Summary of Caribbean Data Evaluation SEDAR January, 2009 3/24/09

1. Summary of Caribbean Data Evaluation SEDAR January, 2009 3/24/09 Todd Gedamke (SEFSC)

2. Terms of Reference – Data Evaluation SEDAR • (paraphrased) • Review available data and develop recommendations regarding their accuracy and reliability. Provide complete tables. • Review the basis for existing stock complexes. • Recommend species or stock complexes for which informative SEDAR benchmark assessments may be feasible. • Review alternative methods for estimating mortality rates and abundance trends that might be useful for those species or stock complexes for which data are deemed sufficient. • Review the research and monitoring recommendations from the previous assessments in the U.S. Caribbean. • Provide guidance on developing ACLs given data accuracy and reliability recommendations.

3. Terms of Reference – Data Evaluation SEDAR • Review available data and develop recommendations regarding their accuracy and reliability. Provide complete tables. Available Data • Recreational Data • Fishery Independent Data • Commercial Trip tickets—Landings • Commercial Trip Interview Program (TIP)—Length Frequency Data

4. Recreational Fisheries Data • There is no long-term, ongoing monitoring of recreational fishing in the US Caribbean other than MRFSS in Puerto Rico • MRFSS initiated in Puerto Rico in 2000 • In 2005: 470,00 shore mode trips; 380,000 private mode trips; <35,000 charter boat trips • No data collected on conch, whelk, or lobster • MRFSS is not conducted in the US Virgin Islands • Occasional, short-term recreational surveys do occur, e.g. May-Sept. 2000 when 50,000 recreational conch fishers were estimated in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands

5. Fishery-Independent Data • Catalog of datasets being compiled/reviewed • documenting coverage, focus, availability of data • NMFS/NOS cataloging coral reef monitoring to improve coordination • Most studies spatially or temporally limited • earlier studies very limited • increase in coverage ~ 2000 to present • Diver-based studies limited to <100ft • shallow water snapper, groupers, grunts, parrotfishes – OK • no (or few) deep water snapper, big grouper, or pelagics • Need context of study – e.g., catches from spawning aggregation, targeting depths, methods Courtesy: Ron Hill

6. Fishery-Independent Data • SEDAR’s 4, 8, and 14 did not find a useful time series to conduct assessments • Need strong recommendations for well-funded, well-designed fishery-independent research programs Courtesy: Ron Hill

7. Trip Tickets aka. Sales Records Self reported commercial fishing data Reported Landings

8. Available years of landings data and species groups that were used on the St. Thomas/St. John trip tickets. No effort data (# of pots recorded in shaded years/groups) Quantity of gear and fishing time {other-1 =(conch, whelk, octopus, squid, clams, oysters); other-2 = (does not include conch, whelk); other-3 = "other"}

9. Puerto Rico Sales Records • Available Computerized Since 1983 • Identifies species specific landings on each sales record • For early/most years not a unique 1:1 relation between sales records and trips (multiple trips on one ticket) • Trends in Total Catch Landed affected by reporting rates • Review- reporting rates of fisher sales records vary by year, area, gear

10. Trip Tickets aka. Sales Records Self reported commercial fishing data Reported Landings Expansion Factors

11. Reported Landings Only (Not expanded)

12. Puerto Rico Commercial Fishery Reporting Rates

13. Pros/Cons of Trip Ticket Data • USVI • Lower expansion factors • No species specific records • Some effort data exists • TIP data can’t be used to estimate species composition • Puerto Rico • Higher expansion factors • Species specific records • Questionable effort data hampers CPUE calculations

14. Use of Trip Ticket/Landings data to generate indices of abundance (CPUE)

15. Data filteringSignificant reduction in sample sizes Trips reporting multiple gears or regions fished were excluded Hours fished must be reported Gear fished must be reported Only single trip reports used

16. Conclusions regarding CPUE Indices • With careful evaluation of raw data (primarily effort measure) reasonable CPUE indices may be possible but they have limited utility because: • -Short time series  limited contrast • -Started well after initiation of fishery • Potential to use CPUE in conjunction with mean length methodology • Obvious trends could be used in ‘informed judgement’ approach

17. Trip Interview Program (TIP)

18. Trip Interview Program (TIP) • Data collected by port samplers • Provides length frequency of sampled catch • In terms of characterizing catch (e.g. species composition, landings verification, or CPUE) there are two issues: • 1) Very small fraction of the total landings are sampled. On the order of 1-2% in the USVI and 3-5% for PR. • 2) Questions as to whether samples were complete catch samples (i.e. 100% of catch sampled for length).

19. Total Number of Measured fish in TIP Database Priority FMP Units Grouper Unit 4

20. Number of Measured Fish – Puerto Rico – All Grouper Unit 4

21. Snapper Unit 1

22. Number of Measured Fish – Puerto Rico – All Snapper Unit 1

23. Number of Measured Fish – St. Croix – All Snapper Unit 1

24. Number of Measured Fish – St. Thomas/St. John – All Snapper Unit 1

25. Parrotfish – All Species

26. Number of Measured Fish – Puerto Rico – Parrotfish

27. Number of Measured Fish – St. Croix – Parrotfish

28. Number of Measured Fish – St. Thomas/St. John – Parrotfish

29. Evaluation of Spatial Changes in the Fisheries TIP DATA

30. Puerto Rico – Hook and Line (610) -Snapper Unit 1 # of measured fish (normalized by annual totals) Change in proportions of regions sampled (two different periods indicated by red arrows Highlighted the need to collect better spatial and depth information • Limited information available to evaluate spatial changes (USVI distance from shore variable uninformative) • Deep water snapper fishery (WNW Puerto Rico) needs to be evaluated separately

31. Terms of Reference – Data Evaluation SEDAR • (paraphrased) • Review available data and develop recommendations regarding their accuracy and reliability. Provide complete tables. • Review the basis for existing stock complexes. • Recommend species or stock complexes for which informative SEDAR benchmark assessments may be feasible. • Review alternative methods for estimating mortality rates and abundance trends that might be useful for those species or stock complexes for which data are deemed sufficient. • Review the research and monitoring recommendations from the previous assessments in the U.S. Caribbean. • Provide guidance on developing ACLs given data accuracy and reliability recommendations.

32. Cluster Analysis – Species Composition Andy Strelcheck, Nick Farmer, Jason Reuter • Analysis was relatively consistent with current FMP species groups • Discussion group with fisherman resulted in some suggested modifications • Joe/Jason?

36. Terms of Reference – Data Evaluation SEDAR • (paraphrased) • Review available data and develop recommendations regarding their accuracy and reliability. Provide complete tables. • Review the basis for existing stock complexes. • Recommend species or stock complexes for which informative SEDAR benchmark assessments may be feasible. • Review alternative methods for estimating mortality rates and abundance trends that might be useful for those species or stock complexes for which data are deemed sufficient. • Review the research and monitoring recommendations from the previous assessments in the U.S. Caribbean. • Provide guidance on developing ACLs given data accuracy and reliability recommendations.

37. Estimating Mortality from Mean Lengths in Non-equilibrium Situations (Gedamke and Hoenig 2006) Photos from Nancie Cummings Life History report--Photos reprinted from http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gallery/descript/muttonsnapper/muttonsnapper.html.

38. More Fishing  Less Older/Larger Fish F = 0.2 F = 0.4

39. Beverton-Holt mean length mortality estimator • 5 assumptions: • Asymptotic growth, K and L known & constant over time. • No individual variability in growth. • ‘Constant’ & continuous recruitment over time. • Mortality constant with age (eg. Selectivity, M). • Mortality constant over time  Population in equilibrium (mean length reflects mortality)

40. Assumption 5 Population in equilibrium (enough time elapsed after change in mortality that mean length reflects new mortality). Hard to meet in the real world! Years to “reach” equilibrium after change in mortality Life History Parameters from Goosefish

41. fishing mortality instantaneously increased from 0.4 to 1.0 Z will be underestimated until new equilibrium is reached

42. fishing mortality instantaneously increased from 0.4 to 1.0 With new method able to calculate mean length at any time after change

43. Goosefish Mortality Estimates--Northern Management Region NEFSC Fall Groundfish Survey Sample sizes range from 12 to 108 per year Z = 0.14 Z =0.31 Z =0.56 Z =0.25

44. Puerto Rico – Silk Snapper - Traps (345) – All Depths Z = 1.12  0.31 in 2001.8

45. Model Development Extensions to base model to maximize use of available data Integrating Catch Rates into the Mean Length Analysis Multi-Species / Multi-Gear Approach Assumes that species within ‘complex’ are subject to similar patterns of effort (e.g. same year of change or same proportional change in F)

46. Multi-gear Analysis – Traps and Hook/Line

47. Multi-gear Analysis – Traps and Hook/Line Reference lines - Expected Mean Length assuming F = M as proxy for Fmsy Silk

48. Multi-gear Analysis – Traps and Hook/Line Fcur Fmsy Reference lines - Expected Mean Length assuming F = M as proxy for Fmsy Silk Fmsy / Fcur = 1.2

49. Terms of Reference – Data Evaluation SEDAR • (paraphrased) • Review available data and develop recommendations regarding their accuracy and reliability. Provide complete tables. • Review the basis for existing stock complexes. • Recommend species or stock complexes for which informative SEDAR benchmark assessments may be feasible. • Review alternative methods for estimating mortality rates and abundance trends that might be useful for those species or stock complexes for which data are deemed sufficient. • Review the research and monitoring recommendations from the previous assessments in the U.S. Caribbean. • Provide guidance on developing ACLs given data accuracy and reliability recommendations.

50. Terms of Reference – Data Evaluation SEDAR • (paraphrased) • Review available data and develop recommendations regarding their accuracy and reliability. Provide complete tables. • Review the basis for existing stock complexes. • Recommend species or stock complexes for which informative SEDAR benchmark assessments may be feasible. • Review alternative methods for estimating mortality rates and abundance trends that might be useful for those species or stock complexes for which data are deemed sufficient. • Review the research and monitoring recommendations from the previous assessments in the U.S. Caribbean. • Provide guidance on developing ACLs given data accuracy and reliability recommendations.