A Program to Enhance Industry Evaluations of Complex Bycatch Reduction Devices within the Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Trawl Fishery NOAA/NMFS Award Number NA07NMF4540077 (GSAFFI #102) FINAL REPORT Lincoln Center, Suite 740 5401 West Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609-2447 October 2011 This Final Report was prepared by the Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, Inc. under award number NA07NMF4540077 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Department of Commerce.
Title: Author: A Program to Enhance Industry Evaluations of Complex Bycatch Reduction Devices within the Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Trawl Fishery Frank C. Helies, Program Director Gary L. Graham, Gulf Regional Coordinator Judy L. Jamison, Executive Director Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, Inc. Lincoln Center, Suite 740 5401 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33609-2447 Award No: NA07NMF4540077 (GSAFF #102) Project Period: August 1, 2007 July 31, 2011 I. Abstract In order to enact a paradigm shift regarding the adaptation of more complex and sophisticated BRDs within the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery, the confidence of captains and crews to utilize this gear requires enhancement. To achieve this, expert captains throughout the Gulf were provided new BRDs for evaluation. Newly certified BRDs were placed with experienced fishermen in an attempt to gain information and acceptance of these devices. The Foundation put much effort into introduction and evaluation of the Modified Jones-Davis BRD, one of the few devices that were fully certified by NOAA Fisheries. Additionally, Composite Panel BRDs were placed on a number of vessels and information was obtained from evaluations by captains. Acceptance of the new BRDs was variable among fishermen. Through the evaluations, the Modified Jones-Davis BRD showed the greatest finfish excluding success. In addition to bycatch reduction, overall shrimp loss was a serious concern to industry. Bycatch reduction remains a critical and high priority issue. Therefore, the transfer of technology and education of members of the fishing industry to better use and properly comply with bycatch regulations serves to enhance national goals and conservation objectives. This project addressed the problems associated with the conversion to new BRDs within the shrimp trawl fishery. It is believed that through this effort, a more efficient and effective conversion to more sophisticated/complex devices was accomplished within the fishing industry. II. Executive Summary Finfish bycatch is a contentious issue facing commercial fisheries worldwide. In the southeast U.S., while more and more stocks have been designated as overfished by the NMFS, bycatch reduction, particularly for the shrimp industry, has become a key management objective. With the decertification of the Expanded Mesh, the Fisheye and the Gulf Fisheye bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) effective May 18, 2009, only three fully certified BRDs are available to Gulf fishermen; the Jones-Davis, Modified Jones-Davis and the Fisheye, placed no farther forward than 9 feet (Gulf) and 11 feet (S. Atlantic) from the cod-end tie-off rings (Federal Register, 2008b). This coupled with the two year provisional certification period continued into 2012 for 2
the Extended Funnel and the Composite Panel BRDs, continued testing of bycatch reduction devices for certification is critical to the future viability of the shrimp industry. These changes to the criterion for meeting bycatch reduction rates for both the Gulf and South Atlantic along with the decertification of the Gulf Fisheye (the most widely used BRD) have initiated a significant technology transfer within the southeastern shrimp trawl fishery. The Jones-Davis BRD has been an option as a BRD for fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico. While utilized by some offshore fleets, the vast majority of fishermen have avoided this device because of its cost and complexity. In fact, less than 10 boats are known to tow the device in the shrimp fishery as compared to hundreds of boats utilizing the Fisheye BRD. Although the Jones-Davis BRD is potentially a better device from a standpoint of finfish exclusion, associated problems with adaptation of this gear has prevented fishermen from considering it as a gear option. Prior to this project, no net shops actively manufactured this device. Investigations performed by NMFS gear specialists have shown that a newly designed BRD, the Modified Jones-Davis, may be an effective substitute for the Fisheye BRD. This device is less costly than the original Jones- Davis BRD, and has shown to have significantly greater potential for finfish exclusion than the Fisheye BRD. An important aspect of this project was the training conducted for net shop personnel in the construction of these gears. Prior to the initiation of this project, there were no net shops that built any of the new, more complex BRDs. Gear technicians from NMFS Pascagoula assisted with training net builders and inspected the results of their work. Gulf Regional Coordinator Mr. Graham secured BRD patterns for construction of legal BRDs from NMFS Gear Specialists. These patterns were disseminated to net shops and provided instruction for proper manufacture of these BRDs. The goal of this project was to elicit industry participation and assistance in improving bycatch reduction in the shrimp trawl fishery by utilizing newer, more complex BRDs. Newly certified BRDs were placed with experienced fishermen throughout the Gulf in an attempt to gain information and acceptance of these devices. Because several of these BRDs were somewhat intimidating to fishermen, it was hoped that acceptance from respected fishermen might embolden other industry members to adopt these gears. The Foundation put much effort into introduction and evaluation of the Modified Jones-Davis BRD, one of the few devices that were fully certified by NOAA Fisheries. Additionally, Composite Panel BRDs were placed on a number of vessels and information was obtained from evaluations by captains. Acceptance and success was variable among fishermen, but through this project, the genesis of adopting new excluder devices began with a number of fishermen. Importantly, observations made by industry proved to be enlightening and have helped in disseminating information to various segments of the shrimp fleet. Interesting encounters and experiences with BRDs in the Asian American shrimp community created additional considerations and challenges. Importantly, some ports were quick to consider new BRDs while others have lagged and preferred to utilize the traditional Fisheye BRD. It is thought that in some areas this may change as certain fishermen are starting to realize that significant shrimp loss can occur with the Fisheye BRD in the newly designated installation area. 3
Bycatch reduction remains a critical and high priority issue. Shrimp fishermen do not want to harvest bycatch; it creates more work for the vessel crew and contributes to lowered shrimp quality. This project addressed the problems associated with the conversion to new BRDs within the shrimp trawl fishery. It is believed that through this effort, a more efficient and effective conversion to more sophisticated/complex devices was accomplished within the fishing industry. III. Purpose Description of Problem: Finfish bycatch is a contentious issue facing commercial fisheries worldwide and is defined as the discarded catch of a living marine resource, plus the retained incidental catch and unobserved mortality of a marine resource due to a direct encounter with fishing gear (NOAA, 1998). In the southeastern United States shrimp trawl fisheries, bycatch reduction technology (BRT) research has focused on excluding threatened or endangered species (i.e. sea turtles - TEDs) and commercially/recreationally important species (i.e. weakfish, Spanish mackerel, red snapper - BRDs). Scientists and fishermen from the United States have pioneered this technology for shrimp trawls, and BRT is now being utilized across the globe (Brewer et al., 1998; Broadhurst, 2000; Eayrs et al., 2007; He et al., 2007; Krag et al., 2008). In the southeast U.S., while more and more stocks have been designated as overfished by the NMFS, bycatch reduction, particularly for the shrimp industry, has become a key management objective. With the decertification of the Expanded Mesh, the Fisheye and the Gulf Fisheye BRDs effective May 18, 2009, only three fully certified BRDs are available to Gulf fishermen; the Jones-Davis, Modified Jones-Davis and the Fisheye, placed no farther forward than 9 feet (Gulf) and 11 feet (S. Atlantic) from the cod-end tie-off rings (Federal Register, 2008b). This coupled with the two year provisional certification period continued into 2012 for the Extended Funnel and the Composite Panel BRDs, continued testing of bycatch reduction devices for certification is critical to the future viability of the shrimp industry. These recent changes to the criterion for meeting bycatch reduction rates for both the Gulf and South Atlantic along with the decertification of the Gulf Fisheye (the most widely used BRD) have initiated a significant technology transfer within the southeastern shrimp trawl fishery. The following discussion briefly describes the history of previous adaptations by the shrimp industry to modified regulations to address the issue of bycatch within the fishery and outlines the need for continued research. The otter trawl revolutionized the commercial fishing industry by allowing fishermen to increase their catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE). A significant disadvantage to this gear is that it is nonselective with respect to catch. While fishermen direct their efforts at harvesting targeted species, other marine species are harvested as bycatch. Commercial shrimp fishermen of the southeastern United States have historically altered their fishing strategies and/or gear to reduce the harvest of non-target species. This has occurred through the use of increased mesh sizes to allow the escapement of small organisms and the integration of the fisheye and cannonball shooter (precursor to the TED) bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) into trawl net designs (Aparicio, 1999; Davis and Ryer, 2003). These gear designs were integrated into trawl nets prior to the implementation of national and regional bycatch regulations. 4
Although fishermen have voluntarily made efforts to reduce the quantity and composition of incidental harvest, bycatch mortality is thought to contribute largely to the overall fishing mortality of finfish species (Davis and Ryer, 2003). Stock assessments for red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), and Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) stocks indicated that incidental harvest by southeastern U.S. shrimp trawlers was a factor affecting fish populations (e.g., overfished). This information led to the implementation of BRD regulations for shrimp trawls operating in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic EEZ (Federal Register, 1997; 1998; 2004). In the past, five BRDs were certified for use in portions of the Gulf of Mexico and/or South Atlantic. These devices were the Gulf Fisheye, Fisheye, Expanded Mesh, Extended Funnel, and Jones-Davis. Most commercial shrimp fishermen used the Fisheye or Gulf Fisheye in trawl nets due to the low cost and simplicity of these devices. Previously, for a BRD to become certified, it needed to meet certification tests that specified a reduction in fishing mortality (F) for certain target species (e.g., red snapper, F = 44%; weakfish and Spanish mackerel, F = 50%). Target species were selected based on stock status (overfished), the extent to which the shrimp fishery impacted their populations, and the rebuilding strategies set forth for these species by the Regional Councils and NMFS. Changes to the revised protocol have standardized the criteria for bycatch reduction devices such that they now must meet the criteria of 30% total finfish reduction by weight for both the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (Federal Register, 2008a). In addition, the protocol identifies currently certified BRDs and those that meet the provisional certification of a successful reduction of total finfish bycatch by at least 25 percent by weight. BRDs that are currently certified include: Fisheye (placed no farther forward than 9 feet from the tie-off rings), Jones- Davis and the Modified Jones-Davis. In addition, two BRDs, the Extended Funnel in the Gulf EEZ and the Composite Panel in both the Gulf and South Atlantic EEZs, have received provisional certification as they fall within 5% of the current criteria of total finfish bycatch reduction. With provisional certification, fishermen are allowed to utilize a BRD for two years to allow testing to determine if its reduction meet the certification criteria of 30%. With the publication of the Final Rule to decertify the Fisheye, Gulf Fisheye and Expanded Mesh (Federal Register, 2008b), there is an urgent need for new certified BRDs to be made available for use, especially in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery, as the Gulf Fisheye was by far the most popular BRD in use. The Jones-Davis BRD has been an option as a BRD for fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico. While utilized by some offshore fleets, the vast majority of fishermen have avoided this device because of its cost and complexity. In fact, less than 10 boats are known to tow the device in the shrimp fishery as compared to hundreds of boats utilizing the Fisheye BRD. Although the Jones-Davis BRD is potentially a better device from a standpoint of fish exclusion, associated problems with adaptation of this gear has prevented fishermen from considering it as a gear option. Prior to this project, no net shops actively manufactured this device. Investigations performed by NMFS gear specialists have shown that a newly designed BRD, the Modified Jones-Davis, may be an effective substitute for the Fisheye BRD. This device is less costly than the original Jones-Davis BRD, and has shown to have significantly greater potential for finfish exclusion than the Fisheye BRD. 5
A major problem with the introduction of gear to the shrimp industry is that the fishery encompasses a tremendous geographical range. The Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery is not a homogenous fishery from the standpoint of shrimp or finfish species harvested. The differences in areas fished and variation in species encountered presents problems with the introduction of limited selections of BRDs to the fishery. As pointed out in a meeting convened by the Foundation (Graham and Jamison, 2006), fishermen expressed concerns that an excluder device could work effectively in one area but not in another. This concern requires that potentially mandated BRDs be evaluated in various sectors of the shrimp industry and in a broad range of depths, areas and substrates. This is a daunting task when evaluating fishing gear. Although the fisheye BRD is clearly the most utilized excluder device in the shrimp fishery, new mandates concerning its position of installation (maximum of 9 feet from the cod-end tie-off rings), subjects it to undesirable shrimp loss. Most likely, it will be necessary for the offshore shrimp fishery to adopt the use of a more sophisticated and/or complex BRD in order to meet federal mandates, take steps to retain shrimp and more successfully address the bycatch issue in the fishery. This will not be an easy process for the shrimp fishery and could become a very contentious process. Crews are extremely intimidated by the complexity of the gear. Furthermore, vessel owners, who are confronted with diminished shrimp prices and accelerated fuel costs, will likely resist converting to more expensive gear. Until recently, several BRD candidates were not commercially available from traditional net shops. Net shops did not have the knowledge required for easily constructing these gears. With greater industry buy-in achieved through the use of a device it helps certify, the greater the impact in reducing bycatch within the fishery (Campbell and Cornwell, 2008). Jenkins (2006) found that the most widely adopted BRDs are those that are cooperatively produced and modified by fishers. The Foundation has previously received funding to test and certify new and promising BRDs (MARFIN Award #NA08NMF4330406, CRP Award #NA10NMF4540108) in addition to directed efforts at transferring TED and BRD technology and outreach to commercial shrimp fishermen of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (GSAFF, 2005; 2010; MARFIN Award #NA11NMF4330127). The goal of this project was similar in scope to the aforementioned BRD assessment projects, but focused on eliciting industry participation and assistance in improving bycatch reduction in the shrimp trawl fishery by utilizing newer, more complex BRDs. Historically, BRD programs have been relatively strong on the technology component, but weak in the area of communication/technology transfer strategy. Development of the latter becomes easier as industry leaders and innovators get involved in the BRD certification process. The benefits that accrue as a result of the direct cooperation and contribution of numerous fishermen in this project are important as they give the members of the fishing industry the opportunity to take ownership of research that may lead to the development of certified BRDs or fishery management strategies (Campbell and Cornwell, 2008). Shrimp fishermen do not want to harvest bycatch; it creates more work for the vessel crew and contributes to lowered shrimp quality. If the new, more sophisticated BRDs are shown to exclude significantly larger quantities of bycatch and retain shrimp, industry might be willing to 6
adopt the devices. This project addresses the problems associated with the conversion to new BRDs within the shrimp trawl fishery. It is believed that through this effort, a more efficient and effective conversion to more sophisticated/complex devices can be accomplished within the fishing industry. Objectives: 1. Embolden fishermen to utilize more complex and sophisticated BRDs, hence creating a paradigm shift in gear utilization; 2. Obtain informal, objective industry evaluations of new BRD designs over a broad spectrum of areas and species fished and provide input back to NMFS; 3. Create a level of industry trust regarding new BRDs, thus providing for a more effective and efficient transition to potentially new BRD mandates; and 4. Begin training selected net shops and related personnel in the construction of new BRDs. IV. Approach In order to enact a paradigm shift regarding the adaptation of more complex and sophisticated BRDs within the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery, the confidence of captains and crews to utilize this gear requires enhancement. To achieve this, expert captains were provided new BRDs for evaluation. These individuals were trained on the installation, tuning, and maintenance of the devices to be evaluated. We considered expert captains to be high liners, e.g., those captains that consistently land large quantities of shrimp. Although defining an individual as a high liner is qualitative, many within the shrimp fishing industry regularly duplicate the gear configurations of high liners in hopes of maximizing landings. As such, if high liners are asked to test gear, the results of the test (positive or negative) will spread quickly through industry. Statement of Work: Solicit Industry for Participation: High liners were recruited from ports throughout the Gulf of Mexico to pull the new BRDs. Importantly, captains were selected for their ability to be objective in performing tests. The Gulf Regional Coordinator Mr. Gary Graham met with vessel owners and captains to elicit their participation in testing new BRD designs. This project focused on the testing of the following BRDs: - Modified Jones-Davis - Composite Panel - Extended Funnel 7
Training Net Shops and Related Personnel in the Construction of New BRDs: An important aspect of this project was the training conducted for net shop personnel in the construction of these gears. Prior to the initiation of this project, there were no net shops that built any of the new, more complex BRDs. Gear technicians from NMFS Pascagoula assisted with training net builders and inspected the results of their work. Gulf Regional Coordinator Mr. Graham secured BRD patterns for construction of legal BRDs from NMFS Gear Specialists. These patterns were disseminated to net shops and provided instruction for proper manufacture of these BRDs. This type of outreach was conducted at the following net shops: - Touchard Net Shop - Delcambre, LA - Fishermen s Net and Supply - New Orleans, LA - Tony s Net Shop - Harvey, LA - Domini Net Shop - Palacios, TX - Thompson Net Shop - Port St. Joe, FL - Nelson Net Shop - Bon Secour, AL - Fleet netshops in Brownsville, TX - 2410 Net Shop Port Isabel, TX - Fleet Net Shop Port Isabel, TX - Kims Marine Port Arthur, TX - Hillman s Netshop San Leon, TX - Fleet netshop in Fort Myers, FL Educational materials utilized at the Industry/NMFS BRD Workshop held in April, 2004 were used during the performance of this project. The BRD instructional and installation manuals were developed by NMFS. These included: 1. Recommended Construction and Installation Instructions for the Composite Panel Bycatch Reduction Device 2. Recommended Construction and Installation Instructions for the Extended Funnel Bycatch Reduction Device 3. Recommended Construction and Installation Instructions for the Modified Jones- Davis Bycatch Reduction Device. These manuals provided detailed instructions on BRD construction with diagrams and photos of the newly mandated BRDs (Appendix A). BRD Construction: The Regional Coordinator ordered 3 Extended Funnel BRDs; 3 Composite Panel BRDs; and 88 Modified Jones-Davis BRDs from Tide Marine for use during this project. 8
BRD Evaluation: The BRDs that were evaluated during the performance of this project were the Modified Jones- Davis, Composite Panel, Extended Funnel and gears that have showed potential for enhanced finfish reduction during previous efforts. Initially, boats were asked to install one new BRD, i.e. Modified Jones-Davis or Composite Panel BRD, in an outside net (experimental) and a Fisheye BRD on the other outside nets (control) of a quad rigged vessel. The vessel captain was educated on proper installation, tuning and maintenance techniques. The captain was asked to evaluate the performance of the BRD by comparing finfish exclusion and potential shrimp loss/retention differences between nets during normal fishing activity. Although the data and observations collected during the performance of this project were not sufficient to undergo rigorous statistical analyses, reports from reliable fishermen served to indicate BRD performance and acceptability. To adequately assess industry s willingness to accept the new, more complex devices, all qualitative evaluations were compiled and reported (e.g., the captain liked the Modified Jones-Davis, but suggests an alteration in the shape of the opening, etc.). Additional Industry Outreach: As part of additional outreach activities, Mr. Graham agreed to distribute new BRD designs for the NMFS that include the Composite Panel, Modified Jones-Davis, Extended Funnel and others. Mr. Graham distributed between 600-700 BRDs throughout the Gulf Region through this project. These outreach activities complemented other Foundation projects (GSAFF, 2010; Award #NA11NMF4330127) in which Foundation Regional Coordinators introduced new BRD technologies through small and large workshops held throughout the region. During the extent of this project, much time was spent at the waterfront and aboard vessels at the docks. Although emphasis of the project focused upon new BRDs, it is impossible to interact with large numbers of fishermen aboard their vessels and not receive inquiries regarding turtle excluder devices (TEDs) and questions regarding compliance. In addition to BRD work, TEDs were often checked for proper construction and questions regarding TED-related topics were addressed. Project Management: Principal Investigator: Ms. Judy L. Jamison Foundation Staff: Dr. Michael Jepson Mr. Frank C. Helies Ms. Gwen Hughes Ms. Charlotte Irsch Executive Director Program Director (former) Program Director (current) Program Specialist Grants/Contracts Specialist Administrative Assistant 9
Overall project quality control and assurance was assumed by the Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, Inc. through its office in Tampa, FL. The Foundation s Executive Director had ultimate responsibility for all Foundation administrative and programmatic activities, with oversight by the Foundation s Board of Trustees. She ensured timely progress of activities to meet project objectives and confirmed compliance of all activities with NOAA/NMFS. The Foundation s Program Directors had overall responsibility for all technical aspects of Foundation projects and coordinated performance activities of all project personnel, including contractors. The Program Directors prepared all progress reports concerning project performance. It was the responsibility of the Foundation s Executive and Program Directors to ensure quality control and assurance were maintained for all aspects of this program. This was accomplished through regular phone and email communications with project Contractors. The Grant/Contracts Specialist was responsible for maintaining general financial accounting of all Foundation funds including all Cooperative Agreements and contracts, as well as communicating with NOAA Grants Management personnel, and assisting auditors in their reviews. She conducted/documented internal and program (single and desk) audits, prepared backup documentation for fiscal audits, and drafted award extension requests (if applicable). She provided the Executive and Program Directors with projected budgets concerning program performance and ensured that these budgets adhered to the proposed project budget. Finally, she prepared the annual administrative budget, NOAA Financial Reports, and confirmed compliance of all activities with NOAA/NMFS and OMB guidelines. The Program Specialist was responsible for tracking programmatic activities, monitoring funding and distribution of funds. She processed requests for reimbursement to conform with federal guidelines and prepared and maintained all contracts, subcontracts, agreements and amendments. Additionally, she secured all LOAs from NMFS for BRD testing. While the Foundation took the lead in project management, this project required the cooperation and active participation of many organizations and individuals. The essential personnel we would like to thank for their participation and hard work are: Regional Coordinator: Mr. Gary Graham Gulf of Mexico Regional Coordinator Texas Sea Grant Through years of experience, the Foundation has found that working closely with local Sea Grant Marine Extension Service personnel (Mr. Graham), who have years of experience with the local fishing industry, is an efficient way to achieve rapid communication and cooperation with local shrimp fishermen through a historical fishery research and development framework. The Regional Coordinator acted as liaison between the Foundation and vessel owners, established a good working relationship by relaying information about the project goals, and secured vessel participation. 10
V. Findings Results: The following feedback was received from captains who towed and evaluated the BRDs during this project. Modified Jones-Davis BRD Because of its performance data, emphasis was placed upon introducing the Modified Jones- Davis (MJD) BRD to shrimp fishermen. When all new BRDs were shown to industry, it was clear that this device had a tendency to intimidate because of its complexity. In an attempt to assuage some of these concerns, it was stressed that the more bulky original Jones-Davis BRDs were being utilized by the Western Seafood fleet. Mr. Graham had been offshore on a number of occasions when this gear was pulled and little problems were encountered. It was stressed that bycatch exclusion was obvious utilizing these gears. In an attempt to embolden shrimp fishermen to use these devices, MJD BRDs were distributed throughout the Gulf during dockside visits (Key West, FL to Brownsville, TX). Commitments were received from cooperating fishermen to perform individual tests/evaluations of these devices. The following are reports that were received from industry regarding this device. Note that a separate section involving efforts with Asian American fishermen is included with this report. The MJD BRD was distributed extensively to members of this ethnic sector. A fisherman from Freeport, TX reported that the MJD BRD appeared to be as effective as the standard Jones-Davis in shrimp retention and bycatch exclusions. A positive aspect of the new BRD was that it is less bulky than the original device. Concern was expressed that the rings in the original device might continue to be an advantage as far as consistent finfish exclusion. Another noteworthy experience was reported by several from a fleet in Freeport. Two very responsible fishermen out of the fleet were provided with each of the three new BRDs. This group of fishermen is unique in that they pull the very complicated and intimidating original Jones-Davis BRD. Both captains pulled the new devices and compared them against their excluders. They felt that the traditional Jones-Davis BRD outperformed the other gear from a finfish exclusion perspective. Interestingly, this conflicted with reports from other fisherman from this port. One vessel from Brownsville, TX, that utilized all of the gears, reported the best finfish exclusion with the MJD, but expressed concern about clogging because of hurricane-generated debris. Regardless, he continued to utilize the MJD for an extended period of time and after he lost several of his nets to a hang, he acquired and re-installed MJD gears. He continues to utilize this gear. Another Brownsville vessel utilized the MJDs for 7 nights and reported a fair amount of bycatch reduction with little shrimp loss. On the eighth night, the vessel encountered debris and lost an unacceptable amount of shrimp. This discouraged the captain and the device was removed. 11
A vessel from Galveston, TX pulled all of the new devices and found that the MJD excluded the largest amount of finfish. However, several instances occurred when shrimp loss was experienced with the device and ultimately the vessel began utilizing another of the new BRD types. A vessel from Bon Secour, AL spent considerable time pulling the MJD BRD. The captain took a special interest in attempting to improve the shrimp retention and acceptability of the gear. Proof of concept efforts through modification of the MJD were performed under the auspices of a Letter of Authorization acquired by the Foundation. This captain spent some time evaluating the potential for fish exclusion from the MJD BRD, sans the spooker. He also constructed some smaller spookers to be placed in the device which might not clog as readily. He felt that fish exclusion was not impacted through the use of a smaller spooker device. Still, high variability in fish exclusion was shown in evaluations of this altered gear. At times it worked as well as the traditional MJD with a spooker and other times it did not. More testing should be done with that modification. Reports regarding the MJD generated from the western Florida shrimp fishery reported a common theme. Fishermen in Key West, Fort Myers and Tarpon Springs indicated problems with shrimp retention when soft sponge and other marine debris clogged the device. A fleet owner in Apalachicola, FL indicated that he provided the BRDs to one of his captains that fished the Gulf. He observed that the boat did not utilize the gear and he took it off the boat and put it on a small inshore vessel that he sometimes personally fished. He indicated that the MJD did work effectively but that he preferred the Composite Panel BRD. A substantial number of MJD BRDs were provided to the Asian American community in Texas and Louisiana. Because of the large amounts of finfish bycatch encountered in the white shrimp fishery in which they are involved, it was thought that this gear would have excellent application. As discussed, a separate section in the report addresses this effort. Composite Panel Many Composite Panel BRDs were distributed to fishermen throughout the Gulf. The Foundation assisted NMFS with distribution of a large number of new BRDs to fishermen. Although this project focused primarily on MJD BRDs, the large number of Composite Panel BRDs placed in the field for NOAA Fisheries allowed evaluations and feedback from industry. The Composite Panel BRD was more readily embraced by industry, primarily because of its more simplistic design. When the three new BRDs were shown to industry members, it was clear that they tended to want to try the Composite Panel device before the others. A Louisiana fisherman reported that the Composite Panel BRD appeared to be as effective as the standard Jones-Davis in shrimp retention and bycatch exclusions. Interestingly, this report did not coincide with those received in other areas. In discussions with NMFS, it was clear that differences in bycatch composition and species might account from this differing report. 12
Across the Gulf, the Composite Panel BRD did not receive favorable reports regarding finfish exclusion. This was somewhat of a disappointment as fishermen seemed to think that the gear was easy to install and believed that it could be adapted to TEDs during construction. On the other hand, shrimp retention with the gear was positive. Low shrimp loss was commonly reported by fishermen, and, as a result, this device was the most commonly adopted new BRD. A vessel owner from Bon Secour, AL extensively evaluated the Composite Panel BRD. The captain liked the design and was committed to thoroughly test the gear. Disappointing finfish reduction was continuously noted and the Foundation served as a go between with NMFS Pascagoula Gear Specialists in attempting to ameliorate problems with the gear. The Foundation arranged for a modification of the gear to be sent to the captain for further testing. The boat owner provided many updates via cell phone while he was offshore testing the device. The captain had an extremely dangerous encounter aboard his vessel which almost resulted in it capsizing. The boat listed so severely that the Modified Jones-Davis BRDs and the Extended Funnel devices slid off the wheelhouse roof and went overboard. The Foundation distributed additional BRDs for further testing. The shrimp industry in Palacios, TX made a substantial conversion to the Composite Panel BRD. The reason for this was two-fold. First, fishermen learned that shrimp retention with this gear was very favorable. Secondly, Mr. Benny Dominy, who provides most of the nets in that area, learned from this project the construction techniques for the Composite Panel BRD and as a result, a ready source for the gear was available. Conversely, the Brownsville fleet did not adopt any of the new gears. Instead, the fishermen there preferred to move the Fisheye BRD to its newly prescribed location. Note that a separate discussion of the Fisheye BRD will appear in this report and there are important considerations associated with this topic. At the writing of this report, only two Brownsville vessels were consistently pulling the Composite Panel BRD. As discussed in the Fisheye BRD section of this report, a major change may be about to occur, however. A fisherman from Galveston, TX evaluated all of the BRD types and ultimately adopted the Composite Panel BRD. He was very impressed with the shrimp retention associated with the BRD. Extended Funnel One participant tested the Expanded Mesh Extended Funnel BRD and reported good bycatch exclusion, but was experiencing about a 15% shrimp loss, in this case using the Jones-Davis BRD as a control. Several vessels reported concerns about shrimp loss with the Extended Funnel BRD and this gear did not seem to get much support among cooperators. Through the devices purchased and distributed in this project and the NMFS program, it was apparent that industry was not willing to embrace this BRD. After several boats tried the gear and reported poor shrimp retention, emphasis was no longer placed upon its introduction. It 13
should be noted that this gear was only provisionally certified and it became clear that it likely would not be an acceptable gear without some sort of modification. Fisheye BRD The Fisheye BRD is still the most commonly utilized BRD in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. Previous documentations of shrimp loss from the now required installment location of no more than 9 feet from the tie-off rings did not discourage most of the fishermen. This was perplexing to the investigators in this project. Several factors may have contributed to the obvious acceptance of shrimp loss to the fishermen. First, the fishermen may not realize just how much shrimp is actually being lost with the Fisheye BRD in its new location. Secondly, the catch per unit effort has increased significantly in the shrimp fishery over the past six or seven years. It may well be that losses of shrimp were not as apparent as they were in the past. During recent periods in which the Texas offshore shrimp season was opened, many vessels were catching more shrimp than they could handle (Graham, pers. comm.). It is interesting to note that just recently, some vessels have begun expressing concern about shrimp losses with the Fisheye BRD. These reports are coming out of Brownsville, TX where some vessels are now utilizing some different BRD types and comparing catch to those of the Fisheye BRDs. The Foundation is currently conducting BRD assessment work out of Brownsville. Fieldwork in Louisiana during this project also provided some insight into usage of the Fisheye BRD. Vessels were encountered where the Fisheye BRD was installed farther back than the prescribed 9 foot position. In discussions with the fishermen, it was learned that bycatch was becoming so problematic that the enhanced finfish exclusion outweighed the increased shrimp loss. Asian American BRD Demonstrations A concerted effort was directed toward introduction and evaluation of the new BRDs in the Asian American fishing community. This segment of the shrimp fishery directs much effort toward white shrimp which are harvested in nearshore waters. The fishery is characterized by having a large amount of bycatch. In addition to outreach work from another project, efforts were directed toward providing the gears for demonstration and evaluation. The Vietnamese shrimp fishermen seemed quite interested in the new BRDs and several agreed to perform evaluations. A common result was found from cooperators in Venice and Intercoastal City, LA and Port Arthur, TX. Asian American fishermen pulled the various devices and provided the observed results. It was consistently stated that large, square mesh webbing panels utilized in their trawls for bycatch exclusion excluded more fish from the trawls than the certified devices. When asked about shrimp retention, it was stated that this gear lost shrimp, but the consequences of enhanced finfish exclusion made up for the losses. It was learned that the fishermen used various configurations of the large, square mesh BRDs but often closed them when bycatch was low, due to shrimp loss. 14
When discussing these issues with the fishermen, it was consistently stated that they would prefer to have a Fisheye BRD in their trawls for compliance with regulations and utilize the large, square mesh BRDs when heavy concentrations of fish were encountered. Problems Encountered: Several extenuating circumstances were encountered during the performance of this project that resulted in extensions to the project period. A series of tropical storms and hurricanes hampered activities related to this project. The upper Texas Coast, where efforts were directed, was severely impacted from Hurricane Ike. It was not practical to expect fishermen from that area to be very cooperative in utilizing the new gear after the storm. Heavy debris on the fishing grounds also posed problems with potential fouling of BRDs and efforts were re-directed to other areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the magnitude and severity of devastation created by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to the shrimp fisheries of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas impeded project performance. Not only did these storms destroy many of the shrimp fishing vessels, the storms destroyed the infrastructure necessary for travel to and from many of the fishing communities located along the coast and the personal residences of many fishermen. There was a delay in the publication of new TED/BRD regulations and new BRD testing criteria and protocols. The BRD Final Rule was published on February 13, 2008. The new rule consolidated and outlined modifications to the BRD protocols and revised bycatch reduction device certification criteria. This revision to the protocols made many new BRDs legal with a new provisional certification, which removed the need for LOAs in testing some BRDs, allowing fishermen up to two years to test promising new BRDs (Federal Register, 2008a). In spite of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BRD distribution and evaluation trips were made. It was anticipated that vessels participating in the evaluations of these BRDs would be required to photograph catches where new BRDs and the traditional Fisheye BRD were simultaneously towed in different trawls. It became apparent that this was just not going to work. A case of disposable cameras was sent to Venice, LA to provide insight into differences in catches between different BRDs. No cameras were ever sent back or recovered. This discouraged further attempts to acquire pictures of the catches from simultaneously towed BRDs. Additional Work Needed: The Foundation is currently conducting two projects to develop and assess BRDs in the southeastern trawl fisheries (Award #NA08NMF4330406, NA10NMF4540108), and will select several high liners to evaluate modifications to a BRD design which incorporates large, square mesh panels in conjunction with the use of the Composite Panel BRD and potentially the Fisheye BRD. Preliminary work performed by NMFS Pascagoula indicates potentially favorable results. Through the outreach efforts, the Foundation will also rig several vessels with this design to acquire additional input from Industry regarding this modification. 15
VI. Evaluation Achievement of Goals and Objectives: Importantly, feedback received from many fishermen regarding their experiences with educational efforts and their resulting experiences with the new BRDs was indicative of the success of this project. Very few complaints regarding the new BRDs were received by the Foundation Regional Coordinator. Similar experiences were expressed by staff in the NMFS Regional Headquarters and in the NMFS Harvesting Branch in Pascagoula, MS. Positive feedback from fishermen and a paucity of complaints are indicative of the meaningful contributions of this project. Special efforts were expended in contacting fishermen and attempting to obtain their opinions and observations of gears after they had towed them. In some cases, a few fishermen were never reached after the gear was issued, in spite of repeated attempts to call them. This was especially true with some of the Asian American fishermen from Louisiana. However, follow-up occurred with the majority of fishermen with whom we collaborated. When re-contacting fishermen after they had utilized the gear, emphasis was placed upon obtaining their perceptions of the performance of the gear. Inquiries were made as to the effectiveness of bycatch reduction and shrimp retention. General overall opinions of the gear were sought from the cooperators. Some fishermen adopted the more complex BRDs, i.e. MJDs, and continue to utilize them today. Other fishermen tried the new gears and went back to the Fisheye BRD located at the 9 foot position. It is clear that a number of fishermen are becoming aware of unacceptable shrimp losses with the Fisheye and it is thought that previous experiences with the new BRDs will assist fishermen with transition to the more complex BRDs. This is definitely happening in several of the Texas fleets. Bycatch reduction remains a critical and high priority issue. Therefore, the transfer of technology and education of members of the fishing industry to better use and properly comply with bycatch regulations serves to enhance national goals and conservation objectives. Through execution of this project, both the users of BRDs and the impacted marine resources benefited from timely and effective technology transfer. This project addressed the problems associated with the conversion to new BRDs within the shrimp trawl fishery. It is believed that through this effort, a more efficient and effective conversion to more sophisticated/complex devices was accomplished within the fishing industry. Dissemination of Results: Summary reports of the project s findings were also published as part of the Foundation Project Update section of the Gulf and South Atlantic News, a publication of the Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, Inc. This newsletter is distributed to over 700 organizations and individuals throughout the region. An electronic version of this newsletter (PDF) is also included in the regular updates to the Foundation s website (www.gulfsouthfoundation.org). Copies of this project s Final Report will be published and distributed to various federal and state fishery agencies, university extension/sea Grant offices, and Industry associations. In addition, 16
PDF copies of the Final Report will be made available for download from the Foundation s website. VII. Literature Cited Aparicio, P.V. 1999. Shrimp Trawl Bycatch A View From Industry. Proceedings of the Sharing Our Gulf A Challenge for Us All. Texas A&M University, June 10-12, 1998. Sea Grant College Program. Brewer, D., N. Rawlinson, S. Eayrs, and C. Burridge. 1998. An assessment of bycatch reduction devices in a tropical Australian prawn trawl fishery. Fisheries Research. 36(2-3): 195-215. Broadhurst, M.K. 2000. Modifications to reduce bycatch in prawn trawls: a review and framework for development. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 10: 27-60. Campbell, L.M. and M.L. Cornwell. 2008. Human dimensions of bycatch reduction technology: current assumptions and directions for future research. Endangered Species Research. 5: 325-334. Davis, M.W. and C.H. Ryer. 2003. Understanding fish bycatch discard and escapee mortality. AFSC Quarterly Report. Eayrs, S., N.P. Hai, and J. Ley. 2007. Assessment of a juvenile and trash excluder device in a Vietnamese shrimp trawl fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 64: 1598-1602. Federal Register. 1997. 62(73): 18536-18542. April 16, 1997. Government Printing Office. Washington D.C. Federal Register. 1998. 63(71): 18139-18143. April 16, 1997. Government Printing Office. Washington D.C. Federal Register. 2004. 69(6): 1538-1546. January 9, 2004. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. Federal Register, 2008a. 73(30):8220-8228. February 13, 2008. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. Federal Register, 2008b. 73(223):68355-38361. November 18, 2008. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. Graham, G. and J. Jamison. 2006. Industry/NMFS TED/BRD Workshop. PO# GA133F06SE1629. Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, Inc. Tampa, Florida. 59p. 17
Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, Inc (GSAFF). 2005. Technology Transfer of New Turtle Excluder Device Modifications and Updated Bycatch Reduction Device Information to the Southeastern Shrimp Industry. Final Report to NOAA/NMFS. Cooperative Agreement No. NA17FF2867. Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, Inc (GSAFF). 2010. Continuation of Technology Transfer of New Turtle Excluder Device Modifications and Updated Bycatch Reduction Device Information to the Southeastern Shrimp Industry. Final Report to NOAA/NMFS. Award No. NA05NMF4331074. He, P., D. Goethel, and T. Smith. 2007. Design and test of a topless shrimp trawl to reduce pelagic fish bycatch in the Gulf of Maine pink shrimp fishery. Journal of Northwestern Atlantic Fisheries Science. 38: 13-21. Jenkins, L. 2006. The invention and adoption of conservation technology to successfully reduce bycatch of protected marine species. PhD thesis, Duke University, Durham, NC. Krag, L.A., R.P. Frandsen, and N. Madsen. 2008. Evaluation of a simple means to reduce discard in the Kattegat-Skagerrak Nephrops (Nephrops norvegicus) fishery: commercial testing of different cod ends and square-mesh panels. Fisheries Research. 91: 175-186. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1998. Managing the nation s bycatch. Department of Commerce/National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service. 199p. 18
Appendix A Educational Materials BRD Construction/Installation Manuals 1. Recommended Construction and Installation Instructions for the Composite Panel Bycatch Reduction Device 2. Recommended Construction and Installation Instructions for the Extended Funnel Bycatch Reduction Device 3. Recommended Construction and Installation Instructions for the Modified Jones- Davis Bycatch Reduction Device. 19
Composite Panel Bycatch Reduction Device The Composite Panel Bycatch Reduction Device (BRD) has been provisionally certified for use in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. A provisional certification applies to an experimental BRD not quite meeting the criteria for certification, but deemed likely to meet the criteria with further testing. A provisional certification of a BRD is effective for 2 years from the date of publication in the Federal Register. This time period allows additional wide scale industry evaluation of the BRD candidate. The intent is to further refine the design or application of the experimental BRD so it could eventually meet the certification criterion. Installation of the Composite Panel BRD The Composite Panel BRD is designed to be installed immediately behind the Turtle Excluder Device (TED). To install the BRD, first remove the rear portion of the TED extension by cutting the TED extension on an even row of meshes four (4) meshes behind the posterior edge of the TED grid (a). Next, join the leading edge of the BRD extension evenly to the TED extension directly behind the TED (b). For visual reference, a brightly colored cable tie is attached to the leading edge of the BRD extension. When attached, the BRD extension should be oriented so that the BRD extension seam is located on top of the trawl when towing. Complete the installation by attaching the codend (bag) to the trailing edge of the BRD extension. Turtle Excluder Device Cut TED extension 4 meshes behind grid Remove aft portion of the TED extension (a) BRD extension top seam Replace with BRD extension (b) For more information contact: NOAA Fisheries Harvesting Systems and Engineering Division P.O. Drawer 1207 Pascagoula, MS 39568 (228) 762-4591 Robert.D.Stevens@noaa.gov or Daniel.G.Foster@noaa.gov 20
Draft Recommended Construction and Installation Instructions for the Composite Panel Bycatch Reduction Device NOAA Fisheries Service Harvesting Systems and Engineering Branch Pascagoula, MS 39567 March, 2008 Figure 1: Composite Panel Shrimp Trawl Bycatch Reduction Device. The Composite Panel Bycatch Reduction Device (BRD) (figure 1) is a funnel type BRD that is installed in the Turtle Excluder Device (TED) extension immediately behind the TED. The funnel consists of two panels installed in the lower part of the extension. The panels taper inward creating a slow flow area that allows escapement of fish through two triangular escape openings cut into the extension on each side of the trawl. Each composite panel is comprised of two overlapping panels, a diamond mesh panel (interior) and a square mesh exterior panel (figure 2). The inner panel reduces the water flow creating the slow flow necessary for fish escapement. The outer square mesh panel provides support, preventing the panels from billowing outward and closing off the escape openings. + = Diamond Mesh Square Mesh Composite Panel Figure 2: Components of the Composite Panel 21
Figure three demonstrates the purpose of the outer square mesh panels. The images were taken in a trawl behind the TED and BRD looking forward. The image on the left (a) shows diamond mesh panel unsupported by a square mesh panel. The water pressure causes the diamond meshes to expand which allows the panel to collapse against the sides of the extension closing off the escape opening holes. The image on the right (b) shows the diamond mesh panel supported by the square mesh panel. The square mesh panel allows for clearance between the panel and extension. Fish respond to the slow water flow created by the composite panel and take up position in the trawl near the escape openings. a b Square Mesh Panel Escape opening Figure 3: Composite panel on the port side with the square mesh component detached, causing the diamond mesh to collapse (a). Square mesh on the starboard side (b) supporting the diamond mesh maintaining space between the composite panel and trawl extension. Instructions for construction of the Composite Panel BRD Abbreviations and definitions of terms used in the instructions SM DM M P B Leading Edge Trailing Edge Square Mesh Panel Diamond Mesh Panel Mesh (Squares along the run of twine) Point (Squares transverse to the run of twine) Bar (one of four sides of a mesh) The side of a webbing panel that will be facing forward, toward the mouth of the trawl. The side of a webbing panel that faces aft, toward the codend or trawl bag. Note: When counting, each square is referred to as a mesh. These instructions assume at least a minimal knowledge of trawl construction techniques and terminology. 22
24.5 P 24.5 P Construction of the webbing extension The webbing extension is constructed from a single piece of 1 5/8-inch stretch mesh number 30 nylon 24 1/2 meshes by 149.5 meshes. At the completion of the construction process, the 24 1/2-mesh sides will be joined to form a tube of webbing. Cutting the extension escape openings There are two sets of escape openings in the extension. Each set is comprised of two openings making a total of four openings in the extension. A diagram of the escape opening placement and dimensions can be seen in Figure 4. Orient the extension webbing so that the left corner of the leading edge starts on a whole mesh. Count 39.5 meshes along the leading edge of the webbing. Start the first escape opening of the set by making a 9 mesh cut on an even row of meshes 1.5 meshes inward of the leading edge of the extension webbing. Next, turn 90 degrees and cut 15 points on an even row toward the trailing edge of the extension webbing. At this point turn and cut 18 bars forward and to the left. Finish the escape opening by cutting 6 points toward the original starting point. The second opening of the set is a mirror image of the first opening with 5 meshes of space between the openings. The 5 mesh strip of webbing between the escape openings is a webbing brace that allows the extension to maintain its shape during towing. From the top right corner of the second opening, count 25 whole meshes to the right parallel the leading edge of the extension webbing and repeat the previous steps to create the second set of escape openings. Selvage the perimeter of the escape opening cuts to prevent the knot from separating. 39.5M 9M 5M 9M 25M 9M 5M 9M 39M Extension Top Seam Leading Edge 6P 6P 6P 6P Webbing Brace 15P 15P Webbing Brace 15P 15P Escape Openings 18B 18B 18B 18B Extension Top Seam Trailing Edge 149.5M Figure 4: Schematic of BRD extension showing escape opening placement and configuration. 23
20 meshes Constructing the composite panels Each composite panel is two ply in design. The first layer is constructed from a rectangular piece of 1-5/8 heat-set and depth-stretched polyethylene diamond mesh (DM) webbing 36 meshes on the leading edge by 20 meshes deep (figure 5-a) The second layer is a piece of 2-inch square mesh (SM) webbing (1 inch bar) 18 squares on the leading edge and 32 squares down each side (figure 5-b). The requirements for the square mesh panel do not specify a particular webbing material. In the illustrations, 2-inch, #18 nylon is used. 36 meshes 18 squares 32 squares (a) (b) Figure 5: Components of the Composite Panel; (a) diamond mesh panel (DM), (b) Square mesh panel (SM). The SM panel is attached to the diamond mesh webbing on all four sides. Begin by using twine to attach the 18 square side of the SM along the first row of meshes along the 36 mesh side of the DM. The sewing sequence for the leading edge of the composite panel will be two meshes of the DM material for each square (figure 6-A). Next, attach sides of the panels together. Attach the SM evenly along the first row of meshes on the 20 mesh sides of the DM. When this attachment is made, both panels should be stretched taut (figure 6-B). The trailing edge of the SM should align with the last row of meshes of the DM. Depending on the webbing manufacturer(s), there is a possibility that the SM may be too long. If so, excess square meshes can be cut from the square mesh panel trailing edge (figure 7). Next, attach the trailing edge of the two panels together in the same manner as with the leading edge. Construct a second composite panel using the same procedure. 24
(a) (b) Figure 6: Attachment of the square mesh panel along the leading edge (a) and the sides (b) of the diamond mesh panel. Figure 7: The end of the square mesh panel should be even with the last row of meshes on the diamond mesh. If the square mesh is too long, excess webbing should be cut off. 25
Attachment of the composite panels The two composite panels are attached to the extension to cover the extension escape openings. A diagram of the panel attachment is shown in figure 8. One composite panel is used to cover each set of extension openings. The composite panel will be oriented so that the square mesh layer is against the extension webbing and escape openings. For each set of escape openings, the 36 mesh leading edge of a DM should be sewn evenly across the leading edge of the escape openings including the webbing brace (24 meshes) (figure 8-A). Alternately sew 2 meshes of the DM to 1 mesh of the extension webbing then 1 mesh of the DM to 1 mesh of the extension webbing (figure 9). From the inside corners of the escape openings, the 20 mesh sides of the DMs are then attached to the extension webbing on a 2 bar 1 point angling toward the back center of the extension forming a v-shape in the center of the extension webbing (figure 8-B). The opposite sides of the DMs are then attached to the extension on the bars angling back and away from the escape openings (figure 8-C). The 24.5 P sides of the extension are joined to form a tube of extension webbing. The seam will be located at the top of the extension. If nylon is used in the construction of the BRD, a net treatment (dip) should be applied before use. (A) (A) (C) (B) Composite Panel Attachment Seam (C) Bars 2B1P 2B1P Bars Extension Bottom Center Figure 8: A schematic for the attachment of the composite panels to the BRD extension. (A) leading edge attachment, (B) inner seams, (C) outer seams 26
Figure 9: Attachment of the leading edge of the diamond mesh of the composite panel (blue) to the BRD extension (white). Installation of the Composite Panel BRD The Composite Panel BRD is designed to be installed immediately behind the Turtle Excluder Device (TED). To install the BRD, cut the TED extension on an even row of meshes four (4) meshes behind the posterior edge of the TED grid (figure 10). Next, join the leading edge of the BRD extension to the TED extension directly behind the TED. To complete the installation attach the codend (bag) to the trailing edge of the BRD extension. 27
Turtle Excluder Device Cut TED extension 4 meshes behind grid Remove aft portion of the TED extension (a) BRD extension top seam Replace with BRD extension (b) Figure 10: The Composite Panel BRD is installed in the trawl by removing a portion of the TED extension starting four (4) meshes behind the TED grid (a) and replacing it with the BRD extension. The codend is then attached to the trailing edge of the BRD extension (b). This document was prepared for general informational purposes in March 2008 and has no legal force or effect. Please refer to the federal BRD regulations, 50 CFR part 622 and 622 Appendix D and the Federal Register for specific and controlling BRD requirements. For more information contact: NOAA Fisheries Service Harvesting Systems and Engineering Branch P.O. Drawer 1207 Pascagoula, MS 39568 (228) 762-4591 Robert.D. Stevens@noaa.gov or Daniel.G.Foster@noaa.gov 28
Recommended Construction and Installation Instructions for the Extended Funnel Bycatch Reduction Device NOAA Fisheries Service, Mississippi Laboratories P.0. Drawer 1207, Pascagoula, Ms 39568-1207 March, 2008 The Extended Funnel Bycatch Reduction Device (BRD) has been certified for use in the Atlantic and provisionally certified for use in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. A provisional certification applies to an experimental BRD not quite meeting the criteria for certification, but deemed likely to meet the criteria with further testing. A provisional certification of a BRD is effective for 2 years from the date of publication in the Federal Register. This time period allows additional wide scale industry evaluation of the BRD candidate. The intent is to further refine the design or application of the experimental BRD so it could eventually meet the certification criterion. Extended Funnel Description The extended funnel BRD consists of an extension with large mesh webbing in the center and small mesh webbing on each end held open by a semi-rigid hoop. A funnel of small mesh webbing is placed inside the large mesh section to form a passage for shrimp to the codend. It also creates an area of reduced water flow to allow for fish escapement through the large mesh. One side of the funnel is extended vertically to form a lead panel and area of reduced water flow. 29
Minimum Construction and Installation Requirements Figure 1. Extension Material The small mesh used on both sides of the large mesh escape section is constructed from #30, 1-5/8 inch (41 mm) stretch mesh nylon webbing. The front section is 120 meshes around by 6-1/2 meshes deep. The back section is 120 meshes around by 23 meshes deep. Figure 2. Large Mesh Section The large mesh escape section is constructed of 8 to 10 inch (20-25 cm) stretch mesh webbing. This section is cut on the bar to form a section that is 15 inches (38 cm) long, 95 inches (241 cm) in circumference. The leading edge is attached to the 6-1/2 mesh extension section and the rear edge is attached to the 23 mesh extension section. Figure 3. Semi-Rigid Hoop A 30 inch (76 cm) diameter hoop constructed of plastic coated trawl cable installed evenly 5 meshes behind the trailing edge of the large mesh section. The hoop is constructed using a 94-1/2 inch x 1/2 inch (240cm x 12.7mm) plastic coated cable. The ends are joined using a 3/8 inch micropress sleeve. Figure 4. Funnel The funnel is constructed of 1-1/2 inch (38 mm) stretch mesh #30 depth stretched and heat set polyethylene webbing. The circumference of the leading edge is 120 meshes and the back edge is 104 meshes. The short side of the funnel is 34 to 36 inches (86-91 cm) long and half of the opposite side of the funnel extends an additional 22 to 24 inches (56-61 cm). Figure 5. Funnel Attachment The leading edge of the funnel is attached 3 meshes forward of the large mesh leading edge. Seven meshes of the short side of the fume1 is attached to the back section of extension webbing on the top and bottom, 8 meshes back from the trailing edge of the large mesh section. The extended side of the funnel is attached on a slight angle to the top and bottom of the back extension webbing. 30
Installation of the Extended Funnel BRD The Extended Funnel BRD is attached behind a hard TED 8 inches (20 cm) behind the posterior edge with the codend attached to the trailing edge of the BRD. If a soft TED is used a second hoop must be installed in the front section of the BRD extension webbing at the leading edge of the funnel. The Extended Funnel BRD is designed to be installed immediately behind the Turtle Excluder Device (TED). To install the BRD, first remove the rear portion of the TED extension by cutting the TED extension on an even row of meshes 4 meshes behind the posterior edge of the TED grid (a). Next, join the leading edge of the BRD extension evenly to the TED extension directly behind the TED (b). When attached, the BRD extension should be oriented so that the BRD extension seam is located on top of the trawl when towing. Complete the installation by attaching the codend (bag) to the trailing edge of the BRD extension. Turtle Excluder Device Cut TED extension 4 meshes behind grid Remove aft portion of the TED extension (a) BRD extension top seam This document was prepared for general informational purposes in March 2008 and has no legal force or effect. Please refer to the federal BRD regulations, 50 CFR part 622 and 622 Appendix D and the Federal Register for specific and controlling BRD requirements. For more information contact: NOAA Fisheries Harvesting Systems and Engineering Branch P.O. Drawer 1207 Pascagoula, MS 39568 (228) 762-4591 Robert.D.Stevens@noaa.gov or Daniel.G.Foster@noaa.gov 31
32
33
34
Modified Jones Davis Bycatch Reduction Device Installation of the Modified Jones Davis BRD The Modified Jones Davis BRD is designed to be installed immediately behind the Turtle Excluder Device (TED). To install the BRD, first remove the rear portion of the TED extension by cutting the TED extension on an even row of meshes four (4) meshes behind the posterior edge of the TED grid (a). Next, join the leading edge of the BRD extension evenly to the TED extension directly behind the TED (b). For visual reference, a brightly colored cable tie is attached to the leading edge at the top of the BRD extension. When attached, the BRD extension should be oriented so that the BRD extension seam is located on top of the trawl when towing. Complete the installation by attaching the codend (bag) to the trailing edge of the BRD extension. (a) For more information contact: NOAA Fisheries Harvesting Systems and Engineering Branch P.O. Drawer 1207 Pascagoula, MS 39568 (228) 762-4591 Robert.D.Stevens@noaa.gov or Daniel.G.Foster@noaa.gov (b) 35
Recommended Construction and Installation Instructions for the Modified Jones-Davis Bycatch Reduction Device NOAA Fisheries Service, Mississippi Laboratories P.0. Drawer 1207, Pascagoula, Ms 39568-1207 March, 2008 The Modified Jones Davis BRD consists of two panels of webbing sewn diagonally across the trawl extension immediately behind the TED to form a funnel of small mesh webbing. The panels make a channel for shrimp to pass into the codend while creating an area of reduced water flow to allow for fish escapement through four openings (two on each side) cut into the trawl extension. A webbing cone is installed into the trawl extension behind the funnel in order to stimulate fish escapement. 36
Minimum Construction and Installation Requirements Construction of the webbing extension The webbing extension must be constructed from a single piece of 1-5/8 inch (41 mm) stretch mesh number 30 nylon 39-1/2 meshes by 150 meshes. A tube is formed with the extension webbing by sewing the 39-1/2 mesh sides together (figure 1). Construction of the funnel The funnel must be constructed from lead panels consisting of two sections of 1-5/8 inch (41 mm) heat-set and depth-stretched polypropylene or polyethylene webbing (figure 2). The two side sections must be rectangular in shape, 25 meshes on the leading edge by 21 meshes deep (A&B). The 25 mesh leading edge of each polyethylene webbing sections must be sewn evenly two meshes back from the leading edge of the webbing extension starting 25 meshes from the top center on each side. The 21 mesh edge must be sewn to the extension webbing on a 9 bar and 1 mesh angle in the top and bottom forming a V shaped funnel. 37
Cutting the escape openings Two escape openings 6 meshes wide by 12 meshes deep must be cut 4 meshes apart in the extension webbing, starting at the top center extension seam, 7 meshes back from the leading edge and 30 meshes to the left and to the right (total of four openings) (figure 3). The four escape openings must be double selvaged for strength. 38
Construction of the cone fish deflector The cone fish deflector is constructed of 2 pieces of 1-5/8 inch (41 mm) polypropylene or polyethylene webbing, 40 meshes wide by 20 meshes in length and cut on the bar on each side forming a triangle (figure 4). Starting at the apex of the two triangles, the two pieces must be sewn together to form a cone of webbing. A single hoop must be constructed of 5/16 inch (8 mm) or 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) cable 34-1/2 inches (88 cm) in length. The ends must be joined by a 3 inch piece of 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) aluminum pipe pressed together with a 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) die. The hoop must be inserted in the webbing cone, attached 10 meshes from the apex and laced all the way around with heavy twine. 39
Installation of the cone in the extension The apex of the cone must be installed in the extension within 12 inches behind the back edge of the funnel and attached in four places (figure 5). The midpoint of a piece of number 60 twine (or at least 4 mesh wide strip of #21 or heavier webbing), 3 ft in length must be attached to the apex of the cone. This piece of twine or webbing must be attached within 5 meshes of the aft edge of the funnel at the center of each of its sides. Two 12 inch (30.5 cm) pieces of number 60 (or heavier) twine must be attached to the top and bottom of the cable ring of the cone. The opposite ends of these two pieces of twine must be attached to the top and bottom center of the extension webbing to keep the cone from inverting into the funnel. 40
Installation of the Modified Jones Davis BRD The Modified Jones Davis BRD is designed to be installed immediately behind the Turtle Excluder Device (TED). To install the BRD, first remove the rear portion of the TED extension by cutting the TED extension on an even row of meshes four (4) meshes behind the posterior edge of the TED grid (a). Next, join the leading edge of the BRD extension evenly to the TED extension directly behind the TED (b). When attached, the BRD extension should be oriented so that the BRD extension seam is located on top of the trawl when towing. Complete the installation by attaching the codend (bag) to the trailing edge of the BRD extension. (a) (b) This document was prepared for general informational purposes in March 2008 and has no legal force or effect. Please refer to the federal BRD regulations, 50 CFR part 622 and 622 Appendix D and the Federal Register for specific and controlling BRD requirements. For more information contact: NOAA Fisheries Harvesting Systems and Engineering Branch P.O. Drawer 1207 Pascagoula, MS 39568 (228) 762-4591 Robert.D.Stevens@noaa.gov or Daniel.G.Foster@noaa.gov 41