Update on the ESA Section 7 Consultation on the Caribbean Reef Fish Fishery

1. Update on the ESA Section 7 Consultation on the Caribbean Reef Fish Fishery David Bernhart Assistant Regional Administrator Protected Resources Division Southeast Regional Office

2. Purpose of Presentation • Review ESA consultation requirements • Describe the data and process used in evaluating the effects of the fishery on Acropora and Acropora critical habitat • Describe the possible outcomes of that evaluation • Review previous actions taken by NOAA Fisheries Service and Councils to remove Jeopardy and Destruction or Adverse Modification • Facilitate CFMC’s consideration of modifications to the 2010 ACLs based on impacts to ESA-listed species

3. ESA Section 7 Requirements • Section 7(a)(1) Conservation Requirement: • All Federal agencies shall use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered & threatened species.

4. ESA Section 7 Requirements & Listed Species • Section 7(a)(2) Consultation Requirement: • Each federal agency, in consultation with the “Secretary”, must ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely tojeopardizethe continued existence of any T/E species OR result in the destruction or adverse modification (DAM) of critical habitat

5. What is a Biological Opinion? • An analytical document that looks at the effects of a Federal “action” on endangered and threatened species and their designated critical habitat • Identifies whether or not the action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in DAM • Is the product of the formal consultation process

6. Reinitiation of Formal Consultation • March 30, 2010: SERO, Sustainable Fisheries Division formally requested reinitiation of section 7 consultation on the Reef Fish FMP to address Acropora and Acropora critical habitat • Considering effects of the fishery, as amended by the 2010 ACL amendment • Information standard: “Best available information”; Err on the side of conservation for the species

7. Update on Development of the Opinion • Assembled literature and available information to assess potential effects of reef fish fishery • Developed preliminary effects analysis • Effects Analysis is a section of the Opinion, not necessarily the overall conclusion • Requested SEFSC review of information and analyses in the preliminary effects analysis

8. Species and Critical Habitat Considered Sea Turtles Green Sea Turtles Photo: R.P. van Dam Loggerhead Sea Turtles Photo: sealife.com Hawksbill Sea Turtles Photo: Caroline Rogers Leatherback Sea Turtles Photo : seaturtlenet.com

9. Species and Critical Habitat Considered Cont’d. Sea Turtle Critical Habitat Leatherback Sea Turtle Critical Habitat Green Sea Turtle Critical Habitat Hawksbill Sea Turtle Critical Habitat

10. Species and Critical Habitat Considered Cont’d. Acroporid Corals listed May 2006 Staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) Photo: Caroline Rogers Elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) Photo: Michael Barnette

11. Species and Critical Habitat Considered Cont’d. Caribbean Acropora Critical Habitat designated November 2008

12. Conservation Objective of the Acropora Critical Habitat Rule • The Acropora critical habitat rule identified the key conservation objective for corals as: • “…facilitating increased incidence of successful sexual and asexual reproduction.” • The “essential physical or biological feature” to support the conservation objective was identified • The designated critical habitat units contain those essential features

13. Critical Habitat for Acroporids Is… Acropora Critical Habitat • The “essential feature”: Substrate of suitable quality and availability to support larval settlement and recruitment, and reattachment and recruitment of asexual fragments Suitable Substrate Is… Natural consolidated hard substrate or dead coral skeleton that is free from fleshy or turf macroalgae cover and sediment cover

14. Key Assumptions of Biological Opinion’s Effects Analysis • The Proposed ACL harvest levels will be met • The Proposed ACL levels are similar to recent harvest levels • Biomassof parrotfish stocks is not known • Three species of parrotfish will have an ACL of zero; however, unable to quantify biomass response • Stock biomasses will remain constant under the proposed ACL

15. Route of EffectsCoral and Algae Competition • Algae and corals are in competition for available space and light • Algal biomass interferes with coral recruitment, suppresses coral growth and fecundity, and can cause direct mortality • The reproductive potential of coral populations is diminished by high algae coverage • Increased algal coverage forms feedback loops that drive further reef decline

16. Route of EffectsHerbivorous Fish Grazing • Herbivorous fish affect corals indirectly by removing algal competitors, facilitating coral recruitment • Role of herbivorous fish in coral recovery and resilience likely depends on the numbers of fish, their biomass, and the diversity of species

17. Routes of EffectsHerbivorous Fish Grazing • Increased fish biomass = increased grazing = decreased fleshy algal abundance on reefs • A diversity of species and very high biomass seem to be needed to effectively graze reefs, especially as coral cover decreases

18. Historically Examining the Route of Effects • 1983 - Diadema die-off occurred; fish became primary reef grazers • The reefs in St. Croix experienced a 27 percent increase in macroalgal biomass within 5 days of die-off • Over the next three years (1984-1986) a 300-400 percent increase in macroalgae cover occurred • At the same time, elkhorn and staghorn coral were dying off from disease, creating open space on the reef • Herbivorous fish populations at the time were not sufficient to control a rapid increase in macroalgae

19. Recent Trends in Coral, Coral Critical Habitat, and Algae • The USVI DPNR and the UVI have been monitoring the status of reefs in the USVI since 2001. For their monitoring, permanent transects are monitored annually for benthic habitat community. • NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) biogeography program has spatially characterized and monitored the benthic habitat community through a random stratified survey since 2001 for all U.S. Caribbean island areas.

20. Recent Trends in Coral, Coral Critical Habitat, and Algae • Acropora spp. occurred so rarely in the monitoring that their status and trends could not be assessed, so we focused on corals generally, algae, and Acropora critical habitat. • Habitat coverage values were highly variable within and across years, however trends in cover were consistent across areas. • In general, ‘Coral’ and ‘Critical Habitat’ percent coverage appeared to be declining, and ‘Algae’ and ‘Macroalgae’ appear to be increasing.

21. NCCOS Data Cont’d. Buck Island Reef National Monument Comparison * Using Pre-2003 Boundaries

22. Effects Analysis Summary • A slow, episodic progression towards high algae cover and low coral cover on reefs has occurred in the U.S. Caribbean • With unreduced fishing (i.e., proposed ACL levels), we assume there will be no substantial increase in parrotfish biomass • Therefore, grazing rates and the effects of grazing fish on algae cover would also not change

23. Future Steps for the Opinion • Review and incorporate SEFSC edits/comments on effects analysis • Conduct Jeopardy and DAM analysis

24. Jeopardy/DAM Analysis • The analysis determines whether fishing under the current Amendment, given all the other manmade and natural factors affecting Acropora and Acropora critical habitat, is: • Jeopardy Analysis: • likely to “…reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species.” • DAM Analysis: • likely to allow critical habitat to remain functional (or retain the current ability for the essential features to remain functionally established) to serve the intended conservation role for the species.

25. Jeopardy/DAM Analysis Findings • Potential Outcomes • “No Jeopardy” Finding - Action will cause adverse effects but will not cause Jeopardy or DAM • “Jeopardy” Finding - Action will cause adverse effects that cause Jeopardy, DAM, or both

26. Implications of a “No Jeopardy” Finding • “No Jeopardy” findings require NOAA Fisheries Service to develop Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) and Terms and Conditions (T/Cs) to minimize the impacts of incidental take. • RPMs and T/Cs Must: • Not alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, or timing of an action; and • Involve only minor changes

27. Implications of a “Jeopardy” Finding • “Jeopardy” findings require NOAA Fisheries Service to develop Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) • RPAs Must: • Avoid the likelihood of Jeopardy and/or DAM; • Be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action; • Be within the scope of NOAA Fisheries Service legal authority and jurisdiction • Be economically and technologically feasible

28. Things to Remember about RPAs • RPAs must remove the likelihood of Jeopardy and/or DAM caused by the action • Because an RPA only addresses impacts from the particular action, it may not necessarily ensure survival and recovery of the species overall • RPAs must be something the action agency has authority to do - For example, we cannot require NOAA Fisheries Service to regulate air pollution under the MSA

29. Examples of RPAs from Other Regions • Alaska • Result of jeopardy finding for Stellar sea lions (SSL) as a result of the Atka mackerel, pollock, and Pacific cod fisheries • RPAs • Implementation of large area closures in 3 SSL critical habitat (CH) areas - Fishing prohibited in 90,685 sq miles of SSL CH (66% of total area) - Complete fishing ban in SSL CH during certain periods of the year • Implementation of fishing seasons in SSL CH not closed to fishing • Reduction in allocations of ABC allowed to be caught inside SSL CH areas

30. Examples of RPAs from Other Regions Cont’d. • Pacific Islands Region • Result of a jeopardy finding for green, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles in the Hawaii longline/troll/handline fishery • RPAs • Closure of the swordfish fishery • Time/Area closure • Seasonal closure of approximately 16.5 million sq miles to all longline fishing • Limited access permit restrictions

31. Examples of RPAs from Other Regions Cont’d. • Northeast and Southeast • Result of a jeopardy finding for leatherback sea turtles in the Atlantic pelagic longline (PLL) fishery • RPAs • Emergency large area closure • Requirements to use specific hook types and baits

32. Examples of RPAs from Other Regions Cont’d. • Southeast • Result of a jeopardy finding for Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in the shrimp fishery • RPAs • Requirements to use Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) • Increased enforcement

33. Actions Taken to Avoid “Jeopardy” Findings • Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) • Effects of bycatch on loggerhead sea turtles were high and required a new biological opinion for the Gulf reef fish fishery • The GMFMC opted not to have NOAA Fisheries Service evaluate the status quo fishery • Instead, the GMFMC modified the action, regulating the longline sector of the fishery • A longline endorsement; reducing participants by approximately 50% • A seasonal area closure of approximately 31,000 sq miles • Limits on amount of gear