1

Rota Creel Pilot Project (RCPP) Final Report

2017

Photo by Lee Abbamonte

Prepared by Steve McKagan

NOAA Fisheries / Pacific Islands Regional Office / Habitat Conservation Division

CNMI Field Office

PO Box 10003, PMB 582

Saipan MP 96950

The pilot study described in this report was funded by NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation

Program with support from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

NFWF #34530

2

Project Organization

Steven C. McKagan, NOAA PIRO, Principal Investigator, Author

John Gourley, MES, Contract and Financial Lead

Sean Macduff, CNMI DFW, Project Design and Data Lead (no longer with DFW)

Anthony Roberts, Rota Contractor, Data Collection

Manny Ramon, MES, Data Entry and end-of-project data quality review

Mike Quach, NOAA WPacFIN, Project Design and Data Support

With additional project concept and support 2011 to 2016 from -

Arnold Palacio, CNMI DLNR (now CNMI Senate)

Richard Seman, CNMI DFW / DLNR

Mike Tenorio, CNMI DFW

Pete Ruzevich, CNMI DFW (no longer with DFW)

Ray Roberto, CNMI DFW (now with DLNR)

Kimberly Lowe, NOAA WPacFIN

Dave Hamm, NOAA WPacFIN (retired)

3

Acknowledgements

We wish to express our appreciation to the Coral Reef Conservation Program for funding this

important project. To the developers of the Talakhaya Conservation Action Plan for highlighting

the need for this work. To the fishers of Rota for volunteering to contribute to this data

collection effort. To the Rota Mayor and Rota DLNR Director and their staff for supporting this

effort.

4

Table of Contents

Cover Page .....................................................................................................................................1

Project Organization ....................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................3

Table Of Contents ..........................................................................................................................4

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................5

Geography, Reef Fishing History and Laws of Rota ...........................................................6

CNMI Creel Survey Program History .................................................................................8

Rota Creel Pilot Project Background ..................................................................................9

Rota Creel Pilot Project Methodology & Lessons Learned .....................................................10

Scoping and Survey Design ...............................................................................................10

Hiring of A Contractor .......................................................................................................12

Implementation of Survey Protocols .................................................................................13

Data Entry ..........................................................................................................................14

Report Generation ..............................................................................................................15

Results & Conclusions… .............................................................................................................17

Evaluation of the Pilot Study .............................................................................................17

Comparison of a priori schedule and days actually worked..................................17

Summary of survey work performed by contractor ...............................................18

Findings from the Pilot Study ............................................................................................19

Findings from the Participation Surveys ................................................................19

Findings from the Interview Surveys .....................................................................21

Comparing the Rota and Saipan creel programs for 2015 .....................................22

Comparing Creel Landings to Market Surveys for 2015 .......................................22

Final Remarks ..............................................................................................................................23

Appendix ......................................................................................................................................24

Glossary of acronyms and Terms ......................................................................................24

References ..........................................................................................................................27

Data QA/QC Report and Analysis ....................................................................................29

5

Introduction

This report summarizes nearly five years of effort from project framing and funding through data

collection, findings, pilot study evaluation, recommendations for future actions and reporting. The Rota

Creel Pilot Project (RCPP) marks the first successful attempt to systematically survey the shore-based

fishing effort on the remote island of Rota in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

(CNMI), after failed efforts in the 1990s and in 2000 (Personal communication Manny Ramon and Mike

Tenorio). As a result, we learned the challenges of managing a project in such a remote location without

on-site management. The bulk of our data was collected between August 2014 and November 2015,

which coincidentally was one of the stormiest years on record. Twenty category 4 or 5 typhoons formed

in the North Pacific in 2015, shattering an array of typhoon records. An extreme El Nino Southern

Oscillation (ENSO) and a positive Pacific Meridional Mode, or "blob", bringing unusually warm water to

the Northeast Pacific are believed to be the primary drivers (Washington Post 2015), Weather.com 2015,

Mashable 2015). Nine of these named typhoons had storm tracks that impacted the Mariana Islands,

including typhoon Soudelor which passed directly over Saipan as a category 4 typhoon, causing millions

of dollars in damages while disabling power and water availability for more than three months in some

villages. Rota did not experience as extreme storm impacts as Saipan but Tinian did have periodic power

outages throughout the year and extended periods of inclement weather that directly impacted fishing,

which is the first of several caveats related to the data generated by this survey. Caveats will be discussed

in greater detail in the Discussion section of this report and will highlight the limits to what can be

interpreted with the data generated by this effort. Data from this report should be used with caution as

there are several issues with data quality and data collection methods. Data quality does not support any

statistical expansion analysis.

This report provides a brief historical perspective of Rota as it pertains to reef fishing, relevant regulations

and the evolution of fisheries dependent data programs within the region. It also provides details with the

development of the RCPP, methodologies and timelines for project milestones and outcomes and their

relation to project efficacy and information about fishing on Rota. Most of the findings are presented as

simple tables or as bulleted facts to reinforce this pilot study’s emphasis to deduce the feasibility of

developing a more permanent creel program on the island of Rota and not to be the definitive baseline for

reef fishing effort or landings on Rota. The report concludes with references, a glossary and an appendix

which provides an important report from the contractor who performed most of the data entry and most of

the data quality assurance and quality control checks. The data for this work are all housed with NOAA’s

Western Pacific Fisheries Information Network (WPacFIN).

6

Geography, Reef Fishing History and Laws of Rota

Rota is the southernmost of CNMI’s 14 islands, with a land area of 85 square kilometers (km²) (Map 1).

The island is 12.3 miles long and 4.2 miles wide with a population of approximately 2000 residents living

predominantly in Sinapalo and Songsong villages. Rota’s coastline consists of narrow, fringing coral

reefs and reef platforms with numerous patches of raised limestone benches and limestone cliffs that drop

abruptly to sea. Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve is a biological reserve at the eastern end of Sasanhaya Bay

that extends out to a depth of ~ 30 meters (m). (Brainard et al. 2012).

Map of the Northern Mariana Islands including Rota and the Western Pacific Region. Taken from

Amesbury 2008.

7

The first humans arrived in the Marianas approximately 3,500 years ago with fishing becoming a key

component during the Latte Phase (AD 1000 to 1521). Since then reef fishing has been an important

component of the local culture persisting through the Spanish period (1521-1898), German occupation in

the early 20th century, Japanese occupation in 1912 and eventual United States (US) take over in 1944

post World War II. Due to hostilities between the Spanish and native Chamorro people, the broad scale

destruction of native canoes and long houses in the 1700s caused the loss of key pelagic elements of the

native fishing culture, further increasing the importance of shore-based fishing. During the brief period of

German occupation, ~100 years ago, the Northern Marianas became a place of refuge and wage work for

many Caroline Islanders who predominantly settled in Saipan and Tinian (Amesbury 2003, 2008).

In 1994, Rota was the first island in the CNMI to create a marine protected area (MPA) in Sasanhaya

Bay, which stretches from Poña Point to the Coral Gardens. The law prohibits all take within the preserve

including but not limited to fish, invertebrates and coral (Rota Local Law No. 9-2).

Today on Rota there are a few local fishers who will opportunistically sell their catch and some

commercial fishers who will periodically travel up from Guam or down from Saipan, but overall the

fishing pressure is assumed to be low compared to the more populous neighbors. As with the rest of the

CNMI, fishing is managed through gear restrictions, area closures, catch limits, and moratoria. The

current list of restrictions include:

Prohibition against the use of explosives, poisons and shock devices (CNMI Public Law 12-14).

Prohibition of SCUBA spear-fishing (Saipan Law 13-13, Tinian Law 13-1, CNMI Public Law

12-14, CNMI Public Law 12-87, Rota Law 12-3).

Size restrictions and prohibitions against the taking of egg-laden lobsters (§ 85-30.1-425).

A moratorium that prohibits the collection of sea cucumbers (CNMI Public Law 15-41).

A moratorium preventing the use of gill, drag, trap and surround nets (CNMI Public Law 12-14,

§ 85-30.1-420). Rota has created a local exemption to the gill net restriction which allows for

their use with a local permit (Rota Law 17-13).

No fishing in the Sasanhaya Bay Fish Reserve.

Federal Annual Catch Limits were established for reef fish in 2011 for the CNMI.

8

CNMI Creel Survey Program History

In 1976, the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act mandated the monitoring of

domestic fisheries. In 1981, NOAA’s Western Pacific Fisheries Information Network (WPacFIN) was

formed to provide guidance and support to the state of Hawaii and US territories to standardize creel

survey design and improved implementation and quality assurance (Bak 2013).

The CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife’s (DFW) first creel survey effort began in 1984, then picked up

again for four years from 1990 to 1994. However, neither of these efforts used standardized methods for

data collection. A lack of resources resulted in the termination of the program until 2005. DFW Fisheries

Data Section has been implementing the current standardized Shore-based Creel Survey Program for 11

years under the guidance and with support from WPacFIN. The focus of this effort has been on fishers

using the western side of Saipan, predominantly in the Saipan lagoon, but has recently expanded to

include other fishing areas around Saipan and on Tinian with support of staff from Tinian Division of

Lands and Natural Resources (DLNR) (Oram 2011).

In 2007, the Pacific Islands Management and Protected Area Community (PIMPAC) and Rota DLNR

created a Rota Fisherman Group that was tasked with creating an action plan to implement professional

development that would include collecting fisheries catch data through a creel survey as well as

developing marine management strategies. However, there is no indication that this effort went beyond

initial scoping (Saipan Tribune 2007). Historical information suggests that creel data collection was

attempted on Rota using local agency staff, but that a data stream was never developed for Rota due to

limited resources and re-tasking of those who had received training in creel survey implementation (D.

Hamm, Personal Communication). Thus, this survey effort marks the first effort to develop a regular

stream of creel survey data for the island of Rota.

9

Rota Creel Pilot Project Background

The primary goal of the RCPP was to implement the Saipan Shore-based Creel Survey Program (SSCSP)

methodology on Rota through the support of federal and local partnerships.

In March of 2010, local and federal partners met in Rota to develop a Conservation Action Plan (CAP)

for the Talakhaya watershed, an area known to burn frequently creating badland erosion areas and large

sedimentation loads on the reef. As part of this priority setting process many data gaps were identified,

including the dearth of information at Talakhaya and for all of Rota regarding fishing effort and catch

(Bickel 2012).

In May of 2011, discussions between Steve McKagan of NOAA’s Pacific Island Regional Office (PIRO)

and the CNMI Department of Lands and Natural Resources Secretary Arnold Palacios led to submission

of a proposal to perform a Rota Creel Pilot Project, through the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program

(CRCP) Internal Funding call. The initial project framing team was made up of Dave Hamm from

NOAA’s Western Pacific Fisheries Information Network (WPacFIN), Arnold Palacios (DLNR), Mike

Tenorio, Pete Ruzevich, Richard Seman, and Ray Roberto (DFW) and Steve McKagan (PIRO). Steve

McKagan, as the Principal Investigator, was tasked to write the grant proposal, route funding to

contractors and provide general project management. DFW, the SSCSP and WPacFINfor committed

technical support in terms of project oversight, resources, staff time for training, data and report

development. During the 5 year development and execution of this project, many of the initial partners

vacated their positions, which led to some delays as new partnerships were explored and developed with

Sean Macduff, Todd Miller and Manuel Pangelinan of DFW, Kimberly Lowe and Michael Quach of

WPacFin, and the now late Richard Seman in a new position as DLNR Secretary.

To successfully facilitate this project, the framing team knew flexibility would be essential, as would

working with a local contractor who understood local fisheries, the nuances of partnering with local

government agencies and who had experience managing projects on remote islands within the Marianas.

A contractor, Micronesian Environmental Services, was identified to assist locally with covering costs

related to travel for scoping activities, purchasing supplies, paying the contractor on Rota to implement

surveys, and managing the budget and reporting requirements.

10

Rota Creel Pilot Project Methodology & Lessons Learned

The project approach has five steps beginning with initial scoping and survey design (1), hiring of a

contractor (2), implementation of survey protocols (3), data entry (4) and finally report generation (5).

Each step in this process presented unique hurdles and lessons learned as discussed below.

1. Scoping and Survey Design

In September of 2012, the project framing team commenced work on the project. Over the next six

months scoping trips, supply purchases and survey design were all developed by the project framing

team. Survey locations were developed by Sean Macduff, Tony Flores and Steve McKagan

during preliminary project scoping. Each location under consideration as a survey site was

assigned a unique location identifier for use within the WPacFIN database, starting from Poña

Point along the cliff on the southeast side of the island and increasing in number as you follow

the shoreline west into Songsong village then north along the shoreline to Tatgua, Swimming

Hole and out to As Motmos. The maps created by DFW and NOAA staff were then integrated

into a field logistics and data management summary by partners at WPacFIN.

Map of Survey Locations identified “A” through “O”

Final Map of Survey Stations

11

The foundation of the RCPP design and methodology is the SSCSP. The objective of both programs is to

quantify participation, effort, methods used and catch from near-shore fishing to inform managers. As

with the SSCSP it is important to recognize the distinction between the shore-based data and boat-based

data within these surveys regardless of where the fishing occurs as boat-based fishers may also be fishing

on or near the reef. Vessels with motors launched from the marina are classified as boat-based

irrespective of what was caught, while small motor-less boats launched from the shoreline would be

considered shore-based. Boat-based data were separated from the shore-based data within the analysis of

this study and within the data available from WPacFIN (Oram 2011).

The methods employed by the SSCSP, which were mirrored by the RCPP, were summarized by Risa

Oram in 2011 as follows (Oram 2011) –

Saipan's Shore-based Creel Survey is a stratified, randomized data collection program. This

program collects two types of data to estimate catch and effort information and to monitor fishing

activity of the shore-based fishery: 1) Participation Counts to collect effort data, and 2)

Interviews to collect catch and effort data. The data collected are expanded at a stratum level

(expansion period [quarterly or annually], day type [weekday or weekend], day or night, and

gear type) to create the estimated landings by gear type for this fishery (Oram 2011).

Saipan's Shore-based Creel Survey Program uses a Shore-based Participation Count that

involves counting the number of people fishing at the scheduled survey route, where their trip

12

originated from the shoreline and not using a boat; and a Shore-based Interview that involves

interviewing fishermen to determine catch, method used, lengths and weights of fish, species

composition, catch disposition, and if any fish were not kept (bycatch).

The Saipan Shore-based Participation Counts (also locally referred to as PAR) collect fishing

effort information by counting the number of fishermen fishing along Saipan 's western coastline,

on a minimum of 32 surveys per quarter (8 weekend/holidays (WE/H) days, 8 WE/H nights, 8

weekdays (WD), and 8 WD nights per quarter). Participation data are used to calculate the

fishing effort (per hour) at the stratum level (expansion period [quarterly or annually], day type

[weekday or weekend/holiday], day or night, and gear type). In addition, the data are used to

calculate the adjustment ratio of sampled versus non-sampled ports to create an island-wide

expanded estimate of landings.

Staff drive along the designated survey route (see "Appendix 1 Shore-based Survey Sites Map")

and make visual observations of fishing activity occurring. Participation data are recorded on a

Shore-based Participation Survey Form (see "Appendix 2 Shore-based Participation Count

Survey Form"). Any activity that involves a motorized vessel is not counted unless the vessel is

used primarily for transporting such items as gill nets, surround nets, and drag nets and was

launched from a beach, not a boat ramp.

The Saipan Shore-based Interviews (also locally referred to as Creel) collect data on fish catch

by interviewing fishermen after they return from their fishing trip, or in some cases, while they

are still fishing. Data collected during interviews are used to analyze fishing effort and species

composition, for example, interview data are used to calculate catch per unit (hours fished) effort

(CPUE) at the stratum level (expansion period [quarterly or annually], day type [weekday or

weekend], day or night, and gear type). Detailed species composition and length-weight

information are collected and used to calculate length-weight regression analyses, and to create

estimated landings for individual species. Interview data are collected, as a minimum, 32 surveys

per quarter (8 weekend/holidays [WE/H] days, 8 WE/H nights, 8 weekday [WD] days, and 8 WD

nights per quarter). Interview data are also used to validate other DFW fishery-independent data

collection programs. On a scheduled survey day, staff interview fishermen who fish along the

coastline to collect creel data. Data are recorded on a Shore-based Interview Survey Form.

2. Hiring of a Contractor

In December of 2013, Sean Macduff developed a position description for a full-time contractor on Rota

and issued a press release advertising for a contractor position on Rota.to conduct the creed census

surveys. The position description was widely distributed including: the Society for Conservation Biology

Job Board, CNMI Labor Website, The Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality Website, Marianas

Variety, Saipan Tribune, Rota MayorsMayor Office, Rota DLNR Directors Office and several Rota

community leaders. After more than a month of recruitment efforts no candidates emerged on Rota. In

order to further test the survey design, initiate the data stream and increase project exposure to potential

candidates on Rota an independent contractor from Saipan, Tony Flores, was hired to perform periodic

surveys under the guidance of Sean Macduff. In February, April and May of 2014 Tony Flores traveled

to Rota performing creel surveys and engaging with the local community in search of potential candidates

for the full time contractor position on Rota. During this time Anthony Roberts (Independent Contractor)

began taking part in survey activities and preliminary training to gauge his interest in the position.

13

In August of 2014, Anthony Roberts was officially hired to take over as the full-time surveyor on Rota

after undertaking an additional week of training on Rota with both Tony Flores and Sean Macduff. All

project materials were transferred to Anthony Roberts to begin implementing surveys. The full-time

collection of data by a contractor located in Rota began fully 9 months after we had begun advertising the

position, further delaying project deliverables.

3. Implementation of Survey Protocols

From August 2014 through October 2015, Anthony Roberts worked approximately 40 hours each week

following the protocol and schedule as outlined by DFW and WPacFIN and providing bi-monthly data

sheets to DFW, NOAA and MES. Most weeks this amounted to five 8-hour days, mixing in a

combination of mornings, days, nights, weekends and holidays as he performed participation and

intercept surveys. Sean Macduff developed new calendars each month to maximize the amount of

coverage to match the statistical design used for Saipan.

Example - Scheduled Month for Anthony Roberts

A Land Air Sea GPS Tracker and Past-Track software were required components of the data submission

by the contractor as part of each day worked. The tracker was activated in the car whenever work was

conducted and data needed to be downloaded and saved with the survey information for that date in order

for the contractor to get paid to ensure that surveys were being performed when and where they were

scheduled. The below highlighted limitations of the GPS Tracker with picking up the specific stops made

during the survey day. However, the GPS tracker adequately marked the start of each survey day and

logged a few more GPS way points along the way. The example below showed tracker logs of the start

time and location, nearly 6 hours of effort and more than 52 miles travelled, which was sufficient for

confirming contractor performance surveys scheduled for that day. For future projects, the author

recommends use of a tracker product that does adequately logs discreet stops and has a more automated

or real-time system for monitoring data. For this project, the framing team were satisfied with the

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

6-12 PIP North

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0-6 PIP North 6-12 IPI South 0-6 IPI North

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

6-12 PIP South 18-24 IPI North 12-18 PIP South 6-12 IPI North 12-18 IPI South

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

18-24 PIP North 12-18 IPI South 0-6 PIP South 18-24 IPI North 12-18 IPI South 12-18 PIP North

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

6-12 IPI South 18-24 PIP North 12-18- PIP South 6-12 PIP North 18-24 PIP South

30

6-12 PIP North

November 2014

Notes:

11/7 and 11/8 were moved to 11/17 and 11/30 respectively to accommodate TRs request to participate in the

Saipan Spearfishing Tournament.

14

tracker’s documentation of when work was performed and captured enough way points on most days to

confirm that the contractor was on schedule.

Example- Land Air Sea GPS Tracker Log

4. Data Entry

The contractor on Rota was not required to enter data into a database , which is consistent with the

SSBCS who also used a designed data entry person to ensure QA/QC. For the RCPP, the contractor

scanned copies of all the hard sheets used during surveys and stored them into folders using a specific

nomenclature developed for this project. Those folders, which include the participation sheets, intercept

sheets, opportunistic data sheets, GPS tracker reports, hours log, work schedule and receipts for any

incidental purchases were turned over to DFW, NOAA and MES on a monthly or bi-monthly basis.

Reimbursement only occurred once the data and GPS tracker files had been spot checked by DFW and

NOAA, respectively.

Example – RCPP Participation Survey Form

15

Once the data sheets arrived at DFW, a staff database expert was to enter the data into the modified

database created by WPacFIN for the RCPP. Unfortunately, DFW fell behind on this task and resulted

with only minimal data QA/QC on incoming files.

In February of 2015, Ray Roberto caught an error in Anthony Roberts’s survey data whereby interviews

in which the reported catch was zero were not recorded. This error is of great importance because it

limits the ability of the data collected from August 2014 thru February of 2015 for use in developing

catch per unit effort (CPUE). This issue is further discussed in the data QA/QC report developed by

Manny Ramon in the appendix. On October 1, 2015, Sean Macduff stepped down from his position at

DFW and without a clear replacement for his role within the SSCSP. Steve McKagan took over project

data QA/QC for the next two months and Manny Ramon was hired to enter the backlog of data entry and

perform an examination of data quality. DFW staff had actually done minimal data entry for this project

which left nearly 10 months of data entry to perform and another 4 months of data to check, wherein he

found and fixed a variety of problems as highlighted in his report found in the appendix. These data

problems should be outlined and discussed here. In addition, a discussion of how to correct these

problems from happening should be developed.

5. Report Generation

On October 31, 2015, Anthony Roberts collected the last survey data in support of the RCPP and the field

component of the project concluded. In January of 2016, Manny Ramon completed data entry into the

WPacFIN database and the quality control assessment. In February of 2016, WPacFIN provided Steve

McKagan a working version of the data for report development and analysis. In August of 2016, an

16

abbreviated report was provided to NFWF for final reporting and final payment on the project which

occurred in December of 2016. This report, the draft for CoRIS, was also circulated to partners in

December and will be submitted shortly thereafter.

17

Results & Conclusions

Results for this project are divided into two parts. The first, and arguably most important component of

any pilot study, is an evaluation of the efficacy of the study itself and feasibility of turning the effort into

something more permanent. The second component is to evaluate the data that was generated during the

pilot study period. The data analysis performed here should be considered very cursory and any attempt

to draw any conclusions should first involve a further investigation into data quality with the support of

member(s) from the project framing team. This data should not be used for any type of expansion

algorithms for subsequent use in development of fishery management measures. The data collection

effort itself was done to fill a gap and provide information for use by the DFW Fisheries Data Section and

by NOAA’s WPacFIN program

Evaluation of the Pilot Study Comparison of a priori schedule and days actually worked –

One of the primary goals of the RCPP was to examine the feasibility of having a contractor match an a

priori survey schedule given the challenges of working on a remote island with limited resources, and

oversight. From August 2014 through August 2015, the contractor was given a monthly calendar to

follow at the beginning of each month. The contractor was required to either perform a combination of

participation and intercept runs, or perform a boat-based survey with specific parameters regarding when

the survey should start and, when driving along the intercept and participation route, whether to start the

survey on the north or south side. When conflicts arose with identified survey dates, new dates were

rescheduled as possible. Appendix 1 shows both the a priori work schedule and the survey set actually

performed for each day of the project. Note that project data were also collected in September and

October of 2015. However, those dates were not included in the calendar comparison because the

calendars were not available.

Results -

Total Survey Days Scheduled a priori August 2014 – August 2015 (IPI, PIP or Offshore) = 283

Total Survey Days Worked August 2014 – August 2015 (IPI, PIP or Offshore) = 235

Total Days where Schedule and Work directly aligned = 180

Total Days where Schedules align in June, July and August of 2015 = 24 of 55 days worked

*Period of typhoons Chan-hom, Nanka and Soudelor

The total number of Intercept Runs Scheduled August 2014 – August 2015 = 391

The total number of Intercept Runs Worked August 2014 – August 2015 = 317

The total number of Participation Runs Scheduled August 2014 – August 2015 = 401

The total number of Participation Runs Worked August 2014 – August 2015 = 324

The total number of Offshore surveys Scheduled August 2014 – August 2015 = 19

The total number of Offshore surveys Worked August 2014 – August 2015 = 21

Conclusion –

The contractor adhered to the schedule about 75% of the time over the course of the year, though this

dropped to below 50% during the summer of 2015, which was heavily impacted by tropical storms and

typhoons. By rescheduling and opportunistically adding surveys or individual runs where possible the

18

contractor was able to perform better than 80% of the targeted Interview and Participation surveys and

100% of the offshore surveys, which were less reliant on a vehicle.

The primary reasons for deviation from the calendar schedule included: car maintenance problems,

conflict with opportunistic surveys from fishing derbies, personal travel, confusion regarding the shared

schedule, internet and communication outages and hazardous weather conditions. The contractor worked

a total of 48 days less than was scheduled during the year and 31 of those missed days occurred in the

summer of 2015 when the CNMI was struggling with typhoons Chan-hom, Nangka and Soudelor.

Summary of Survey Work Performed by Contractor (August 2014 – October 2015) -

The total number of surveys performed for the entire duration of the project August 2015 – October 2016

was conducted by the Rota contractor.

Results -

Total Days Worked = 267

Total Intercept Runs Worked (typically 1 or 2 per survey day) = 355

Total Participation Runs Worked (typically 1 or 2 per survey day) = 363

Total Offshore Survey Days Worked (1 per survey day) = 29

Total 0-6:00 Survey Days Worked (PIP, IPI) = 32

Total 6-12:00 Survey Days Worked (PIP, IPI) = 62

Total 12-18:00 Survey Days Worked (PIP, IPI) = 65

Total 18-24:00 Survey Days Worked (PIP, IPI) = 65

Total Saturday and Sunday Survey Days (PIP, IPI or Offshore) = 66

Table showing survey effort

Conclusion –

Most 40 hour per week jobs include about 262 work days each year. This schedule of 267 days within

12 months closely matches a traditional job, with the distinction that these surveys often came on

weekends and at odd hours. You can also tell from the graph and bullets that though there were relatively

few offshore and midnight to 6am survey days, the other time periods and weekend coverage were all

very well represented. The midnight to 6am surveys were intentionally reduced after several months of

19

collection revealed virtually no fishing activities during those hours. As you will see in a comparison to

the Saipan creel effort over the same period we were able to exceed the number of runs performed by our

single contractor on Rota during 2015, but only by employing a full time contractor.

We can loosely estimate the cost per survey using this information. If we assume an 8-hour day, $15 per

hour and a $50 gas stipend per day = $45,000 for 747 runs is roughly $60 per run. This amount is several

times less expensive than the cost per survey when flying a contractor down from Saipan. Despite some

of the concerns and caveats related to data QA and QC, the massive contrast in costs per survey is a key

reason why local contract support should be a priority for any future endeavors; it is the only cost

effective approach.

Next Step - It would be interesting to compare this information to the cost per survey for Saipan creel data

with the two- person format used by that program and overhead they have for vehicles, facilities and

administrative support. Is it more cost effective to have the independent contractor or to run the program

from within the state agency?

Findings from the Pilot Study

Findings from the Participation Surveys

To better understand the fishing participation that was occurring in 2015 we counted of the number of

fishers (total number of people) and the number of gears (total number of all poles, nets, etc) being used

at each location during all sampling events. To calculate percent we looked at the numbers of both gears

and fishers at each site as it compares to the total observed across all sites. Some locations were observed

with fishers using multiple gears while at other sites fishers were sharing gears, which is why you don’t

always see agreement between these two metrics.

The table below shows which sites were most fished, both in terms of fishers and more importantly in

terms of gear usage.

# of Gears % of Gears # of Fishers % of Fishers

As Motmos 38 5.4 43 6.0

DEQ Lookout 33 4.7 33 4.6

East Harbor 105 15.0 107 14.9

Guata 22 3.2 23 3.2

Mochong 13 1.9 18 2.5

Pinatang Park 28 4.0 29 4.0

Pona Point 78 11.2 64 8.9

Rota Hotel - North 61 8.7 64 8.9

Roundhouse 13 1.9 13 1.8

Swimming Hole 19 2.7 21 2.9

Tatchong 11 1.6 13 1.8

Tatgua 29 4.2 34 4.7

Teteto 63 9.0 56 7.8

Tweaksberry 26 3.7 25 3.5

20

Ugis 35 5.0 42 5.8

Veterans Memorial

Beach 28 4.0 33 4.6

Wedding Cake - East 23 3.3 25 3.5

West Harbor 73 10.5 75 10.4

Table showing Fishers and Gear by Location

As seen in the table above and in the map below, most of the fishing occurred near the population center

of Songsong village with 25% of all effort split between the east and west harbors. The five sites

highlighted with circles in the map all had 7.8% or greater of the effort and about 50% of the total while

the other 13 sites split the other half of fishing effort relatively evenly. At some point during the study

fishing effort was observed at every site, with the least active site still having 13 fishers with 11 gears.

This shows that during the survey period of 2015 fishing happened everywhere along the survey route.

Our survey contractor was also informed of fishing that occurs along the rougher east side of the island

where surveys proved too challenging to perform with any regularity. This data gap should be addressed

in any future efforts on Rota.

Using participation data from this study, the third question intended to answer gear preference and

specifically the amount of nets being used on Rota where a local law has overturned the CNMI-wide

moratorium against their use. The table below shows that hook and line and free-diving spearfishing

made up nearly 70% of the total gear use, followed by another 25% between gleaning and cast nets or

talaya. Drag nets, gill nets and surround nets combined for less than 3% of the total gear usage, a total of

19 observations all year.

Method Occurrences % of Gear Used

Cast Net 71 9.9

21

Drag Net 1 0.1

Gill Net 14 1.9

Gleaning 112 15.6

Hook And Line 313 43.6

Longline 14 1.9

Spear/Snorkel 175 24.4

Surround Net 5 0.7

Not Listed 13 1.8

Table showing method preference from participation surveys

Findings from the Interview Surveys

The ability to collect interview data depends largely on what fishing method is being used. Fishers using

hook and line, cast net and gleaning can often be interviewed while they are in the act of fishing. Fishing

methods, such as spear-fishing, in which the fisher is swimming or located well away from the shoreline

often can only be interviewed while transiting back toward their vehicles or homes. As such interview

data can often be challenging to collect and somewhat skewed toward the more static gear types.

During the entirety of the RCPP, a total of 393 intercept surveys were performed, 102 fishers were

interviewed in 50 different surveys, and a total of 562 fish were measured. These numbers are actually

inflated considerably by the number of successful interviews that occurred during the scoping trips that

occurred prior to the hiring of the Rota contractor. In this case, 12 interviews with 22 fishers and 277 of

the fish measured occurred prior to the intense year of surveys (August 2014 – October 2015) performed

by Anthony Roberts. As a result, an adjusted number of 38 interviews of 80 fishers with 335 fish

measured during the 371 interview survey runs were performed from August 2014 through October of

2015. Although this number is too low to conclude anything meaningful about the catch, it does provide

information about the challenges of actually catching fishers when you have a fairly large survey area and

a low local population. In this case, Anthony Roberts averaged 1 interview per every 10 interview survey

runs which amounts to 1 interview every 20 hours of survey effort. This number was undoubtedly

deflated due to the extent of inclement weather in 2015 but we cannot be certain until additional years are

surveyed.

It is also important to note that intercept surveys where fishers had no catch was not captured between

8/23/14 and 2/18/15, making these numbers under estimates of effort during this time period. There has

been no effort to do an expansion of this data and any effort to look more closely at effort from this data

set should either avoid data from this time period or provide a strong caveat that effort was

underestimated during this window of surveys.

The lack of interviews is difficult to ignore and suggests that the approach RCPP used in attempting to

mirror the SSBCS may not be appropriate for a large coverage area and small local population. Future

creel survey efforts on Rota should strongly reconsider the approach to collecting interview data and

potentially consider developing incentive or other programs that instead emphasis opportunistic

observations of catch.

Comparing the Rota and Saipan creel programs for 2015

22

Having a full year of data collection on Rota also yielded a unique opportunity to compare a year

window of Rota surveys to the same window of surveys performed on Saipan, August 2015

through October 2016, and the observations were a bit surprising. If we look just at the

Interview survey runs performed, the contractor on Rota actually performed more interview

survey runs than were performed by the SSBCP with 340 for Rota vs 282 for Saipan. During

that period, Rota had 38 interviews to 89 for Saipan despite the population of Saipan being 20x

greater than that of Rota. There are fundamental differences between the creel survey areas of

Saipan and Rota that make it inappropriate to directly compare the survey results, especially

since Saipan’s survey area is dominated by lagoon and seagrass habitats while Rota is

predominantly hard bottom forereef. Which is to say that we wouldn’t expect the interviews

between the two islands to capture the same balance of methods or species. Despite these

differences both islands did show similarities in terms of the number of observed fish from key

species groups captured from both hook and line and snorkel spear. Both programs documented

15 or less fish from key species groups in hook and line interviews and somewhere near 100 fish

from key species groups in snorkel spear interviews as seen in the table below, which is arguably

more similar than we might have expected. Currently the Saipan creel data is expanded through

models by WPacFIN to make predictions about total landings but the Rota data was deemed too

spartan for a similar analysis.

Table showing number of fish observed in interview surveys on Saipan and Rota for the

FY15

Comparing Creel Landings to Market Numbers for 2015

Though the Saipan and Rota creel surveys showed a comparable number of landings for certain

species for 2015 it is worth noting that these numbers are extremely small when compared to the

number of fish seen moving through the markets from the nighttime commercial spearfishing

surveys performed by MES on Saipan in the same timeframe.

At the 2016 Asia Pacific Academy of Science, Education and Environmental Management conference,

John Gourley of MES presented annual findings from their night time commercial spearfish

monitoring program and in the same year they measured and weighted approximately 12,000

Island Saipan Rota Saipan Rota

Method Hook & Line Hook & Line Spear/Snorkel Spear/Snorkel

Orangespine Unicornfish 31 64

Bluespine Unicornfish 7 9

Rudderfish 6 5

Soldierfish 5 19

Parrotfish 41 35

Onespot Snapper 4

Thumbprint Emperor 9 1 11

23

orangespine unicornfish as they changed hands between the fishers and road side vendors as

compares to 31 fish of the same species seen in the Saipan creel surveys and 64 of the same

species in the Rota creel surveys. This massive difference highlights some of the limitations

with using creel data, especially if trying to extrapolate landings or set catch limits from data

expansions. Future survey efforts on Rota should consider a multifaceted approach that includes

a market component if possible.

Final Remarks

It is possible to run a creel program on Rota. However, there must be strict controls and regular

oversight in order to be successful.

The small island population and the likely influence of extremely stormy weather led to a low

number of interviews, though given the difference in population size getting nearly 50% as many

interviews as Saipan for the same period is fairly impressive. Future efforts may want to

incorporate a greater component of opportunistic interviews and/or an attempt to collect data at

the point where fish may be entering the market, similar to what is done with the night time

commercial spear fishery on Saipan. Part of the decision for future methods should also take

into consideration the importance, if any, of following a protocol that can be expanded to better

look at estimated landings.

A limited amount of boat-based fishing data was collected as part of this study and may be of

interest to local managers or as a benchmark for future studies, but it was too limited to warrant

analysis here.

What can be interpreted from this data set is limited and future studies should be performed on

Rota to help us generate more confidence regarding participation and especially regarding catch

and effort level information.

Data can be found within WPacFin at - https://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/wpacfin/

24

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Boat-based survey

A survey of fishers coming off of a boat no matter what gear type or type of fish they were targeting.

BECQ

The CNMI Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality

CAP

Conservation Action Plan

CNMI

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

CRCP

NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program - http://coralreef.noaa.gov/

DFW

The CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife - http://www.cnmi-dfw.com/index.php

DLNR

The CNMI Department of Lands and Natural Resources

Gear

The type of equipment being used by a fisher. This can include but is not limited to rod and reel, spear,

cast net, gill net and gleaning.

Interview Run or ‘I’’

One survey run stopping at each of the survey points defined by DFW and WPacFIN as points 40 – 57

(Appendix XX), along the south and western shoreline of Rota looking for shore-based fishers to

interview about their effort and catch. Each ‘I’ run could start either at point 40 or 57 as described by the

calendar and typically take 2 hours to complete.

IPI

A survey day in which the surveyor performed three runs back to back beginning with an interview run,

then a participation run, followed by another interview run. This includes driving the survey route three

different times, going from 40-57 either forward or backward for the ‘I’, then the ‘P’ and again for the ‘I’,

totaling about 6 hours of survey time.

MES

The contracting firm Micronesian Environmental Services -

http://www.saipanchamber.com/mbrdtl.asp?mbrID=99

NFWF

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation - http://www.nfwf.org

25

Offshore Survey

A day in which the contractor talked only to boat-based fishers at East and West harbor in Songsong

village. These surveys typically involved spending 8 hours at the harbor and marina.

Participation Run or ‘P’

One survey run stopping at each of the survey points defined by DFW and WPacFIN as points 40 – 57

(Appendix XX), along the south and western shoreline of Rota looking for shore-based fishers to note

there location and gears used. Each ‘P’ run could start either at point 40 or 57 as described by the

calendar and typically take 2 hours finish.

PIP

A survey day in which the surveyor performed three run back to back beginning with a participation run,

then an interview run, followed by another interview run. This includes driving the survey route three

different times, going from 40-57 either forward or backward for the ‘P’, then the ‘I’ and again for the

‘P’, totaling about 6 hours of survey time.

PIRO

NOAA Pacific Island Regional Office - (http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/)

RCPP

Rota Creel Pilot Project

Run

A single intercept or participation trip, going one way along the route and taking 90 minutes.

Shore-based survey

A survey of fishers observed along the shoreline, typically targeting reef fish.

Survey Day

A day in which either IPI, PIP or Offshore surveys occurred.

Survey Day Worked

A day in which an IPI, PIP or Offshore survey was performed whether or not the date was on the schedule

originally created at the beginning of the month.

Survey Schedule

A day scheduled for surveys at the beginning of each month, a priori to the surveys being worked. These

calendars were created by Sean Macduff previously of DFW, with the intent of maximizing a range of

survey time periods and weekend coverage.

SSCSP

Saipan Shore-based Creel Survey Program

Time Designations

0-6 The time period from midnight to 6am.

6-12 The time period from 6am to noon.

12-18 The time period from noon to 6pm or 1800.

26

18-24 The time period from 6pm to midnight.

USFWS

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WPacFIN

NOAA’s Western Pacific Information Network program for fisheries data and management

(http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/wpacfin/)

27

References

Amesbury, J.R., Hunter-Anderson R.L. 2003. Review of Archaeological and Historical Data Concerning

Reef Fishing I the U.S. Flag Islands of Micronesia: Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. A

publication of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration Award No.NA97FCOI90

Amesbury, J.R., Hunter-Anderson R.L. 2008. An Analysis of Archaeological and Historical Data on

Fisheries for Pelagic Species in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Prepared for the Pelagic

Fisheries Research Program, Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, School of Ocean and

Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

Bak, S. 2011. Evaluation of Creel Survey Program in the Western Pacific Region (Guam, CNMI, and

American Samoa). A Report to the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

Beeden R, Maynard J, Puotinen M, Marshall P, Dryden J, Goldberg J, et al. (2015) Impacts and Recovery

from Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi on the Great Barrier Reef. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0121272.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121272

Bickel, A. 2012.Talakhaya/Sabana Conservation Action Plan. Compiled for the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands Division of Environmental Quality, Office of the Governor.

Brainard, R.E., Asher, J., Blyth-Skyrme, V., Coccagna, E.F., Dennis, K., Donovan, M.K., Gove, J.M.,

Kenyon, J., Looney, E.E., Miller, J.E., Timmers, M.A., Vargas-Angel, B., Vroom, P.S., Vetter, O.,

Zgliczynski, B. 2012. Coral reef ecosystem monitoring report of the Mariana Archipelago: 2003-2007.

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIFSC Special Publication SP-12-01.

CNMI Public Law 12-14, H. B. NO. 12-16, HD1, SD1 (8/25/2000) To prohibit non-traditional fishing

methods in the Commonwealth; and for other purposes.

CNMI Public Law 12-87, H.B. NO. 12-428, HS1 (2/19/2002) To amend Public Law 12-14, as

amended by Public Law 12-77 to allow for fishing with SCUBA or hookah throughout the

Commonwealth except in restricted areas; and for other purpose.

CNMI Public Law 15-41, H.B. NO.15-186, HS1 (1/11/2011) To amend 2 CMC § 5601; and for other

purposes. {Moratorium on harvest of invertebrates}

CNMI Public Law 17-13, H.B. NO. 17-33, HD1 (8/24/2010) An Act to amend Section 3 of Public Law

12-14, as it applies to the surrounding waters of the municipality of Rota, to ensure that such regulations

do not restrict the rights of persons to engage in non-commercial net-fishing, provided that such right be

restricted to non-commercial net-fishing for the purpose of obtaining fish for personal or immediate

family consumption, to also ensure that the definition of "non-traditional fishing methods" is not

misinterpreted to include non-commercial net-fishing; and for other purposes.

Mashable, Andrew Freeman and Johnny Simon, 10/23/15. 21 hurricanes and typhoons that shattered

records in 2015. http://mashable.com/2015/10/22/hurricanes-typhoons-2015-photos/#Bnj3D3rq6mqF

28

Oram, R., Roberto. R, Trianni, M., Hamm, D., Tao, P., Quach, M., 2011. Saipan Shore-based Creel

Survey Documentation. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report.

Rota Local Law 9-2, S. L. B. NO. 9-5 (10/13/1994) To create a fish reserve in Sasanhaya in Rota which

shall extend from Puña Point to the Coral Gardens, and for other purposes.

Rota Local Law 12-3, S. L. B. NO. 12-4 (7/19/2000) To amend Section 2 of Rota Local Law No. 12-

2; and for other purposes.

Saipan Local Law 13-13, H. B. NO. 13-033, Dl (5/09/2003) To prohibit or restrict the use of self-

contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) and other related devices on commercial and non-

commercial fishermen when fishing for reef fish or other types of fish or harvesting other marine life

within the lagoon and coastal waters of the municipality of Saipan and the Northern Islands.

Saipan Tribune 12/27/2007. Rota Builds Partnerships for

Conservationhttp://173.0.131.61/newsstory.aspx?newsID=75530&cat=16

Tinian Local Law 13-1, S.L.B NO. 13-4. DL1 (9/20/2002) To prohibit or restrict the use of scuba tank

and other related devices on commercial and non-commercial fishermen when fishing for reef fish and

harvesting other marine life within the lagoon and coastal waters of the municipality of Tinian and

Aguiguan: and for other purposes.

The Washington Post, 10/20/2015. El Niño fueling most extreme tropical cyclone season on record in

Northern Hemisphere. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/10/20/el-

nino-fueling-most-extreme-tropical-cyclone-season-on-record-in-northern-hemisphere/

The Weather Channel, 8/19/2015. Western Pacific Tropical Cyclone Activity Sees Record Year to Date.

https://weather.com/storms/typhoon/news/northwest-pacific-tropical-cyclone-activity-record-aug2015

29

Appendix - Data QA/QC Report and Analysis by Manny Ramone

RCPP Report

Task one of the RCPP processing proposal has been completed. I have entered and quality controlled

(QC) the eleven months (2014 – Feb, Apr, and May. 2015 – Jan, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sept, and Oct.)

of data that had not been entered from the Rota Inshore Creel Project. I have outlined and detailed all

field work errors and discrepancies in a separate spread sheet that is attached to this report.

As a note, Mr. Anthony Roberts recorded all fish weights in the interviews in pounds (lbs.), so I had to re-

calculate all the weights into kilograms (kg) which is the proper way in creel surveys. There were also

instances where inches were used and not centimeters (cm). They also have been corrected.

Mr. Tony Flores was recording No Catch interviews, which is an important part of creel surveys, since his

maiden trip to Rota on February of 2014. The first such recording since Mr. Roberts took over the creel

project was on February 21, 2015. There is at least a six-month period of the data that Mr. Roberts

overlooked this important element of the creel program.

The Offshore Creel part of the project was a negligence, because of the fact that protocols or guidelines

of this program weren’t followed. The Samplers began recording offshore interviews since the first

surveys were conducted, and that is about it. Boat logs didn’t show up until March 12, 2015.

Participation runs were based on the Inshore Creel guidelines, and are completely different with the

offshore.

I have spoken to Mr. Mike Quach (WesPacFIN) about this situation, and he agreed that all Offshore Creel

interviews are incomplete and would be difficult to have them recorded into a duplicate foxpro Offshore

Creel Program. So, I took all the interviews and entered them into a separate spread sheet as well that

is also attached to this report.

The Rota Spearfishing Derby on October 9, 2014 and the Rota Cliff Fishing Derby on June 26, 2015

(Opportunistic samples) are of no use to both databases. Mr. Roberts forgot or neglected to separate

the catches by trip or by fisher with the required catch information and bio-data needed to complete a

sample. What was given as data, is a list of what type of fish were caught and the total pounds.

At the request of John Gourley, I have marked certain survey days as potential dry lab (PDL) samples as a

result of certain inconsistences that can’t be ignored. An example of this is completing a participation

run in an hour or less. I have been assured by Mr. Flores, prior to letting him know of these incidents,

that a full Rota participation run takes a minimum one hour and forty-five minutes. An average of two

hours is needed to complete the eighteen required stops. Longer in bad weather. I have also brought to

John’s attention that two separate and distinct hand-writings show up in the surveys. That may be a

concern for John and yourself.

I have completed Task two of my proposal as well. This task took much longer than anticipated due to

the numerous errors, discrepancies, and typos that accumulated from both Field Work (sampler) and

Data Entry (DFW personnel). I also documented these mistakes in detail in a separate spreadsheet that

is attached to this report.

30

All DFW entered data were inputted using either Sean McDuff or Ben Lizama (deceased) as the

interviewer, so I edited all previously entered data (participation and interview) with the actual

interviewer, Anthony Roberts (Code 38). He wasn’t in the system, so I asked Mr. Ray Roberto to upload

and update his name into the program.

Just a note of reference, there are missing documents within your files that I found in the database. As

for the hard copies, I haven’t received any. Everything in this report and the attached documents are all

based on the data files you gave me in your thumb drive.

Another note to consider, is species identification. I do not doubt Mr. Roberts’ effectiveness in

identifying most common species, but I came across a few species that are in question. Scarus tricolor

is an example. This is a very uncommon species here and it has popped up multiple times in the

interviews. Another such species to consider is Acanthurus dussumieri. This species is also uncommon,

and is very hard to tell apart from other similar species like Acanthurus blochii, xanthoptherus, and

mata. It does not really matter in the system, because both species, as well as many others, had to be

entered under family: Scaridae, Acanthuridae, and etc. because DFW’s list of species is a very short one.

If there are any questions about this report and my results, you can contact me via cell phone or email.

A copy of my invoice is attached to this report as well.

Manny Ramon

Seram Fisheries Consulting