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