• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Main
 Tables
 Figures
 Appendix






Title: A pilot program to assess methods of collecting bycatch, discard, and biological data in the commercial fisheries of the US Caribbean
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/CA01300928/00001
 Material Information
Title: A pilot program to assess methods of collecting bycatch, discard, and biological data in the commercial fisheries of the US Caribbean
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Trumble, Robert J.
Publisher: National Marine Fisheries Service
Place of Publication: St. Petersburg, Fla.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: CA01300928
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of the Virgin Islands
Holding Location: University of the Virgin Islands
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

STX Pilot Observers Final Report ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Acknowledgement
        Acknowledgement
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Tables
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
    Figures
        Page 66
        Page 67
    Appendix
        Page A-1
        Page A-2
        Page A-3
        Page A-4
        Page A-5
        Page A-6
        Page A-7
        Page A-8
        Page A-9
Full Text









Americas


Final Report


A pilot program to assess methods of collecting bycatch,
discard, and biological data in the commercial fisheries of
the US Caribbean




A Cooperative Research Program Report Submitted to


Southeast Regional Office
National Marine Fisheries Service
Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


by
MRAG Americas, Inc.
110 S. Hoover Blvd., Suite 212
Tampa, Florida 33609-3415


June 2006









Report prepared by Robert J. Trumble, MRAG Americas, Inc.; Nancie Cummings,
NMFS, SEFSC; William Tobias, Wes Toller, and Willy Ventura, USVI Department of
Planning and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife; and Hector Rivera, commercial
fisher.










Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................. ......................... 1
2 O operation s ................................................................... .............................. ............ 2
2.1 Protocol development ........................................ ...................... 3
2.2 E quipm ent ........... ...... ........ ...... ............................................ ................. .... 3
2 .3 T raining ........... ...... ........ ...... ............... ................................ .................. . 3
3 Results ................................................ 4
3.1 O observer coverage ............................................................ ...................... 4
3.2 Feasibility of observer coverage ......................... .. ...................... 5
3.2.1 Space, safety, and financial considerations for placing observers on board... 5
3.2.2 Limitations to data collection............................................... 7
3.2.3 Coordination and cooperation issues with fishers ........................................ 8
3.3 Alternatives to putting an observer onboard.............. ............ ...... ............... 9
3 .4 D ata an aly sis ...................... ............... ................................ ........................ 10
3.4.1 Comparison of observer and captain samples.............. ......................... 11
3.4.2 Comparison of bycatch and retained catch............................ ........... 12
3.4.3 Interactions with protected species .................................................. 13
3.4.4 Opportunity observations......................... ..................... 13
4 Summary and Conclusions............................................... ............................... 14
5 R ecom m endations ................................................... ....................................... 15
L iteratu re C ited ................................................................................ ........................... 17
Tables ...................... .. ..... . ............. ......................... .. ............ .......... 18
F ig u re s........... ............... ........................................................ ........................... 6 6
Appendix ........................ ............................................... ................ 1










1 Introduction


NOAA Fisheries awarded a Cooperative Research Program
(http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&oppId=9891) grant to MRAG
Americas to conduct a pilot program to deploy observers in St. Croix fisheries. The
purpose of this project is to assess the potential for obtaining information on bycatch,
discards, and biological data from commercial fisheries off St. Croix in the US
Caribbean. The project focused on methods for obtaining information on composition and
disposition of bycatch and discards at sea, opportunities for collecting biological data at
sea, and the use of captain or crew for collecting data if space or safety on vessels does
not allow observers.

For this project, the US Virgin Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), MRAG
Americas, Inc. (MRAG), and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), teamed
with a commercial fisher from the US
Virgin Islands to conduct a pilot observer -. .
program in the waters of St. Croix (Figure .-
1). The results of the project could form the :l *,
basis for planning a comprehensive
observer program in the US Caribbean if
management agencies should decide such a
program is necessary. The project focused
on gears typically used on the continental
shelf platform of the USVI: traps/pots,
nets, hook and line, and diving. Similar
vessels are used for the four gear types (see
adjacent photo).

The pilot project addressed two primary issues:

1. The feasibility associated with placing observers onboard commercial fishing vessels
(see picture) in the US Caribbean including:
Financial, space, and safety considerations for placing observers on board
Limitations to data collection on board
Coordination and cooperation issues with fishers

2. Alternative methods of obtaining bycatch information other than to placing observers
on board. Under the method being explored, selected fishers will return to port with
the total catch for sampling of retained and discarded components (referred to as
"captain samples").

The project secondarily addressed the specific data to be obtained. The project is the first
opportunity in the U.S. Virgin Islands to collect bycatch and related data on an individual
trip level, and could provide an assessment of the magnitude of bycatch and discards for
these fisheries. Problems of data bias could arise in the pilot project because placement


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas









of observers on vessels will be voluntary and fishers may operate differently when they
have an observer on board. In addition, this pilot project will supplement the port
sampling activities of the USVI, DPNER, DFW by increasing the number of biological
samples. Significant reductions in funding of port sampling activities from traditional,
funding sources (e.g., NOAA, NMFS, State Federal Cooperative Statistics Program and
the Interjurisdictional Program) have significantly impacted the number of biological
samples collected by DFW port samplers (see SEDAR 8 Yellowtail Snapper and Spiny
Lobster RW Report 2005 and SEDAR 4 Deepwater Snapper Report, November 2004).

Recently the SEDAR process documented that too-small sample sizes and lack of regular
(ongoing) data collection needed to construct an adequate time-series of catch and
abundance indices hindered the basic analyses conducted for the SEDAR 8 yellowtail
snapper analyses (see
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S8RWFinalConsensus.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
SEDAR 8 yellowtail snapper Consensus Report, June 2005). Supplemental data
collections, such as planned by this pilot project, could provide critical information
needed for evaluation of the U.S. Caribbean fisheries resources.


2 Operations

Dr. Robert Trumble of MRAG and Ms. Nancie Cummings of the NMFS, SEFSC served
as principle investigators of this project. Dr. Barbara Kojis and Dr. Roger Uwate of DFW
provided oversight. Mr. William Tobias of DFW served as the observer supervisor on St.
Croix. USVI DFW employees working on this project took leave without pay for any
time spent working on the pilot observer project.

Mr. Hector Rivera, a commercial fisher and former DFW environmental specialist/port
sampler, served as the primary observer during
this project period. Mr. David Camoyan served
as backup observer through December 2004.
Subsequently, Dr. Wes Toller, fisheries
biologist with DFW, provided observer
coverage to supplement the coverage from Mr.
Rivera. Mr. Willy Ventura of DFW assisted
Mr. Rivera and Dr. Toller with biological
sampling. Both Mr. Ventura and Dr. Toller
have extensive experience with sampling the
fish species found in the St. Croix fisheries. In
the accompanying picture Mr. Ventura (left)
and Mr. Rivera process fish from an observer
sample. Mr. Tobias provided training to assure
understanding and compliance with the observer protocol.


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas









2.1 Protocol development


MRAG Americas developed a draft set of protocols for the St. Croix observer project,
and routed the draft to Federal and Territorial partners. The protocol called for sampling
catches in the same manner as suggested in the NMFS SEFSC Trip Interview Program
(TIP see http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/tip.jsp) sampling manual, for sampling of landings,
and for recording catch and biological data using TIP forms. In addition to the TIP forms,
the draft protocol contained forms for collecting data on survival of discarded bycatch,
for recording protected species interactions, and confirming vessel participation in the
observer project. Only one substantial change from procedures initially anticipated was
made: originally data was to be collected on a haul by haul or set by set basis. However,
St. Croix fishers typically do not fish in a way that corresponds to individual hauls or
sets. Net fishers make a single set, and hook and line vessels fish more or less
continuously in a general area over a number of hours. As a result, we attributed all
catch from a single vessel in a day as a single set. Following review of the draft protocol,
a final version (Appendix) was prepared and distributed to all participants in the project.


2.2 Equipment

The DFW supplied port sampling equipment for use by observers during this project. The
port sampling kit included a Chatillon metric pan scale (20 kg capacity X 50g), a one-
meter measuring board, a caliper and a 1.5 m measuring tape. Coolers and plastic bags
were provided for retained by-catch. Mr. Rivera received a complete kit that he kept in
his vehicle for ready availability for sampling following an observer trip. In addition,
DFW supplied a life jacket for the observer. The project purchased a hand-held GPS for
use in tracking fishing and transit locations of the fishing vessel and a hand-held VHF
radio to increase chances of successful communication in case of an emergency. A digital
camera was provided to obtain a photographic record of sampled trips and bycatch. Ice
was provided on request to fishers to maintain their catch fresh during biostatistical
sampling.

2.3 Training

The past experience of Mr. Rivera and Mr. Ventura in collecting biological samples and
working with local fishers reduced the amount of time required for observer training.
Training focused on differences from the normal port sampling procedures and changes
that would be necessary for this pilot observer project. Prior to the start of at-sea
observing, Dr. Trumble, Dr. Uwate and Mr. Tobias met with Mr. Rivera and Mr. Ventura
to discuss the objectives of the project and the sampling plan as outlined in the draft
protocol. At this meeting, safety concerns were emphasized. Mr. Tobias followed up with
a review of the data collection procedures and a review of the final protocol immediately
before the beginning of at-sea observing.


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas









3 Results


3.1 Observer coverage

The project schedule called for two months of preparation (July and August 2004) prior
to the beginning of at-sea observing in September. Preparations took nearly four months,
and at-sea observing began in late October 2004.

Subsequent to the preparation of the proposal, the St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John
Fisheries Advisory Committees (FAC) had recommended that the USVI government
implement a prohibition on gill and trammel nets in the territory, effective on January 1,
2005. In light of potential restrictions on the use of this gear, the DFW staff wished to
obtain information on total catch of the net fisheries prior to the proposed implementation
deadline for use in analysis of the impacts on the nets on USVI fisheries. Thirty-five
fishers reported using gill nets and nine fishers reported using trammel nets on St. Croix
during 2003 (Kojis 2004). Of these 44 net fishers, approximately 11 were considered
highliners in the fishery (those that have harvested a combined total of more than 10,000
pounds of fish in the last five years).

As a result of the proposed net ban, the project team diverted all at-sea observations in
October through December 2004 to vessels fishing nets. Due to the pending restrictions
by the USVI government on the use of gill and trammel nets, cooperation from the net
fishers was initially less than ideal, and most net fishers refused to participate in protest.
Mr. Rivera spent much time discussing the observer program with net fishers with the
hope that additional fishers will participate in the bycatch observer program. Mr. Rivera
reported that fishers using hook and line, trap, and dive gear were, however, willing to
carry observers and to collect captain samples.

Even though the FAC had recommended a January 1, 2005 net ban, the DFW had not
scheduled an implementation of the ban during this period. During a public hearing
during January 2005, DWF announced that discussion of a net ban would continue into
the future. Over the next several weeks, the net fishers became more agreeable to taking
observers on fishing trips, in part because of the efforts by Mr. Rivera discussing the
observer program with fishers. The number of observer trips rose substantially during
April and May 2005. Mr. Rivera reported that prompt payments ($100 for observer trips
and $200 for captain trips) to cooperating fishers may have had an impact on undecided
fishers, and led to increased participation in the project by the net fishers

The June through September 2005 period saw a continuation of the progress made in
April and May of increasing number of observer trip. However, some fishers using
several gear types, especially nets and traps, refused to participate in the program, due to
pending territorial and federal regulations to restrict those gears. Many expressed
concerns to the program samplers, that data collected by observers would be used to
justify additional management restrictions. However, Mr. Rivera reported that as more
fishers participated in the study, others who originally refused to participate provided


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas









their assistance. Payments for observer trips and captain trips may have helped to
convince several previously uncooperative fishers to take observers.

The end of the contract period (September 30, 2005) found the project several samples
short of completing the sample design. We requested and received a no-cost extension
that allowed us to obtain the remaining samples. During the October 2004 through
February 2006 period of observer deployment, the project obtained 40 observer trips and
10 captain samples (Table 1).

Of the 190 licensed fishers registered from St. Croix, approximately 120 can be
considered full time and active (William Tobias, DFW, pers. comm.). Of these, we
obtained data from 20 fishers; these 20 fishers represented approximately 17% of full
time and 11% of total permits. The project obtained samples from five net fishers, six
trap fishers, five dive fishers, and seven hook and line fishers. Several fishers fished more
than one gear: two fished both net and trap and one fished net and hook and line. The
relatively small proportion of participating fishers resulted in part because of refusals
from many fishers contacted (fishers of all gear types refused to participate; in part
because many hook and line fishers fish for pelagic fish that are not part of this study;
and in part because many fishers use vessels too small to carry an observer and still have
room for gear and crew.


3.2 Feasibility of observer coverage

3.2.1 Space, safety, and financial considerations for placing
observers on board

As anticipated, the small size of most fishing vessels generally less than 25 feet in St.
Croix presented limited space for observers to conduct work at sea based on vessel size.
Gear type and at-sea conditions affected the effective space available for observers.
Rough seas typical of St. Croix '.
waters, especially during winter
months, increased the difficulties of
observers to make observations. Of
the gears sampled, space was the
biggest issue for trap fishing trips (see
adjacent photo). For boats less than
25 feet in length, space was further
restricted when traps were hauled by
hand (which requires two crew). The
space required for handling traps left
little room for observers to collect
samples or observe fishing activities,
which compromised the ability of





MRAG Americas Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214 5









observers to adequately collect complete bycatch data. Observers had problems obtaining
all data from vessels using traps. Observers on trap vessels often had to make visual
estimates of numbers and species caught in the traps.

The observer protocol called for observers to board only vessels that had passed safety
inspections by the US Coast Guard or USVI authorities. However, only a few of the
vessels actually had safety inspections. In spite of the small size of the vessels and lack of
safety inspection, observers felt safe on board all vessels sampled. All observers had the
final choice whether to ride along on any vessel. Observers chose to ride all available
vessels, or they would not have had access to sufficient vessels to achieve the target
number of 40 observer trips and 10 captain trips set for this project. The project provided
all observers with a life jacket and a hand-held VHF radio to enhance personal safety.

Due to the small vessel size and open-ocean sea conditions, observers experienced harsh
conditions on board nearly all trips, which points to a need for experienced at-sea
observers who understand and can accept harsh conditions and an often stressful working
environment. Observers get beaten by high speed transits in rough seas in small vessels,
often wind/sea conditions causing onboard balance problems. Observers face
uncomfortable and severe exposure to sun, wind, rain, and seawater. Loose fishing gear
and the general state of vessel condition may expose observers to increased risk of injury.
However, observers did not report any data lost as a result of the conditions at sea.

The St. Croix pilot observer project had two key financial aspects: financial impacts on
vessels of carrying an observer, and compensation to the observer team (observers,
observer supervisor, and biological sampler).

Fishers, especially those using traps, experienced inconvenience and trip delays from
having observers on board. Observers slowed down operations and thereby increased the
length of trips. If trap fishers find no retainable fish in a trap, the trap often goes back to
the sea with any catch left in as bait. Therefore, taking out bycatch for the observer is
time consuming; the extent of this issue varies by fisher. In addition, removal of bycatch
used traditionally as bait, could potentially impact subsequent catch rate success and
impact fisher profit, short term. Compensation to fishers of $100 per observer trip
partially offset the inconvenience. Fishers who participated by bringing in fish otherwise
discarded (captain samples) were compensated $200 for the extra time and effort required
and the potential loss of profits from loss of bycatch used normally as bait.

Previously cooperative fishers did not need the financial compensation to participate in
the observer project. These fishers have participated in previous Federal and Territorial
projects when requested. However, the $100 or $200 compensation had a major impact
on the decision to participate by fishers who do not routinely volunteer to cooperate with
scientific research projects of this scope. Without the payments, fisher participation
would have been diminished substantially. Management measures and pending
regulations in the recent past in the US Caribbean, particularly gear restrictions and area
closures, may have led fishers to take a suspicious view of management agencies and
resistance to further actions and thus to participation in any efforts related to management


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas









research. Further, many fishers are very independent and want to set their own schedules
without adjusting to accommodate observers. Although financial compensation may have
enticed some fishers to participate, not all fishers may have felt the compensation made
up for the other negative aspects of having observers on board (e.g., change in schedule,
slowing down the fishing process, possible reduction in catch from loss of bycatch used
traditionally as bait- trap and hook and line fishers)

The observers and observer supervisor suggest that higher payments may have further
increased participation by overcoming the antipathy to management. Therefore, fishers
apparently need some incentive to participate. For some, the incentive comes from
recognition of the need for data and a desire to improve data quality. For others, the
incentive comes from direct financial compensation.

Observer pay of $200 per observer day is roughly comparable to pay rates of observer
programs managed by NMFS. Recent solicitations for observer programs in the Northeast
and Pacific Islands Regions specified minimum observer pay of $13.21 per hour plus
overtime consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act, which converts to around $180
per day base rate. The short-term and irregular observer activities and experience of the
observers justifies payments above a base rate. Observers found the payment adequate for
the work performed. The scientific staff of DFW that participated in the project reported
that funding from the project provided a substantial staff incentive to collect data. The
DFW staff supported the data collection aspect, especially given reductions in port
sampling activities. In addition to increased data collection, the project gave DFW staff
an opportunity to build relationships with fishers and to learn about actual fishing
operations. In addition, utilization of trained DFW staff offered an additional confidence
to the quality of the resulting data collection. When available, qualified and trained
biologists are an asset to this type of research project and should be used.


3.2.2 Limitations to data collection

The small size of vessels, limited space on board, and rough sea conditions prevents
observers from processing samples on board in nearly cases. This adds substantially to
the time observers spend, as they must perform all sampling on shore after completion of
the fishing trip. Sampling on shore may have enhanced data quality as a second sampler
was available for processing the catch and a stable sampling table made measurements
and recording easier. Sampling on shore resulted in a tradeoff of additional confidence in
data quality at the cost of delaying the process to some degree.

However, several issues may lead to questions of representativeness of the data.
* Representativeness of samples to total USVI St. Croix fishery: The observer team
could obtain agreement from only 20 different fishers, or about 17% of the full time
fishers, to participate in the fishery. We experienced many refusals, and focused on
the most productive fishers who tended to cooperate best. Therefore, observer
samples may not adequately represent the entire commercial fishery of St. Croix. The
project distributed the observer trips equally among the gear types (10 each) and


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas









captain trips nearly equally among the gears (2-3 each). The number of fishers
participating was also nearly equal across the gears (5-7 each).

* Discard numbers: Some lobster fishers may have altered their harvest behavior in the
presence of observers (e.g. shorts or berried females could have been discarded,
which might otherwise have been harvested in the absence of an observer).

* Definition of discard vs. bycatch: In some cases, miscommunication between
observer and fisher may have blurred the definition of bycatch, such that "bycatch"
specimens may have had other uses (bait, barter, give-away) in the absence of an
observer. Trap bycatch can be used in several ways, and disposition of retained catch
may vary. Assignment of specimens as bycatch must be made by the fisher, not by
observer, but it was often not communicated clearly by fisher. Therefore, a potential
exists for misunderstanding between observer and fisher. The observer team has some
concerns that fishers labeled some catch as bycatch because they thought that was
what the observer wanted. Therefore, analysts must be aware that fishers may have
retained some catch labeled as bycatch (discards) in the absence of observers.

* Excluded fishery: We did not obtain any samples of conch fishing trips by
commercial fishers.

* Discard Mortality Not Determined: The project had a secondary objective to see if
observers could collect viability data for discards. Observers could not consistently
ascertain the condition of discarded fish because of the working conditions onboard
the small fishing vessels. Observers did collect some viability data, but only for
several trips. The initial protocol called for a multi-stage set of viability conditions;
Observers determined that, at best, they could estimate condition as "viable" or "not
viable." Fishers often left many organisms (treated in the data as discards) in the trap
as bait; this bait may survive multiple hauls but will ultimately die if not released. For
fish trap catch, estimating mortality/vitality is seriously confounded by fate of
discards once they are tossed over the side due to predation by birds (especially
frigate birds) or fish (especially barracuda). Seabirds often follow trap boats to feed
on discards.

* Variability in fishing methods: Even within a gear category/method, fisher behavior
or species preference can dramatically alter the composition of catch. For example,
some lobster divers also harvest substantial quantities of fish (on spear) while others
carry spears but rarely use them.


3.2.3 Coordination and cooperation issues with fishers

A subset of about only 17% of the 50 full time fishers allowed observers on fishing
vessels or agreed to bring in captain samples. Fishers usually refused to cooperate with
the pilot observer program. The success we achieved for the project derived from the
rapport of the observer team with the fisher community. The rapport allowed the observer


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas









team to impart information with a credibility that could not likely have happened with a
less well known and respected team, even if otherwise well experienced. This project
used primarily bilingual observers, which likely made the participating fishers more at
ease during the at-sea and shore sampling process and overall helped gamer the support
we received. Many fishers do not know English and may not have cooperated with non-
Spanish speaking observers.

Non-participants generally fell into two categories: a small organized opposition and an
unorganized opposition.

A small group of fishers started a movement opposing commercial fisher participation in
this bycatch study because they felt the data would be "used against them." Fishers got
the idea that data would be used against them and that the program would do them harm
in the future. This was especially a concern for net fishers who face prohibition of net
gear. These fishers tried to recruit other fishers to join them, and tried to convince Mr.
Rivera, the fisher partner/observer, to quit the program. While this organized opposition
did not prevent observers from meeting fishers and requesting their participation, it did
create a social stigma against one observer from a number of fishers. Further, fishers have
been asked to participate in a number of surveys, most recently in socio-economic
surveys, and often don't see positive impacts resulting from such data collections. Many
fishers view DFW and enforcement personnel without distinction.

More generally, fishers were generally reluctant to slow or alter harvest operations so that
observers could complete their work. This was especially the case for trap fishers, who
tended to be the least cooperative among the fishery types. Other fishers did not want to
alter fishing or marketing operations to carry observers or wait for sample processing by
observers. Some fishers initially agreed to cooperate, then changed their minds or plans
and cancelled without calling back, leaving the observer waiting at the departure site.
These components of the unorganized opposition could have biased project results.


3.3 Alternatives to putting an observer onboard

This project tested captain
samples as an alternative to
placing observers on board
fishing vessels. This was
necessary in particular to sample
vessels that were deemed too
small to carry an observer. The
captains who participated agreed
to bring fish they would have
otherwise discarded into port for
sampling by the observer team. -
Some analysts and managers ,;, b *
could have concerns that fishers



MRAG Americas Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214 9









may not bring in total catch, and may discard catch to deliberately bias the bycatch data.
However, the observer team did not detect any evidence, from talking with fishers and
during sampling of catch, that fishers had biased the sample. Some gear types are more
appropriate and less likely for bias as targets of captain samples. For example, fishers
haul entangling nets into a vessel without sorting at sea (see adjacent photo), which
makes the entire catch available for sampling on shore as fishers sort retained catch from
catch to be discarded at home. Deepwater snapper fisheries catch relatively few non-
target species, which makes bringing in discards a minor activity. However, bringing in
trap bycatch requires more effort from captains than for other fisheries, and offers an easy
opportunity to bias data by discarding species that could cause management concern or
by leaving bycatch in the trap as bait.

This project did not test other possible alternatives to observers. We considered but did
not test the following methods.

The bycatch information recorded on USVI, DFW Commercial Catch Report
(CCR) forms could also be used. However this dataset has yet to be analyzed.
Issues with ability of fishers to recall discards, major difficulty and reluctance that
some fishers have in filling out forms, and possible intentional bias may reduce
the accuracy of these data. In addition, the tendency of some fishers to combine
catch over several trips could introduce additional concerns in analysis of fisher
reported bycatch/discard.
Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) can be used to track fisher movements.
However, VMS does not provide data on catch and discards. VMS cannot confirm
when or if fishers actually fish. VMS could support observer activities but cannot
substitute for direct observations and biological measurements provided by at-sea
observers.
Closed circuit television cameras and other electronic monitoring (EM) can
provide useful information about fishing activities and catch. However, EM
cannot obtain biological data. The small size of vessels leaves little room for
installation of EM gear. Costs of EM are generally less than observer coverage
but still high relative to vessel revenues.
For some gears, a bycatch study could be conducted from a non-fishing vessel
with a commercial fisherman accompanying. For example, to study trap bycatch,
the fisher could visit his traps in a research vessel with a research team hauling
traps at a pace controlled by study objectives. This would enable better info on
vitality criteria using aquaria and also allow divers to record the fate of discards
(eaten by birds or predatory fish). The expense of such charter-vessel research
would limit the observations to relatively few vessels.


3.4 Data analysis

The voluntary participation in the pilot observer project means that we could not
distribute observer coverage over the fleet with a randomized or stratified procedure to
obtain representative coverage of the St. Croix fishing fleet. Refusal to participate by


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas









some segments of the fleet precluded sampling of these vessels. Other vessels too small
to carry observers are included in the sampling only to the extent that fishers participated
through the captain samples. Therefore, use of the data must occur with caution.

Fishers often used more than one gear during a fishing trip. For example, when gear
needed to soak before retrieval, fishers might fish with hook and line or by diving. For
the analyses that follow, we assigned each trip to a single gear that we determined best
represented that trip.

No biological samples from St. Croix, other than those from this project, were collected
during the period of the pilot observer project. Therefore, analysts preparing scientific
support documents for management purposes of reef fish fisheries for St. Croix must
either use these data or have no data for the period. Analysts and managers must ascertain
the appropriateness of these data for the purpose intended, and determine whether the
samples sufficiently represent the fishing activities of St. Croix fishing fleet. The analyses
below may help with this determination.


3.4.1 Comparison of observer and captain samples

To assist analysts decide the representativeness of the samples, we have made simple
comparisons of two key aspects of the data. First, we compared effort summaries of
observer samples with captain samples. With only 40 observer samples and 10 captain
samples, distributed over numerous gears and time periods, detailed statistical analysis of
the results were not practical nor supported. However, the patterns and ranges of
attributes for pooled observer samples and pooled captain samples (Tables 2-11) showed
similarity such that we detected no obvious differences. Under the conditions with which
the data collections occurred, the captain samples seemed comparable to the observer
samples.

Port samplers collected both observer and captain samples over 10 distinct landing sites
(Table 2). Altona Lagoon, Castle Nugent, Frederiksted Fish Market, and Molasses Dock
accounted for 32 and 7 of the 40 observer samples and 10 captain samples, respectively.
These four landings site account for the majority of commercial landings of St. Croix
(William Tobias, USVI DFW, pers. comm.).

Crew sizes for both observer and captain samples predominantly fell in the 2-4 person
range (Table 3), although captain sample trips had somewhat smaller crew size. In
general, gill and trammel net fishers sampled tended to have crew size of three or more,
while other gears tended to have crew size less than three (Table 4). Some captain
samples occurred from vessels too small to carry an observer, which may have accounted
for their generally smaller crew size. In general, a vessel smaller than 16 ft in length was
considered too small to safely carry an observer. However, larger vessels were considered
too small in some cases. In rougher weather or on trips further offshore, observers went
out on larger vessels. Observers did not ride trap vessels smaller than abut 24 ft because
the space required by the traps did not leave room for an observer.


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas










Similar to crew size, the observer trips had a somewhat higher fraction of days fished
(0.23) compared to captain sample trips (0.17) (Table 5). The smaller size of vessels in
the captain samples may lead to shorter trips. Both observer trips and captain sample trips
occurred on single days (Table 6). None of the trips in the St. Croix pilot study extended
to multiple days. Observers converted actual fishing time in hours to fractions of days.
Days fished did not suggest substantial differences between observer and captain trips
over gears or areas (Table 7). The largest differences occur with only one captain sample,
which may be a sample size issue.

Bycatch in percentage of numbers of the total catch from observer samples ranged from
zero to 55% of the total catch (Table 8), with the preponderance of the samples in the
zero to 20% range. The captain samples generally fell within this range, but did not show
the extreme high values of the observer samples. The overall mean for observer samples
(12%) was lower than the mean for captain samples (20%). Bycatch in weight from
observer samples ranged from zero to 53% of the total catch (Table 9), with the
preponderance also in the zero to 20% range. The captain samples also had a more
narrow range, from zero to 26%, but with a similar mean.


3.4.2 Comparison of bycatch and retained catch

Because the observer samples and the captain samples did not show substantial
differences, we combined them for comparison of bycatch and retained catch. As
expected from Caribbean fisheries, the observers sampled a variety of species, resulting
in over 100 unique species. Many of these species appeared as retained catch and often
also were identified as bycatch (Tables 10 and 11). Most species were caught in low
numbers and represented small amounts of weight. Several species appeared in relatively
high numbers in either retained catch or in bycatch. Blue tang made up almost 15% of the
sample observations for bycatch, but just 7% of retained catch; ocean surgeon fish made
up 34% of the sample observations, but less than 1% of the retained catch (Table 10).
Ballyhoo and redtail parrotfish made up 10.5% and over 25% of the sample observations
for retained catch, respectively, but less than 1% of the discards.

The high representation of blue tang, ocean surgeonfish, ballyhoo, and redtail parrotfish
in the samples also showed as high numbers of individuals in the samples (Table 11).
However as expected, the small size of some species showed as small representation by
weight. Blue tang and ocean surgeon fish, which each accounted for about 23% of the
bycatch by numbers accounted for only 6% and <1% of the bycatch by weight.

When broken out by gear (Table 12), trammel nets and pots and traps had the highest
observed bycatch and highest observed retained catch. Hook and line had lower catches,
and diving had the lowest catches.

Trammel nets caught a high diversity of species (Table 12). Blue tang and surgeon fish
were the most frequently caught of the trammel net bycatch, and redtail parrot fish


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas









represented over half of the retained catch. Trammel net bycatch consisted of 850
individuals and 395 pounds, compared to 3000 retained individuals and 2897 retained
pounds.

Pots and traps also caught a large number of species (Table 12). Blue tang and trunkfish
were the most frequently caught of the pot and trap bycatch, and spiny lobster, white
grunt, doctor fish, and honeycomb cowfish were the most frequently retained species.
Trammel net bycatch consisted of 850 individuals and 395 pounds, compared to 2139
retained individuals and 1452 retained pounds.

Hook and line gear consisted of hand lines and bottom longlines. Handlines primarily
discarded horse eye jack, sand tilefish, and coney, while bottom longlines primarily
discarded greater amberjack, beardfish, and lizard fish (Table 12). Both gears retained
various snappers, primarily yellowtail snapper for handlines and queen snapper for
longlines. Longlines also retained sixgill sharks. Handlines discarded 56 individuals and
103 pounds, and longlines discarded 28 individuals and 24 pounds and retained 141
individuals and 378 pounds.

Dive gear had the smallest number of species discarded and retained, and the fewest
number and pounds of discards (Table 12). The bycatch consisted mainly of barracuda,
spiny lobster, and parrotfish. Retained catch was predominantly spiny lobsters and
parrotfish. Divers discarded 14 individuals and 36 pounds and retained 489 individuals
and 654 pounds.


3.4.3 Interactions with protected species

The observers did not encounter fishing gear interactions with marine mammals, sea
turtles or sea birds. However, they observed interactions between sea birds and bycatch -
especially for trap fishing samples. Seabirds preyed on releases from traps, which likely
contributed a substantial source of mortality for trap fishing discards/bycatch.


3.4.4 Opportunity observations

The project restricted observations to trips targeting species under fishery management
plans of the Caribbean Council. However, several trips obtained data for pelagic fish not
managed by the Council. The pelagics were caught opportunistically by fishers; in most
cases, hook and line fishers targeting deepwater snapper caught pelagic fish by trolling on
the way out to the fishing grounds or on the way in. The data for pelagic fish provide
some biostatistical information, but should not be considered as an integral part of this
project.


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas









4 Summary and Conclusions


The successes obtained by this project resulted from two key points: rapport with fishers
on the part of the observers, port samplers, and observer coordinator, and payments to
fishers for their participation. While some fishers, those who generally cooperate, would
have participated in any event, many others did not want to participate. The combination
of personal contact and payments convinced others to take part. A bilingual staff (Mr.
Rivera and Mr. Ventura) also contributed to the ability to make personal contacts. As a
result, the observers obtained useful information from fishers, and could provide
feedback to fishers concerning plans and policies of DFW.

The project demonstrated that implementing an observer program would be difficult
under the best of circumstances and would require flexibility in nearly all logistical
operations. The small vessels have little room for an observer, and many have no room at
all, making it difficult for direct observer placement. With an already small crew size
(including captain) of 1-3 people, fishers could not afford to reduce fishing capacity by
25-50% by leaving a crew member home to make room for an observer. Doing so would
negatively impact the fishing operation.

However, this project demonstrated that fishers can bring in fish (catch) otherwise
destined for discarding for later sampling by observers at the dock. The captain samples
obtained during this project demonstrated similarities in attributes to the samples
collected by observers, although small sample sizes precluded rigorous statistical
analysis. This method has potential for data collection that warrants additional research.
Data collected by fishers has a high potential for bias, if fishers have something to hide or
a desire to portray the fishery in more favorable light. In this project, we could find no
reason for participating fishers to bias the data. However, a program that utilizes captain
samples would require an assessment of the probability that bias would occur, and if the
level of bias is small enough relative to the overall value of the data to justify establishing
the program. That is, if the choice is biased data or no data, which choice leaves the
program better off.

The opposition voiced against the observer project and the need for payments to bring
fishers into participation suggests that fishers would have a strong resistance to any
mandatory program. This is not a surprising conclusion, as most observer programs start
with opposition from fishers. However, previous opposition on the part of St. Croix
fishers to DWF proposed measures to ban nets very likely contributed to some portion of
the resistance to the observer project, and less opposition to the observers may have
resulted in a less contentious management environment. An initial opposition to
observers would not mean that an observer program would fail. However, a successful
program in the USVI would take careful and detailed planning to implement (AFSC
2003), and to minimize the opposition:

Determine goals and objectives
Design a program to meet goals and objectives
Determine logistic support required, especially enforcement and who pays


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas









Implement the program
Monitor progress toward and achievements of goals and objectives, and provide a
mechanism to modify as necessary.

This project demonstrated that many fishers in the USVI St. Croix fisheries need an
incentive to cooperate. Direct payments to fishers are highly unlikely in a normal
observer program, and many observer programs (e.g., the North Pacific Groundfish
Observer Program) require payments by fishers for observers. Efforts to develop non-
monetary incentives would benefit an observer program and would be worthwhile
exploring if authorities decide to further develop an observer program for the USVI.
Because many fishers believe that data collection programs will find (or produce)
information that could be used against them, development of an observer program should
focus on explaining the how the data will be used and the benefits that will accrue to
fishers from management improvements. If fishers buy in into a program because they
expect some benefits, long or short term, support will increase and opposition will
decrease. Providing concrete information, such as from meetings with questions and
answers and from reports of plans and progress, to fishers during development and
operations of a program will help alleviate suspicion and enhance buy-in.

The DFW staff reported high satisfaction with the pilot observer project and the
opportunity to collect biosample data on a regular basis. Funding did not permit normal
biosampling during the period of this project. The DFW staff pointed out the benefits of
both data collection and the opportunity to interact with fishers.


5 Recommendations

This project demonstrated the feasibility of collecting observer data on the small vessels
of St. Croix, the difficulties and limitations to the observer coverage, and presented an
alternative to observers for collecting data. Under some conditions, data collected by an
observer program or captain sample program of the type tested here may be suitable for
management needs. However, to determine that, careful planning for the program should
occur, that includes determination if a USVI observer program can achieve specified
goals and objectives. We recommend a report on observer coverage prepared for NMFS
(AFSC 2003) to assist with this evaluation and planning.

If management agencies in the US Caribbean determine that an observer program is
needed, we recommend the following:

This project demonstrated a need to provide fishers with an incentive to support, or at
least not oppose, an observer program. We recommend explaining the benefits of an
observer program through an education effort of meetings and reports that clearly lay out
the goals of the program, how the program will operate, and what it will achieve.

Observers ride on small, open vessels, often in rough weather. We recommend enhancing
safety for observers by requiring a Coast Guard (or other maritime agency) safety


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas









inspection for each vessel prior to taking an observer, providing a personal locator beacon
for each observer, and providing a personal first aid kit for each observer.

As part of a Cooperative Research Program project, requiring participation of fishers, this
project used a commercial fisher as the primary observer. Some fishers may not have
carried an observer to avoid possible publicizing proprietary fishing locations. We
recommend establishing a conflict of interest policy in which observers could have no
financial interest in the fishery other than through observing.

Fishers and observers did not always use the same definition of bycatch. Fishers may
have included in bycatch those fish not destined for sale that fishers intended to give
away. We recommend an effort to understanding of the fisher's "decision tree" for
handling of catch, to interpret catch disposition, especially with fish trap samples (catch
vs. discard; discard vs. bait; discard vs. bycatch).

Trap samples are more difficult and time consuming for observers to process, and delays
can negatively impact fishers' schedules. We recommend development of a standardized
method for treating samples to minimize disruption to fishers. Trap bycatch may require a
special study to develop efficient and effective measures.


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas










Literature Cited


AFSC. 2003. NMFS Fisheries Observer Coverage Level Workshop: Defining a Basis.
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 45pp.

Kojis, B. 2004. Census of the marine commercial fishers of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council Report. 87pp.


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas










Tables


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas













Table 1. Number of observer and captain samples by month and gear, St. Croix Pilot observer project October 2004 March 2006.
Month Gill/Trammel Net Trap/Pot Dive Hook and Line
Observer Captain trip Observer Captain trip Observer Captain trip Observer Captain trip
October 2004 1
November 3 2
December 1
January 2005 1
February 3
March 2
April 2* 4 2
May 4
June 1 2
July 1 1
August 2 5
September 1 2 2 1 2 1
December 1
February 2006 1 2
Total 10 3 10 2 10 2 10 3
*Two umbrella net trips were included in this figure.


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas











Table 2: Number of interviews by Site sampled (year, landing site,
sampling method)


SAMPLE METHOD
FISHERMAN OBSERVER
SAMPLE TRIP All
INT ID INT ID INT ID
N N N
YEAR SITE NAME
2004 FREDERIKSTED FISH MARKET 1 1
MOLASSES DOCK 1 5 6
All 2 5 7
2005 SITE NAME
ALTONA LAGOON 7 7
CASTLE NUGENT 1 6 7
CHRISTIANSTED DOCK 1 1 2
CHRISTIANSTED HARBOR 1 1
FREDERIKSTED FISH MARKET 7 7
MOLASSES DOCK 1 7 8
SALT RIVER 1 1
SALT RIVER MARINA 2 2
TAGUE BAY 2 2 4
UNKNOWN VI 1 1
All 5 35 40
2006 SITE NAME
ALTONA LAGOON 1 1
CASTLE NUGENT 1 1
FREDERIKSTED FISH MARKET 1 1
All 3 3


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas










Table 2: Number of interviews by Site sampled (year, landing site,
sampling method)


SAMPLE METHOD
FISHERMAN OBSERVER
SAMPLE TRIP All
INT ID INT ID INT ID
N N N
All SITE NAME
ALTONA LAGOON 1 7 8
CASTLE NUGENT 2 6 8
CHRISTIANSTED DOCK 1 1 2
CHRISTIANSTED HARBOR 1 1
FREDERIKSTED FISH MARKET 2 7 9
MOLASSES DOCK 2 12 14
SALT RIVER 1 1
SALT RIVER MARINA 2 2
TAGUE BAY 2 2 4
UNKNOWN VI 1 1
All 10 40 50






Table 3: Crew statistics by year, sampling method

SAMPLE METHOD
FISHERMAN OBSERVER
SAMPLE TRIP All
NUM CREW NUM CREW NUM CREW
N Mean N Mean N Mean
YEAR
2004 2.00 3.00 5.00 3.80 7.00 3.57
2005 5.00 2.20 35.00 2.66 40.00 2.60
2006 3.00 1.33 3.00 1.33
All 10.00 2.10 40.00 2.80 50.00 2.66


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas












Table 4: Crew statistics Croix Observer Project by Landing Site Name, Sampling Method and Gear, pooled
over year/month


SAMPLE
FISHERMAN
SAMPLE
NUM CREW
N Mean


METHOD
OBSERVER
TRIP
NUM CREW
N Mean


All

NUM CREW
N Mean


GEAR NAME
DIVING OUTFITS, OTHER







GILL NETS, GL 1-2 INCH


LIFT NETS


LINES HAND, OTHER STILL FSH.BOT


SITE NAME
ALTONA LAGOON
CASTLE NUGENT
MOLASSES DOCK
UNKNOWN VI
All
SITE NAME
MOLASSES DOCK
SALT RIVER


All
SITE NAME
FREDERIKSTED FISH MARKET
All
SITE NAME
ALTONA LAGOON
FREDERIKSTED FISH MARKET


7.00 2.71 7.00
1.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 3.00
1.00 2.00 1.00
1.00 3.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 10.00 2.70 12.00


1.00
1.00
2.00


3.00
4.00
3.50


1.00
1.00
2.00


2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00


1.00
1.00
2.00


4.00 2.00
4.00 2.00


1.00
5.00
6.00


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


2.71
2.33
2.00
3.00
2.58


3.00
4.00
3.50


MRAG Americas











Table 4: Crew statistics Croix Observer Project by Landing Site Name, Sampling Method and Gear, pooled
over year/month


SAMPLE

FISHERMAN
SAMPLE
NUM CREW
N Mean


METHOD

OBSERVER
TRIP
NUM CREW
N Mean


All

NUM CREW
N Mean


LINES LONG, BOTTOM, REEF FISH






LINES TROLL, TUNA






POTS AND TRAPS, FISH











POTS AND TRAPS, LOBSTER INSHR.


SITE NAME
MOLASSES DOCK
TAGUEBAY
All
SITE NAME
FREDERIKSTED FISH MARKET
MOLASSES DOCK
All
SITE NAME
CASTLE NUGENT
CHRISTIANSTED DOCK
CHRISTIANSTED HARBOR
MOLASSES DOCK
SALT RIVER MARINA
All
SITE NAME
SALT RIVER MARINA
TAGUE BAY
All


2.00

1.00 1.00 2.00
1.00 1.00 4.00


1.00
1.00
2.00


2.00
1.00 3.00 1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00 3.00 9.00


1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


2.00

2.00
2.00


3.00
3.00
3.00


4.00
2.00
4.00
2.75
2.00
3.00


2.00

3.00
5.00


1.00
1.00
2.00


2.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
10.00


2.00

1.67
1.80


3.00
3.00
3.00


4.00
2.50
4.00
2.75
2.00
3.00


2.00
1.00
1.50


2.00 1.00
1.00
2.00 2.00


MRAG Americas











Table 4: Crew statistics Croix Observer Project by Landing Site Name, Sampling Method and Gear, pooled
over year/month


SAMPLE

FISHERMAN
SAMPLE
NUM CREW


METHOD

OBSERVER
TRIP
NUM CREW


All

NUM CREW


N Mean N Mean N Mean


SITE NAME
CASTLE NUGENT
FREDERIKSTED FISH MARKET
MOLASSES DOCK
All


1.00

1.00
1.00
3.00


4.00

3.00
3.00
3.33


2.00 4.00 3.00

1.00
4.00 3.75 5.00
6.00 3.83 9.00


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


TRAMMEL NETS


4.00

3.00
3.60
3.67


MRAG Americas











Table 5: Days fished Statistics by year and sampling method (number of hours fished)


SAMPLE METHOD


FISHERMAN
SAMPLE

DAYS FISH
N Mean


2.00

5.00
3.00
10.00


0.18

0.16
0.18
0.17


OBSERVER
TRIP

DAYS FISH
N Mean


5.00

35.00


40.00


All

DAYS FISH
N Mean


0.23 7.00

0.23 40.00
3.00
0.23 50.00


0.21

0.22
0.18
0.22


Table 6: Days fished Statistics by year and


SAMPLE METHOD


FISHERMAN
SAMPLE
DAYS OUT
N Mean


YEAR
2004
2005
2006
All


2.00

5.00
3.00
10.00


1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00


OBSERVER
TRIP

DAYS OUT
N Mean


5.00

35.00


40.00


sampling method


All

DAYS OUT
N Mean


1.00 7.00

0.97 40.00
3.00
0.98 50.00


1.00
0.98
1.00
0.98


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


YEAR
2004
2005
2006
All


MRAG Americas














Table 7: Days fished statistics, St. Croix Observer Project by Sampling Method, Gear, Area
Fished pooled over year/month


SAMPLE

FISHERMAN
SAMPLE
DAYS FISH


METHOD

OBSERVER
TRIP
DAYS FISH


N Mean N Mean


All

DAYS FISH

N Mean


GEAR NAME
DIVING OUTFITS, OTHER




GILL NETS, GL 1-2 INCH






LIFT NETS




LINES HAND, OTHER STILL FSH.BOT







LINES LONG, BOTTOM, REEF FISH







LINES TROLL, TUNA


AREA FISHE
52100.3000
52100.4000
All
AREA FISHE
52100.1000
52100.3000
All
AREA FISHE
52100.1000
All
AREA FISHE
52100.1000
52100.5000
52100.6000
All
AREA FISHE
52100.3000
52100.4000
52100.5000
All
AREA FISHE
52100.2000
All


2.00 0.17 1.00

9.00
2.00 0.17 10.00


1.00
1.00
2.00


0.10

0.09
0.09


0.20
0.10
0.15


3.00

9.00
12.00


1.00
1.00
2.00


2.00 0.05 2.00 0.05
2.00 0.05 2.00 0.05


1.00 0.17 2.00 0.50 3.00
1.00 0.20 1.00
2.00 0.00 2.00
2.00 0.19 4.00 0.25 6.00


1.00
1.00 0.10 2.00
1.00
1.00 0.10 4.00


0.45
0.64
0.29
0.50


1.00
3.00
1.00
5.00


2.00 0.32 2.00 0.32
2.00 0.32 2.00 0.32


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


0.15

0.09
0.10


0.20
0.10
0.15


0.39
0.20
0.00
0.23


0.45
0.46
0.29
0.42


MRAG Americas











Table 7: Days fished statistics, St. Croix Observer Project by Sampling Method, Gear, Area
Fished pooled over year/month

SAMPLE METHOD

FISHERMAN OBSERVER
SAMPLE TRIP All
DAYS FISH DAYS FISH DAYS FISH
N Mean N Mean N Mean


AREA FISHE
52100.2000
52100.3000
52100.4000
52100.6000


POTS AND TRAPS, LOBSTER INSHR. AREA FISHE
52100.6000
All
TRAMMEL NETS AREA FISHE
52100.1000
52100.3000
All
All AREA FISHE
52100.1000

52100.2000

52100.3000

52100.4000
52100.5000

52100.6000

All


1.00 0.13 1.00 0.13

5.00 0.22 5.00 0.22
1.00 0.20 2.00 0.42 3.00 0.34
1.00 0.20 1.00 0.20
1.00 0.20 9.00 0.25 10.00 0.25


1.00 0.10 1.00 0.63 2.00 0.37
1.00 0.10 1.00 0.63 2.00 0.37


1.00 0.16 1.00 0.16
2.00 0.23 6.00 0.23 8.00 0.23
3.00 0.20 6.00 0.23 9.00 0.22


2.00 0.17 5.00 0.26 7.00 0.23

3.00 0.26 3.00 0.26

4.00 0.20 14.00 0.22 18.00 0.22

2.00 0.15 13.00 0.22 15.00 0.21
1.00 0.20 1.00 0.29 2.00 0.25

1.00 0.10 4.00 0.21 5.00 0.19

10.00 0.17 40.00 0.23 50.00 0.22


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


POTS AND TRAPS, FISH


MRAG Americas












Table 8: Bycatch and Retained Catch Proportions by Interview, St. Croix Observer Project by Sampling Method

SAMPLE METHOD


FISHERMAN SAMPLE


OBSERVER TRIP


bycatchnumprop retnumprop

N Mean N Mean


bycatchnumprop

N Mean


retnumprop

N Mean


bycatchnumprop


retnumprop


1.00

1.00


0.21 1.00 0.79

0.09 1.00 0.91


0.22 1.00 0.78
0.15 1.00 0.85


INT ID
230211

231486

231655
231683

231687

231719

231750
231774

231778

231787
231789

231790

231792

231811
231812

231814

231819

231835
231838


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


N Mean N Mean


1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00
1.00


1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00


0.21
0.28

0.51
0.08

0.12
0.03
0.30

0.00
0.04

0.00
0.06

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00


0.21

0.09
0.22
0.15

0.21
0.28

0.51
0.08

0.12
0.03
0.30

0.00
0.04

0.00
0.06

0.00
0.00

0.01
0.00


1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00


1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00


0.79
0.72

0.49
0.92

0.88
0.97
0.70

1.00
0.96

1.00
0.94

1.00
1.00

0.99
1.00


0.79

0.91

0.78
0.85

0.79
0.72

0.49
0.92

0.88
0.97

0.70

1.00
0.96

1.00
0.94

1.00
1.00

0.99
1.00


MRAG Americas











Table 8: Bycatch and Retained Catch Proportions by Interview, St. Croix Observer Project by Sampling Method

SAMPLE METHOD


FISHERMAN SAMPLE


OBSERVER TRIP


bycatchnumprop

N Mean


































1.00 0.00
1.00 0.23


retnumprop
N Mean


bycatchnumprop

N Mean

1.00 0.20

1.00 0.17
1.00 0.00
1.00 0.02

1.00 0.00
1.00 0.00

1.00 0.00
1.00 0.20

1.00 0.06
1.00 0.16

1.00 0.00
1.00 0.10
1.00 0.06

1.00 0.10
1.00 0.13

1.00 0.28
1.00 0.54

1.00 0.01
1.00 0.15


retnumprop


N

1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00


Mean

0.80

0.83
1.00
0.98

1.00
1.00

1.00
0.80

0.94
0.84

1.00
0.90
0.94

0.90
0.87

0.72
0.46

0.99
0.85


231844

231846
231913

231916

232011
232019

233023

233024

233109
234788

234820

234821
234822

234825

234834

234840
235437

235445

235493
235541
235542


bycatchnumprop

N Mean

1.00 0.20

1.00 0.17
1.00 0.00
1.00 0.02

1.00 0.00
1.00 0.00

1.00 0.00
1.00 0.20

1.00 0.06
1.00 0.16

1.00 0.00
1.00 0.10
1.00 0.06

1.00 0.10
1.00 0.13

1.00 0.28
1.00 0.54

1.00 0.01
1.00 0.15
1.00 0.00
1.00 0.23


retnumprop


N

1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00


Mean

0.80

0.83
1.00
0.98

1.00
1.00

1.00

0.80

0.94

0.84

1.00
0.90
0.94

0.90

0.87

0.72
0.46

0.99

0.85
1.00
0.77


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


S 1.00 1.00

S 1.00 0.77


MRAG Americas











Table 8: Bycatch and Retained Catch Proportions by Interview, St. Croix Observer Project by Sampling Method

SAMPLE METHOD


FISHERMAN SAMPLE


OBSERVER TRIP


bycatchnumprop

N Mean

1.00 0.33


retnumprop

N Mean

1.00 0.67


bycatchnumprop


retnumprop


N Mean N Mean


1.00
1.00


1.00


0.00 1.00 1.00


0.23 1.00 0.77

0.30 1.00 0.70


1.00


1.00
1.00

10.00


0.36
0.11

0.20


1.00
1.00

10.00


0.64
0.89

0.80


235543

235545
235547

235549

235557
235558

245108

245148

245670
245671

All


0.16 1.00 0.84
0.00 1.00 1.00


0.11 1.00 0.89


0.34 1.00 0.66




0.12 40.00 0.88


bycatchnumprop
N Mean


1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

50.00


0.33

0.16
0.00
0.00

0.11
0.23

0.30
0.34

0.36
0.11


retnumprop
N Mean


1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00


0.67

0.84
1.00
1.00

0.89
0.77

0.70
0.66

0.64
0.89


0.13 50.00 0.87


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


40.00


MRAG Americas












Table 9: Bycatch and Retained Weight Proportions by Interview, St. Croix Observer Project by Sampling
Method


SAMPLE METHOD

FISHERMAN SAMPLE OBSERVER TRIP


bycatchwgt_prop

N Mean


ret wgt_prop

N Mean


bycatch_

N


wgt_prop
Mean


ret wgt_prop


bycatchwgt_prop


ret wgt_prop


N Mean N Mean N Mean


1.00 0.11 1.00 0.89

1.00 0.08 1.00 0.92


1.00 0.13 1.00 0.87

1.00 0.07 1.00 0.93


INT ID
230211
231486
231655

231683

231687

231719
231750

231774

231778

231787
231789

231790

231792
231811

231812

231814

231819
231835


0.11

0.13
0.53

0.04
0.09

0.03
0.27

0.00

0.02
0.00

0.09

0.00

0.00
0.02


1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00
1.00


0.89

0.87
0.47

0.96
0.91

0.97
0.73

1.00

0.98
1.00

0.91

1.00

1.00
0.98


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00
1.00


0.11

0.08
0.13

0.07
0.11

0.13
0.53

0.04
0.09

0.03
0.27
0.00

0.02
0.00

0.09
0.00

0.00
0.02


1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00


0.89

0.92
0.87

0.93
0.89

0.87
0.47

0.96
0.91

0.97
0.73
1.00

0.98
1.00

0.91
1.00

1.00
0.98


MRAG Americas











Table 9: Bycatch and Retained Weight Proportions by Interview, St. Croix Observer Project by Sampling
Method


SAMPLE METHOD

FISHERMAN SAMPLE OBSERVER TRIP


bycatchwgt_prop

N Mean


ret wgt_prop

N Mean


bycatch_

N

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00


wgt_prop

Mean

0.00
0.22

0.12
0.00
0.12

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.23

0.19
0.09
0.00

0.38
0.09

0.07
0.08

0.14
0.30
0.05
0.09


ret wgt_prop


N

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00


Mean

1.00
0.78

0.88
1.00
0.88

1.00
1.00

1.00
0.77

0.81
0.91
1.00

0.62
0.91

0.93
0.92

0.86
0.70
0.95
0.91


bycatchwgt_prop


N

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00


Mean

0.00
0.22

0.12
0.00
0.12

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.23

0.19
0.09
0.00

0.38
0.09

0.07
0.08

0.14
0.30
0.05
0.09


ret wgt_prop


N

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00


Mean

1.00
0.78

0.88
1.00
0.88

1.00
1.00

1.00
0.77

0.81
0.91
1.00

0.62
0.91

0.93
0.92

0.86
0.70
0.95
0.91


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


231838
231844

231846

231913
231916

232011
232019

233023
233024

233109
234788
234820

234821

234822

234825
234834

234840

235437
235445
235493


MRAG Americas











Table 9: Bycatch and Retained Weight Proportions by Interview, St. Croix Observer Project by Sampling
Method


SAMPLE METHOD

FISHERMAN SAMPLE OBSERVER TRIP


bycatchwgt_prop


N

1.00
1.00
1.00


Mean

0.00
0.23
0.17


ret wgt_prop

N Mean

1.00 1.00
1.00 0.77
1.00 0.83


1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00


1.00 0.12 1.00 0.88
1.00 0.14 1.00 0.86


1.00 0.26 1.00 0.74
1.00 0.09 1.00 0.91


bycatchwgt_prop


ret wgt_prop


bycatchwgt_prop


N Mean N Mean N

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 0.26 1.00 0.74 1.00
1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.00
1.00 0.24 1.00 0.76 1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00 0.27 1.00 0.73 1.00
1.00
1.00


Mean

0.00
0.23
0.17
0.26
0.00

0.00
0.24

0.12
0.14

0.27
0.26
0.09


ret wgt_prop


N

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00


Mean

1.00
0.77
0.83
0.74
1.00

1.00
0.76

0.88
0.86

0.73
0.74
0.91


10.00 0.12 10.00 0.88 40.00 0.11 40.00 0.89 50.00


0.11 50.00 0.89


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


235541
235542
235543
235545
235547

235549
235557

235558
245108

245148
245670
245671


MRAG Americas












Table 10: Number of Sample observations for St. Croix Observer Project by Year,
Disposition of catch

DISP


BYCATCH


L1

N ColPctN


COMMON NAME
AMBERJACK, GREATER
ANGELFISH, FRENCH
ANGELFISH,GRAY
ANGELFISH,QUEEN
BALLYHOO
BARRACUDA,GREAT
BEARDFISH
BLUE TANG
BUTTERFLY YFISH, BANDED
CHUB, BERMUDA
CONCH, QUEEN
CONEY
COTTONWICK
CO WFISH, HONEYCOMB
CRAB,MARINE
CREOLE FISH
DOCTORFISH
DURGON, BLACK


2.0




2.0


1.0
19.0
194.0
60.0
1.0
2.0
8.0


6.0


1.0
29.0
17.0


WEIGHT

N ColPctN


0.2 2.0 0.2


9.0
6.0
0.2 2.0 0.2 17.0
787.0
0.1 1.0 0.1 6.0


19.0
194.0
60.0
1.0
2.0


454.0


2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0


0.7 8.0 0.7 82.0
1.0
0.6 6.0 0.6 267.0
1.0
0.1 1.0 0.1 1.0
2.7 29.0 2.7 402.0
1.6 17.0 1.6 58.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


RETAINED
WEIGHT


N ColPctN N ColPctN


0.1
0.1
0.2
10.5
0.1


9.0
6.0
17.0
787.0
6.0


6.1 454.0


82.0
1.0
267.0
1.0
1.0
402.0
58.0


MRAG Americas











Table 10: Number of Sample observations for St. Croix Observer Project by Year,
Disposition of catch

DISP


BYCATCH


N

26.0
15.0
1.0
5.0
6.0
12.0
4.0




5.0




3.0


16.0
10.0
2.0


FILEFISH, ORANGE
FILEFISH, ORANGESPOT
FILEFISH, PYGMY
FILEFISH, SCRAWLED
FILEFISH, WHITESPOTTED
FLOUNDER,PEACOCK
FLYING GURNARD
GOATFISH, SPOTTED
GOATFISH, YELLOW
GRAYSBY
GROUPER, TIGER
GRUNT, BLACK
GRUNT, BLUE STRIPED
GRUNTCAESAR
GRUNTFRENCH
GRUNTTOMTATE
GRUNT, WHITE
HIND, RED
HIND, ROCK
HOGFISH, SPANISH


L1

ColPctN
2.4
1.4
0.1
0.5
0.6
1.1
0.4


WEIGHT

N ColPctN
26.0 2.4
15.0 1.4
1.0 0.1
5.0 0.5
6.0 0.6
12.0 1.1
4.0 0.4


RETAINED
L1 WEIGHT

N ColPctN N ColPctN
26.0 0.3 26.0 0.3


0.1 4.0
0.0 2.0


38.0
11.0
0.5 5.0 0.5 4.0
1.0
1.0
0.3 3.0 0.3 59.0
36.0
1.5 16.0 1.5 39.0
0.9 10.0 0.9 43.0
0.2 2.0 0.2 405.0
135.0
1.0
10.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


38.0
11.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
59.0
36.0
39.0
43.0
405.0
135.0
1.0
10.0


MRAG Americas











Table 10: Number of Sample observations for St. Croix Observer Project by Year,
Disposition of catch

DISP


BYCATCH


RETAINED


HOUNDFISH
JACK,BAR
JACK, BLACK
JACK,HORSE EYE
JACK,YELLOW
LIZARDFISH, SAND DIVER
LIZARDFISHES
LOBSTER,CARIB. SPINY
LOBSTER, SPANISH SLIP.
LOBSTER,SPOTTED SPINY
MACKEREL,CERO
MARGATE
MARGATE, BLACK
MOJARRA, YELLOWFIN
MORAYS
NEEDLEFISHES
OTHER FISHES
PARROTFISH, PRINCESS
PARROTFISH, QUEEN
PARROTFISH, REDBAND


N

8.0
6.0


25.0


1.0
1.0
18.0


L1

ColPctN
0.7
0.6


WEIGHT

N ColP
8.0
6.0


2.3 25.0


>ctN N

0.7 11.0
0.6 111.0
1.0
2.3 2.0
12.0


213.0
1.0


ColPctN
0.1
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.2


WEIGHT

N ColPctN
11.0 0.1
111.0 1.5
1.0 0.0
2.0 0.0
12.0 0.2


2.8 213.0
0.0 1.0


1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1


26.0
53.0
113.0


2.0
1.0
3.0
7.0






26.0
53.0
113.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas











Table 10: Number of Sample observations for St. Croix Observer Project by Year,
Disposition of catch

DISP


BYCATCH


L1

N ColPctN


PARROTFISH, REDFIN
PARROTFISH, REDTAIL
PARROTFISH, STOPLIGHT
PORCUPINEFISH
PORGY,JOLTHEAD
PORKFISH
PUDDINGWIFE
ROCK BEAUTY
RUNNER,BLUE
SAILFISH
SCAD,MACKEREL
SCHOOLMASTER

SCORPIONFISH, REEF
SCORPIONFISH, SPOTTED
SCORPIONFISHES, THONYH
SENNET,SOUTHERN
SHARK, BIGEYED SIXGILL
SHARK, CARIBBEAN REEF
SHARK,NURSE
SNAPPER,BLACK


WEIGHT

N ColPctN


1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1


2.0
15.0
1.0
1.0
2.0


2.0
15.0
1.0
1.0
2.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


RETAINED
WEIGHT


N

296.0
1997.0
317.0


7.0
1.0
23.0
2.0
7.0


ColPctN
4.0
26.7
4.2


0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1


N

296.0
1997.0
317.0


7.0
1.0
23.0
2.0
7.0


ColPctN
4.0
26.7
4.2


0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1


158.0
49.0






2.0
12.0
2.0
8.0
5.0


2.1 158.0
0.7 49.0






0.0 2.0
0.2 12.0
0.0 2.0
0.1 8.0
0.1 5.0


MRAG Americas











Table 10: Number of Sample observations for St. Croix Observer Project by Year,
Disposition of catch

DISP


BYCATCH


RETAINED


L1


P


SNAPPER,BLACKFIN
SNAPPER, DOG
SNAPPER, GLASSEYE
SNAPPER, GRA Y(GREY)
SNAPPER, LANE
SNAPPER, MAHOGANY
SNAPPER, MUTTON
SNAPPER, QUEEN
SNAPPER, SILK
SNAPPER, VERMILION
SNAPPER, YELLOWTAIL
SPADEFISH,A TLANTIC
SQUIRRELFISH,LONGSPIN
STINGRAY, SOUTHERN
SURGEON, OCEAN
TILEFISH,SAND
TRIGGERFISH, OCEAN
TRIGGERFISH, QUEEN
TRUNKFISH

TRUNKFISH, SMOOTH


WEIGHT


SColPctN N ColPctN N
51.0
1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.0
1.0
5.0
11.0
2.0 0.2 2.0 0.2 14.0
2.0 0.2 2.0 0.2 14.0
87.0
6.0


6.0
5.0
13.0
7.0
366.0
13.0
3.0
8.0
2.0
54.0


0.6
0.5
1.2
0.6
33.9
1.2
0.3
0.7
0.2
5.0


6.0
5.0
13.0
7.0
366.0
13.0
3.0
8.0
2.0
54.0


0.6
0.5
1.2
0.6
33.9
1.2
0.3
0.7
0.2
5.0


2.0
458.0
6.0
94.0


70.0




86.0
17.0
55.0


L1

ColPctN
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.2
0.1
0.0
6.1
0.1
1.3


0.9


WEIGHT

N ColPctN
51.0 0.7
1.0 0.0
1.0 0.0
5.0 0.1
11.0 0.1
14.0 0.2
14.0 0.2
87.0 1.2
6.0 0.1


2.0
458.0
6.0
94.0


70.0


86.0
17.0
55.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas











Table 10: Number of Sample observations for St. Croix Observer Project by Year,
Disposition of catch

DISP


BYCATCH


RETAINED


TRUNKFISH, SPOTTED
TUNA, BLACKFIN
TUNNY, LITTLE
WAHOO
All


L1 WEIGHT
N ColPctN N ColPctN
3.0 0.3 3.0 0.3





1080.0 100.0 1080.0 100.0


L1 WEIGHT
N ColPctN N ColPctN
131.0 1.7 131.0 1.7
6.0 0.1 6.0 0.1
23.0 0.3 23.0 0.3
1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
7489.0 100.0 7489.0 100.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas












Table 11: Sum of Catch and Weight Landed by Species year, disposition of catch

DISP


BYCATCH


NUMBER

Sum ColPctSum


NEW Weight NUMBER NEW Weight

Sum ColPctSum Sum ColPctSum Sum ColPctSum


COMMON NAME
AMBERJACK, GREATER
ANGELFISH, FRENCH
ANGELFISH,GRAY
ANGELFISH,QUEEN
BALLYHOO
BARRACUDA,GREAT
BEARDFISH
BLUE TANG

BUTTERFLY YFISH, BANDED
BUTTERFLY FISH, FOUREYE
CHUB,BERMUDA
CONCH, QUEEN
CONEY
COTTONWICK
CO WFISH, HONEYCOMB
CRAB,MARINE
CREOLE FISH
DOCTORFISH

DURGON, BLACK


0.2 8.2




0.1 0.3


1.0
19.0
415.0
146.0
40.0
1.0
2.0
29.0


0.1
1.1
23.6
8.3
2.3
0.1
0.1
1.7


6.0


1.0
38.0
17.0


7.5
7.9
202.4
19.9
4.3
3.6
2.7
4.5


0.3 3.3


0.5
10.9
15.8


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


RETAINED


9.0
6.0
0.0 17.0
787.0
0.7 6.0


296.0




2.0


0.4 82.0
1.0
0.3 267.0
1.0
0.1 1.0
1.1 393.0
1.5 58.0


19.0
11.0
16.7
149.1
16.2


4.1 140.6




0.0 3.3


46.7
0.6
165.0
1.0
0.4
264.3
43.7


MRAG Americas











Table 11: Sum of Catch and Weight Landed by Species year, disposition of catch

DISP


BYCATCH


FILEFISH, ORANGE
FILEFISH, ORANGESPOT
FILEFISH, PYGMY
FILEFISH,SCRAWLED
FILEFISH, WHITESPOTTED
FLOUNDER,PEACOCK
FLYING GURNARD
GOATFISH,SPOTTED
GOATFISH, YELLOW
GRAYSBY

GROUPER, TIGER
GRUNT, BLACK
GRUNT, BLUE STRIPED
GRUNT CAESAR
GRUNTFRENCH
GRUNTSPANISH
GRUNTTOMTATE
GRUNT, WHITE
HIND, RED
HIND, ROCK
HOGFISH, SPANISH


NUMBER

Sum ColPctSum
26.0 1.5
15.0 0.9
1.0 0.1
5.0 0.3
11.0 0.6
12.0 0.7
4.0 0.2


5.0




3.0
6.0
88.0
8.0
10.0
2.0




5.0


NEW Weight


Sum

9.6
5.2
0.3
12.6
6.4
3.5
2.7


0.3 2.0


0.3 0.7


ColPctSum
0.9
0.5
0.0
1.2
0.6
0.3
0.3


NUMBER


Sum

26.0


38.0
11.0
0.2 4.0
1.0
1.0
0.1 59.0
0.1 36.0
1.9 39.0
0.1
0.3 43.0
0.1 405.0
135.0
1.0
0.1 10.0


ColPctSum
0.4


NEW Weight

Sum ColPctSum
29.9 0.5


5.6
2.5




13.0
3.9
2.4
1.4
1.7
34.4
12.1
10.8


15.8
178.9
97.8
3.6
7.1


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


RETAINED


MRAG Americas











Table 11: Sum of Catch and Weight Landed by Species year, disposition of catch

DISP


BYCATCH


HOUNDFISH
JACK,BAR
JACK, BLACK
JACK,HORSE EYE
JACK,YELLOW
LIZARDFISH, SAND DIVER
LIZARDFISHES
LOBSTER,CARIB. SPINY
LOBSTER, SPANISH SLIP.
LOBSTER,SPOTTED SPINY
MACKEREL,CERO
MARGATE
MARGATE, BLACK
MOJARRA, YELLOWFIN
MORAYS
NEEDLEFISHES
OTHER FISHES

PARROTFISH, PRINCESS
PARROTFISH, QUEEN
PARROTFISH, REDBAND
PARROTFISH, REDFIN


NUMBER

Sum ColPctSum
8.0 0.5
31.0 1.8


25.0


1.0
1.0
18.0


1.0







2.0
6.0
2.0
3.0
8.0
18.0


NEW Weight


Sum

7.6
17.6


1.4 96.1


NUMBER


ColPctSum Sum
0.7 11.0
1.7 84.0
1.0
9.4 2.0
12.0


0.4
4.6
35.2


ColPctSum
0.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.2


213.0
1.0


0.1 0.6


NEW Weight

Sum ColPctSum
13.1 0.2
70.0 1.1
2.1 0.0
4.4 0.1
10.3 0.2


478.5
1.2


1.7
1.7
4.4
2.4


0.1 7.1


40.0
53.0
109.0
296.0


24.0
55.7
71.2
289.9


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


RETAINED


MRAG Americas











Table 11: Sum of Catch and Weight Landed by Species year, disposition of catch

DISP


BYCATCH


PARROTFISH, REDTAIL
PARROTFISH, STOPLIGHT
PORCUPINEFISH
PORGY,JOLTHEAD
PORKFISH
PUDDINGWIFE
PUFFERS
ROCK BEAUTY
RUNNER,BLUE
SAILFISH

SCAD, MACKEREL
SCHOOLMASTER
SCORPIONFISH, REEF
SCORPIONFISH, SPOTTED
SCORPIONFISHES, THONYH
SENNETSOUTHERN
SHARK, BIGEYED SIXGILL
SHARK, CARIBBEAN REEF
SHARK,NURSE
SNAPPER, BLACK
SNAPPER, BLACKFIN


NUMBER

Sum ColPctSum
45.0 2.6
1.0 0.1
15.0 0.9


1.0
4.0
32.0
5.0


1.0


2.0
15.0
1.0
1.0
2.0




6.0


NEW Weight


Sum

32.7
1.2
37.8


ColPctSum
3.2
0.1
3.7


23.1
5.0
17.5
1.5


0.1 25.0


0.3 114.6


NUMBER


Sum

1958.0
317.0


7.0
1.0
23.0


2.0
7.0


158.0
49.0


0.1 2.0
12.0
2.0
11.2 8.0
5.0
52.0


ColPctSum
27.2
4.4


NEW Weight
Sum ColPctSum
1868.8 30.4
359.8 5.9


46.8
61.6






1.3
122.0
16.4
182.2
8.6
45.6


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


RETAINED


MRAG Americas











Table 11: Sum of Catch and Weight Landed by Species year, disposition of catch

DISP


BYCATCH


NUMBER

Sum ColPctSum


SNAPPER,CARDINAL
SNAPPER, DOG
SNAPPER, GLASSEYE
SNAPPER, GRA Y(GREY)
SNAPPER,LANE
SNAPPER, MAHOGANY
SNAPPER, MUTTON
SNAPPER, QUEEN
SNAPPER,SILK
SNAPPER, VERMILION
SNAPPER, YELLOWTAIL
SPADEFISH,A TLANTIC
SQUIRRELFISH,LONGSPIN
STINGRAY, SOUTHERN
SURGEON, OCEAN
TILEFISH, SAND
TRIGGERFISH, OCEAN
TRIGGERFISH, QUEEN
TRUNKFISH
TRUNKFISH, SMOOTH
TRUNKFISH, SPOTTED


1.0






3.0
2.0






6.0
5.0
44.0
7.0
373.0
13.0
3.0
8.0
2.0
109.0
3.0


NEW Weight

Sum ColPctSum


0.1 0.3






0.2 0.8
0.1 0.6


0.3
0.3
2.5
0.4
21.3
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.1
6.2
0.2


0.0






0.1
0.1






0.8
0.1
1.1


8.4
0.8
11.6
18.2
97.8
9.7
1.1
3.8
0.6
43.3
0.5


NUMBER NEW Weight

Sum ColPctSum Sum ColPctSum
2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
1.0 0.0 0.8 0.0
1.0 0.0 0.6 0.0
5.0 0.1 2.4 0.0
11.0 0.2 7.4 0.1
14.0 0.2 6.5 0.1
14.0 0.2 34.4 0.6
87.0 1.2 154.0 2.5
6.0 0.1 11.5 0.2
2.0 0.0 2.4 0.0
458.0 6.4 502.6 8.2
6.0 0.1 15.2 0.2
94.0 1.3 34.1 0.6


63.0


86.0
17.0


131.0


0.9 21.4


103.5
26.7


1.8 69.1


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


RETAINED


MRAG Americas










Table 11: Sum of Catch and Weight Landed by Species year, disposition of catch
DISP
BYCATCH RETAINED
NUMBER NEW Weight NUMBER NEW Weight
Sum ColPctSum Sum ColPctSum Sum ColPctSum Sum ColPctSum
TUNA,BLACKFIN 6.0 0.1 14.1 0.2
TUNNY,LITTLE 23.0 0.3 32.0 0.5
WAHOO 1.0 0.0 26.2 0.4
All 1755.0 100.0 1020.7 100.0 7207.0 100.0 6141.0 100.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition

GEAR NAME=BY HAND, OTHER

DISP
BYCATCH
NUMBER NEW Weight
N Sum ColPctSum N Sum ColPctSum
COMMON NAME
BLUE TANG 1.0 63.0 16.7 1.0 11.6 5.8
BUTTERFLYFISH,BANDED 1.0 86.0 22.8 1.0 11.2 5.6
BUTTERFLYFISH,FOUREYE 1.0 40.0 10.6 1.0 4.3 2.1
CONEY 1.0 21.0 5.6 1.0 2.6 1.3
FILEFISH,WHITESPOTTED 1.0 5.0 1.3 1.0 4.7 2.4
GRUNT,CAESAR 1.0 6.0 1.6 1.0 0.7 0.3
GRUNT,FRENCH 1.0 72.0 19.1 1.0 15.3 7.7
GRUNT,SPANISH 1.0 8.0 2.1 1.0 1.3 0.7
HOGFISH,SPANISH 1.0 5.0 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.4
MORAYS 1.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 6.6 3.3
PUFFERS 1.0 32.0 8.5 1.0 17.5 8.8
SHARK,NURSE 1.0 6.0 1.6 1.0 114.6 57.6
SNAPPER, MAHOGANY 1.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.1
SQUIRRELFISH,LONGSPIN 1.0 31.0 8.2 1.0 7.6 3.8
All 14.0 377.0 100.0 14.0 199.0 100.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME=DIVING OUTFITS, OTHER

DISP
BYCATCH RETAINED
NUMBER NEW Weight NUMBER NEW Weight
ColPct ColPct ColPct ColPct
N Sum Sum N Sum Sum N Sum Sum N Sum Sum
COMMON NAME
ANGELFISH, FRENCH 3.0 4.0 0.8 3.0 11.6 1.8
ANGELFISH,QUEEN 1.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 1.3 0.2
BARRACUDA,GREAT 1.0 1.0 7.1 1.0 7.5 20.7
BLUE TANG 2.0 11.0 2.2 2.0 6.4 1.0
CONEY 5.0 39.0 8.0 5.0 21.8 3.3
COTTONWICK 1.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.1
DOCTORFISH 2.0 7.0 1.4 2.0 5.8 0.9
GOATFISH,YELLOW 1.0 2.0 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.1
GRAYSBY 2.0 2.0 0.4 2.0 1.2 0.2
GROUPER, TIGER 1.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 1.4 0.2
GRUNTBLACK 1.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 1.7 0.3
GRUNT,BLUE STRIPED 4.0 6.0 1.2 4.0 4.4 0.7
GRUNTCAESAR 1.0 2.0 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.1
GRUNT, WHITE 5.0 18.0 3.7 5.0 11.4 1.7
HIND,RED 10.0 46.0 9.4 10.0 48.1 7.4
HOGFISH,SPANISH 2.0 2.0 0.4 2.0 1.3 0.2
JACK,BAR 1.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.7 0.1
LOBSTER,CARIB. SPINY 4.0 12.0 85.7 4.0 27.5 76.1 12.0 116.0 23.7 12.0 261.3 39.9
MARGATE,BLACK 2.0 3.0 0.6 2.0 4.4 0.7
PARROTFISH,REDBAND 3.0 7.0 1.4 3.0 2.6 0.4
PARROTFISH,REDTAIL 6.0 79.0 16.2 6.0 85.7 13.1
PARROTFISH,STOPLIGHT 1.0 1.0 7.1 1.0 1.2 3.2 6.0 94.0 19.2 6.0 120.7 18.4
PORGY,JOLTHEAD 1.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 1.2 0.2
RUNNER,BLUE 1.0 2.0 0.4 1.0 2.1 0.3
SCHOOLMASTER 6.0 10.0 2.0 6.0 18.7 2.9
SNAPPER,LANE 1.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.1
SNAPPER, MAHOGANY 1.0 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.1
SNAPPER, YELLOWTAIL 1.0 6.0 1.2 1.0 3.2 0.5


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition

GEAR NAME=DIVING OUTFITS, OTHER


DISP
BYCATCH RETAINED
NUMBER NEW Weight NUMBER NEW Weight
ColPct ColPct ColPct ColPct
N Sum Sum N Sum Sum N Sum Sum N Sum Sum
TRIGGERFISH, QUEEN 5.0 25.0 5.1 5.0 34.2 5.2
All 6.0 14.0 100.0 6.0 36.1 100.0 87.0 489.0 100.0 87.0 654.2 100.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition

GEAR NAME=ELECTRIC OR HYDRAULIC REEL

DISP
RETAINED
NUMBER NEW Weight
N Sum ColPctSum N Sum ColPctSum
COMMON NAME
BARRACUDA,GREAT 1.0 1.0 10.0 1.0 4.6 32.8
TUNA,BLACKFIN 1.0 1.0 10.0 1.0 1.3 9.4
TUNNY,LITTLE 2.0 8.0 80.0 2.0 8.2 57.9
All 4.0 10.0 100.0 4.0 14.1 100.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME=GILL NETS, GL 1-2 INCH

DISP
BYCATCH RETAINED
NUMBER NEW Weight NUMBER NEW Weight
ColPct ColPct ColPct ColPct
N Sum Sum N Sum Sum N Sum Sum N Sum Sum
COMMON NAME
BALLYHOO 2.0 787.0 100.0 2.0 149.1 100.0
COWFISH,HONEYCOMB 1.0 1.0 5.9 1.0 2.1 14.7
GRUNT, WHITE 1.0 1.0 5.9 1.0 0.5 3.5
HOUNDFISH 2.0 8.0 47.1 2.0 7.6 53.2
JACK,BAR 1.0 1.0 5.9 1.0 0.5 3.5
NEEDLEFISHES 1.0 6.0 35.3 1.0 3.6 25.1
All 6.0 17.0 100.0 6.0 14.2 100.0 2.0 787.0 100.0 2.0 149.1 100.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME=LIFT NETS


DISP
RETAINED
NUMBER NEW Weight
N Sum ColPctSum N Sum ColPctSum
COMMON NAME
SCAD,MACKEREL 1.0 158.0 100.0 1.0 46.8 100.0
All 1.0 158.0 100.0 1.0 46.8 100.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME=LINES HAND, OTHER STILL FSH.BOT


DISP
BYCATCH


NUMBER
N Sum ColPctSum


NEW Weight
N Sum ColPctSum


COMMON NAME
CHUB, BERMUDA
CONEY
CREOLE FISH
GRAYSBY
GRUNTFRENCH
GRUNT, WHITE
HIND, RED
HOUNDFISH
JACK, BAR
JACK,HORSE EYE
MACKEREL,CERO
PUDDINGWIFE
RUNNER, BLUE
SAILFISH
SCHOOLMASTER
SENNET,SOUTHERN
SNAPPER, MAHOGANY
SNAPPER, MUTTON
SNAPPER, YELLOWTAIL
SQUIRRELFISH,LONGSPIN
TILEFISH, SAND
TRIGGERFISH, QUEEN
TUNNY, LITTLE
All


1.8
14.3
1.8
8.9
3.6


1.0 15.0


1.0 1.0


1.0 1.0


1.0 2.0
2.0 5.0
1.0 12.0




16.0 56.0


26.8 1.0 53.4


1.8 1.0 1.3


1.8 1.0 25.0


3.6
8.9
21.4


100.0 16.0 103.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


51.8


1.3


24.3


1.2
0.4


2.6
1.8
8.3




100.0


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME=LINES HAND, OTHER STILL FSH.BOT


DISP
RETAINED


NUMBER
N Sum ColPctSum


COMMON NAME
CHUB, BERMUDA
CONEY
CREOLE FISH
GRAYSBY
GRUNTFRENCH
GRUNT, WHITE
HIND, RED
HOUNDFISH
JACK, BAR
JACK,HORSE EYE
MACKEREL,CERO
PUDDINGWIFE
RUNNER,BLUE
SAILFISH
SCHOOLMASTER
SENNET,SOUTHERN
SNAPPER, MAHOGANY
SNAPPER, MUTTON
SNAPPER, YELLOWTAIL
SQUIRRELFISH,LONGSPIN
TILEFISH, SAND
TRIGGERFISH, QUEEN
TUNNY, LITTLE


1.0 2.0


1.0 1.0


1.0
408.0
2.0


NEW Weight
N Sum ColPctSum


0.4 1.0 1.7


0.2 1.0 1.4


0.2
85.5
0.4


9.8
1.3


9.1
471.7
0.6


1.7
8.7


1.7
86.8
0.1


28.0 477.0


100.0 28.0 543.6


100.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME=LINES LONG, BOTTOM, REEF FISH


DISP
BYCATCH


NUMBER
N Sum ColPctSum


NEW
N Sum


Weight
ColPctSum


COMMON NAME
AMBERJACK, GREATER
BARRACUDA,GREAT
BEARDFISH
GRAYSBY
GRUNTTOMTATE
LIZARDFISHES
MORAYS
SCORPIONFISHES, THONYH
SHARK, BIGEYED SIXGILL
SNAPPER, BLACK
SNAPPER, BLACKFIN
SNAPPER,CARDINAL
SNAPPER, QUEEN
SNAPPER,SILK
SNAPPER, VERMILION
SQUIRRELFISH,LONGSPIN
TILEFISH,SAND
TUNA, BLACKFIN
TUNNY, LITTLE
WAHOO


3.0 3.0


2.0 19.0


1.0 1.0


10.7 3.0 8.2 34.9


67.9 2.0 7.9 33.7


3.6 1.0 1.2


100.0 10.0 23.5


DISP
RETAINED


NUMBER
N Sum ColPctSum N


1.0 1.0


0.7 1.0 6.5


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


10.0 28.0


100.0


COMMON NAME
AMBERJACK, GREATER
BARRACUDA,GREAT
BEARDFISH


NEW Weight
Sum ColPctSum


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME=LINES LONG, BOTTOM, REEF FISH


DISP

RETAINED


GRAYSBY
GRUNT,TOMTATE
LIZARDFISHES
MORAYS
SCORPIONFISHES, THONYH
SHARK, BIGEYED SIXGILL
SNAPPER,BLACK
SNAPPER,BLACKFIN
SNAPPER,CARDINAL
SNAPPER, QUEEN
SNAPPER, SILK
SNAPPER, VERMILION
SQUIRRELFISH,LONGSPIN
TILEFISH,SAND
TUNA,BLACKFIN
TUNNY,LITTLE
WAHOO


NUMBER

N Sum ColPctSum
1.0 1.0 0.7


12.0
5.0
16.0
2.0
87.0
6.0
2.0
1.0


18.0 141.0


8.5
3.5
11.3
1.4
61.7
4.3
1.4
0.7


122.0
8.6
22.2
1.0
154.0
11.5
2.4
0.6


11.5
10.6
26.2


100.0 18.0 377.8


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


NEW Weight

N Sum ColPctSum
1.0 0.7 0.2


32.3
2.3
5.9
0.3
40.8
3.0
0.6
0.1


3.0
2.8
6.9
100.0


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME=LINES TROLL, TUNA


DISP


BYCATCH


NUMBER

ColPct
N Sum Sum


NEW Weight

ColPct
N Sum Sum


RETAINED

NUMBER NEW Weight

ColPct ColPct
N Sum Sum N Sum Sum


COMMON NAME
DURGON, BLACK
JACK,HORSE EYE
SQUIRRELFISH,LONGSPIN
TUNA,BLACKFIN
TUNNY, LITTLE


47.1
41.2
11.8


9.4
24.2
0.6


27.4
70.9
1.8


3.0 17.0 100.0 3.0 34.2 100.0


1.0 1.0 16.7
1.0 5.0 83.3
2.0 6.0 100.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


22.5
77.5
100.0


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME= POTS AND TRAPS, FISH


DISP
BYCATCH


NUMBER
N Sum ColPctSum


COMMON NAME
ANGELFISH, FRENCH
ANGELFISH,GRAY
ANGELFISH,QUEEN
BLUE TANG
BUTTERFLY YFISH, BANDED
CONEY
CO WFISH, HONEYCOMB
CRAB,MARINE
DOCTORFISH
FILEFISH, ORANGE
FILEFISH, ORANGESPOT
FILEFISH, SCRAWLED
FILEFISH, WHITESPOTTED
FLOUNDER,PEACOCK
GOATFISH,SPOTTED
GOATFISH, YELLOW
GRUNT,BLUE STRIPED
GRUNTCAESAR
GRUNTFRENCH
GRUNTTOMTATE
GRUNT, WHITE
HIND, RED
HIND, ROCK
HOGFISH, SPANISH
JACKBAR
JACK, BLACK
JACKHORSE EYE
LOBSTER,CARIB. SPINY
LOBSTER, SPANISH SLIP.
MARGATE


2.0
95.0
47.0


2.0 4.0


0.5
23.1
11.4


0.3
92.1
6.8


1.0 2.0 0.8


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


NEW Weight
N Sum ColPctSum


0.1
42.7
3.2


0.4


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME= POTS AND TRAPS, FISH


DISP
BYCATCH


NUMBER
N Sum ColPctSum


PARROTFISH, PRINCESS
PARROTFISH, QUEEN
PARROTFISH, REDBAND
PARROTFISH, REDTAIL
PARROTFISH, STOPLIGHT
PORCUPINEFISH
PORKFISH
ROCK BEAUTY
RUNNER,BLUE
SCHOOLMASTER
SCORPIONFISH, SPOTTED
SHARK,NURSE
SNAPPER, BLACKFIN
SNAPPER, DOG
SNAPPER, GRA Y(GREY)
SNAPPER,LANE
SNAPPER, MAHOGANY
SNAPPER, MUTTON
SNAPPER, YELLOWTAIL
SPADEFISH,ATLANTIC
SQUIRRELFISH,LONGSPIN
SURGEON, OCEAN
TRIGGERFISH, OCEAN
TRIGGERFISH, QUEEN
TRUNKFISH
TRUNKFISH, SMOOTH
TRUNKFISH, SPOTTED


2.0 6.0


1.0 1.0


1.0
2.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
54.0
3.0
5.0


108.0
3.0


NEW Weight
N Sum ColPctSum


1.5 2.0 6.7


0.2 1.0 0.3


26.3 3.0
0.7 3.0


0.2
0.6
5.8
0.8
0.7
13.0
1.1
2.8


43.0
0.5


20.0
0.2


61.0 411.0


100.0 61.0 215.5


100.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition

GEAR NAME= POTS AND TRAPS, FISH

DISP
RETAINED
NUMBER NEW Weight
N Sum ColPctSum N Sum ColPctSum
COMMON NAME
ANGELFISH,FRENCH 3.0 5.0 0.2 3.0 7.4 0.5
ANGELFISH,GRAY 2.0 5.0 0.2 2.0 8.8 0.6
ANGELFISH,QUEEN 3.0 15.0 0.7 3.0 14.4 1.0
BLUE TANG 12.0 173.0 8.1 12.0 83.3 5.7
BUTTERFLY YFISH, BANDED
CONEY 5.0 15.0 0.7 5.0 10.9 0.7
COWFISH,HONEYCOMB 5.0 263.0 12.3 5.0 162.5 11.2
CRAB,MARINE 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.1
DOCTORFISH 9.0 339.0 15.8 9.0 231.7 16.0
FILEFISH,ORANGE 1.0 25.0 1.2 1.0 27.9 1.9
FILEFISH, ORANGESPOT
FILEFISH,SCRAWLED 1.0 4.0 0.2 1.0 5.6 0.4
FILEFISH,WHITESPOTTED 1.0 2.0 0.1 1.0 2.5 0.2
FLOUNDER,PEACOCK
GOATFISH, SPOTTED 6.0 35.0 1.6 6.0 12.0 0.8
GOATFISH,YELLOW 2.0 7.0 0.3 2.0 2.6 0.2
GRUNT,BLUE STRIPED 4.0 21.0 1.0 4.0 11.5 0.8
GRUNT,CAESAR 7.0 32.0 1.5 7.0 10.7 0.7
GRUNT,FRENCH 2.0 38.0 1.8 2.0 10.6 0.7
GRUNT,TOMTATE 3.0 42.0 2.0 3.0 15.5 1.1
GRUNT, WHITE 9.0 318.0 14.9 9.0 132.4 9.1
HIND,RED 4.0 59.0 2.8 4.0 28.8 2.0
HIND,ROCK 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.6 0.2
HOGFISH,SPANISH 2.0 3.0 0.1 2.0 1.9 0.1
JACKBAR 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0
JACKBLACK 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.1
JACKHORSE EYE 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.1
LOBSTER,CARIB. SPINY 4.0 91.0 4.3 4.0 203.2 14.0
LOBSTER,SPANISH SLIP. 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 0.1
MARGATE 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.7 0.1


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME= POTS AND TRAPS, FISH


DISP

RETAINED


NUMBER


PARROTFISH, PRINCESS
PARROTFISH, QUEEN
PARROTFISH, REDBAND
PARROTFISH, REDTAIL
PARROTFISH, STOPLIGHT
PORCUPINEFISH
PORKFISH
ROCK BEAUTY
RUNNER,BLUE
SCHOOLMASTER
SCORPIONFISH, SPOTTED
SHARK,NURSE
SNAPPER, BLACKFIN
SNAPPER, DOG
SNAPPER, GRA Y(GREY)
SNAPPER,LANE
SNAPPER, MAHOGANY
SNAPPER, MUTTON
SNAPPER, YELLOWTAIL
SPADEFISH,ATLANTIC
SQUIRRELFISH,LONGSPIN
SURGEON, OCEAN
TRIGGERFISH, OCEAN
TRIGGERFISH, QUEEN
TRUNKFISH
TRUNKFISH, SMOOTH
TRUNKFISH, SPOTTED


Sum
10.0
5.0
25.0
115.0
9.0


ColPctSum
0.5
0.2
1.2
5.4
0.4


1.0
2.0
4.0
30.0


7.0
36.0
1.0
4.0
10.0
13.0
12.0
40.0


NEW Weight

Sum ColPctSum
5.4 0.4
4.0 0.3
9.8 0.7
57.1 3.9
13.1 0.9


0.7
0.9
2.8
31.0


82.2
23.3
0.8
1.8
6.9
5.7
17.9
25.1


29.5
19.7


49.1
2.3


6.0 79.0
6.0 58.0


46.0
3.0


3.0 130.0
175.0 2139.0


6.1 3.0 68.6
100.0 175.0 1452.9


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


100.0


MRAG Americas







Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME= TRAMMEL NET


DISP
BYCATCH


NUMBER

N Sum ColPctSum


NEW Weight
N Sum ColPctSum


COMMON NAME
ANGELFISH,GRAY
ANGELFISH,QUEEN
BARRACUDA,GREAT
BLUE TANG
BUTTERFLY YFISH, BANDED
CONCH, QUEEN
CONEY
CO WFISH, HONEYCOMB
DOCTORFISH
DURGON,BLACK
FILEFISH, ORANGE
FILEFISH, ORANGESPOT
FILEFISH, PYGMY
FILEFISH,SCRAWLED
FILEFISH, WHITESPOTTED
FLOUNDER,PEACOCK
FLYING GURNARD
GOATFISH,SPOTTED
GOATFISH, YELLOW
GRUNT,BLUE STRIPED
GRUNTCAESAR
GRUNTFRENCH
GRUNTTOMTATE
GRUNT, WHITE
HIND, RED
HOGFISH, SPANISH
JACK,BAR
JACK,HORSE EYE
JACK,YELLOW
LIZARDFISH, SAND DIVER
LOBSTER,CARIB. SPINY


10.0 257.0
6.0 13.0
2.0 2.0


1.0 1.0
2.0 26.0
6.0 9.0
6.0 21.0
1.0 6.0
1.0 1.0
2.0 2.0
2.0 5.0
4.0 9.0
3.0 4.0




2.0 3.0


6.0
6.0






30.0
1.0


1.0
1.0


30.8 10.0 98.7


1.6 6.0
0.2 2.0


0.4 2.0 1.0


0.7 4.0
0.7 2.0






3.6 3.0
0.1 1.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


25.0
0.5
0.7


0.1
2.3
1.6
1.4
0.6
0.1
2.6
0.3
0.5
0.7




0.2


0.3
0.6






4.3
2.6


0.1
0.4


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME= TRAMMEL NET


DISP

BYCATCH


NUMBER


LOBSTER,SPOTTED SPINY
MOJARRA, YELLOWFIN
OTHER FISHES
PARROTFISH, PRINCESS
PARROTFISH, QUEEN
PARROTFISH, REDBAND
PARROTFISH, REDFIN
PARROTFISH, REDTAIL
PARROTFISH, STOPLIGHT
PORCUPINEFISH
PORGY,JOLTHEAD
PORKFISH
PUDDINGWIFE
ROCK BEAUTY
SCHOOLMASTER
SCORPIONFISH, REEF
SHARK, CARIBBEAN REEF
SHARK,NURSE
SNAPPER, GLASSEYE
SNAPPER, GRA Y(GREY)
SNAPPER, MUTTON
SNAPPER, YELLOWTAIL
SPADEFISH,A TLANTIC
SQUIRRELFISH,LONGSPIN
STINGRAY, SOUTHERN
SURGEON, OCEAN
TRIGGERFISH, QUEEN
TRUNKFISH
TRUNKFISH, SMOOTH
TRUNKFISH, SPOTTED
All


N Sum
1.0 1.0


ColPctSum
0.1


0.2
0.4
1.0
0.8


5.0 42.0


7.0 9.0


5.0 5.0 32.2


1.1 7.0 31.0


23.1
3.6
1.5


6.0 15.0


3.0
7.0
319.0
3.0
2.0
1.0


113.0 835.0


1.8 6.0 10.2


0.4
0.8
38.2
0.4
0.2
0.1


3.0
3.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
1.0


0.9
18.2
84.8
1.0
0.6
0.3


100.0 113.0 395.3


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


NEW Weight

N Sum ColPctSum
1.0 0.6 0.1


0.2
0.7
0.9
0.6


8.1


7.9


5.8
0.9
0.4


2.6












0.2
4.6
21.4
0.3
0.2
0.1


100.0


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition

GEAR NAME= TRAMMEL NET


DISP
RETAINED
NUMBER NEW Weight
N Sum ColPctSum N Sum ColPctSum
COMMON NAME
ANGELFISH,GRAY 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.2 0.1
ANGELFISH,QUEEN 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0
BARRACUDA,GREAT 2.0 4.0 0.1 2.0 5.0 0.2
BLUE TANG 7.0 112.0 3.7 7.0 51.0 1.8
BUTTERFLY YFISH, BANDED
CONCH, QUEEN
CONEY 5.0 9.0 0.3 5.0 4.8 0.2
COWFISH,HONEYCOMB 3.0 4.0 0.1 3.0 2.5 0.1
DOCTORFISH 3.0 47.0 1.6 3.0 26.8 0.9
DURGON,BLACK 1.0 58.0 1.9 1.0 43.7 1.5
FILEFISH,ORANGE 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.1
FILEFISH, ORANGESPOT
FILEFISH, PYGMY
FILEFISH,SCRAWLED
FILEFISH, WHITESPOTTED
FLOUNDER,PEACOCK
FLYING GURNARD
GOATFISH, SPOTTED 3.0 3.0 0.1 3.0 1.0 0.0
GOATFISH,YELLOW 2.0 2.0 0.1 2.0 0.7 0.0
GRUNT,BLUE STRIPED 7.0 32.0 1.1 7.0 18.5 0.6
GRUNT,CAESAR 1.0 2.0 0.1 1.0 0.8 0.0
GRUNT,FRENCH 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0
GRUNT,TOMTATE 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0
GRUNT, WHITE 8.0 68.0 2.3 8.0 34.6 1.2
HIND,RED 7.0 19.0 0.6 7.0 12.0 0.4
HOGFISH,SPANISH 2.0 5.0 0.2 2.0 3.9 0.1
JACKBAR 5.0 81.0 2.7 5.0 67.5 2.3
JACK,HORSE EYE 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.1 0.1
JACK,YELLOW 3.0 12.0 0.4 3.0 10.3 0.4


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition


GEAR NAME= TRAMMEL NET


DISP

RETAINED

NUMBER NEW Weight

N Sum ColPctSum N Sum ColPctSum


LIZARDFISH, SAND DIVER
LOBSTER,CARIB. SPINY
LOBSTER,SPOTTED SPINY
MOJARRA, YELLOWFIN
OTHER FISHES
PARROTFISH, PRINCESS
PARROTFISH, QUEEN
PARROTFISH, REDBAND
PARROTFISH, REDFIN
PARROTFISH, REDTAIL
PARROTFISH, STOPLIGHT
PORCUPINEFISH
PORGY,JOLTHEAD
PORKFISH
PUDDINGWIFE
ROCK BEAUTY
SCHOOLMASTER

SCORPIONFISH, REEF
SHARK, CARIBBEAN REEF
SHARK,NURSE
SNAPPER, GLASSEYE
SNAPPER, GRA Y(GREY)
SNAPPER, MUTTON
SNAPPER, YELLOWTAIL
SPADEFISH,ATLANTIC
SQUIRRELFISH,LONGSPIN
STINGRAY, SOUTHERN
SURGEON, OCEAN
TRIGGERFISH, QUEEN
TRUNKFISH
TRUNKFISH, SMOOTH


2.0 6.0


3.0 7.0


30.0
48.0
77.0
296.0
1764.0
214.0


4.0 6.0


5.0 23.0


3.0 3.0


0.2 2.0 14.0


0.2 3.0 2.4


1.0
1.6
2.6
9.9
58.8
7.1


18.6
51.7
58.8
289.9
1726.0
226.0


0.2 4.0 4.5


0.8 5.0 19.5


0.1 3.0 2.1


2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
6.0
12.0


5.0
14.0
14.0


16.4
100.0
0.6
0.6
7.4
2.7
15.2
3.5


1.7
18.5
24.4


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


0.5


0.1


0.6
1.8
2.0
10.0
59.6
7.8


0.2


0.7


0.1


0.6
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.1


0.1
0.6
0.8


MRAG Americas








Table 12: Sum of catch and weight by Gear, species and Catch Disposition

GEAR NAME= TRAMMEL NET

DISP
RETAINED
NUMBER NEW Weight
N Sum ColPctSum N Sum ColPctSum
TRUNKFISH, SPOTTED 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0
All 148.0 3000.0 100.0 148.0 2896.7 100.0


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas










Figures


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214


MRAG Americas





















FEDERAL AND STATE WATERS AROUND PUERTO RICO

AND THE US VIRGIN ISLANDS.


100 Fathom isobath

--- Federal Jurisdiction begins and extends seaward


Figure 1. Federal and State waters around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands


Final Report Grant No. NA04NMF4540214 67


^r 'l "- '^ '," '' ' I' I- -"-* "' . -"

I., . ,I. .
i i "'i
........i *. ;. . .. ^.
-. . ,.' it. ." "' .'" .. :~" a. ''. "' '"~'.

... r .. , .. . . I. .. .. .
.111.1 .. . .. .I,. .. . .-
.. .. .... . .
* J r - .I
-. L'U ...'-..


. .- . .- _










9.". -
"- ':.. ^ _.'''
,..:,h i"" -' -


MRAG Americas











Appendix


St. Croix Small-scale Fisheries Pilot Observer Project
Observer Protocol: September 2004


Objectives

The purpose of this project is to assess the potential for obtaining information on bycatch,
discards, and biological data from the commercial fisheries of the US Caribbean, to help
characterize the total catch for the US Caribbean region. This type of information does not
exist in the US Caribbean, although it is required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. The project will focus on St. Croix fisheries to develop
methods for obtaining information on composition and disposition of bycatch and discards at
sea, opportunities for collecting biological data at sea, and the use of captain or crew for
collecting data if space or safety on vessels does not allow observers. USVI DFW, MRAG
Americas, Inc., and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), will team with
commercial fishers from the US Virgin Islands to conduct the pilot observer program. The
results of the project could help management agencies determine whether bycatch and
discards are a problem, and whether an observer program could help obtain necessary data.

The immediate objective is to develop and implement a pilot observer scheme capable of
monitoring catch and discards on small-scale vessels using fishing gears most commonly
used by St. Croix commercial fishers. The project will primarily address feasibility issues
associated with placing of observers onboard commercial fishing vessels in the US
Caribbean, with emphasis on the fisheries of St. Croix:
Financial, space, and safety considerations for placing observers on board
Limitations to data collection on board
Coordination and cooperation issues with fishers
Alternatives to placing observers on board.

However, the project will obtain the only available data on bycatch and discards in the US
Virgin Islands, and will supplement the USVI biostatistical sampling program. Therefore,
collecting and maintaining high quality data is priority for the project. It will be important to
provide an explanation to fishers of why the information is being collected and how it will be
used. This can be provided by the observer when contacting fishers.

Approximately 240 fishers possess commercial licenses on St. Croix. Of these, roughly half
are full-time fishers. Fishers may have a preferred species or set of species in mind at the
beginning of each trip, but the large diversity of species in the US Caribbean will mean that
fishers often catch species in addition to those preferred. Fishers will retain those fish with
market (sale) or subsistence (take home) value, and may discard fish without value. The
proportion of discards from the total catch in St. Croix is unknown; however, the gears that
catch the majority of landings probably have the greatest amount of discards. These gear
types are:

Trammel and gillnets nets
Hook and line
Pots/trap
Dive











The observer will have the following priorities, described in more detail in following sections:

Emphasize net gear during period before net ban. Try to obtain six net observations.
Otherwise, maintain four vessels per month sampling schedule one each for hook
and line, pot/trap, dive.
Try to ride a different vessel for each observation.
Individual length and weight measurements for the discarded catch
Individual length and weight measurements for the retained catch
Interactions with marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds
Select approximately 10 fishers to collect discard data with no observer on board.



Approach

The approach presented below will address those components of the program associated
with the following areas:

Training for observers
Selecting vessels for observer deployment
Identifying data that can be collected at sea and ashore
Operational procedures for fishers and observers
Safety

Stage 1: Observer training

The observer and back up observer have extensive experience in working with fishers of St.
Croix and with collecting biosamples using the TIP format. Therefore, the amount of formal
training needed before the start of observations is minimal. The observer supervisor will
meet with the observers prior to the start of sampling, using this protocol as a guide to
assure that the observers are proficient with:

Sampling protocol;
Operational protocols;
Data collection forms;
Safety

Stage 2: Select vessels for observer deployment

The Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) maintains the license registry for commercial
licenses. The observer supervisor will obtain a randomly-ordered list of currently-licensed
vessels from DFW, sorted into the four gear types: net, pot/trap, hook and line, and dive.

The observer will contact license holders on the list and determine 1) if they are planning to
fish in the pilot program period, and 2) if they will voluntarily take an observer. The
observer, in consultation with the observer supervisor, will remove the names of fishers who
will not fish during the experiment or who will not carry the observer. From the remaining
license holders, the observer, in consultation with the observer supervisor, will establish
which boats are suitable for observer deployment. The selection criteria will be based on
the following elements:










Willingness of captain/skipper to accept an observer;
Gear type and characteristics;
Size is there adequate space for an observer;
Seaworthiness of the vessel;
Work space availability for sampling tasks;
Safety equipment onboard.

To the degree possible, we will select appropriate vessels in advance, and make
arrangements with captains who agree to accommodate the observer. Observer will start at
the top of each gear list, and contact fishers until he can schedule a ride. The observer will
select first vessel on the list, try to set up a ride, go to the next if necessary. If insufficient
fishers volunteer to carry an observer to provide approximately 10 vessels per gear type, a
second ride on a boat is acceptable if the boat uses a different gear from the first
observation on the vessel. If second rides on vessels using a different gear are insufficient to
meet distribution goals, then OK to ride the same vessel with same gear twice. During the
vessel selection process, the observer will explain to the vessel owner/operator that the pilot
observer project intends to help collect information on the entire catch ( retained and
discards see Introduction), and that the $100 payment will require assistance from the
operator in making retained catch accessible to the observer for sampling.

While on board with a volunteer fisher, the observer will discuss the captain data-collection
program. The observer will determine which captains have the capacity and interest to fill
out the forms and bring in the samples. If possible, the observer will schedule the first five
captain-collection trips on different vessels. After the first five trips, the project team will
decide whether to repeat collections from prior vessels or to continue with different vessels.
The captain data-collection will not collect information from net trips, to maximize the
opportunity to assess potential of this method for gears remaining in the fishery. The
observer will explain that the $200 payment will require assistance from the operator in
making retained catch accessible to the observer for sampling.

Because nets will phase out around December, the observer will concentrate on obtaining
rides for net gear at the beginning of the project, and attempt to obtain observations on six
net vessels before the net are banned. Although the project design calls for four trips per
month, one on each gear type, the observer must schedule more than one net trip per
month, and can schedule multiple net trips in a month during the period before the net ban
starts. After the net ban goes into effect, the observer will schedule trips to stay
approximately on target for one trip for each remaining gear type per month. Any trips
budgeted for net observations but not used will be redistributed to other gear types.

The observer will notify the fisher that we will record all catch information; fisher must
agree to fish legally for duration of observed trip.

When an observer completes a trip on a vessel or picks up a sample from a captain's trip,
the observer and captain will sign the trip confirmation form. Payment to the captain cannot
occur without this form.

Stage 3: Identifying data that can be collected at sea and ashore

Data collected during this project will have two main components: biological data and fishing
operations data. Biological data will consist of lengths and weights for all individuals of each
species in the retained catch and in the discarded catch of each haul or set; estimates of
survival potential for individuals to be discarded (at the time the fisher would have thrown










them over the side); interactions with marine mammals, sea turtles, and/or sea birds; and
other data to be determined based on observer experience. Fishing operations data will
consist of date, time, vessel, captain, etc. Specific information and procedures are described
in the Stage 4 section.

This project assumes that the small size of vessels in St. Croix will prevent most cases of
weighing and measuring specimens on-board the vessels. In most cases, the observer will
retain fish to be discarded for processing on shore, although some prohibited species
(undersized lobster and conch or berried lobster) may require efforts to collect data at sea.
However, the Observer will note for each trip the feasibility for sampling on-board. The
observer will:
Describe the procedures used for on-board sampling of lobster and conch, if any,
and any problems encountered with the sampling
Evaluate whether any on-board sampling for fish was feasible, and if so, what level
of sampling
Describe how the captain felt about the possibility of on-board sampling (likely to
participate, opposed, etc.)

The project will provide a handheld GPS and a digital camera for use by the observer to
document fishing tracks and locations and to record unusual incidents.

The data collected should be prioritized to fulfill program objectives, but where possible
collect as much baseline information as practically possible to provide a complete picture of
fishing activity. The data recording formats will be differentiated into information that can
be collected at sea or ashore by either observers or skippers.


Stage 4: Data collection procedures

The Observer will keep sampling protocol as similar as practical to the current bio-sampling
conducted under the Federally-sponsored biosampling (tiponline). The pilot observer project
will collect data from entire trips, rather than try to sample on a haul-by-haul basis.
However, the observer will keep in mind the desirability of sampling sets or hauls, and help
determine if fishers fish in a way that could constitute a "set" or "haul." To maintain
consistency among vessels, the observer will collect biological data from retained catch as
soon as possible after the vessel returns to port, but place all discards in labeled bags for
processing the next day or days. The observer may place all discarded fish in a cooler while
on board, for transfer to a bag or bags later. The observer will attempt to weigh and
measure every specimen of the discarded catch and of the retained catch. If fishers sort
retained catch into market and subsistence categories, the observer will sample each
separately. The observer will weigh and measure undersized and berried lobsters and
undersized queen conch on board; the observer will return these animals to sea as quickly as
possible in as good a condition as possible. The observer will make notes on the capability
of collecting data at sea.

Even though observer instructions call for weights for every specimen in the catch, which
would provide the total catch by addition, observers may not be able to sample all
specimens in every case. Therefore, a procedure for estimating total catch may be needed.
US Caribbean fishers typically place retained catch in coolers. Observers could estimate
weight of retained catch by standardizing the weight of catch to the volume of the coolers.
The sum of retained catch (determined from direct weights or estimated by volume) and
weight of discarded catch (determined from laboratory samples) would represent total catch.











The chance for fish to survive after being discarded (viability) is an important bit of
information for assessing the impacts of discards on fish stocks. The requirement for
observers to place discards in bags in a cooler prevents an observation of viability of
discarded fish in the water. However, estimation of discard survival is important information.
To help assess the feasibility of collecting this information, the observer will make
qualitative observations on a tally sheet for each haul or set of viability as fish go into the
bag:
Strong active when stimulated, firm opercular pressure, no or minor bleeding, gills
red
Weak limited activity when stimulated, weak opercular pressure, moderate
bleeding, gills pink
Moribund no activity when stimulated, no opercular pressure, extensive bleeding,
gills pale
The observer supervisor will discuss this component of the project with the observer during
debriefing to determine if modifications are needed in-season, or if the collection is feasible
at all. For example, a live/dead division may be all that can be reasonably obtained.

The observer will record basic information for each trip on interactions with marine
mammals, sea turtles, and sea birds. The form will document the gear, the species, and the
interaction.

The observer may assist fisher with sorting, icing, or other activities that constitute minimal
danger to the observer or to the vessel. The observer may not haul or retrieve gear, operate
the fishing vessel, or any other activity that may result in danger to the observer or to the
vessel. The observer should consult first with the Mr. Tobias and if necessary with Dr.
Trumble or Dr. Uwate on a case by case basis for specific activities that may arise.

Following each 1 or 2 trips, the observer and supervisor will meet to debrief the previous
trips, and specifically discuss:
Problems found on the vessel caused by vessel
Problems found on the vessel caused by captain or crew
Opportunities to sample on board
Protected species interactions
Illegal activities
Capability of captain to perform captain-sample duties
Amount of biological sampling time relative to 5-hr per trip time budget

Stage 5: Safety

Observers will not ride on vessels deemed as unsafe. Commercial fishing vessels in US
waters are subject to US Coast Guard safety regulations. Observers will confirm that each
vessel selected for an observation, and for which the captain has agreed to carry an
observer, has a current Coast Guard or DPNR safety inspection. The observer should ask the
captain about safety inspections at the time of the selection, and confirm that the vessel
has a current inspection before boarding.

The observer will notify the observer supervisor of each trip, and will report estimated time
of departure and estimated time of return. The observer will notify the observer supervisor
at the end of each trip. Observers will be outfitted with a life jacket and a personal EPIRB.
Observers should, but are not required to, wear the life jacket during fishing operations.
However, the observer must have the life jacket stored in a safe, accessible location, not










subject to blowing or washing off the vessel and easily reached in an emergency. The EPIRB
must be attached to the lifejacket or the to the observer's person at all times while on
board.

The observer will be outfitted with a handheld marine VHF radio to supplement cellular
telephone access.








St. Croix Pilot Observer Project
Discard mortality tally form: September 2004


Vessel Name Gear
Vessel ID Date
Condition
Species Strong Weak Moribund


___ I ___ I ___ I ___










St. Croix Pilot Observer Project
Protected species interaction form


Interaction code Enter the interaction code. If an animal is involved with more than one
interaction during one haul or set, list them as separate records with different interaction
numbers.
1 Deterrence Used Protected species was deterred or a deterrent was attempted. Log
this interaction using this code even if the deterrence was not successful.
2 Entangled in Gear (Not Trailing Gear) A protected species was captured by the fishing
gear and the animal was released/escaped without fishing gear attached.
3 Entangled in Gear (Trailing Gear) A protected species was captured by the fishing gear
and the animal was released/escaped alive with some fishing gear attached.
4 Killed By Gear A protected species was captured and died due to interactions with the
fishing gear.
5 Killed By Propeller A protected species hit the propeller and died.
6 Previously dead A protected species was captured by the fishing gear and was dead
prior to coming into contact with the vessel or fishing gear.
7 Lethal removal Vessel personnel killed a protected species entangled in fishing gear, but
death was not due entirely to the entanglement.
8 Boarded Vessel A protected species boarded the vessel on its own volition.
9 Feeding on Catch -A protected species was observed feeding on catch not yet landed.
10 Other Interaction occurred that is not included in the list of interaction codes.
11 Unknown The vessel or vessel personnel had some interaction with a protected
species, but the observer did not directly view the interaction and/or ascertain what the
interaction was.


Vessel Name Vessel ID
Date Gear
Latitude Longitude
Species Size Interaction Comments
Code


4 4 i











110 South Hoover Blvd., Suite 212
Tampa, Florida 33609-2458
I Tel: (813) 639-9519
Fax: (813) 639-9425
Email:

Am ericas MRAC.Americas@mragamericas.com
President: Professor John Beddington F.R.S.




St. Croix Observer Project
Vessel Participation Confirmation


Captain:

Vessel:

Date:

Check one:

D I confirm that Observer performed at-sea observer duties on
the vessel above ($100 compensation to the Captain).

D I confirm that the captain of the vessel above collected discard samples at the request
of Observer ($200 compensation to the Captain).

Please Fax or mail this form to Beth Weiland, MRAG Americas to initiate payment.



Signature of Captain Signature of Observer

Captains' Address:




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs