 through last day of February red hind seasonal closure (west of 67°10' W longitude) applies would not be changed. The closure states that no person may fish for or possess red hind in or from the Puerto Rico EEZ west of 67°10' W longitude. Option 2. Extend the application of the annual seasonal closure for red hind to all waters in the EEZ off Puerto Rico. The seasonal closure would be applied during the dates in any of the suboptions below: Sub-Option a. The seasonal closure would take place from Dec 1 through the last day of Feb, each year. Sub-Option b. The seasonal closure would take place from Dec 15 through March 15, each year. Sub-Option c. Other date (e.g., Dec 1 – Mar 15, each year) Discussion Option 1 is not consistent with the scope of the Puerto Rico regulations, which closes all territorial waters from December 1 through February 28 to all harvest and possession of red hind, not just areas off the west coast of Puerto Rico. This inconsistency makes enforcement complicated, creates confusion from constituents, and does not extend protection to the red hind stock in all federal waters off Puerto Rico during the recognized peak spawning periods. Option 2 would extend the protection to red hind in all federal waters off Puerto Rico, not just to a particular area off the west coast of Puerto Rico. Figure 1.2 shows that highest average landings of red hind come from the east and west coasts of Puerto Rico. Extending the closure to cover all federal waters off Puerto Rico would provide additional protection to the red hind stock during the spawning period. Sub-Option a would make the closure compatible with the closure in Puerto Rico territorial waters (which extends from Dec 1 through Feb 28), while Sub-Option b would only be partially compatible with Puerto Rico regulations.

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

15

3. References Appeldoorn, E., Zayas, C., Schärer, M., Clouse, K. and R. Appeldoorn. 2019. Temporal patterns among multiple courtship associated sounds in the red hind Epinephelus guttatus indicate two spawning aggregations during a single lunar cycle. Proceedings of the 71st Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute November 5 – 9, 2018 San Andrés, Colombia. CFMC (Caribbean Fishery Management Council). 1985. Fishery management plan, final environmental impact statement, and draft regulatory impact review for the shallow-water reef fish fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Caribbean Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 69pp. + Appendices. CFMC. 1996. Regulatory amendment to the fishery management plan for the reef fish fishery of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands concerning red hind spawning aggregation closures including a regulatory impact review and an environmental assessment. Caribbean Fishery Management Counicl, San Juan, Puerto Rico. CFMC. 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. 2019. 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. Colin, P.L., Shapiro, D.Y., D. Weiler. 1987. Aspects of the reproduction of two groupers, Epinephelus guttatus and E. striatus, in the West Indies. Bull Mar Sci 40: 220−230. Nemeth, R.S., Blondeau, J, Herzlieb, S., and E. Kadison. 2007. Spatial and temporal patterns of movement and migration at spawning aggregations of red hind, Epinephelus guttatus, in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Environ Biol Fishes 78: 365−381. Sadovy, Y., Rosario, A., and A. Román. 1994. Reproduction in an aggregating grouper, the red hind, Epinephelus guttatus. Environ Biol Fishes 41: 269−286.

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

16

Schärer. M.T., Appeldoorn, R., Rowell, T., Zayas, C., Appeldoorn, E., Hill, R., Ruiz, H., and E. Tuohy. 2021. Red hind spawning aggregation timing: update from western Puerto Rico. Presentation at the 174th Caribbean Fishery Management Council Meeting, July 2021. Shapiro, D.Y., Sadovy, Y., and M.A. McGehee. 1993. Periodicity of sex change and reproduction in the red hind, Epinephelus guttatus, a protogynous grouper. Bull Mar Sci 53: 1151−1162. Rowell, T.J., Schärer, M.T., Appeldoorn, R.S., Nemeth, M.I., Mann, D.A., and J.A. Rivera. 2012. Sound production as an indicator of red hind density at a spawning aggregation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 462:241–250.

Timing of Red Hind Closures Options Paper

17

SERO

Options for Council Consideration to Modify the Timing of the Accountability Measure for Spiny Lobster in Puerto Rico

176th Caribbean Fishery Management Council Meeting December 2021

Accountability Measures (AM) The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that accountability measures (AM) be established for all federally managed stocks. AMs are management controls to prevent annual catch limits (ACL) from being exceeded and to correct or mitigate overages of the ACL if they occur. ACLs and AMs for Council-managed stocks were set under the 2010 and 2011 ACL Amendments; effective 2012. •

AMs separated into 2 parts: the trigger (years of landings used) and application (timing of closure) U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 2

Spiny Lobster Harvest in Puerto Rico Spiny Lobster Annual Landings

Adjusted Landings (lb)

500000

PR FMP ACL Amendment ACL SL FMP ACL

400000

300000

200000

100000

0 2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

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

Spiny Lobster AM Application Set under the 2011 ACL Amendment: • End on December 31st of the closure year and extend backward into the year for the number of days necessary to achieve the required reduction in landings. Revised under the 2016 Timing of AMs Amendment: • End on September 30th of the closure year and extend backward toward the beginning of the year for the number of days necessary to achieve the required reduction in landings. • If the required fishing season reduction exceeds the period of January 1 through September 30, additional fishing season reduction will be applied from October 1 forward. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 4

Spiny Lobster AM Closures AM-based closure only applicable in federal waters (9-200 nm). State waters (0-9 nm) remain open to harvest of spiny lobster. Discussion at the August 2021 Council meeting brought up concerns from fishermen surrounding the timing of the closure and compatibility in state waters. The Council requested that staff examine alternative times when AMs could be applied for spiny lobster under the Puerto Rico FMP.

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

Puerto Rico Spiny Lobster Landings Average Landings from 2012-2019 by Month

45000

2012-2019 Average

40000

Adjusted Landings (lb)

35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

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

Options for Consideration No Action – Any AM triggered would continue to be applied from September 30th backward and if more time required, from October 1st forward. Option 1 – close from December 31 - backward Option 2 – close from July 31 – backward Option 3 – close from January 1 - forward

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 7

Option 1: close from December 31 - backward • As landings are lowest in December and November, the required closure (based on average fishing rates during those months) may be longer than a closure under the status quo (higher landings in August and September). • This option would give fishers the greatest amount of time to react to/prepare for an AM-based closure if the FR notice is published at the beginning of the year. • Could overlap with queen conch closure in state waters (Aug 1 – Oct 31), if required AM closure period runs into October. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 8

Option 2: close from July 31 - backward • Similar to current AM, could close from August - forward if more time was needed to avoid exceeding the ACL. • Landings in April - July are lower than landings in August – October, so the required closure period may be longer than the status quo but shorter than Option 1. • This option would give fishers less time to react to/prepare for an AM-based closure than the current approach. • Would not overlap with QC closure unless the January 1 July 31 period was not long enough to ensure that landings again do not exceed the ACL. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 9

Option 3 - close from January 1 - forward • Landings in January - March are higher, so the required closure may be shorter than under Option 2 or Option 1. • This option would require the FR notice publish in the prior calendar year, which could be problematic if final landings are not available in time. • This option gives fishers the least amount of time to react to/prepare for an AM-based closure. • If the required closure extends into March, it could coincide with Holy Week. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 10

Other Management Options Given the history of spiny lobster landings in Puerto Rico, the ACLs approved under the Spiny Lobster Framework Amendment (below), and the lack of compatible ACLs or closures in state waters, there is a high likelihood that catch will exceed the spiny lobster ACL in future years. ACL 2022-2023 = 369,313 pounds ACL 2024+ = 366,965 pounds

The Council may want to consider other options such as a fixed seasonal closure to ensure that ACLs are not exceeded on a regular basis. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 11

Other Management Options Continued

Spiny lobster closed seasons across the Caribbean region from north to south. Source (https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps_oa/m671p129.pdf) U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 12

State versus Federal Spiny Lobster Landings The majority of spiny lobster are harvested from state waters each year.

Year State Waters (0 to 9 NM) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

101,092 196,874 290,573 327,659 392,611 256,778 482,198 439,531

Federal Unknown Waters (9 to 200 NM) 42,823 241,896 21,052 57,499 29,333 56,872 36,403 54,211 32,867 23,754 18,898 7,544 23,945 14,686 38,808 10,629

ACL for spiny lobster in Puerto Rico under the Spiny Lobster FMP = 327,920 lb. ACL for spiny lobster under the Amendment to the Puerto Rico FMP (2021-2023) = 369,313 lb. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 13

Next Steps Develop options into Amendment? • Consider other options for Puerto Rico spiny lobster AM • Include option for fixed seasonal closure Request compatible regulations? Questions?

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 14

Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition and Use Generic Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix including Draft Environmental Assessment Version 3. Final 176th Caribbean Fishery Management Council Regular Meeting December 7-8, 2021

Overview Issues Addressed in this Amendment:  Modify the definition of buoy gear in federal regulations to allow for the use of up to 25 hooks to fish commercially.  New: Limit the use of buoy gear to those fishing commercially.

New Issue: The Council would like to restrict use of the buoy gear to commercial fisheries only. Council members concerned about the potential for the use of buoy gear by recreational fishers fishing for non-managed species. - Recreational use of buoy gear limited or non-existent – (Buoy gear is very specialized) Buoy gear is an allowable gear for: - PR, STT/STJ, STX: commercial reef fish and pelagic fisheries (FMP) - PR, STT/STJ, STX: Non-FMP commercial fisheries and pelagic fisheries and Non-FMP recreational fisheries.

Purpose and Need Purpose: to modify the definition of buoy gear included in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 to allow for the use of a greater number of hooks with this gear type when fishing commercially for deep-water snappers and groupers managed under the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP, and to limit the use of the buoy gear to those fishing commercially. Need: To ensure that commercial fishermen fishing for deep-water snappers and groupers in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix can use the buoy gear with more than 10 hooks preferred by some fishermen, while protecting the deep-water reef fish resource and its habitat and minimizing user conflicts.

Action 1: Buoy Gear Prohibition for Recreational Fishing Alternative 1. No Action. Buoy gear is currently an authorized gear type for recreational harvest in the Caribbean as found in 50 CFR 600.725. Retain the authorized gear types for recreational harvest in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Alternative 2. Prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing recreationally in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix.

Alternative 1. No Action. Buoy gear is currently an authorized gear type for recreational harvest in the Caribbean as found in 50 CFR 600.725. Retain the authorized gear types for recreational harvest in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. • Would retain all gear types authorized for use in the recreational sector under each of the island-based FMPs. • Although buoy gear is an authorized gear for recreational harvest of non-FMP species only (i.e., species not managed by the Council), at present, there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear as defined in the regulations. • Any use of the gear by the recreational sector is unlikely because buoy gear is a very specialized commercial gear that is expensive and difficult to use.

Alternative 2. Prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing recreationally in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. • Proposes a broad prohibition for all recreational fisheries (i.e., managed and non-managed species) that would be implemented through federal regulations. Alternative 2 would eliminate: (a) any potential future conflicts between commercial and recreational user groups at the subject fishing grounds (b) any additional ecological/biological and physical effects that might accrue though additional (recreational fishing-related) pressure at those grounds and to those resources (c) any safety concerns potentially associated with the presence of a new (recreational) fleet at the deep-water reef fish fishing grounds, which may arise due to the specialized characteristics of the buoy gear operations.

Summary: Alternative 1 does not change any of the gear types authorized to fish recreationally, while Alternative 2 only affects one gear type (buoy gear) and its use by the recreational sector fishing for all species (managed and unmanaged). However, neither Alternative 1 nor Alternative 2 are expected to alter recreational fishing behavior in the short term as there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear in the EEZ.

Action 2: Modification of the Buoy Gear Definition Alternative 1. No Action. The definition of buoy gear specified in 50 CFR 622.2 with respect to the number of hooks allowed would not be changed and the number of hooks would remain at 10. Alternative 2. Modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector fishing for 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. EEZ in the Caribbean EEZ (i.e. the EEZ off PR, STT/STJ, STX) to allow the use of up to 25 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end for all authorized commercial fisheries.

Alternative 1. No Action. The definition of buoy gear specified in 50 CFR 622.2 would be retained. • The definition of buoy gear in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 would remain unchanged. • One of the specific requirements under this definition is that buoy gear cannot contain more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. • In components of each of the IBFMP fisheries where buoy gear is an authorized gear (e.g., commercial sector harvesting managed reef fish) — fishers must limit the gear to 10 hooks.

Alternative 2. Modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector 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. • Would increase the number of hooks allowed to be used up to 25 instead of 10. • This new maximum number of hooks would allow those fishing commercially for managed reef fish in federal waters to legally use the gear configuration employed by some in state waters and federal waters off Puerto Rico and the USVI. • The modification would only apply to those using this gear to fish commercially for managed reef fish species.

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. • Would increase the number of hooks allowed to be used up to 25 instead of 10 for all commercial fisheries where buoy gear is authorized. • Buoy gear as currently defined in 50 CFR 622.2 is authorized for: - commercial harvest of reef fish and pelagic species in the IBFMPs; - commercial and recreational harvest of non-FMP species and commercial non-FMP 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.

* This does not supersede any regulations applicable to HMS species.

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. Council members preliminary expressed support for Alternative 3.

Next Steps 1. Council to select Preferred Alternatives 2. Vote to submit amendment for Secretarial Review

Questions?

Queen Snapper (Cartucho) resting on the seafloor at 439 m on Dog Seamount in the Caribbean. Image: Ocean Exploration Trust and U.S. Geological Survey. https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/explorations/ex1502/background/snapper-grouper/welcome.html

Additional Slides

Buoy gear means fishing gear that fishes vertically in the water column that consists of a single drop line suspended from a float, from which no more than 10 hooks can be connected between the buoy and the terminal end, and the terminal end contains a weight that is no more than 10 lb (4.5 kg). The drop line can be rope (hemp, manila, cotton or other natural fibers; nylon, polypropylene, spectra or other synthetic material) or monofilament, but must not be cable or wire. The gear is free-floating and not connected to other gear or the vessel. The drop line must be no greater than 2 times the depth of the water being fished. All hooks must be attached to the drop line no more than 30 ft (9.1 m) from the weighted terminal end. These hooks may be attached directly to the drop line; attached as snoods (defined as an offshoot line that is directly spliced, tied or otherwise connected to the drop line), where each snood has a single terminal hook; or as gangions (defined as an offshoot line connected to the drop line with some type of detachable clip), where each gangion has a single terminal hook.

50 CFR 600.725(v) gear table and 50 CFR 622.2 definitions

Puerto Rico Reef Fish •

Snappers: black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, wenchman, cardinal, queen, lane, mutton, dog, schoolmaster, yellowtail, cubera*

•

Groupers: Nassau, goliath, coney, graysby, black, red, tiger, yellowfin, yellowmouth*, yellowedge, misty, red hind, rock hind

•

Parrotfishes: blue, midnight, rainbow, queen, princess, redtail, stoplight, redband, striped

•

Surgeonfishes: blue tang, ocean surgeonfish, doctorfish

•

Triggerfishes: ocean, queen, gray*

•

Wrasses: hogfish, puddingwife, Spanish hogfish

•

Angelfishes: queen, grey, French

•

Grunts: white grunt

•

Jacks: crevalle jack*, African pompano*, rainbow runner*

* New to management

18

St. Thomas/St John Reef Fish •

Snappers: black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, queen, lane, mutton, yellowtail

•

Groupers: Nassau, goliath, coney, red hind, black, red, tiger, yellowfin, yellowmouth*, yellowedge, misty

•

Parrotfishes: blue, midnight, rainbow, queen, princess, redtail, stoplight, redband, striped, redfin

•

Surgeonfishes: blue tang, ocean surgeonfish, doctorfish

•

Triggerfishes: queen

•

Wrasses: hogfish

•

Angelfishes: queen, grey, French

•

Grunts: white grunt, bluestriped, margate

•

Jacks: Blue runner

•

Porgies: jolthead, saucereye, sheepshead, sea bream

* New to management

19

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

20

Generic Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix: Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition and Use

Including Draft Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Version 3 December 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 and Use. 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 DNER DPNR 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 Department of Natural and Environmental Resources Department of Planning and Natural Resources 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 Actions and Alternatives Chapter 3. Affected Environment Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences Chapter 7. List of Preparers Chapter 8. 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 ............................................................................................................................... VII List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ VIII Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1

What Action is Proposed? ................................................................................................ 1

1.2

Why is the Council Considering Action?......................................................................... 2

1.2.1

Statement of Purpose and Need ................................................................................ 3

1.3

Where Will the Action Have an Effect?........................................................................... 4

1.4

History of Federal Fisheries Management ....................................................................... 4

Chapter 2. 2.1

Proposed Actions and Alternatives ........................................................................... 8

Action 1: Buoy Gear Prohibition for Fishing Recreationally ......................................... 8

2.1.1

Proposed Alternatives for Action 1........................................................................... 8

2.1.2

Discussion of Action 1 Alternatives ......................................................................... 8

2.2

Action 2: Modification of the Buoy Gear Definition .................................................... 10

2.2.1

Proposed Alternatives for Action 2......................................................................... 10

2.2.2

Discussion of Action 2 Alternatives ....................................................................... 10

Chapter 3. Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 14 3.1

Description of the Physical Environment....................................................................... 14

3.1.1

Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 14

3.1.2

St. Thomas and St. John.......................................................................................... 14

3.1.3

St. Croix .................................................................................................................. 15

3.1.4

Habitat Environment and Essential Fish Habitat .................................................... 15

3.2

Description of the Biological and Ecological Environments ......................................... 18

3.2.1

Description of the Species Affected by this Amendment ....................................... 18

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Table of Contents V

3.2.2

Bycatch ................................................................................................................... 20

3.2.3

Protected Species .................................................................................................... 21

3.3 Description of the Deep-water Reef Fish Component of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix Fisheries ........................................................................................ 22 3.3.1

Deep-water Reef Fish Management........................................................................ 22

3.3.2 Description of the Deep-water Reef Fish Component of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix Fisheries Harvested with Vertical Bottom line/Buoy Gear 25 3.4

Description of the Economic Environment .................................................................... 39

3.4.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 39

3.4.2

Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 40

3.4.3

St. Croix and St. Thomas and St. John ................................................................... 45

3.5

Description of the Social Environment .......................................................................... 50

3.5.1

Puerto Rico.............................................................................................................. 50

3.5.2

St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John ........................................................................ 56

3.6

Description of the Administrative Environment ............................................................ 62

3.6.1

Federal Fishery Management .................................................................................. 62

3.6.2

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Fisheries Management ................................. 63

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 65 4.1 Action 1: Buoy Gear Prohibition ....................................................................................... 65 4.1.1 Effects on the Physical Environment .......................................................................... 65 4.1.2 Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment..................................................... 65 4.1.3 Effects on the Economic Environment ....................................................................... 66 4.1.4 Effects on the Social Environment ............................................................................. 66 4.1.5 Effects on the Administrative Environment ............................................................... 67 4.2 Action 2: Modification to the Buoy Gear Definition ......................................................... 67 4.2.1 Effects on the Physical Environment .......................................................................... 67 4.2.2 Effects on the Biological/Ecological Environment..................................................... 68 4.2.3 Effects on the Economic Environment ....................................................................... 70 4.2.4 Effects on the Social Environment ............................................................................. 71 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Table of Contents VI

4.2.5 Effects on the Administrative Environment ............................................................... 72 4.6

Cumulative Effects Analysis .......................................................................................... 74

Chapter 5. Regulatory Impact Review ......................................................................................... 79 5.1

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 79

5.2

Problems and Objectives ................................................................................................ 79

5.3

Impact of Management Measures .................................................................................. 81

5.4

Public Costs of Regulations ........................................................................................... 83

5.5

Determination of Significant Regulatory Action ........................................................... 83

Chapter 6. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis ........................................................................... 84 6.1

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 84

6.2

Statement of the need for, objective of, and legal basis for the proposed rule .............. 84

6.3 Identification of federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule ............................................................................................................................. 84 6.4 Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed action would apply............................................................................................................................... 85 6.5

Description and economic impacts of the compliance requirements of the proposed rule 86

Chapter 7. List of Preparers ......................................................................................................... 88 Chapter 8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted........................................... 89 Chapter 9. References .................................................................................................................. 90 Appendix A. List of Managed Reef Fish and Pelagic Stocks Included in Each of the Islandbased FMPs ................................................................................................................................. 100 Appendix B. Authorized Gear Types Under Each of the Island-based FMPs........................... 103 Appendix C. List of Species Identified in the Literature as Incidental Catch in the Deep-water Snapper/Grouper Fishery of Puerto Rico.................................................................................... 107

List of Tables Table 3.2.1. List of snapper and grouper species harvested in the commercial deep-water vertical bottom line component of the reef fish fishery in each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. ....................................................................................................................... 19 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Table of Contents VII

Table. 3.3.1. Annual catch limits applicable to the deep-water reef fish component. Values are in pounds whole weight. Species in bold text represent indicator stock selected for the stock complex. ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 3.3.2. Seasonal closures for snapper species in federal and state waters of Puerto Rico and the USVI. ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 3.3.3. Seasonal closures for grouper species in federal and state waters of Puerto Rico and the USVI. ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 3.3.4. Adjusted pounds (whole weight) of some deep-water snapper-grouper species landed in Puerto Rico each year (all gear types)........................................................................... 28 Table 3.3.5. Number of commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico that landed deep-water species each year (all gear types) in all Puerto Rico waters. ..................................................................... 29 Table 3.3.6. 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)............ 33 Table 3.5.1. Contemporary socioeconomic, demographic, and operational aspects of fishing in the USVI*. .................................................................................................................................... 58 Table 3.5.2. Summary information on multi-hook vertical set lines used to capture deep-water snappers and groupers in the USVI* ............................................................................................ 59

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. .......................................................................................... 4 Figure 3.3.1. Depiction of a vertical line (cala). ......................................................................... 26 Figure 3.4.1. Labor force and unemployment rate in Puerto Rico, 2012 – 2020........................ 41 Figure 3.4.2. Puerto Rico real GDP (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2020. ....................... 42 Figure 3.4.3. Puerto Rico’s GNI per capita (constant 2020 U.S. dollars), 2016 – 2019............. 42 Figure 3.4.4. Arrival guests through August of each year, 2017 – 2020. .................................... 44 Figure 3.4.5. Monthly labor force, January 2019 – December 2020. ......................................... 44 Figure 3.4.6. Construction jobs in USVI, January 2017 – September 2019. .............................. 45 Figure 3.4.7. Employees in construction, mining and logging sector in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. ................................................................................................................................ 46

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Table of Contents VIII

Figure 3.4.8. Employees in the leisure and hospitality, manufacturing, and trade, transportation and utilities sectors in USVI, January 2016 to January 2021. ...................................................... 47 Figure 3.4.9. Total USVI visitor arrivals, 2016 – 2020. ............................................................. 48 Figure 3.4.10. Annual change in real GDP, 2016 – 2020. .......................................................... 48 Figure 3.4.11. Annual change in rum exports to U.S.................................................................. 49 Figure 5.2.1. Annual ex-vessel revenue (2020 dollars) from landings of species harvested with buoy gear in Puerto Rico and trend (2-year moving average) of that revenue, 2012-2019. ......... 80 Figure 5.2.2 Annual commercial landings (lbs ww) and trend of those landings (2-year moving average) by all hook-and-line gear in St. Thomas/St. John, 2012 – 2019. ................................... 81 Figure 5.2.3. Annual commercial landings (lbs ww) in St. Croix by hook-and-line gear and trend (2-year moving average) of those landings, 2012 – 2019. .................................................. 81

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Table of Contents IX

Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1

What Action is 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 and 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). Later, at the 175th meeting, the Council requested staff to address in this amendment, prohibiting the use of buoy gear for recreational harvest. Recreational use of this gear type appears to be non-existent or minimal, and the Council is interested in limiting the use of the buoy gear to those fishing commercially. This amendment to the island-based FMPs includes two actions that would modify the current definition of buoy gear for federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean and the fisheries in which the buoy gear could be used. 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. 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 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 1. Introduction 1

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. In addition to buoy gear, other gear types authorized to commercially harvest reef fish include automatic reel, bandit reel, handline, longline, rod and reel, trap, pot, and spear. These gear types will be included in the regulations at 50 CFR 600.725(v) 1. Appendix A 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 the primary species targeted with buoy gear are included under this category. Buoy gear is also an authorized gear type for the commercial harvest of managed pelagic fish in each of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix (See Appendix A for the list of managed pelagic fish). For the recreational sector, buoy gear is an authorized gear for the harvest of non-FMP species under each of the Puerto Rico. St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs. See Appendix B of this document for the List of Authorized Gears by FMP and fishery.

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 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-water snappers and groupers: cardinal and queen snapper, misty grouper up to 1500 ft (457m; 250 fathoms) and to a lesser degree for other species of snapper 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 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 2

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 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 fishermen’s preference, species targeted, fishing conditions, among other reasons. The use of any gear not listed as authorized for a fishery is prohibited, though persons can notify the Council of the intent to use the gear and proceed unless regulatory action is taken to prohibit the use of the gear (50 CFR 600.725(v)). The authorized gear types for those fishing commercially for reef fish and pelagic species managed under the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP are automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, rod and reel, trap, pot, spear, and this will be included in updates to the table in the regulations at 50 CFR 600.725(v). 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 buoy 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 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 greater number of hooks with this gear type when fishing commercially for deep-water snapper and groupers managed under the Puerto Rico FMP, the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP, and to limit the use of the buoy gear to those fishing commercially.

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

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. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, can use buoy gear with more than 10 hooks preferred by some fishermen, while protecting the deep-water reef fish resource and its habitat and minimizing user conflicts.

1.3

Where Will the Action Have an Effect?

Under the Puerto Rico FMP (CFMC 2019a), the St. Thomas and 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 and St. John EEZ, described in detail in the St. Thomas and St. John FMP and incorporated herein by reference, ranges 3-200 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 (6-370 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 and St. John, and St. Croix management areas.

1.4

History of Federal Fisheries Management

Prior to development of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix FMPs, reef fish stocks and stock complexes throughout the U.S. Caribbean (included in the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix EEZs) were managed within the Reef Fish FMP of Puerto Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 1. Introduction 4

Rico and the USVI (CFMC 1985), as amended. The original Reef Fish FMP included only shallow-water 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 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 and St. John fishery, and the St. Croix fishery is included in Appendix C of each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and 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 and 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 pelagic 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: 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 Shallow-water 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 (OY) 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) 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 1. Introduction 6

30 of each year; established seasonal closures (no fishing or possession), every year for silk, black, blackfin and vermillion snapper from October 1 through December 31 and for tiger, yellowfin, yellowedge, red and black grouper 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, and overfishing limits, 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 and 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. 2.1

Proposed Actions and Alternatives

Action 1: Buoy Gear Prohibition for Fishing Recreationally

In this action, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) considers prohibiting the use of buoy gear for recreational fishing under the Puerto Rico Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the St. Thomas and St. John FMP, and the St. Croix FMP, collectively known as the island-based FMPs.

2.1.1

Proposed Alternatives for Action 1

Alternative 1. No Action. Buoy gear is currently an authorized gear type for recreational harvest in the Caribbean as found in 50 CFR 600.725 3. Retain the authorized gear types for recreational harvest in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Alternative 2. Prohibit the use of buoy gear for those fishing recreationally in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix.

2.1.2

Discussion of Action 1 Alternatives

Under Alternative 1, the gear types authorized for recreational fishing under each of the islandbased FMPs would remain unchanged. The authorized gear types for fishing recreationally under each island-based FMP will be listed in 50 CFR part 600.725 4 and are listed in Appendix B and summarized below. The authorized gear types for fishing recreationally in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix include: 1) For Puerto Rico Reef Fish, St. Thomas and St. John Reef Fish, and St. Croix Reef Fish: dip net, handline, rod and reel, slurp gun, spear, trap, pot; 2) Puerto Rico Pelagics, St. Thomas and St. John Pelagics, and St. Croix Pelagics: spear, handline, longline, rod and reel; 3) Puerto Rico Spiny Lobster, St. Thomas and St. John Spiny Lobster, and St. Croix Spiny Lobster: trap, pot, dip net, hand harvest, snare; 4) Puerto Rico non-FMP pelagic species, St. Thomas and St. John non-FMP pelagic species, St. Croix non-FMP pelagic species: spear, handline, longline, rod and reel.; 6) Puerto Rico non-FMP species, St. Thomas and St. John non-FMP species, St. Croix non-FMP species: automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, longline, rod and reel, spear, powerhead, hand harvest, cast net. 3 The list of authorized gear types will be updated when the rule implementing the island-based FMPs is finalized. The changes to be proposed are listed in Appendix B. 4 The list of authorized gear types will be updated when the rule implementing the island-based FMPs is finalized. The changes to be proposed are listed in Appendix B.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 8

In Action 1, the Council is considering whether to prohibit the use of buoy gear by the recreational sector. Alternative 1 would retain all gears authorized for use in the recreational sector under each of the island-based FMPs (Table 2.1), including buoy gear. 5 Although buoy gear (subject of this amendment) is an authorized gear for recreational harvest of non-FMP species only (i.e., species not managed by the Council), at present, there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear as defined in the regulations. Any use of the gear by the recreational sector is unlikely because buoy gear is a very specialized commercial gear that is expensive and difficult to use. Although, the use of buoy gear by the recreational sector appears unlikely in the present, in Alternative 2, the Council proposes to prohibit the use of this gear by the recreational sector to prevent any potential use to fish for any species of the Puerto Rico Fishery, the St. Thomas and St. John Fishery, and the St. Croix Fishery. Currently, buoy gear is an authorized gear for the recreational harvest of non-FMP species but Alternative 2 proposes a broad prohibition for all recreational fisheries (i.e., managed and non-managed species) that would be implemented through federal regulations. With respect to non-managed species, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) gives the Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) the authority to regulate fishing activity to support the conservation and management of fisheries. This could include regulations that pertain to fishing for non-managed species. Per the Magnuson-Stevens Act 303(b)(12) and (14), FMPs can "include management measures in the plan to conserve target and non-target species and habitats, considering the variety of ecological factors affecting fishery populations" and can "prescribe such other measures, requirements, or conditions and restrictions as are determined to be necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery." These provisions, taken together, provide broad discretion to manage fishing for non-managed species for the benefit of managed species. By taking this action the Council would like to prevent potential new resource use conflicts and ecological/biological and physical effects from the use of this gear type by the recreational sector in the future, should recreational fishermen begin using the gear. For example, Alternative 2 would eliminate: (a) any potential future conflicts between commercial and recreational user groups at the subject fishing grounds, (b) any additional ecological/biological and physical effects that might accrue though additional (recreational fishing-related) pressure at those grounds and to those resources (e.g., risk of overfishing the deep-water snapper/grouper resource; risks to managed species from misuse of the buoy gear; limit bycatch of managed species), and (c) any safety concerns potentially associated with the presence of a new 5

See definition of buoy gear in Section 1.1.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 9

(recreational) fleet at the deep-water reef fish fishing grounds, which may arise due to the specialized characteristics of the buoy gear operations. In summary, Alternative 1 does not change any of the gear types authorized for use by the recreational sector of each of the island-based fisheries while Alternative 2 only affects one gear type (buoy gear) and its use by the recreational sector fishing for all species (managed and unmanaged). However, neither Alternative 1 nor Alternative 2 are expected to alter recreational fishing behavior in the short term as there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear in the EEZ.

2.2

Action 2: Modification of the Buoy Gear Definition

In this action, the Council would modify the buoy gear definition for Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix fisheries.

2.2.1

Proposed Alternatives for Action 2

Alternative 1. No Action. The definition of buoy gear specified in 50 CFR 622.2 with respect to the number of hooks allowed would not be changed and the number of hooks would remain at 10. Alternative 2. Modify the definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2 as it applies to the commercial sector fishing for 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. EEZ in the Caribbean (i.e., 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 for all authorized fisheries.

2.2.2

Discussion of Action 2 Alternatives

Under Alternative 1, the definition of buoy gear in federal regulations at 50 CFR 622.2 would not be changed with respect to fisheries in the US Caribbean EEZ. 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 10

applicable to fishing in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Thus, in components of the Puerto Rico Fishery, the St. Thomas and St. John Fishery, and the St. Croix Fishery where buoy gear is an authorized gear—namely, the commercial sector of those fishing for managed reef fish and the commercial sector of those fishing for managed pelagic species – and in the non-FMP fisheries included in the authorized gear table (see Appendix B) (i.e., the commercial and recreational non-FMP fisheries, and the commercial pelagic fishery) fishermen must limit the gear to 10 hooks. According to reports from fishermen, in state and federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix, some fishermen fishing commercially for deep-water reef fish managed under the island-based FMPs, currently use a buoy gear configuration that is consistent to that as defined in the current federal regulations except for the maximum number of hooks. To be consistent with the current definition of buoy gear in 50 CFR 622.2, there must be no more than 10 hooks connected between the buoy and the terminal end. 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 Council-managed reef fish or pelagic species, or in any other unmanaged (non-FMP) fisheries. Use of this gear with more than 10 hooks would continue to be prohibited in federal waters. Note that depending on the outcomes of Action 1 above, buoy gear might be removed from the list of authorized gear types in the non-FMP recreational fishery (See Appendix B for a list of authorized gear types by fishery under the island-based FMPs (regulatory updates forthcoming)). 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 and 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 off Puerto Rico and the USVI for federally managed reef fish to legally use the gear configuration employed by some in state waters. The modification would apply only to those using this gear type to fish commercially for federally 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 (i.e., FMP and non-FMP 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 11

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. These species usually are encountered as incidental catch, and they could include Council-managed pelagic species as well as non-managed 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 (nonFMP species) and for the commercial harvest of non-managed pelagic species in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Thus, under Alternative 2, the maximum number of hooks that could be used with buoy gear to commercially harvest Councilmanaged pelagic species as well as non-FMP managed species would continue to remain at 10. Commercial fishermen who on the same trip catch managed deep-water reef fish, Councilmanaged pelagics, and/or non-FMP managed species with buoy gear containing more than 10 hooks would not be able to retain lawfully any species other than Council-managed reef fish; the other species were caught with unlawful gear. Enforcement of gear restrictions could be difficult under Alternative 2, if during an intervention, buoy gear with more than 10 hooks is onboard with both managed reef fish and other species because it would be unknown if the gear with more than 10 hooks was used only where authorized (i.e., if it was limited to fishing commercially for the managed reef fish, or if it was used to fish for other species, where not authorized). To avoid enforcement complications for fishermen harvesting multiple species on a trip, the definition of buoy gear under Alternative 3 would allow up to 25 hooks under the definition of buoy gear in the EEZ in the U.S. Caribbean, regardless of target species. Thus, in all fisheries where buoy gear is authorized, this definition would apply. As mentioned above, buoy gear is an authorized gear type for those fishing commercially for reef fish and pelagic species managed under the island-based FMPs, for those fishing commercially for non-FMP species and non-FMP pelagic species in federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Buoy gear is also an authorized gear for those fishing recreationally for non-FMP species, however, this authorization may change depending on the outcome of Action 1 described above (Buoy Gear Prohibition for the Recreational Sector). The definition of buoy gear under Alternative 3 would apply to all harvest in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ similar to the application of the definition under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 3, the other 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 12

Under either Alternatives2 or Alternative 3, the changes are limited to the definition of buoy gear, specifically the number of hooks, and do not alter any other gear types or specification of buoy gear. 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 species targeted or location (i.e., island), contrasting with Alternative 1, which maintains the limit at 10 hooks. However, Alternative 2 only applies to fishermen fishing commercially for managed reef fish with buoy gear, while both Alternatives 1 and 3 applies to all fishermen using authorized buoy gear in U.S. Caribbean waters.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 13

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 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 and St. John FMP (CFMC 2019b), and the St. Croix FMP (CFMC 2019c), and are incorporated by reference and summarized below.

3.1

Description of the 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 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, Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 14

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).

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).

3.1.4

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 the island-based FMPs describes the preferred habitats for all reef fish species managed on each island/island group. 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 the island-based FMPs and is summarized below. Specific categories of EFH identified in the island-based FMPs, 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 15

estuarine water column. Additionally, marine/offshore EFH includes live/hard bottom habitats, 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 Caribbean Fishery Management Council (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 16

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]).

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 17

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). Pelagic Fish EFH in the St. Thomas and 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 outer boundary of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (habitats used by juveniles, adults, and larvae [for larvae, sargassum substrates only]).

3.2

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 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 while pursuing deep-water reef fish), which are incorporated herein by reference and summarized below. Reef fish and pelagic species are managed as stocks or stock complexes. See Appendix A for a complete list of species managed under the Reef Fish and Pelagic groups on each of the island-based FMPs.

3.2.1

Description of the Species Affected by this Amendment

The waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and 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 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 and 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 the island-based FMPs contain specific information about the distribution and habitat, life history, diet, reproduction and spawning characteristics for all species managed under the FMPs. Council-managed species fished with vertical bottom line gear (which includes buoy gear) include deep-water reef fish species such as snappers and groupers (Table 3.2.1). Species listed Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 18

in Table 3.2.1 are species within the Reef Fish component in each island-based FMP that occur in deeper-water habitats and are directly targeted by the commercial sector or indirectly harvested by commercial fishermen while pursuing target species. These species are expected to be affected by this amendment as they are fished 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 pelagic species are not included in Table 3.2.1. At present, there is no evidence that the recreational sector uses or has used buoy gear in the EEZ off Puerto Rico, St. Croix or St. Thomas and St. John and the availability of recreational data is limited, therefore, no species are described in this section that would be affected by Action 1. Table 3.2.1. List of snapper and grouper species harvested in the commercial deep-water vertical bottom line component of the reef fish fishery in each of Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Species Snappers

Puerto Rico FMP black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, wenchman, cardinal, queen

Groupers

yellowmouth, yellowedge, misty

St. Thomas/St. John FMP St. Croix FMP black, blackfin, silk, black, blackfin, vermilion, queen silk, vermilion, queen, cardinal, wenchman yellowmouth, yellowedge, misty misty

This list in not all inclusive, and only lists those species that have been identified by fishermen as being actively targeted commercially 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; Scharer-Umpierre 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 C 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 3.2.2 below.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 19

3.2.1.1 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 (Table 3.3.1).

3.2.2

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 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, 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 of reef fish species include: Year-round: Nassau grouper: No person may fish for or possess Nassau grouper in or from the EEZ around Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Such fish caught in the EEZ around Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix must be released immediately with a minimum of harm; • Goliath grouper: No person may fish for or possess goliath grouper in or from the EEZ around Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix. Such fish caught in the EEZ around Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix must be released immediately with a minimum of harm; • 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 immediately with a minimum of harm 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 specified closed seasons and closed areas established by island area. •

Section 3.3.1 above and Appendix C 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 and groupers harvested with vertical bottom line gear. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 20

3.2.3

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. 6 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 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.

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).

6

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 21

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.

3.3

Description of the Deep-water Reef Fish Component of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and 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.

3.3.1

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) (CFMC 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, which was one of the most economically valuable species commercially landed (CFMC 1993). Reef fish (including deep-water snappers and other deep-water reef fish) in federal waters are managed with annual catch limits (ACL) for Puerto Rico commercial and recreational sectors Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 22

and for all harvest in the St. Croix and in St. Thomas and St. John (Table 3.3.1), with an aggregate bag limit for recreational harvest, seasonal closure for certain species (Tables 3.3.2 and 3.3.3), 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 that includes a quota and a limit on the number of trips per year in Puerto Rico state waters (see Section 3.3.2.1 below). The commercial ACL set under the Reef Fish FMP for queen and cardinal snapper in Puerto Rico (Snapper Unit 2) was exceeded in 2013. As a result the commercial season for these species was closed from September 21, 2013 through December 31, 2013 in federal waters off Puerto Rico. Table. 3.3.1. Annual catch limits applicable to the deep-water reef fish component. Values are in pounds whole weight. Species in bold text represent indicator stock selected for the stock complex. Stock/Stock Complex Snapper 1 (black, blackfin, silk, vermilion, wenchman*) Snapper 2 (queen, cardinal**) PR Grouper 4 (black, red, tiger, yellowfin, yellowmouth) PR Grouper 5 (misty, yellowedge) 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)

Puerto Rico FMP

St. Croix FMP

St. Thomas/St. John FMP

Total ACL

Total ACL

Commercial ACL

Recreational ACL

424,009

111,943

61,455

20,090

257,236

24,974

7,911

568

2,492

5,867

N/A

N/A

15,327

4,225

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

701

N/A

N/A

N/A

77

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2,254

N/A

N/A

N/A

390

* Wenchman is not managed in federal waters off St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John. ** Cardinal snapper is not managed in federal waters off St. Croix or in St. Thomas and St. John.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 23

Table 3.3.2. Seasonal closures for snapper species in federal and state waters of Puerto Rico and the USVI. Silk, Black, Blackfin, Vermillion, Wenchman* Snappers Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John EEZ Puerto Rico state waters (only applies to silk and blackfin) USVI state waters (only applies to STT and STJ)

Closed Season

Open Season

Oct 1 – Dec 31

Jan 1 – Sep 30

Oct 1 – Dec 31

Jan 1 – Sep 30

Oct 1 – Dec 31

Jan 1 – Sep 30

* Wenchman is not managed in federal waters off St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John.

Table 3.3.3. Seasonal closures for grouper species in federal and state waters of Puerto Rico and the USVI. Red hind Grouper Puerto Rico EEZ (only applies to red hind fishing and possession west of 67°10' W. longitude) Puerto Rico state waters USVI state waters Yellowfin, Red, Tiger, Black, Yellowedge* Grouper Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. Thomas/St. John EEZ Puerto Rico state waters (only applies to yellowfin) USVI state waters

Closed Season Dec 1 – Last day Feb

Open Season Mar 1 – Nov 30

Dec 1 – Last day Feb No closure Closed Season

Mar 1 – Nov 30 Open year-round Open Season

Feb 1 – Apr 30 Feb 1 – Apr 30 Feb 1 – Apr 30

May 1 – Jan 31 May 1 – Jan 31 May 1 – Jan 31

*Yellowedge grouper is not managed in federal waters off St. Croix.

The commercial deep-water snapper and grouper reef fish component is artisanal and relatively small scale; however, it represents the largest finfish resource in terms of weight of landings and estimated dollar values in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ (Tonioli and Agar 2011; Schärer 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.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 24

3.3.2

Description of the Deep-water Reef Fish Component of the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas and St. John, and St. Croix Fisheries Harvested with Vertical Bottom line/Buoy Gear

Deep-water reef fish, particularly deep-water snappers and groupers targeted by small-scale commercial fishermen, are typically harvested with hook-and-line gear. The type of hook-andline 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 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 2 stock complex in Puerto Rico and only queen snapper in St. Thomas and St. John and 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 for species in the Snapper 1 stock complex in St. Thomas and 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. 3.3.2.1

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).

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 25

Figure 3.3.1. Depiction of a vertical line (cala). (Source: Matos-Caraballo and Torres-Rosado 1989)

Cala (or fuete) is the common vertical bottom line configuration along the west coast (Figure 3.3.1). In a 2014 survey, Agar and Shivlani (2016) reported that on average surveyed fishermen 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 fishermen 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 fishermen reported that fishing trips averaged about 15 hours; although some said they fished up to 120 hours over a multi-day trip. 7 More recently, public testimony at Council meetings and through personal communication between NMFS staff with Puerto Rico fishermen indicate that in Puerto Rico (federal and state waters), 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. Fishermen 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. Fishermen 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 fishermen, in addition of the depth fished (depth depends on the 7

The median trip was 11 hours long.

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 26

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 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 year-round (strong currents and weather events immensely affect the pursue of this fishery). The Council has identified a need to conduct an inventory of gear types for Puerto Rico fisheries that provide more recent information of gear types and methods in general. 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 federal and state waters target multiple species of fish and shellfish, including reef fish (especially snappers and groupers), coastal pelagics, deep-water pelagics, lobster, and conch. 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 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 3.3.4). Fishing occurs mainly over muddy bottoms and rocky benthic habitat (or hard) at water depths that range from 250 to 3,000 feet. Fishermen target deep-water snappers in shelf breaks and the edge of insular platforms, and along the seamount chains. Along the west coast of Puerto Rico, the majority of the vessels fishing with vertical bottom lines targeting queen and cardinal snapper (Snapper 2 stock complex) 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 1 stock complex) tend to fish Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 27

while anchored because these species are found in shallower waters (600 ft.; 183m; 100 fathoms) (E. Font, west coast deep-water snapper fishermen, testimony at Council meeting, August 2020; N. Crespo, west coast deep-water snapper fishermen, 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 fishermen are squid, sardines, ballyhoo, and miscellaneous tunas (blackfin, skipjack and little tunny) (Shivlani and Agar 2016). Table 3.3.4. Adjusted pounds (whole weight) of some deep-water snapper-grouper species landed in Puerto Rico each year (all gear types). Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Misty grouper 4,208 3,829 4,570 5,505 3,450 4,176 3,793 7,122 36,654

Yellowedge grouper 394 303 587 547 940 1,206 777 1,031 5,785

Black snapper 7,149 6,691 4,341 2,893 8,274 4,601 5,134 4,454 43,537

Blackfin snapper 5,338 6,270 7,930 6,302 9,830 8,201 10,647 10,264 64,781

Cardinal snapper 17,842 11,502 17,035 16,701 9,340 8,926 9,911 12,703 103,959

Queen snapper 166,779 97,030 157,443 164,037 115,088 86,195 102,303 152,448 1,041,323

Silk snapper 180,390 118,084 191,095 180,525 211,793 200,848 194,172 311,167 1,588,074

Vermilion snapper 11,222 7,266 12,269 14,104 13,386 11,561 13,220 14,403 97,432

C. Commercial Fishermen Participating in the Deep-water Vertical Bottom line/Buoy Gear Component of the Reef Fish Fishery Approximately 60 commercial fishermen currently possess the Deep-water Snapper Special Permit (See sub-section 3.3.2.3 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 fishermen. In 2019, a total of 354 fishermen reported using bottom line gear. Of those, 137 (39%) were from the North coast, 46 (13%) were from the East coast, 55 (16%) were from the South coast, and 156 (44%) were from the West coast (8 fishermen (2%) were reported as Inland) (Source: SERO 2021).

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 28

The deep-water buoy gear configuration is a very specialized and highly species-specific gear type (E. Font, west coast deep-water snapper fishermen, testimony at Council meeting, August 2020; N. Crespo, west coast deep-water fisher, pers. communication, February 2021) and it is mostly used by commercial fishermen usually in the deeper reefs. In addition to queen and cardinal snapper, the buoy gear configuration may also be used by commercial fishermen to harvest mid-depth reef species in the Snapper 1 stock complex (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 (See Table 3.3.7 in Subsection D below). Some furtive fishing may also occur of species in the Snapper 2 stock complex and Snapper 1 stock complex (e.g., harvest of queen and cardinal in state waters by non-permitted fishermen; harvest of any species by non-licensed fishermen). The number of commercial fishermen currently using deep-water vertical bottom line (cala) to fish for deepwater snappers and groupers is estimated to be around 200 (DNER staff, personal communication, February 2021). Within this estimate, an unknown number of fishermen 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 fishermen 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 the number of fishermen participating in the deep-water snapper fishery (Matos-Caraballo and Agar 2011a). Table 3.3.5 shows the number of fishermen 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 3.3.5. 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

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

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

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 29

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%. Agar and Shivlani (2016) list 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 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 2 stock complex) in patchy, deep-water 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 3.4.2.3 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. Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 30

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 gear 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). 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 3.3.6 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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 31

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 32

Table 3.3.6. 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 33

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 34

3.3.2.2

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 fishermen to catch deep-water 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 fishermen 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 3.5.2.1 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 hooks 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 35

fishermen use light for fishing at deep-water areas. A typical fishing trip 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 and 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 and 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 and 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). Fishermen 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 federal or state waters include silk snapper, blackfin snapper, misty grouper, wenchman, queen snapper, and other non-specified species. C. Commercial Fishermen Participating in the USVI Deep-water Buoy Gear Component of the Reef Fish Fishery In a census of USVI commercial fishermen, Kojis et al. 2017 noted that more fishermen on St. Croix than on St. Thomas and St. John owned multi-hook gear. The species caught with this Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 36

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 fishermen census, only one fisher from St. Thomas and St. John reported owning this gear while 45 St. Croix fishermen owned the gear (Kojis 2004). Kojis et al. (2017) further adds that in 2010, 2011, and 2016, three fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John, while in St. Croix 26 fishermen 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 fishermen using buoy gear in St. Croix is approximately 12, while in St. Thomas, the deep-drop buoy gear fishery is very small, with 2-4 fishermen currently pursuing this fishery. This range of fishermen is also within the range of fishermen reporting deep-water snappers in commercial landings data for the USVI. D. Fishing Areas The St. Thomas and 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 fishermen 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 fishermen surveyed fished exclusively in federal waters. The number and percentage of fishermen that fish primarily in territorial waters of St. Croix is more than in St. Thomas and 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 fishermen 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). Fishermen 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 and St. John fish in the north and south drops. 3.3.2.3

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 Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 37

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 nonresident 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 2 stock complex) 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 2 stock complex 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. Fishermen can only fish from vessels registered to fish commercially in Puerto Rico. As of December 2020, there were approximately 60 fishermen permitted. This has also been the approximate number of permitted fishermen in other years. Changes to the limited entry permit are being currently discussed by the DNER. 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 DPNR 2019). 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 Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) on a monthly basis, within two weeks Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 38

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 commercial fishing license within three years of June 2001 and have complied with catch reporting requirements.

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. 8 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

8

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.pdf

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 39

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). 9 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. 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

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). 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 3.4.1. 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]).

9

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/pr/newsroom/features/?cid=nrcseprd1420889

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 40

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)

1,250,000

0.0

Unemp Rate

Figure 3.4.1. Labor force and unemployment rate in Puerto Rico, 2012 – 2020. (Source: USDOL BLS)

Hurricane Maria caused incredibke damage to the agricultural sector in Puerto Rico. 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). 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. 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

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 41

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 Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 42

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 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. 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 43

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 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 3.4.5. 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).

Generic Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 44

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.

3.4.3

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 3.4.6, 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 Amendment Buoy Gear Modification

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 45

Thousands of Employees