DRAFT REPORT. 1. Introductions The meeting was convened at 9:00 am. Ryan Okano served as the Chair.

Transcription

1 P* Working Group Meeting April 16, :00 am to 12:00 pm Pelagic Suite Conference Room Council Office Participants: Layne Nakagawa (Fisherman, AP member), Nathan Abe (Fisherman, AP Member), Roy Morioka (Fisherman, H-FACT), Ed Watamura (Fisherman), Leonard Yamada (Fisherman), Eddie Ebisui III (Fisherman) Ryan Okano (DAR/SSC member), Brian Langseth (NMFS PIFSC), Joseph O Malley (NMFS PIFSC), Brett Schumacher (NMFS PIRO) Council staff: Marlowe Sabater DRAFT REPORT 1. Introductions The meeting was convened at 9:00 am. Ryan Okano served as the Chair. 2. Overview of the P* process Council staff presented an overview of the P* process. A new peer-reviewed benchmark assessment of the main Hawaiian Islands deep 7 bottomfish complex was presented to the Scientific and Statistical Committee and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council at their 128 th and 172 nd meetings, respectively. The Council recommended convening the P* Working Group to quantify the scientific uncertainties in the new stock assessment and determine the level of risk at which the fisheries can be managed. The benchmark assessment is a surplus-production model that generates estimates of biomass and fishing mortality around MSY, and hence qualifies as a Tier 1 stock in the Council s ABC Control Rule. The control rule requires that a P* analysis is conducted to quantify the uncertainties around the assessment, the stock, and the fishery. This analysis is a scoring process done by an expert panel. The participants are comprised of scientist, managers, and most importantly fishermen. The P* analysis is comprised of 4 dimensions: 1) assessment information; 2) uncertainty characterization; 3) stock status; and 4) productivity and susceptibility. Quality and class of information provided by the stock assessment (e.g. exploitation, biomass; estimates vs. proxies) are scored in the first dimension. The second dimension captures how well the known uncertainties are characterized in the assessment model. Stock health and fishery sustainability are scored in the third dimension. Interaction of the stock with the fishery and the life history characteristics of the species are scored under the fourth dimension. Each dimension has a total score of 10, meaning the worst case scenario will result in a 1

2 maximum reduction score of 40. The total score is deducted from the 50% risk of overfishing. 3. Review of the P* Dimensions and Criteria Scores Council staff presented the rationale behind the scores in the 2015 P* Analysis to lay out the baseline information for the 2018 scoring. Updated scores reflect new information in the benchmark assessment as well as identify any recent changes to the fishery. a. Assessment information Council staff presented on the scores from the different criteria under the Assessment Information dimension. There were 7 criteria under this dimension that are scored individually with a range of 0 (fully captured), 0.5 (partially captured), and 1 (not captured). On reliable catch history the previous score was 0.2. The reliability of the earlier years is questionable. It s the data that the assessment scientist can work with. The uncertainty focuses or more concern is the unreported catch. The catch data is catching some signal on the history of the fishery. Magnitude of the unreported catches is questionable given that point estimates from different studies vary. On standardized CPUE the previous score was 0.5. Although the reviewers agreed that adding the gear efficiency and fisherman skill was a significant improvement, the standardization did not account for other sources of available data. The patterns seen in the CPUE make analytical sense, and the signal of changes in the fishery is captured in the standardization. Other factors will be controlled in the next benchmark. Species-specific data the previous score was 1. Only life history data for opakapaka was used in the assessment. All sources of mortality are accounted for the previous score was 0.5. The biggest source of mortality that is unknown is the unreported catch. Other sources of mortality are discards and bycatch that are known to occur in the fishery but are deemed insignificant compared to the unreported catch. There were also uncertainties associated with the true estimate of natural mortality. Fishery independent data the previous score was 1. There were no fishery independent data applied to the 2015 assessment. Tagging data the previous score was 1. There was no tagging information used in the 2015 assessment. Spatial analysis the previous score was 1. Although reporting areas have been used as a standardization factor in the assessment, the assessment is still considered as a basic surplus production model with no specific spatial analysis. 2

3 b. Uncertainty characterization The previous score was a reduction of 2 points. This was due to the uncertainties highlighted by the CIE that an error bound of +/-20% might not be adequate. There are also uncertainties in the power and skill. c. Stock status The previous score was a reduction of 3 points. Two-point reduction was due to B current falling below B estimate and above the MSST. Additional 1-point reduction was for the fact that the assessment is done on a complex. d. Productivity and susceptibility The previous score was 3.41 point reduction. The productivity estimates were provided by PIFSC staff from the life history program. The susceptibility scores were standardized working with bottomfish fishermen who have the expertise to gauge the interaction between the deep 7 species and the fishery. 4. Rescoring of the P* Dimensions and Criteria Scores The P* working group members operated by consensus in making decisions on the final scores. The group discussed each of the dimension based on the scientific and fishery perspective. a. Assessment information On reliable catch history the working group rescored this criteria based on the information gathered during the series of Data Workshops participated by the bottomfish fishermen. The improvement in the catch history score is related to the increase in the buffer of uncertainty around unreported catch from +/-20% to +/- 40% and the further refinement of the commercial catch data from the CML reports. The point estimates of unreported to reported catch remained the same. The working group recognized that there may be changes in the unreported catch over time, especially in the earlier years. However, unless a targeted study is done, there is no way to make an informed decision to change the ratio. Fishermen noted that the catches in recent years are stable and generally similar to early decades where CML data is available, indicating a stable fishery. The working group scored reliable catch history as 0.1. On standardized CPUE There were significant improvements in the CPUE starting with the Data Workshops, and the ability of the assessment to model catch history from individual licensees. This is the best form of the CPUE data we can get from the CML reports. This justifies the score of 0 (no reduction). Species-specific data The assessment included a single species assessment for opakapaka. This was an improvement from the last assessment that merely used a life history proxy for the complex. The 2017 benchmark single species assessment was used to support the complex level assessment. However, fishery effects on individual species other than opakapaka are not available from the assessment. This justifies the score of

4 All sources of mortality are accounted for The score for the criteria did not change. No new source of mortality was accounted for in this benchmark assessment. The fishermen attempted to educate other fishermen to report accurately including bycatch and other potential source of mortality. The score remains 0.5. Fishery independent data The new benchmark assessment included a single estimate of biomass from the MOUSS and the experimental fishing work from the Cooperative Research work of PIFSC in collaboration with the bottomfish fishermen. This justifies the score of 0. Tagging data Tagging information exist but is not included in the assessment. The score remains as 1. Spatial analysis There were several spatial considerations included in the benchmark assessment. It is not a strict spatial analysis. The spatial consideration is in the CPUE standardization, which considers changes in area and region as factors influencing CPUE. Fishermen inquired if making the grids smaller would support the development of a spatial analysis for the assessment. Its will require additional information like tagging in order to incorporate a spatial analysis in the assessment. Given there were significant improvements in the spatial considerations that went into the assessment, it warrants a change in the score. Given that the inclusion of space within the CPUE indices was specified as a consideration for this criterion, the working group believed a change in score was warranted. The score changed from 1 to 0.5. b. Uncertainty characterization The score for this dimension changed from 2 to 1.5. Uncertainties were better characterized in the 2017 stock assessment, and were narrowed down to two major ones. Remaining uncertainties include the lack of process error in the projection of OFL, and uncertainties from the fishery independent point estimate. c. Stock status The stock status in the benchmark assessment improved compared to the previous assessment. The B current is now above the B estimate and MSST. This changed the score from 2 to 0. The 1-point reduction remains because the stock status determination was done at the species complex level. The score from this dimension is 1. d. Productivity and susceptibility Council staff solicited the help of the Life History Program of PIFSC to help guide and inform the productivity aspect of this dimension. The Council acknowledges Brett Taylor, Joseph O Malley, and Bruce Mundy for contributing to the process. They scored the 12 productivity attributes (adopted from Patrick et al. 2010) independently. This is the first time a standardized list of attributes was 4

5 used to score the productivity dimension. Most of the scores were consistent amongst the different experts across the different attributes, except for the rate of population increase, for which one expert differed. The assessment used an estimate of 0.11 for this rate for the stock complex, which would indicated a low productivity stock. This value would garner a reduction of 10. During scoring, a 10 was applied to individual species that had estimated life history parameters that supported their categorization as low productivity (opakapaka, onaga, hapuʻupuʻu). For other species, scores was then averaged among two panel members. Scores were then averaged across reviewer and across attributes within a species. Finally, species scores were averaged to get an overall productivity scored for the complex. The productivity score was The susceptibility scores were reviewed by the working group. The fishermen took the lead in the discussion. Regarding the area overlap, this attribute refers to the geographic overlap of the bottomfish fishery operation relative to the known distribution of the deep 7 species. The actual spatial distribution of the deep 7 species is currently unknown. Some fishers think that there is a 75% overlap. Others stated that part time guys have no time to track schools that move from place to place and go to the same spot over and over. This behavior does not justify a high degree of overlap because the fishing spots are only a small subset of the species distribution. The BRFAs also reduce the overlap of the fishery with the stock. Fish movement was also discussed, and how this affects the amount of overlap between fishing and fish distribution. There were anecdotes and evidence from some preliminary tagging results that adult fish are able to move in large distances, though more tagging data is needed to determine how common this behavior is. Adverse weather conditions in some locations and exposure to large waves also prevent a lot spatial overlap. There were discussions about genetic and larval connectivity. Tagging information provides an idea on which species as movers while other only have a small home range. Survival after release is not applicable to this fishery because most are kept. Desirability depends on the species. Opakapaka and onaga being the most desirable, the score was increased to 10. Other species are not target species, so their scores were adjusted to emphasize that they are less desirable species. Biomass of spawners, recent life history work showed that opakapaka matured earlier than previously thought. It was given a 2.5. The overall susceptibility score changed from 5.71 to 2.66 The overall Productivity-Susceptibility Score is Finalizing the P* scores 5

6 The final P* scores are as follows: Assessment information = 0.7 Uncertainty characterization = 1.5 Stock status = 1 Productivity-susceptibility = 4.35 The total P* reduction score is General Discussion Brian Langseth explained the process in estimating the risk levels and the catch associated with each risk level per year. It assumes that all of the catch was caught in the previous year. The value of the ABC or ACL should be based on the last year of the multiyear specification. If the Council were to use the actual value per year, the effect is that the risk level is increasing every year. 6