1. October 26, 2015 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 Preliminary Results – Pending SEFSC Review Tab B, No. 4(d)ii

2. 2 Introduction 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 Amendment 31: Reduce sea turtle interactions with reef fish bottom longline gear www.noaanews.noaa.gov

3. 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.noaanews.noaa.gov www.abcnews.com

4. 4 Methods and Results Data: Commercial logbook (SEFSC Miami) —2007-2008 —Total Hooks = Sets * Hooks/Set *(Johnson et al. 1999, Richards 2006, Walsh and Garrison 2006, SEFSC 2007, SEFSC 2009) ‘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

5. 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: 1.Reef Fish (50 CFR 622, App. A) 2.Shark 3.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. 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. 7 Baseline Effort (2007-2008) Reported ‘Depth Fished’ Total baseline effort = 28,762 thousand hooks Note ‘unknown’ depth and effort from 1-20 fathoms Depth (fathoms) JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecTOTAL 0-201702961211717610414910316378791041,614 20-357706515021,1961,2941,8091,9731,4591,2951,4591,1721,44915,030 35-50190101541652745224414915143844894434,069 50+1,0821,1551,4169861,208202741471181343951177,034 n/a1800000000000 Areas 9-10 150221224207581602518302919997 TOTAL 2,3812,4242,3172,7252,9092,6532,6382,2262,1082,0852,1642,13328,762 See Table 1A, p. 9

8. 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. 9 Baseline Effort (2007-2008) Adjusted ‘Depth Fished’ Total baseline effort = 28,762 thousand hooks Depth (fathoms) JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecTOTAL 20-358238705181,3661,3361,9052,0721,5621,4291,5381,2341,53416,188 35-50190101541652745224714915423844924634,150 50+1,2171,2331,5219871,241210951471181344091177,428 Areas 9-10 150221224207581602518302919997 TOTAL 2,3812,4242,3172,7252,9092,6532,6382,2262,1082,0852,1642,13328,762 See Table 1C, p. 9

10. 10

11. 11 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)

12. 12 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?) Depth (Fathoms) Combined Density CV of Combined Density 95% Confidence Limit Ratio with 20-35 Fathoms 0 – 20 0.1163 0.1389 0.097 – 0.1391.747 20 – 35 0.06658 0.4030 0.040 – 0.1098 - 35 – 50 0 - - 0 50 – 100 0.04237 0.4212 0.0251 – 0.0714 0.636 0 – 200.17120.11060.1485 – 0.19742.194 20 – 350.07810.27560.0551 – 0.1108- 35 – 500.02310.6330.0109 – 0.04889 0.296 50 – 1000.01280.64980.0059 – 0.02760.164 WINTER SUMMER WINTER SUMMER

13. 13 Assumptions Depth/Time Closure 1.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 2.Reef fish bottom longline effort from 20-35 fathoms will not move deeper than 50 fathoms (due to DWG quota) during closure 3.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%)

14. 14 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

15. 15 Amendment 31: Action 3 (Endorsement) LandingsQualifying Permits 1297 10,000152 20,000117 30,00082 40,00061 50,00039 60,00022 70,00016 80,0009 90,0005

16. 16 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.

17. 17 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

18. 18 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

19. 19 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Constant Effort Ratio = Summer 2007 Constant

20. 20 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Increased Effort Ratio = Summer 2007 Constant

21. 21 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Constant Effort Ratio = Summer 2007 Constant

22. 22 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Increased Effort Ratio = Summer 2007 Constant

23. 23 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Constant Effort Ratio = Summer 2007 Constant

24. 24 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Increased Effort Ratio = Summer 2007 Constant

25. 25 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Constant Effort Varying “Winter” ratio only impacts annual closure scenarios W=“Winter” S=“Summer”

26. 26 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Increased Effort Varying “Winter” ratio only impacts annual closure scenarios W=“Winter” S=“Summer”

27. 27 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Constant Effort No Ratio Sea Turtle Density

28. 28 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Increased Effort No Ratio Sea Turtle Density

29. 29 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

30. 30 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

31. 31 Assumption: Constant effort in areas 9-10 Assumed non-endorsed vessels would not relocate longline effort into Areas 9-10 —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

32. 32 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%

33. 33 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

34. 34 Discussion Increasing 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

35. 35 Discussion Increasing 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

36. 36 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

37. 37 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

38. 38 Questions?

39. 39 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)

40. 40 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

41. 41 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

42. 42 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Increased Effort, No Ratio 50% Effort Shift No Endorsement 40K50K60K No Closure-36.0%17.6%41.3%65.9% Jun – Aug (<35 fathoms) -22.1%26.2%46.4%68.7% Apr – Aug (<35 fathoms) -16.2%29.8%48.8%69.6% Annual (<35 fathoms) 4.3%41.8%56.6%73.3%

43. 43 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Constant Effort, No Ratio 75% Effort Shift No Endorsement 40K50K60K No Closure28,762,33318,246,07613,360,7277,545,380 Jun – Aug (<35 fathoms) 27,377,43617,411,32812,829,5927,255,730 Apr – Aug (<35 fathoms) 26,701,97716,999,98212,565,8537,139,041 Annual (<35 fathoms) 24,715,39815,724,35711,676,1956,720,910

44. 44 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Constant Effort, No Ratio 75% Effort Shift No Endorsement 40K50K60K No Closure0.0%36.6%53.5%73.8% Jun – Aug (<35 fathoms) 4.8%39.5%55.4%74.8% Apr – Aug (<35 fathoms) 7.2%40.9%56.3%75.2% Annual (<35 fathoms) 14.1%45.3%59.4%76.6%

45. 45 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Increased Effort, No Ratio 75% Effort Shift No Endorsement 40K50K60K No Closure39,115,91023,707,21716,895,5749,802,454 Jun – Aug (<35 fathoms) 37,111,79522,466,47616,160,8229,401,637 Apr – Aug (<35 fathoms) 36,273,35221,945,84915,813,6639,275,148 Annual (<35 fathoms) 33,325,91720,229,60314,685,7998,734,194

46. 46 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Increased Effort, No Ratio 75% Effort Shift No Endorsement 40K50K60K No Closure-36.0%17.6%41.3%65.9% Jun – Aug (<35 fathoms) -29.0%21.9%43.8%67.3% Apr – Aug (<35 fathoms) -26.1%23.7%45.0%67.8% Annual (<35 fathoms) -15.9%29.7%48.9%69.6%

47. 47 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Constant Effort, No Ratio 50% Effort Shift No Endorsement 40K50K60K No Closure28,762,33318,246,07613,360,7277,545,380 Jun – Aug (<35 fathoms) 25,992,53816,576,58112,298,4576,966,080 Apr – Aug (<35 fathoms) 24,641,62115,753,88911,770,9796,732,703 Annual (<35 fathoms) 20,668,46413,202,6389,991,6635,896,440

48. 48 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Constant Effort, No Ratio 50% Effort Shift No Endorsement 40K50K60K No Closure0.0%36.6%53.5%73.8% Jun – Aug (<35 fathoms) 9.6%42.4%57.2%75.8% Apr – Aug (<35 fathoms) 14.3%45.2%59.1%76.6% Annual (<35 fathoms) 28.1%54.1%65.3%79.5%

49. 49 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Increased Effort, No Ratio 50% Effort Shift No Endorsement 40K50K60K No Closure39,115,91023,707,21716,895,5749,802,454 Jun – Aug (<35 fathoms) 35,107,68021,225,73615,426,0699,000,819 Apr – Aug (<35 fathoms) 33,430,79520,184,48114,731,7518,747,842 Annual (<35 fathoms) 27,535,92516,751,98912,476,0247,665,933

50. 50 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) Depth (Fathoms) Combined Density CV of Combined Density 95% Confidence Limit Ratio with 20-35 Fathoms 0 – 200.17120.11060.1485 – 0.19742.194 20 – 350.07810.27560.0551 – 0.1108- 35 – 500.02310.6330.0109 – 0.04889 0.296 50 – 1000.01280.64980.0059 – 0.02760.164

51. 51 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Constant Effort, Winter Ratio = 0

52. 52 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Increased Effort Winter Ratio = 0

53. 53 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Constant Effort, Winter Ratio = 0.636

54. 54 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Increased Effort Winter Ratio = 0.636

55. 55 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Constant Effort No Ratio Sea Turtle Density

56. 56 Amendment 31 Impacts Assuming Increased Effort No Ratio Sea Turtle Density