3-year review fiona hogan and jason didden, sbrm review ... › nefmc.org ›...
TRANSCRIPT
3-year Review
Fiona Hogan and Jason Didden,
SBRM Review PDT-FMAT Co-Chairs
NEFMC MeetingDecember 6, 2018
1
Team Effort “PDT-FMAT” Hybrid Councils: Fiona Hogan, lead co-chair; Jason Didden, co-
chair
NOAA: Kristen Gustafson, Ellen Keane, Chris Legault, Daniel Linden, Kimberly Murray, Danielle Palmer, Doug Potts, Chris Tholke, Sara Weeks, Susan Wigley
2
3 Year Review Must review: (1) Levels of observer coverage by mode; (2) Observed encounters with each species in each fishery (or by
gear type for turtles), and a summary of observed discards by weight; (3) The coefficient of variation (CV) of estimates (precision); (4) SBRM estimates of the total amount of discards associated with
each fishing mode; (5) The effectiveness of the SBRM at meeting the CV performance
standard for each fishery; (6) The methods used to calculate the reported CVs and to
determine observer coverage levels, if the methods used are different from those previously described and evaluated;
(7) Potential sources of bias; (8) Implications if a fishery did not achieve its performance standard.
NRCC requested: Council review for consistency with national guidance
3
Background This report reviews 2015, 2016, and 2017 SBRM years 15 species groups considered within SBRM 14 FMP species groups 1ESA-listed turtle species
Fish/invert and turtle analyses are conducted separately and then integrated together Fish/invertebrate species groups
50+ fleets (region-gear-mesh-access area- trip category) 12-month time block of data
Turtle species 3 gear types 5-year time block of data
4
Coverage Rates Total Observed Seadays SBRM 2015 = 10,800 SBRM 2016 = 11,726 SBRM 2017 = 10,500
Over all fleets percentage of observed trips ranged between 4.4% and 5.5% Percentage of observed seadays ranged between 7.4% and 8.5%
Observer coverage occurred spatially and temporally where the majority of fishing effort occurred at the statistical area and quarter year scales
6
Coverage Rates
7
Observed Encounters 376 Unique Species 329 Fish/invertebrates species 47 birds, marine mammals, turtles species
14 SBRM Species groups Represent 90% of total weight of all species observed
8
Discard Estimation, Precision, & Sample Size: FMP species groups
9
TurtlesGear Type Average Annual Estimated interactions
(CV)Region Referenc
eLoggerhead Kemp’s R* Leatherb* Unknown
Sink Gillnet
141 (29%) 29 (43%) 5 (71%) 22 (37%) Mid-Atlantic & Georges Bank
Murray 2018
Scallop Dredge
22 (73%) N/A N/A N/A Mid-Atlantic
Murray 2015a
Bottom Otter Trawl (includes Scallop Trawl)
231 (13%) N/A N/A N/A Mid-Atlantic
Murray 2015b
10
Effectiveness of SBRM SBRM performance standard met for fish/invertebrates SBRM 2015 = 81% SBRM 2016 = 85% SBRM 2017 = 87%
For turtles (data pooled across 5 years) 30% precision standard for loggerhead met for MA sink gillnet,
MA bottom otter trawl, and scallop trawl fleets
Assumption of similar variance across years held
11
Effectiveness of SBRM Impacts of ASM Trips on Analyses Comparison of NEFOP and ASM trips and NEFOP and ASMFC
trips indicated similar discard rates – therefore data were pooled together for analysis
However, these additional data sources could elevate sample size within fleet and lower the associated CV for species group within that fleet
FMAT analyzed this impact and concluded not to include additional data sources in performance evaluation and annual SBRM fish analyses
12
Refinements to SBRM Methods Fish/Invertebrates Trip filter MA shrimp trawl fleet Adjustment to seadays in 2016 and 2017 Pilot coverage and Minimum pilot coverage
Rarity filters for sea turtles Probability of encounter (recommended by SBRM FMAT) Wasn’t applied to SBRM years 2015 – 2017
See document for more details
13
Accuracy & Potential Sources of Bias Vessel selection bias Qualitative - No evidence of systematic bias
A few vessels selected at high or low rates during some timeframes – Expect variation due to random sampling may warrant additional investigation
Exploratory quantitative No evidence of vessel selection bias in majority of fleet Some evidence of bias was present in some gillnet fleets
Observer bias Mean trip duration
No large-scale systematic bias Mean kept weight of all species Observed vs unobserved trips
14
Implications for Management No indication current levels of precision are negatively
affecting management decisions
One of many sources of uncertainty… Discard uncertainty Survey indices Natural mortality assumptions Catchability assumptions
Potential impacts to watch for Assessments could be less precise Cautionary approach may be taken to set specifications Buffers may be used
15
Council Review for Consistency Considerations Information about the Characteristics of Bycatch in the Fishery Feasibility Data Uncertainty Data Use
No aspect of the SBRM was found to be inconsistent with national guidelines
No revisions required at this time
16
Recommendations and Conclusions Exclude non-SBRM trips in the evaluation for fish species The importance filter is key: it focuses sampling to fleets
where needed most for fish discard estimates Application of a rarity filter for sea turtles Development of rarity filters for other ESA listed species
such as Atlantic salmon Can be done administratively
17
Recommendations and Conclusions Continue using the formulaic approach for transparent
prioritization of funding Continue using the most recent data available to track
changes in discarding Continue exploring potential biases in the data collection
process And how these might impact sea day allocations
18
Recommendations and Conclusions The SBRM FMAT recommends the following planned
changes: (1) The inclusion of blueline tilefish in 2018 SBRM analyses; (2) The consideration of ESA-list species such as sturgeon
[Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon] as a species group; (3) Expanding the sampling frame for New England and Mid-
Atlantic lobster pot fleets to include all vessels using lobster pot gear in future SBRM analyses; and
(4)* Utilize a PTNS-like system for all fleets as identified in the regional fishery dependent data initiative (implementation date to be determined).
*May require separate action
19
Overall Summary SBRM represents one of the most comprehensive
programs for planning and executing observer monitoring coverage;
No aspect of the SBRM was inconsistent or deficient with the national guidelines;
Since the implementation of the 2015 SBRM Omnibus Amendment, the first 3 years of the program illustrate its utility for monitoring discards given real-world limitations
The SBRM process contains a formulaic approach to allocate seadays among fleets to stay within the available funds while achieving the precision standard for the most (and most important) species groups/fleet combinations.
20
Questions?
21
Background slides
22
Accuracy & Potential Sources of Bias Observer bias: mean trip duration Difference ranged from -1.75 day to 0.75 days 77% of fleets had differences of means less than 0 – observed
trips were slightly longer than unobserved (generally ~0.5 day) 5 fleets had duration difference of greater than a day
Observer bias: mean kept weight of all species No strong, large-scale systematic bias but some SBRM years
and fleet combinations suggested some differences 28 fleets had evidence of potential bias but varies in magnitude
23