1 / 56

Dr. Nick Farmer & Andy Strelcheck Southeast Regional Office St. Petersburg, Florida

Tab B, No. 4(d)ii. Preliminary Results – Pending SEFSC Review. Cumulative effects of Amendment 31 regulations upon effective effort impacting sea turtle takes in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish bottom longline fishery. Dr. Nick Farmer & Andy Strelcheck Southeast Regional Office

Download Presentation

Dr. Nick Farmer & Andy Strelcheck Southeast Regional Office St. Petersburg, Florida

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Tab B, No. 4(d)ii Preliminary Results – Pending SEFSC Review Cumulative effects of Amendment 31 regulations upon effective effort impacting sea turtle takes in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish bottom longline fishery Dr. Nick Farmer & Andy Strelcheck Southeast Regional Office St. Petersburg, Florida

  2. Introduction Amendment 31: Reduce sea turtle interactions with reef fish bottom longline gear • Action 1:Allow or disallow squid bait in the bottom longline reef fish fishery • Action 2:Restrict the use of bottom longline gear for reef fish in the eastern Gulf of Mexico • Action 3:Longline endorsements to fish East of Cape San Blas • Action 4:Modify fishing practices and gear www.noaanews.noaa.gov

  3. Introduction • GOAL: • To evaluate the impacts of endorsement and depth/time closure alternatives proposed in A31 upon ‘effective effort’ in the reef fish bottom longline fishery WWW.NETCRUSADERS.COM www.abcnews.com www.noaanews.noaa.gov

  4. Methods and Results • Data: Commercial logbook (SEFSC Miami) • 2007-2008 • Total Hooks = Sets * Hooks/Set • ‘Effective Effort’ • Accounts for probability of sea turtle encounter by depth contour by scaling effort (‘hooks’) to population density • Reduced HooksReduced Sea Turtle Bycatch • Common assumption in sea turtle bycatch studies* WWW.TAMPABAY.COM • *(Johnson et al. 1999, Richards 2006, Walsh and Garrison 2006, SEFSC 2007, SEFSC 2009)

  5. Trip Elimination* • Following SEFSC (2009) • Eastern Gulf of Mexico (Areas 1-10) • 1-8 directly impacted by A31 • Gear = Longline • Total landings aggregated at trip level into three general categories: • Reef Fish(50 CFR 622, App. A) • Shark • Other • Trip Eliminated: • If vessel had Shark permit and >66% landings were sharks • If no managed reef fish species were landed • If obvious effort reporting errors

  6. Baseline Effort (2007-2008) • Baseline = Average (2007-2008) • most recent complete time series available • most accurate depth reporting • Logbook data summarized by vessel, month, and year • Year and month assigned using date landed • Only effort in areas 1-8 (e.g., east of Cape San Blas, Florida) will be directly impacted by Amendment 31 • Baseline effort in areas 9-10 (~1 million hooks) removed • Added back into grand totals as a constant

  7. See Table 1A, p. 9 Baseline Effort (2007-2008)Reported ‘Depth Fished’ Total baseline effort = 28,762 thousand hooks Note ‘unknown’ depth and effort from 1-20 fathoms

  8. Misreported ‘Depth Fished’ • Amendment 31, Action 2 establishes seasonal closures along bathymetric contours • Accuracy of reported ‘Depth Fished (ft)’ important • Deepest depth retained for trip level summary • Reef fish bottom longline prohibited <20 fathoms • Approximately 6% effort reported in depths <20 fathoms • Obvious monthly trends by vessels reporting depths in fathoms were adjusted • Also adjusted by comparing species composition and area fished with similar, accurately reported trips by same vessel

  9. See Table 1C, p. 9 Baseline Effort (2007-2008)Adjusted ‘Depth Fished’ Total baseline effort = 28,762 thousand hooks

  10. Amendment 31: Action 2 (Depth/Time Closure) • 35 fathom closure • June - August • April – August • Annual • Effort from 20-35 fathoms scaled down before being added to the existing effort in 35-50 fathoms Sea turtle sightings during summer 2007 aerial survey (Garrison 2009)

  11. Amendment 31: Action 2 (Depth/Time Closure) • What is the appropriate SCALAR to use for redistributed effort? • Garrison (2009)? • Winter ratio? (35-50?50-100?Summer 35-50?) WINTER WINTER SUMMER SUMMER

  12. AssumptionsDepth/Time Closure • Movement of fishery from 20-35 to 35-50 fathoms effectively reduces impacts of reef fish bottom longline effort upon sea turtles at a level proportional to ratio of their observed population densities at depth • Sensitivity runs using confidence interval(13 – 66%)around ratio for ‘Summer 2007’ runs (Summer = Jan-Dec) • During other runs, Summer = Apr-Sept, Winter = Jan-Mar, Oct-Dec • Garrison (2009): Winter = Jan/Feb, Summer = Jul/Aug • Impacts of ‘Winter’ assumption only impact annual closure runs • Reef fish bottom longline effort from 20-35 fathoms will not move deeper than 50 fathoms (due to DWG quota) during closure • Not all effort may shift from 20-35 fathoms to deeper water during closure; some vessels may simply not fish • Various levels of effort shifting examined (100%, 75%, 50%)

  13. Amendment 31:Action 3 (Endorsement) • Non-endorsed vessels excluded • 40K • 50K • 60K • Endorsements by commercial reef fish permit based on average reef fish logbook landings using bottom longline and/or trap (1999-2007) www.photolib.noaa.gov

  14. Amendment 31:Action 3 (Endorsement)

  15. 50 Fathom Closure • Evaluated impacts of a closure within 50 fathoms, such as that implemented by the May 18, 2009 Emergency Rule • All effort within 50 fathoms eliminated • Assumption: • DWG and tilefish quota, along with Grouper-Tilefish IFQ, would prohibit any profitable relocation of effort into deeper waters. Observed longline sets 2006-2008.

  16. Increased Effort in the Fishery • Proposed alternatives in Amendment 31 eliminate vessels from the fishery and reduce fishable waters, but provide no caps on effort by remaining vessels in available waters • Elimination of competition may provide opportunities for increased landings (and possibly increased effort) • Changes in fishing behavior are influenced by a variety of factors that are difficult to predict and quantify • GOAL:To evaluate the impacts of Amendment 31 given an increase in effort by endorsed vessels

  17. Increased Effort in Fishery: Using 2003 Effort as Proxy • Year of highest overall effort in reef fish bottom longline fishery (1999-2007) was 2003 • Effort in 2003 (by vessel) ~ Proxy for increased effort • Effort (2003) partitioned by depth following baseline (2007-2008) by vessel, by month • Trap prohibition did not go into effect until Feb 2007 • Trap-endorsed vessels assigned effort from 2008 • Some vessels that fished in 2007-2008 did not fish in 2003 • Effort remained at 2007-2008 baseline

  18. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Constant EffortRatio = Summer 2007 Constant

  19. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Increased EffortRatio = Summer 2007 Constant

  20. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Constant EffortRatio = Summer 2007 Constant

  21. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Increased EffortRatio = Summer 2007 Constant

  22. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Constant EffortRatio = Summer 2007 Constant

  23. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Increased EffortRatio = Summer 2007 Constant

  24. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Constant Effort Varying “Winter” ratio only impacts annual closure scenarios W=“Winter” S=“Summer”

  25. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Increased Effort Varying “Winter” ratio only impacts annual closure scenarios W=“Winter” S=“Summer”

  26. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Constant EffortNo Ratio Sea Turtle Density

  27. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Increased EffortNo Ratio Sea Turtle Density

  28. Discussion • Various combinations of Actions 2 and 3 of Amendment 31 may achieve significant reductions in effective effort that impact sea turtle takes by the bottom longline component of the reef fish fishery in the eastern Gulf of Mexico • As with any model, the outcomes are sensitive to the assumptions www.answersingenesis.org

  29. Assumption:Misreported Depths were properly adjusted • Corrected for misreported depths to better reflect effort shifting relative to 35 fathom closure • Few vessels (15%) had potentially misreported depth • Even fewer trips (5%) had misreported depths • Correction probably had little impact upon the overall projected percent reductions www.captfredsmarineinc.com

  30. Assumption:Constant effort in areas 9-10 • Assumed non-endorsed vessels would not relocate longline effort into Areas9-10 • Bottom longline fishing prohibited < 50 fathoms • Implementation of the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ program • Annual quotas for DWG and tilefish have been consistently met in Apr-Jun in recent years

  31. Sensitivity Runs • Sensitivity of model outputs to ratio of sea turtles in 20-35 fathoms versus 35-50 fathoms was investigated using the 95% confidence interval (13-66%) around the mean ratio for ‘Summer 2007’ runs • Mean variability <5% • Also explored different ratios • (All = 0, Winter = 0, Winter = 0.636) • Sensitivity of model outputs to percent of vessels relocating outside 35 fathoms during closure was investigated using effort shifting scalar (100%,75%, 50%) • Mean variability <2%

  32. Sensitivity Runs • Variability was surprisingly low, especially for scenarios with longline endorsement criterion • Endorsements removed large amounts of effort from all areas fished prior to shifting effort from 20-35 fathoms out to 35-50 fathoms during area/season closures • 40K ~ 37% reduction without closure • 50K ~ 54% reduction without closure • 60K ~ 74% reduction without closure • Impacts of variability dampened due to effort in 35-50 fathoms prior to redistribution, comparison to large baseline estimate

  33. DiscussionIncreasing or Constant Effort? • Increasing effort • Endorsed longliners will have less competition and may be able to land more fish to fill market demand • Constant effort • Several upcoming management actions may prevent landings (and effort) from increasing in coming years • Reduction in commercial red grouper quota • Reduction in commercial gag grouper quota

  34. DiscussionIncreasing or Constant Effort? • Grouper – Tilefish IFQ • Endorsed longliners may buy catch shares from other longliners and vertical liners, increasing longline landings • Consolidation may lead to greater efficiency • Reduced competition may lead to increased CPUE • Increased landings ≠ Increased effort SPTIMES graphic

  35. Summary • Large reductions in effort, and corresponding sea turtle takes, may occur if longline endorsements and area closures are implemented • Sources of uncertainty are numerous: • Depth of fishing reported • Effort shifting • Sea turtle density estimates • Impacts of quotas reductions upon longline effort • Implementation of the IFQ program

  36. Summary • Endorsements result in greater reductions than summer closures inside 35 fathoms • Depending upon assumptions: • 40K + Closure  18-51% reduction • 50K + Closure 41-63% reduction • 60K + Closure 56-79% reduction

  37. Questions?

  38. Misreported ‘Depth Fished’ Obvious reporting in fathoms • Reef fish longline fishing is prohibited within 20 fathoms • Diagnosing and Correcting Misreported ‘Depth Fished’: • 18 vessels (~1.6 million hooks) reported fishing <20 fathoms • Maximum depth recorded by each vessel by month examined • If vessel’s maximum reported depth by month <120 ft: • Assumed vessel reported in fathoms rather than feet that month • Depth = ‘Depth’ * 6 • Several vessels reporting abundant shallow water grouper (SWG) landings closely examined to validate this approach • Majority reported SWG landings between ‘20’ and ‘25’ • Subsequent adjustment to 120-480 ft appeared appropriate • Adjustment relocated 93% of effort reported within 20 fathoms to deeper waters. • Assumed maximum depths >120 ft were accurate, as reef fish fishery does not extend far beyond 120 fathoms (720 ft)

  39. Misreported ‘Depth Fished’ Vessel-by-Vessel Adjustments • Diagnosing and Correcting Misreported ‘Depth Fished’: • Ten records (9 vessels; ~0.1 million hooks) remained with reported fishing depth <20 fathoms • One vessel clearly reported in fathoms Jan ’07 - mid Dec ’08 • Depth = ‘Depth’ * 6 • Two vessels landed snowy grouper (DWG) • Depth = ‘Depth’ * 6 • One vessel never fished >150 ft, and had just completed a fishing trip landing a similar suite of species in 120 ft • Depth = 120 ft • One vessel misreported in Jan ‘07, mostly fished >50 fathoms • Depth = ‘Depth’ * 6 • Four vessels exhibited no obvious trends in reporting • Depth = ‘Depth’ * 6

  40. Using 2003 Effort as Proxy for Increased Effort in Fishery • Year of highest overall effort in reef fish bottom longline fishery (1999-2007) was 2003 • Effort in 2003 (by vessel) ~ Proxy for increased effort • Monthly vessel effort (2003) partitioned by depth following monthly percent effort at depth from baseline (2007-2008) • If no fishing during that month (2007-2008), effort from 2003 assigned ‘unknown’ depth • ‘Unknown’ depth by vessel redistributed using aggregated proportional distribution of effort at depth by month across vessels • Trap prohibition did not go into effect until Feb 2007 • Trap-endorsed vessels assigned effort from 2008 • Some vessels that fished in 2007-2008 did not fish in 2003 • Effort remained at 2007-2008 baseline

  41. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Increased Effort, No Ratio50% Effort Shift

  42. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Constant Effort, No Ratio75% Effort Shift

  43. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Constant Effort, No Ratio75% Effort Shift

  44. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Increased Effort, No Ratio75% Effort Shift

  45. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Increased Effort, No Ratio75% Effort Shift

  46. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Constant Effort, No Ratio50% Effort Shift

  47. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Constant Effort, No Ratio50% Effort Shift

  48. Amendment 31 ImpactsAssuming Increased Effort, No Ratio50% Effort Shift

  49. Amendment 31: Action 2 (Depth/Time Closure) • Scalar = Ratio of sea turtle population density in 20-35 fathoms versus 35-50 fathoms from Summer 2007 aerial survey(Garrison 2009) • Reduced effective redistributed effort from 20-35 fathoms by approximately 70%(e.g., 10 hooks become 3 hooks)

More Related