HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES MANAGEMENT TEAM REPORT ON DRIFT GILLNET MANAGEMENT

Transcription

1 Agenda Item K.5.b HMSMT Report March 2014 HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES MANAGEMENT TEAM REPORT ON DRIFT GILLNET MANAGEMENT 1. Introduction The Pacific Leatherback Conservation Area (PLCA) was established in 2001 to mitigate takes of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed leatherback sea turtles in the California swordfish drift gillnet (DGN) fishery 1. The southern boundary of the PLCA is defined by a line from the shore at Point Arena ( N. latitude) trending to the southwest. The PLCA is closed to DGN fishing from August 15 to November 15 each year. Participants in the DGN fishery have commented that the area of the PLCA south of Point Arena has the potential to be especially productive for fishing during the closure period. The PCLA is known to include feeding and migratory areas for leatherbacks. Figure 1 shows the extent of the PLCA and leatherback critical habitat. Critical habitat was designated by NMFS in 2012 (77 FR 4170, January 26, 2012). The importance of this area was identified by NMFS during the ESA consultation and subsequent Biological Opinion (BO) on the issuance of a permit under section 101(a)(5)(E) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act for four marine mammal stocks. (This permit authorizes the incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammals if the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determines that any incidental mortality and serious injury from commercial fisheries which occurs will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock.) The PLCA was originally developed as a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) in the October 23, 2000, biological opinion that would close the area during the late summer and fall between Point Conception (34 27 N. latitude) and the mid-oregon coast at 45 N. latitude. This created a polygon area intended to significantly reduce leatherback sea turtle takes in the DGN fishery. As part of the rulemaking implementing the RPA, NMFS completed an environmental assessment (EA). This EA examined a new DGN fishery option, proposed by the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team (POCTRT) and modified by NMFS, which would allow part of the fishery to remain open off central California. In this modified option, the closure was extended from August 15 to November 15 but excluded the area defined by the line from Point Sur to 34 27' N latitude, ' W longitude (an area identified by fishermen as very productive for swordfish). NMFS did not accept this recommendation due in part to tracks from two satellite-tagged leatherbacks suggesting they move into the area south of Point Sur. The interim rule was published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44549). Since publication of the rule, new information has come to light that suggests that re-examination of the existing closure may be warranted. Regarding the southern extent of the closure, Dr. Tomo Eguchi of the Southwest Fisheries Science Center mentioned that ongoing work on satellite tagging of leatherbacks demonstrates that the harnesses previously used to affix the tags affects the turtles behavior. Likely because of the discomfort of the harnesses the turtles tended to immediately swim away from the inshore foraging areas where they were tagged. The HMSMT discussed whether the southwest trending track used as the basis for this modification in the proposed boundary is representative of normal migratory behavior, although other research (e.g., Benson et al., 2011) supports a migratory corridor trending southwest from the Monterey region. 1 At the time the HMS FMP was implemented this fishery was called the California/Oregon DGN fishery but subsequently Oregon stopped issuing permits so the fishery now only operates out of California. Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 1 March 2014

2 Figure 1. PLCA and leatherback critical habitat. In March 2011 NMFS and the HMSMT and the HMSAS presented information to the Council on the status and prospects for the west coast swordfish fishery. In response the Council directed the HMSMT Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 2 March 2014

3 to determine if any changes can be made to the closure dates for, or the southern boundary of, the PLCA in order to enhance fishing opportunity in the DGN fishery. In March 2013 the HMSMT presented a preliminary analysis of opening the area south of Point Sur for specified portions of the closure period. The Council then passed a motion, based in part on an HMSAS-sponsored concept, directing the HMSMT to consider a proposal with the following elements: Open the area of the PLCA south of Point Arena out to 100 miles to DGN fishing Authorize access to this portion of the PLCA only for vessels with both an onboard observer and VMS Estimate future effort levels in the area with these constraints Evaluate both present and past catch and turtle bycatch and interactions rates in this portion of the PLCA Explore the possibility of managing the DGN fishery with hard caps on incidental sea turtle take and other listed species, modeled after the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery Evaluate whether the current 20% observer coverage is adequate for estimating bycatch for compliance Evaluate the use of VMS for compliance On September 4, 2013, NMFS published a temporary rule in the Federal Register (78 FR 54548, see Agenda Item K.5.a, Attachment 1, March 2014) implementing emergency actions for the DGN fishery. These actions respond to the take of two sperm whales in the DGN fishery observed from a single set during the fishing season. These takes exceeded the potential biological removal level for the California-Oregon-Washington stock of sperm whales, preventing NMFS from issuing a new MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) permit for the fishery under the current management regime. NMFS reconvened the POCTRT in mid-2013 to develop measures for the DGN fishery that would allow NMFS to make a negligible impact determination and issue the MMPA permit. The temporary rule established the following new measures for the season: A hard cap of one sperm whale; if one whale is taken the DGN fishery would then close for the remainder of the season (this did not happen during the season) A 100% observer coverage zone where DGN vessels are required to carry an observer to fish; this zone covers nearly all of the CA portion of the west coast EEZ seaward of a line approximating the 1,100 fathom depth contour A requirement that DGN vessel operators install, activate, carry, and operate vessel monitoring system (VMS) units. A temporary rule may only stay in place for 180 days without an extension and may only be extended for one additional period of up to 186 days (MSA sec. 305(c)). The temporary rule for the DGN fishery expired January 31, Therefore, NMFS will undergo rulemaking to develop permanent regulations to replace the expired temporary regulations. For this purpose NMFS reconvened the POCTRT on February 4-6, Because of the limited duration of the temporary rule the permanent rule must be implemented by the beginning of the next fishing season in the DGN fishery on August 15, These measures address some of the provisions in the Council s March 2013 motion. VMS was required in the DGN fishery as part of the temporary rule and the 100% observer coverage zone overlaps with part of the area identified in the motion, henceforth referred to as the area under consideration (AUC). The Council also requested more information on the use of hard caps for leatherback sea turtles and other protected species; the emergency rule includes a cap for sperm whales. Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 3 March 2014

4 2. Area Under Consideration Figure 2 shows the AUC, leatherback critical habitat boundaries, and the boundaries of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. As noted above, the temporary rule defined a line approximating the 1,100 fathom depth contour where 100% observer coverage was required seaward of this line. The AUC comprises about 4,150 square miles (10,748 sq. km.) or 2% of the entire extent of the PLCA. Three subareas can be identified within the AUC based on these other management zones: 83% of the AUC is outside of critical habitat and seaward of the 1,100 fm depth contour line, 4% is inside leatherback critical habitat but seaward of the 1,100 fm line, and 13% is inside critical habitat and shoreward of the 1,100 fm line. If the measures in the temporary rule are made permanent, 100% observer coverage would be required in the 87% of the AUC that is seaward of the 1,100 fm line. The HMSMT discussed the merits of truncating the AUC so that it would just apply to the area outside of this line or the seaward leatherback critical habitat boundary. Since this area is already subject to 100% observer coverage, that stipulation in the proposal would already be met. As part of the evaluation leading up to critical habitat designation NMFS found that fishing was not a threat to the primary constituent elements of leatherback critical habitat (see Agenda Item G.4, Situation Summary, April 2010, for an overview of the designation process). The HMSMT asks that the HMSAS weigh in on the tradeoffs involved in limiting AUC to the seaward portion of either of these boundaries. Figure 2. Site map for area of the PLCA under consideration (AUC). Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 4 March 2014

5 As shown in Figure 2, a portion of the AUC overlaps with the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. However, commercial fishing is allowed within its limits, though oil drilling, waste dumping, and mining are prohibited ( 3. Considerations Regarding the Use of Observers SWFSC scientist Jay Barlow conducted a sampling design study in 1989 to inform and guide the creation of the Southwest Region s Observer Program (Barlow, 1989). The program was initiated based on the need to cover two separate gillnet fisheries in California (small mesh set gillnet, large mesh DGN). Barlow noted that 20% observer coverage would provide sufficient sample sizes for species such as sea lions, which were a common bycatch species in both these net fisheries. Barlow also noted that 35% observer coverage would have been required in the set gillnet fishery to make statistically reliable estimates of relatively less frequent harbor porpoise bycatch. His estimates of statistically reliable were based on attaining a coefficient of variation (CV) of 10%, which is much better than normally achieved. Commonly, a 30% CV is considered a threshold under the MMPA. When CVs of bycatch estimates exceed 30%, management parameters are typically reviewed and modifications considered to account for the increased uncertainty in estimated bycatch levels. This is explicitly stated in the guidelines for preparing marine mammal stock assessments. In summary, the 20% observer coverage policy was adopted as a standard for the DGN fishery based in part on Barlow's work and in recognition of available funding. NMFS convened an Observer Coverage Level Workshop in 2004 (NMFS, 2004) that addressed the minimum observer coverage level question with explicit reference to available funding as a limiting factor in observer coverage. The report does not mention any preferred value of observer coverage necessary to meet selected goals (e.g., the 30% observer coverage level recommendation is a rule of thumb not based on a formal statistical analysis). The 30% recommendation came out of the NMFS U.S. National Bycatch Report (NMFS, 2011) development process, as recognition that additional coverage was better, funding dependent, given the rare event sampling issues in play with many fishery sampling programs. Further, as explained in Appendix 4 to the NMFS 2004 National Bycatch Report, precision requirements for rare event species differ from levels which are sufficient to obtain a CV between 20% and 30% for more frequently encountered species. For example, coverage levels above 80% may be needed to obtain a CV below 30% for endangered leatherback or loggerhead sea turtle bycatch at low rates of encounters. It may not be worth the expense of such a high level of observer coverage to monitor bycatch within a standard error of one or two individuals. The NBR also mentions the large percentage of fishing effort that could not be observed in the DGN fishery, mentioning safety and space issues as explicit concerns. Preliminary estimates of unobservable effort in the DGN fishery for the season dropped to roughly 10% from the season estimate of approximately 24%. One of the factors for this decline was the need for all DGN vessels to carry observers if they wanted to fish in the deeper water zone (greater than 1,100 fathoms) per the sperm whale temporary rule (78 FR 54548). The WCR Observer Program secured additional funding to enhance DGN coverage levels for the fishing season. Preliminary observer coverage for fishing season was approximately 34%. Preliminary participation and effort estimates for the season included 19 active vessels accounting for 559 sets. The supplemental observer funds were available for the season only. Although a request will be made to secure additional funding for the fishing season and beyond, it is unclear at this time what level of additional funding, if any, will be available. Observer coverage for both the existing DGN fishery centered in the Southern California Bight (~20% coverage rate) and any future re-opened area option (most likely with a 100% coverage requirement) would need to be allocated such that coverage is adequately spread throughout the season. Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 5 March 2014

6 In lieu of adequate observer funding to fulfill the potential DGN coverage needs, other options could be explored, such as electronic monitoring or a privately funded program: (1) Electronic monitoring (EM) technology has been under development for the past decade and several commercial fisheries on the west coast now successfully employ this technology in place of, or in tandem with, at-sea observers. In 2006, NMFS contracted Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. to design and implement a pilot EM project to test the efficacy of detecting target and nontarget species captured in DGN gear. EM systems and observers were simultaneously in place on five vessels for 11 trips and 53 fishing sets, resulting in observation of over 450 animals caught by both methods. When comparing catches observed, EM and observer methods were within 4% of one another and detection of protected species categories was identical. Catch totals by set were very close for most sets and the major cause for outliers was with the ability of EM to detect tunas and mackerel (Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., 2007). Since this pilot study was completed there have been numerous advancements in EM technology that may render this type of system feasible for the needs identified in the Council motion. (2) Privately-funded supplement observer coverage has been used in several west coast fisheries and could be considered as an option for meeting the additional coverage needs for the DGN fishery should the expanded area option be exercised. The HMSMT would look to the HMSAS for guidance and recommendations on how such a program would be conducted. To gain a better understanding of possible future DGN fishing effort if the AUC in the Council motion were to be adopted and approved, CDFW HMS staff has initiated a phone survey with active and latent DGN permit holders. The results of this survey were not available prior to the briefing book deadline but should be available in time for the March Council meeting. 4. Protected Species Bycatch (Focusing on Sperm Whales and Leatherbacks) Compared to Target species CPUE in the AUC The Council motion directed the HMSMT to evaluate both present and past catch and turtle bycatch and interactions rates in the AUC. The HMSMT heard a presentation at their January 2014 meeting by Jim Carretta on potential bycatch in the AUC, which is summarized below. In addition, the HMSMT updated a portion of the analysis for Agenda Item I.2.b, Supplemental HMSMT Report 2 in the March 2013 Council briefing book to analyze potential effort, finfish catch and relative bycatch rates for the AUC. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Bycatch as related to the Council Proposal (Summarizing a Presentation to the HMSMT by Dr. Jim Carretta, SWFSC) NMFS has had an observer program for the DGN fishery since 1990 and a total of 8,365 sets have been observed through calendar year Of these 8,365 sets, only 389 sets were observed in the AUC (prior to 2001), which represents 4% of observed fishing sets to date. Table 1 shows a comparison of bycatch rates of all cetaceans, sperm whales, and leatherback sea turtles between the AUC and the larger PLCA (labeled Other PLCA in Table 1), as well as between the AUC and areas outside of the PLCA which have always been open to DGN fishing (labeled Open Area in Table 1). There was particular emphasis on sperm whales and leatherback turtles, as these two protected species are known to be vulnerable to DGN gear. Coefficients of variation (CV) for bycatch rates were estimated via bootstrap resampling. Although it is possible to examine statistical differences in bycatch rates between areas, the small spatial footprint and resulting small sample sizes within the AUC makes any statistical inference equivocal and unreliable. Bycatch rates of all cetaceans and sperm whales were Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 6 March 2014

7 higher in the AUC compared to the PLCA and areas currently open to fishing. Bycatch rates of leatherback sea turtles were lower in the AUC than in other areas. A more holistic evaluation of bycatch risk in the AUC is recommended to avoid the risk of reaching misguided conclusions based on the low statistical power of significance testing obtained using small observer samples to estimate rare event bycatch rates. The AUC is located in a region of high oceanographic productivity, adjacent to submarine canyons and seamounts which are common sperm whale habitat and are part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Of the six sperm whale bycatch events observed in the 23-year observer program sample analyzed, four events occurred either within or in the immediate vicinity of the AUC. While this cluster of sperm whale interactions could represent a statistical artifact, this seems doubtful, especially given that they occurred in separate years (1992, 1993, 1996 and 1998). The AUC also overlaps with designated critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle. Evaluation of the AUC for potential fishing activity should also include consideration of the degree of observer coverage that will be available for vessels allowed to fish here. To reduce uncertainty of bycatch risk in the AUC, a high level of observer coverage would be required. Table 1. Estimated bycatch rates in the AUC for selected Species of Concern. (CV = coefficient of variation.) Open Area Other PLCA AUC All Cetaceans Observed bycatch Observed sets 6,139 2, Bycatch per 100 sets (CV) 7.9 (0.06) 7.6 (0.10) 11.8 (0.22) Leatherbacks Observed bycatch Observed sets 6,139 2, Bycatch per 100 sets (CV) (0.41) 0.85 (0.22) 0.51 (0.68) Sperm Whale Observed bycatch Observed sets 6,139 2, Bycatch per 100 sets (CV) (0.71) 0.27 (0.57) 0.77 (0.58) The HMSMT also saw a separate presentation on sperm whale assessment by NMFS SWFSC researcher Jeff Moore, which included Figure 3 illustrating transect survey sightings of sperm whales. Eighty-four total sperm whale sightings were detected within 5.5 km from the survey vessel over the period. The transact survey is fishery independent and designed as a representative sample of the survey area. Transect survey results did not appear to suggest a higher rate of sperm whale sightings near the canyon compared to areas towards the western end of the survey range. By contrast, the fishery dependent observer data do not constitute a representative sample of sperm whale abundance in the area where the DGN fishery historically operated. Bycatch rates per 100 sets shown in Table 1 do indicate a higher historically observed sperm whale bycatch rate occurred for the AUC than for the area that remained open. However, these generally occurred before the implementation of marine mammal bycatch mitigation measures in the late-1990s based on the recommendations of the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team, as the AUC was closed from August 15-November 15 for all years after By contrast, the rate calculation for the open area is based on effort before and after take reduction measures went into effect in the late 1990s. Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 7 March 2014

8 Figure 3. Transect survey sperm whale detections. (Source: NMFS 2013.) Analysis of Potential Effort, Finfish Catch and Relative Bycatch Rates for the AUC An analysis of potential effort, recent and past catch finfish catch and relative bycatch rates in the AUC is planned for inclusion in a supplemental HMSMT report for the March 2014 Council meeting. The HMSMT suggests the HMSAS should weigh in on the potential benefit of increased potential target species catch inside the AUC relative to potential costs due to the impact of any new regulatory limits on the fishery due to any new regulatory requirements imposed to mitigate protected species bycatch risk inside the AUC. 5. Trends in Fishery Participation Consideration of the motion to open part of the PLCA requires an examination of both current fishing effort and potential effort were the fishery to experience an increase in participation due to return of latent permits into active use. From 2000 to 2013, the number of permits issued dropped from 126 to 73, Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 8 March 2014

9 reducing the potential fleet to 58 percent of the 2000 capacity 2. However, during the same time period, the number of actively fished permits dropped from 119 to 19, an 84 percent decrease (Figure 4). Starting in 2000, the swordfish DGN fishery began to experience a substantial decrease in landings, which in-turn led to a decrease in permittee participation in the fishery. When landings jumped in between 2005 and 2006 despite a low in permittee participation, the 2007 active fleet size increased temporarily. As landings once again continued to drop around 2008, participation in the fishery by permit holders steadily declined (Figure 4). Figure 4. Annual swordfish landings, number of issued permits (, and active 2011 DGN permits, (CFIS). Based in part on information presented at a NMFS-sponsored swordfish workshop held in 2011, the HMSMT started to examine the latency of permits in the DGN fishery. To better understand these trends in permit activity, CDFW tracked the history of active participation in the DGN fishery of all permits issued in Table 2 and Figure 5 summarize the fishing activity from of the 84 DGN permits issued in 2011 by CDFW. In Figure 5 the years highlighted in red indicate that the permit was actively used and the years highlighted in grey indicate that the permit was latent. In 2012 and 2013, white indicates the permit was allowed to lapse or transfer and the permit holder is no longer a potential component in the DGN fishery. In 2013, only 73 of the permittees still held their permits, a decline of 13 percent. Of these, only 19 actively fished, 22.6% of the potential fleet. Nine permit holders had no activity in the 24 years examined represents an outlier in the data that CDFW is investigating. Once there is a lag in a permit (not renewed), the permit is no longer available for issuance. Therefore, there should be no increase in permit numbers across years, as seen in This could be a data entry mistake or an error in the licensing branch resulting from a mistaken reissuance of an expired permit. Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 9 March 2014

10 Table 2. Annual swordfish landings, number of issued permits, and active 2011 DGN permits, (CFIS). YEAR No. Issued Permits No. Active Permits No. Latent Permits Swordfish Landings (mt) * *2013 data is preliminary and subject to change Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 10 March 2014

11 Figure 5. Permit activity * for the 84 permits issued in 2011 (CFIS, LRB). Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 11 March 2014

12 Figure 6 shows a breakdown of the 2011 permits by total number of years each permit has been latent since 1990 (black), and the maximum number of consecutive years during which each permit was not fished (white). Figure 6. DGN Permit Latency for permits issued in 2011 (CFIS). 6. Hard Caps for Sea Turtles and Other Listed Species The Council requested the HMSMT to evaluate the use of hard caps, or take caps, to address the impacts of protected species take in the DGN fishery. The concept of establishing a regulatory limit on protected species takes was first implemented in the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery (which targets swordfish) in In 2008 and 2009 the Council considered amending the HMS FMP to reopen the west coast-based shallow-set longline fishery operating on the high seas outside the EEZ. Although the Council ultimately decided not to move forward with this proposal, the preliminary draft supplemental environmental impact statement prepared for the Council decision contains a summary of developments in the Hawaii fishery (see Agenda Item D.2.a, Attachment 1, April 2009). These incidental take caps are derived from the incidental take statements prepared for the fishery. Pursuant to the ESA, if consultation is initiated between an action agency and the NMFS Protected Resources Division (PRD), a biological opinion is usually prepared evaluating the effects of the proposed action on ESA-listed species. As part of the evaluation an incidental take statement (ITS) is developed. This section of the BO first estimates taking that is incidental to and not the purpose of the proposed action. Based on this estimate and other factors NMFS PRD determines whether the level of anticipated take is likely to result in jeopardy to the continued existence of the listed species subject to the consultation. The ITS may contain reasonable and prudent measures (if the action is not anticipated to cause jeopardy) or alternatives (if a jeopardy determination is made). Implementation of these nondiscretionary measures is anticipated to prevent the proposed action from jeopardizing the listed species. If the numbers in the ITS are exceeded, NMFS reinitiates formal consultation, which may result in additional measures or alternatives being imposed (up to and including measures that effectively prohibit the action from continuing). Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 12 March 2014

13 Incidental take caps are implemented as a management measure and are intended to prevent the ITS numbers from being exceeded, thus reducing the likelihood the consultation will be reinitiated and that a jeopardy determination is made. The Hawaii fishery opened in 2004 with take caps of 16 leatherbacks and 17 loggerheads in any one year. However, in 2008 the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council took action to expand the fishery (by lifting limits on fishing effort), which meant that the incidental take estimates had to be revaluated. In taking final action, that Council was able to use information from the ITS for the expanded fishery and recommended retaining the existing take cap for leatherbacks but increasing the cap for loggerheads up to the level estimated in the BO: 46 animals. It is important to keep in mind the logic behind establishing take caps. First, under the ESA, NMFS PRD estimates take levels for the action and makes the jeopardy determination (imposing reasonable and prudent measures or alternatives as necessary). Then fishery managers (i.e., the Council) establish take caps as a management measure to prevent the ITS level from being exceeded. The framework allows a finding that the action will not cause jeopardy. The Council has considered using take caps for two previous proposals. The first, from 2006, was a recommendation for an exempted fishing permit that would have allowed a limited number of DGN vessels to fish in the PLCA under an effort limit. The Council recommended take caps of two leatherbacks and a cap of one for any of three ESA-listed marine mammal species. The second was the aforementioned FMP amendment to reopen the west coast shallow-set longline fishery. For that action the preliminary draft SEIS states Take caps for loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles would be established, at sufficiently low levels so that the proposed action is not found to jeopardize the continued existence of these or any other ESA-listed species. These take caps would be based on the anticipated take amounts estimated in the biological opinion that will be completed for this proposed action. As noted above, a take cap of one sperm whale applied to the DGN fishery as part of the recently expired temporary rule. The May 2, 2013, BO for the California DGN fishery includes an ITS with the numbers shown in Table 3 Table 3. Amount and extent of take on individuals expected in the DGN fishery (from Table 12 in NMFS 2013). Annual take 5-year take total Expected mortalities* during 5-year period Fin whale up to 1 up to 2 up to 1 Humpback up to 2 up to 4 up to 2 Sperm whale up to 2 up to 8 up to 6 Leatherback turtle up to 3 up to 10 up to 7 Loggerhead turtle up to 3 up to 7 up to 4 Olive ridley turtle up to 1 up to 2 up to 1 Green turtle up to 1 up to 2 up to 1 *Includes animals that may be determined to have experienced either serious injury or mortality as a result of interaction with the fishing gear. Although the observer coverage level in the DGN fishery is less than 100%, the BO concludes that the observed record of interactions will be approximately proportional to the actual level of take in the entire fishery. Based on this finding, the ITS includes an expected level of documented take in the fishery, reproduced here as Table 4. Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 13 March 2014

14 Table 4. Amount of take expected to be documented by fishery observers over a 5-year period (from Table 13 in NMFS 2013). Observed take during 5-year period Fin whale 1 Humpback 1 Sperm whale up to 2 Leatherback turtle up to 2 Loggerhead turtle up to 2 Olive ridley turtle 1 Green turtle 1 These numbers could be used by the Council in considering hard take caps for the proposal. The HMSMT discussed whether it would be better to establish a hard cap just for DGN vessels fishing in the AUC or for the fishery as a whole. Although vessels in the AUC would be subject to 100% observer coverage, any fishing outside that area and the rest of the 100% observer coverage zone would be subject to only partial observer coverage. In this situation the assumption in the BO that observed take is approximately proportional to actual take may not apply, because of the very different levels of observation in different segments of the fishery. (Note that this applies equally to the temporary rule framework where different levels of observer coverage apply depending on fishing location.) It would be necessary to discuss with NMFS PRD how takes in the segments of the fishery with different observer coverage levels will be treated with respect to estimates of fishery-wide takes in relation to the ITS. As part of the implementation process for this action it is likely that NMFS PRD would reinitiate consultation, which would result in a new ITS, possibly with different estimates of take and a new jeopardy determination. 7. Summary of Science Presentations The HMSMT heard a series of science reports at its January 2014 meeting on research that is of potential relevance to the DGN fishery and the related Council agenda item. Summaries of these presentations may be found in Agenda Item K.5.b NMFS SWFSC Report Alternative Gear Report The HMSMT heard updates on experiments currently underway to test alternative methods of catching swordfish off the West Coast, through use of deep-set swordfish longline gear (Heidi Dewar) or deep-set swordfish buoy gear (Chugey Sepulveda). Formal presentations were made at the HMSMT meeting on January 22, 2014, followed by informal discussion with potential future users of these fishing methods at an evening barbecue hosted by the Pfleger Institute for Environment Research. Presentations to update the Council on these projects are scheduled for the March 2014 Council Meeting in Sacramento. Agenda Item K.5.b, NMFS SWFSC Report 2 contains brief summaries of these projects. 9. Bibliography Archipelago Marine Research Ltd Using Electronic Monitoring Technology toassess Protected Species Interactions with the 2006 California Drift Gillnet Fishery: A Pilot Study. September Barlow, J Estimating Sample Size Required to Monitor Marine Mammal Mortality in California Gill-Net Fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California. Administrative Report L-J March Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 14 March 2014

15 Benson, S.R., T. Eguchi, D.G. Foley, K. A. Forney, H. Bailey, C. Hitipeuw, B.P. Samber, R.F. Tapilatu, V. Rei, P. Ramohia, J. Pita, and P.H. Dutton Large-scale movements and high-use areas of western Pacific leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea. Ecosphere. Volume 27. Article 84 NMFS U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: (James V. Carretta, Erin Oleson, David W. Weller, Aimee R. Lang, Karin A. Forney, Jason Baker, Brad Hanson, Karen Martien, Marcia M. Muto, Mark S. Lowry, Jay Barlow, Deanna Lynch, Lilian Carswell, Robert L. Brownell Jr., David K. Mattila, and Marie C. Hill.) Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-504. January NMFS U.S. National Bycatch Report First Edition. William A. Karp, Lisa L. Desfosse, Samantha G. Brooke (eds.). Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-117C. NMFS NMFS Fisheries Observer Coverage Level Workshop: Defining a Basis Summary Report. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle. January Agenda Item K.5.b, HMSMT Report 15 March 2014