SSC Report to CFMC 152nd CFMC Meeting held April 21-22, 2015 SSC Meeting held March 24-26, 2015

National SSC Workshop V ABC Specification for Data-Limited and Model- Resistant Stocks Implementation of National Standard 2 in the Face of Uncertainty Evaluating existing ABC control rules: issues, challenges and solutions Incorporating ecological, environmental, and climate variability in stock assessment and ecosystem based fishery management Building habitat condition in the stock assessment process and fishery management strategies

National SSC Workshop V Data limitations -- Caribbean and Western Pacific were clearly at a disadvantage compared to other RFMCs. Suggests the two Councils could work collaboratively toward new metrics for assessment, with a first step being the development of a white paper on the issue. New guidance coming for Natl. Std. 2 that may allow alternatives E.g., mean length or catch-per-unit-effort to monitor stocks and adjust ACLs. Multiple indicators may be robust. Approach would require annual evaluations, but these could be automated. New metrics would not replace attempts to estimate MSY, but would be an interim approach.

National SSC Workshop V A review of habitat information (including water quality parameters such as temperature) showed that these could be valuable co-variables that could be used to enhance stock abundance estimates and refine distribution models. The Caribbean was relatively rich in habitat data relative to other RFMCs, but this was balanced by the fact that much of our reef resources were very habitat dependent, so our needs are perhaps greater. At the moment within the US Caribbean, habitat information is not being used in any assessment, either with fishery-independent or –dependent data.

National SSC Workshop V Climate change – Caribbean may have species that are more restrictive in their potential for response. Organisms are thought to be near their thermal limit There is no continuous habitat for species adapted to higher temperature to migrate into the region, or for current species to move to cooler waters (except by going deeper). Climate change impacts area already evidenced in the region: – occurrence and severity of coral bleaching – loss of commercial sponges

Short Issues Video from Grammanik Bank Showed large Agaricia formations with recent damage, potentially from boats attempting to anchor. The SSC recommends that this video be presented at the next CFMC meeting ACL Overages (for Puerto Rico) No overages were reported - no action was required by the SSC. ABC Control Rule for Data-poor Stocks Tiered system depending upon data available. Data-poor stocks would occupy the lowest tier, with 2 sub-tiers – (1) species are considered overfished or undergoing overfishing, (2) other species. – Difference between these two would be the size of the buffer to be applied. Data poor approaches will be addressed in the upcoming SEDAR Best Practices Workshop.

Red Hind – St. Thomas/St. John Red hind was just reviewed under the last SEDAR No way to assess status relative to the ACL with the available data. – no way to determine an acceptable reference point – MSY is supposed to be the basis for setting OFL  ACL Assessment was hampered by: – limited length data since the initial closure – survey data from spawning aggregation were equally limited in recent years.

Red Hind – St. Thomas/St. John 1.The period used to set the OFL/ACL incorporated the increase in the spawning fish density at the Hind Bank. The increase in red hind occurred from 2000 to 2004, with no net improvement since The overall correlation between total grouper landings and density of aggregating red hind breaks down in the most recent years. 3.The landings data do no warrant an increase in the ACL since current landings are substantially below the ACL, and dropping. 4.On the basis of the above, there is no rationale for thinking that a higher ACL could be developed or justified. 5.There is still only a limited time series for red hind specific data, and this time series is too short for assessment purposes. These data do show that red hind constitute between 85 and 91% of the grouper catch.

Red Hind – St. Thomas/St. John The SSC notes that any alterations to the existing ACLs will require the input of new data. The SSC recommends that an assessment of the performance of the new reporting forms be conducted to ensure they are providing the necessary information for future stock assessment

Island-Based Plans (IBPs) The SSC questioned the proposed objectives of the IBPs: The SSC had not been involved in the rationale or discussion by the CFMC in their decision to move to IBPs Relevant to issue of species selection Concern that there may be unreasonable expectations relative to matters in which the SSC will have to be involved, especially the setting of OFLs and ABCs.

Island-Based Plans (IBPs) Objectives are stated within the EIS and were summarized as follows: Constituent – Fishers within each area felt their fisheries differed significantly with respect to species, gears, habitats, etc. Management – Differences above warrant separate management programs. Science – There are aspects of stock structure that may be different among islands (The SSC felt that benefits here could fall either way)

Species Selection Criteria Concerns and Considerations Species selection in a larger context, e.g., Action 1 – Select species to include under management Action 2 – Designation of FMUs (and indicator species?) Action 3 – Determination of reference points Action 4 – Determination of ecosystem species Species currently under the Coral FMP

Species Selection Criteria - Recommendations Guiding Principles Ecosystem-based Approach – given the complex nature of marine ecosystems and the many potential ways in which they can be exploited, it is better to include species within the plan unless there is basis for exclusion. Precautionary Principle – in the face of uncertainty, it is better to include a species for management than to exclude it. Simplification of Management – the number of species that can be individually managed is limited with currently available resources (the SSC recommends that species be grouped into a much smaller set of FMUs)

Species Selection Criteria - Recommendations Guiding Principles The availability and quality of data for many species are insufficient for developing hard cut-off points in the application of selection criteria Actual selection process (application of the selection criteria) will be a subjective process that will require the collective use of expert judgment in almost all cases. The SSC recommends that the actual species selection process be conducted by an independent group of experts representing key stakeholders (NGO and academic scientists, agency personnel, fishers (commercial recreational and aquarium), etc.).

Species Selection Criteria - Recommendations Biology – defined as question of vulnerability/productivity. Is species particularly at risk? Habitat Specificity– defined as a question of vulnerability due to particular dependence on limited or vulnerable habitat during some life stage Range – defined as whether species is either 1) effectively limited to local waters, 2) limited to EEZ, 3) spans both, or 4) is a HMS Economic Importance – defined as total economic value, not just ex-vessel price. This would include, for example, nonconsumptive use, recreational value, targeted species, “filler” species and socio-cultural importance

Target species vs Bycatch Landings – to be used first to establish lower and upper thresholds for automatic rejection from or inclusion in an FMP, respectively. Ecological Value – defined as having a unique or large ecological function relative to habitat (esp. coral reefs), or trophic/community structure, e.g., keystone species, apex predator, key forage species such that management is needed to sustain that function. Protected/Management Status – defined as whether the species is fully protected or partially protected within an existing management framework within EEZ or local waters. Species Selection Criteria - Recommendations

Application of Criteria – Recommendations Species Currently Under Management STARTING LIST 1 1 All species currently in Reef Fish, Conch, Lobster FMPs ↓ RANGE = EEZ → No (= Estuarine, Coastal, Intertidal) → ↓ Yes ↓ RANKING 2 ON: 2 Based on expert opinion guided by available data Biological Vulnerability │ Habitat Specificity │ —→ High on Any one → Ecological Value │ ↓ No ↓ RANKING ON: Economic Importance 3 │ By-Catch 4 │—→ Low on All three → Effective Range 5 │ 5 degree occurs or is exploited within the EEZ (critical life stage) —————— ↓ High on any Excluded Stay included Excluded Stay included

STARTING LIST 1 1 in comm. or recr. landings, TIP data or other indicators ↓ RANGE = EEZ → No (= Estuarine, Coastal, Intertidal) → ↓ Yes ↓ UNDER HMS MGT → Yes → ↓ No ↓ WITHIN 90% CUM. LANDINGS 2 → Yes → ↓ No ↓ RANKING ON: Biological Vulnerability│ Habitat Specificity│ Economic Importance│—→ High on any one → Ecological Value│ Effective Range = EEZ│ ↓ No ↓ Application of Criteria – Recommendations Species Not Currently Under Management Not included Include 2 Species landings approximately 1% of total

SSC recommends that all species currently under the Coral Plan initially be brought into each island FMP SSC recommends that ALL species of stony coral and soft coral documented for the region (deep and shallow) and not currently within the Coral FMP be added SSC recommends that additional species be added based on ecological value or vulnerability, e.g. sponges For aquarium species only, evaluate distribution relative to EEZ Application of Criteria – Recommendations Species in Coral FMP