Implementing Trap Vents

CFMC has provided $5,000This will purchase 6,250 Vents

for 3,125 Traps

Species Control CPUE Vent CPUE Reduction% Reduction from Control

CPUEHolacanthus ciliaris 0.036 0.005 0.032 89%

Acanthurus coeruleus 0.755 0.182 0.573 81%

Haemulon melanurum 0.041 0.01 0.032 81%

Chaetodon striatus 0.066 0.022 0.044 73%

Holacanthus tricolor 0.053 0.019 0.034 71%Calamus calamus 0.15 0.061 0.09 68%

Sparisoma chrysopterum 0.133 0.078 0.056 53%

Lutjanus apodus 0.143 0.095 0.049 47%

Acanthurus chirurgus 0.328 0.223 0.104 45%

Pomacanthus arcuatus 0.104 0.080 0.024 38%

Balistes vetula 0.716 0.626 0.09 30%

Lutjanus synagris 0.046 0.041 0.005 28%

Haemulon plumieri 0.265 0.257 0.007 22%

Holocentrus rufus 0.328 0.328 0 0%

Sparisoma viride 0.133 0.133 0 0%Pterois volitans 0.053 0.061 -0.007 -9%

Epinephelus guttatus 0.359 0.41 -0.051 -8%

Haemulon sciurus 0.133 0.167 -0.034 -1%

Epinephelus fulvus 0.061 0.078 -0.017 -3%

Lactophrys bicaudalis 0.058 0.075 -0.017 -4%

Lactophrys quadricornis 0.478 0.663 -0.184 -12%

Lactophrys triqueter 0.306 0.447 -0.141 -18%

Lactophrys poligonius 0.18 0.308 -0.129 -38%

Ocyurus chrysurus 0.032 0.068 -0.036 -73%

Species Reduction in CPUE

TL Increase

Acanthurus bahianus 90% 10%

Cantherhines pullus 90% 28%

Holocanthus ciliaris 89% 14%

Acanthurus coeruleus 81% 4%

Chaetodon striatus 73% 1%

Calamus calamus 68% 5%

Sparisoma chrysopterum 53% 1%

Acanthurus chirurgus 45% 3%

Pomacanthus arcuatus 38% 17%

Cantherhines macrocerus 54% 20%

Balistes vetula 30% 3%

Aluterus schoepfi 19% 6%

Size Class200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Selectivity

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Control Observed Control Predicted Treatment Observed Treatment Predicted

Red Hind (Epinephelus guttatus) N.S.

Size Class150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Selectivity

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Control Observed Control Predicted Treatment Observed Treatment Predicted

White Grunt (Haemulon plumieri) N.S.

Size Class

100 200 300 400 500

Selectivity

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Control Observed Control Predicted Treatment Observed Treatment Predicted

Redfin Parrotfish (Sparisoma rubripinne) N.S.

Size Class100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Selectivity

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Control Observed Control Predicted Treatment Observed Treatment Predicted

Queen Triggerfish (Balistes vetula) P < 0.05

Size Class100 200 300 400

Selectivity

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Control Observed Control Predicted Treatment Observed Treatment Predicted

Saucereye Porgy (Calamus calamus) P < 0.001

Size Class100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Selectivity

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Control Observed Control Predicted Treatment Observed Treatment Predicted

Gray Angelfish (Pomacanthus arcuatus) P < 0.001

Size Class200 250 300 350 400 450

Selectivity

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Control Observed Control Predicted Treatment Observed Treatment Predicted

Stoplight Parrotfish (Sparisoma viride) P < 0.001

Size Class

160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

Selectivity

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Control Observed Control Predicted Treatment Observed Treatment Predicted

Doctorfish (Acanthurus chirurgus) P < 0.001

Size Class100 150 200 250 300 350

Selectivity

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Control Observed Control Predicted Treatment Observed Treatment Predicted

Blue Tang (Acanthurus coeruleus) P < 0.001

randomization test reference: Manly, B. F. J. 2006. Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology, 3rd Edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Traps 3,125 Set Length

(dys) 9.7

Hauls/Year 38 # Trap Hauls 118,750

Impact of CFMC Vents

SpeciesControl CPUE Vent CPUE

% Reduc-tion

Control CPUE

Catch without

VentsCatch with

VentsReduction/Increase

Holacanthus ciliaris 0.036 0.005 86% 4,275 3,681 594Lutjanus buccanella 0.041 0.007 83% 4,869 4,038 831

Acanthurus coeruleus 0.755 0.182 76% 89,656 68,044 21,613Haemulon melanurum 0.041 0.01 76% 4,869 3,681 1,188

Chaetodon striatus 0.066 0.022 67% 7,838 5,225 2,613Holacanthus tricolor 0.053 0.019 64% 6,294 4,038 2,256

Calamus calamus 0.15 0.061 59% 17,813 10,569 7,244Sparisoma chrysopterum 0.133 0.078 41% 15,794 6,531 9,263

Lutjanus apodus 0.143 0.095 34% 16,981 5,700 11,281Acanthurus chirurgus 0.328 0.223 32% 38,950 12,469 26,481

Pomacanthus arcuatus 0.104 0.08 23% 12,350 2,850 9,500Balistes vetula 0.716 0.626 13% 85,025 10,688 74,338

Lutjanus synagris 0.046 0.041 11% 5,463 594 4,869Haemulon plumieri 0.265 0.257 3% 31,469 950 30,519Holocentrus rufus 0.328 0.328 0% 38,950 38,950 0Sparisoma viride 0.133 0.133 0% 15,794 15,794 0

Epinephelus guttatus 0.359 0.41 -14% 42,631 48,688 -6,056Pterois volitans 0.053 0.061 -15% 6,294 7,244 -950

Haemulon sciurus 0.133 0.167 -26% 15,794 19,831 -4,038Epinephelus fulvus 0.061 0.078 -28% 7,244 9,263 -2,019Ocyurus chrysurus 0.032 0.068 -113% 3,800 8,075 -4,275

Total 472,150 268,900 202,590(Releases

only)

STFA/SCCFA Spiny Lobster Project

Second Progress Report 3/26/2013

Tagging and MeasuringFloy “Spaghetti” Tags

Measure with calipers to the

nearest 1 mm CL

Inject tag between the tail

and end of carapace

Check tag security

Trip SummaryIsland Month # Trips #

Measured # Tagged Project Recaptures

Non Project Recaptures # Kept

St. Croix September 2012 10 236 236 0 St. Croix October 2012 40 601 577 4 3 St. Croix November 2012 25 374 356 15 3St. Croix December 2012 6 107 104 3 4 St. Croix January 2013 3 19 15 4 St. Croix February 2013 1 2

St. Croix Total 84 1337 1288 27 9 3

St. Thomas September 2012 12 633 494 6 1 2St. Thomas October 2012 28 1012 776 15 1 1St. Thomas November 2012 18 338 323 16 2 4St. Thomas December 2012 21 576 310 29 2 12St. Thomas January 2013 13 302 276 26 2 9St. Thomas February 2013 11 293 275 18 3 7St. Thomas March 2013 13 316 249 15 1 1

St. Thomas Total 112 3470 2703 127 12 36

% of Lobster by CL (Complete Trips)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

ST. CroixSt. Thomas

CV for Average Carapace Length

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14000.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

St.X CV

STT CV

# Lobsters

CV

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Olsen StudyCuban Study

Age (yrs)

Cara

pace

Leng

th (m

m)

Parameter St. Thomas Cuba Study𝐿∞ 150mm 195mm ~214mmk 0.432 0.24 𝑡0 0.11 0.46

Lobster Growth STT and Cuba

(𝐿∞=𝐿∞ (1−𝑒(−𝑘(𝑡−𝑡0)))

Recaptures (Days at Large)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 1400

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

# Days at Large

Mortality Calculation• Von Bertalanffy growth equation . • Solve for (t) for carapace length. • This provides the age for each size class in the size frequency

distribution so that total mortality (Z)

Where: is the number of lobsters at time (t) and (t-1)andZ is the rate of total mortality.

can be calculated as the difference in numbers from the size class bin at full recruitment and the size class bin containing L

50 60 70 80 90100

110120

130140

150160

170180

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Carapace Length (mm)

Freq

uenc

y

Full Recruitment (N=137)

L∞ N=1

Z=0.316

St. Thomas Complete Trips

7.1 Years

45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 1500

20

40

60

80

100

120

Carapace Length (mm)

# Lo

bste

rs

Full Recruitment (N=112)

Lfinal N=2

Z=0.959

St. Croix Complete Trips

2.4 Years

Total Mortality (Z) Calculated from TIP Data

19711981

19831985

19871989

19911993

19951997

19992001

20032005

20072009

2011

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

St. Thomas Moving average (St. Thomas)

St. Croix Moving average (St. Croix)

Tota

l Ann

ual M

orta

lity

(Z)

01224364860728496108120132144156168180

0 1224 3648 6072 8496 108120 132144 156168 180

Fishing mortality rate

Size

at fi

rst c

aptu

re (m

m ca

rapa

ce le

ngth

)

St. Thomas St. Croix

Yield Per Recruit

Population Analysis

• Review of CCR data showed that following 1997, the data for total traps owned was input instead of daily trap hauls.

• Only affects fishermen hauling more than one day per week (i.e. bigger fishermen).

• Interviewed all fishermen showing “unreasonable” daily trap haul numbers.

• Multiplied interview results by number of trips to obtain adjusted trap haul values.

Comparison Between Annual Trap Hauls andCCR Reports and Fishermen Interviews

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20070

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

CCR Reports Fishermen Interviews

Year

Tota

l Ann

ual T

rap

Hau

ls

19911992

19931994

19951996

19971998

19992000

20012002

20032004

20052006

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Adjusted EffortCCR Effort

Annu

al C

PUE

(lbs/

trap

hau

l)

SEFCS Supplied Value

Comparison of CPUE

From: steve.turner@noaa.govTo: Olsen41@aol.comCC: david.gloeckner@noaa.gov, Bonnie.Ponwith@noaa.gov, roy.pemberton@dpnr.gov.viSent: 2/12/2013 10:00:32 A.M. Paraguay Standard TimeSubj: Re: Fishermen Trap Haul Survey

Dear David

We have been asked by the VI DFW to have all requests for VI data routed through them so that they can be aware of all requests for their data and to respond to those requests if it is within their capability. Therefore would you please forward your requests to the chief fisheries scientists at DFW. The SEFSC Fisheries Statistics Division is be willing to assist the VI DFW with meeting such requests where we have capabilities for extracting information which they might not have.

Regards

Steve Turner Chief, Fisheries Statistics Division

Monthly Landings: St. Thomas

January

February

March AprilMay

JuneJuly

August

September

October

N ovember

December

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16% 1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2006

2005

Average

Monthly Landings: St. Croix

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Average

Population EstimationSt. Thomas Average Landings

# Lobsters

Cum # Tagged

% Tagged

% Recap- tured

# Recap- tured

Estimated Pop Size

September 7.3% 9,468 4,051 492 12.1% 0.17% 7 284,759

October 8.2% 10,650 4,557 1269 27.8% 0.35% 16 361,421

November 8.6% 11,132 4,763 1589 33.4% 0.38% 18 420,510

December 10.7% 13,800 5,905 1891 32.0% 0.52% 31 360,202

January 10.6% 13,680 5,854 2170 37.1% 0.48% 28 453,665

February 9.2% 11,859 5,074 2466 48.4% 0.43% 22 564,171

March 9.4% 12,191 5,217 2700 51.8% 0.33% 17 828,527

2010 Landings 129,471

2010 Average weight

1061 2.34 lbs

St. Croix Average Landings#

LobstersCum # Tagged

% Tagged

% Recap-tured

# Recap-tured

Estimated Pop Size

September 9.2% 11,974 5,124 236 4.6% 0.00% 0

October 8.0% 10,414 4,456 813 18.2% 0.16% 7 517,526

November 8.5% 10,949 4,685 1166 24.9% 0.32% 15 364,194

December 8.1% 10,441 4,468 1273 28.5% 0.16% 7 812,470

January 9.1% 11,742 5,025 1288 25.6% 0.08% 4 1,617,897

February 8.0% 10,386 4,444 1288 29.0% 0.07% 3 1,907,931

2010 Landings 134,501

2010 Average weight

1015 2.24 lbs

Virgin Islands Spiny Lobster Landings

19741976

19781980

19821984

19861988

19901992

19941996

19982000

20022004

20062008

20100

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

St. Croix ACL= 107,000 lbsSt. Thomas/St. John ACL= 104,000 lbs

Year

Land

ings

(lbs

)

Island Differences in Methods2006 CCR Data

Island Diving Traps

St. Thomas/St. John 15.9% 97.6%

St. Croix 84.1% 2.4%

Average sizes are significantly different betweenIslands (F= 102.7, p<0.001)

Difference between size of Trap and SCUBA caught lobsters on St. Croix not significant (F=0.76, p=0.38)

Island Differences in SizesCFMC Project Complete Trips

Island Average CL

St. Thomas/St. John 101.9 mm

St. Croix 91.9 mm

Lobster Assessments

Evidence/Data• Catch by gear.• CPUE-based abundance indices (calculated from

summary data due to lack of access).• Size distribution of catches.Analysis• Statistical estimation of initial population size,

recruitment history, and fishing mortality rates by fitting catch, CPUE, and size data.

Assessment Details

Drivers of this assessment model:• Size data and catch-CPUE data series give two pictures

of fishing mortality rates and recruitment strength.• Potential for conflict between these two datasets.Recruitment• No attempt at fitting a stock-recruitment relationship

within the model.• Instead, this relationship can be evaluated after the

fact.

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

STT Trap LandingsObserved LandingsPredicted Landings

Year

Land

ings

(kg)

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

STT Diver LandingsObserved LandingsPredicted Landings

Year

Land

ings

(kg)

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

STT Trap IndexObserved IndicesPredicted Indices

Year

Stan

dard

ized

CPUE

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

STT Diver IndexObserved IndicesPredicted Indices

Year

Stan

dard

ized

CPUE

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

STX Trap LandingsObserved Land-ings

Year

Land

ings

(kg)

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

STX Diver LandingsObserved Land-ings

Year

Land

ings

(kg)

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5 STX Trap IndexObserved IndicesPredicted Indices

Year

Stan

dard

ized

CPUE

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

STX Diver IndexObserved IndicesPredicted Indices

Year

Stan

dard

ized

CPUE

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 201590

95

100

105

110

115

120St. Thomas/St. John Average Carapace Length

TIP Data

Olsen 1971 Study

Cara

pace

Leng

th (m

m)

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 201598

100

102

104

106

108

110

112

114

St. Croix Spiny Lobster CLCa

rapa

ce Le

ngth

(mm

)

Draft Results

• St. Thomas-St. John—conflict between two sources of information:– Increasing catches without signs of decrease in CPUE

or average size. Model provides increasing recruitment but this conflicts with relatively stable age distribution.

• St. Croix—similar conflict albeit with increasing CPUE May be a data problem, particularly in recent years. May be an artifact from the way the SEFSC query was constructed.

Management Advice• Results are not yet suggestive that we understand the productive

capacity of this stock. Things may be complicated by a stock range that spans beyond the assessment area (BVI, PR, etc).

• May not apply to St. Croix (isolated sea mount not connected).• Results are suggestive that current fishing pressure is sustainable

—no evidence of decline in CPUE or average size on St. Thomas, however decline in average size observed on St. Croix.

• National Standard 1 advice on data-poor stocks with no evidence of decline: set catch limits as a function of average landings.

• Average landings have been increasing and current ACLs include low years at the start of the period, thereby reducing average.

• St. Croix may have data problem, and raises more concerns because the average size lobster is smaller and sizes have been decreasing.

Preliminary Conclusions

• Combination of catch weight, catch per unit effort, and size distribution of catches may be sufficient to assess the lobster stock.

• Recent data are necessary, as is further review of the catch, index, and size data.

• Even if assessment results are uncertain, management advice can be provided via a management strategy evaluation that compares policies against objectives (see Nowlis 2004, Bulletin of Marine Science)

2.4 Years