sbrm draft amendment presentation to: mid-atlantic fishery management council april 9, 2013 new...
TRANSCRIPT
SBRM Draft Amendment
Presentation To:
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management CouncilApril 9, 2013
New England Fishery Management Council April 25, 2013
SBRM FMAT
Membership:Doug Potts – NERO SFDGene Martin – NERO GCKimberly Murray – NEFSCSusan Wigley – NEFSCAmy Van Atten – NEFSCSara Weeks – NEFSCRichard Seagraves – MAFMCTom Nies – NEFMCKatie Drew – ASMFCToni Kerns – ASMFC
Other Participants:Paul Rago – NEFSC Jessica Blaylock – NEFSCEllen Keane – NERO PRDKatie Richardson – NERO NEPA
3
Outline of Presentation
• Brief Overview of SBRM and history• Overview of alternatives from 2007 SBRM
Omnibus Amendment• Review draft alternatives for each of the 7
SBRM elements
SBRM Overview• MSA requires all FMPs contain a standardized
methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch in the fishery
• Court found Groundfish A13 and Scallop A10 did not mandate an SBRM
• NE and MA Councils developed and approved the Omnibus SBRM Amendment to all FMPs, in 2007.
• A legal challenge was filed by Oceana
SBRM Overview
• District Court initially found in favor of NMFS• Appeals Court overturned District Court ruling
and vacated the amendment, remanding it to NMFS, in 2011
• SBRM 3-year review also conducted in 2011• Councils formed the new FMAT to address the
deficiencies identified by the Court, and include suggestions of SBRM 3-yr review, as time and resources allowed
2007 SBRM Omnibus Amendment
Shaded cells indicate the approved and implemented alternatives of the MA and NE Councils
SBRM Element Alternatives Under Consideration1.Bycatch Reporting
and Monitoring Mechanisms
Status quo Implement electronic video monitoring
2.Analytical Techniques and Allocation of Observers
Pre-2007 SBRM
Amendment
Integrated allocation approach
Integrated allocation approach w/
importance filter
Minimum percent observer coverage
3.SBRM Performance Standard
No performance standard Establish a CV standard
4.SBRM Review/ Reporting Process
Status quoSpecify a SBRM review process
Require periodic discard reports
5.Framework Adjustment Provisions
Status quoFramework adjustment
Frameworks and annual
adjustments
Frameworks and annual adjustments-excluding
fleets
6.Prioritization Process
Status quo funding trigger
Dedicated SBRM funding sources
Council consultationProportional adjustment
Penultimate Cell
Approach
7.Industry-Funded Observer Programs
Status quoObserver provider
approvalFramework provisions
Draft SBRM Omnibus Amendment
Shaded cells indicate the approved and implemented alternatives of the MA and NE Councils
SBRM Element 1
Bycatch Reporting and Monitoring Mechanisms• Status quo (2007 SBRM implemented
alternative)
• Implement electronic video monitoring
SBRM Element 2
Analytical Techniques and Allocation of Observers• Pre-2007 SBRM Amendment process• Integrated allocation approach• Integrated allocation approach w/ importance filter
– Option A: 2007 SBRM public hearing draft– Option B: Filters as adopted in 2007 SBRM (2007 SBRM
implemented option)– Option C: Same as option B, but without unlikely (gray-
cell) filter (Status quo)• Minimum percent observer coverage
SBRM Element 3
SBRM Performance Standard• No SBRM Performance Standard
• Establish a CV standard (Status quo) (2007 SBRM implemented alternative)
SBRM Element 4
SBRM Review/Reporting Process• No Review or Reporting Requirements (Status quo)• Specify an SBRM review process
– Option A: Annually– Option B: Every 5 years– Option C: SAFE Report Schedule– Option D: Every 3 years (2007 SBRM implemented option)
• Require periodic discard reports– Option A: Semi-annually– Option B: Annually (2007 SBRM implemented option)
Components of discard report would be modified to be more Council friendly, based on work of 3 year review FMAT.
SBRM Element 5
Framework Adjustment Provisions• Status quo• Framework adjustment• Frameworks and annual adjustments• Frameworks and annual adjustments, except
for fishing modes
SBRM Element 6Prioritization Process
2 Parts• Trigger (Element 6a)
– How we determine the available funds
• Resulting Sea Day Adjustments (Element 6b)– What we do if the trigger condition is met
SBRM Element 6aPrioritization Process–Part 1: Trigger6.1 Status quo (2007 SBRM Implemented alternative)
– Uses combination of available sources of funding within established funding restrictions, limitations, and expectations
– Found deficient by the Court
6.2 Identify dedicated SBRM funding sources– Funds provided under the Congressional appropriation to
Northeast Fisheries Observer Program, plus a percentage of funding from other appropriations consistent with the average amount used in recent years for SBRM coverage.
– Does not specify a dollar amount, but dedicates a proportion of funding sources to SBRM observer coverage.
Funding Line Proportion Dedicated to SBRMNortheast Fisheries Observer Program 100 percentAtlantic Coast Observers 43 percentNational Observer Program 43 percentReducing Bycatch - Observers 13 percent
• Proportions reflect average funding used for NE SBRM observers in recent years
• Atlantic Coast Observers funding line is divided between Northeast Region, Southeast Region, and HQ.
• National Observer Program and Reducing Bycatch funds are divided between all 6 Regions and HQ.
• Observer funding from other sources may also be used outside of SBRM (MMPA, ESA, catch shares, etc).
SBRM Element 6a6.2 Identify dedicated SBRM funding sources, cont.
SBRM Element 6b
Prioritization Process–Part 2: Sea Day Adjustment6.3 Status quo (2007 SBRM Amendment)6.4 Proportional adjustment approach6.5 Penultimate cell approach
6.3 Status quoWithin the Agency-funded fleets
1) Identify fleets that correspond to funding restrictions, limitations, and expectations
2) Adjustments of days to cover unfunded fleets 3) A blend of ad-hoc methods including sea day
allocations proportional to last year’s effort used to meet funding source, Agency, and Council needs.
4) Consultation with Councils on proposed observer sea-day allocations.
5) However, this was found deficient by the Court.
6.4 Proportional ApproachWithin the Agency-funded fleets
1) Derive proportion shortfall: = (Total Sea Days Funded) / (Total Sea Days Needed)
2) For each fleet, calculate prioritized sea days: = Sea Days Needed * Proportion Shortfall
3) Fleets with too few sea days to give meaningful discard information would get minimum coverage of 3 trips per quarter.
6.5 Penultimate ApproachWithin the Agency-funded fleets
1) Identify the fleet with the most sea days needed2) Instead of using the maximum amount of days for
that fleet, use the next highest (penultimate) number of sea days for the fleet
3) Repeat across all fleets until the number of required sea days is within funding constraint.
4) Fleets with all sea days eliminated, or with too few sea days to give meaningful discard information would get minimum coverage of 3 trips per quarter.
Baseline Sea Days Filtered Sea Days
• Shaded cells have been filtered out by the importance filter• New fleet maximum values are determined
HER
RIN
G
RED
CR
AB
SCA
LLO
PG
RO
UN
DFI
SH-L
MG
RO
UN
DFI
SH-S
MFL
UK
E, S
CUP,
BSB
TUR
TLES
PILO
T D
ays
BA
SELI
NE
Day
s
ROW FLEET HER
RIN
GR
ED C
RA
BSC
ALL
OP
GR
OU
ND
FISH
-LM
GR
OU
ND
FISH
-SM
FLU
KE,
SCU
P, B
SBTU
RTL
ES
PILO
T D
ays
BA
SELI
NE
Day
sFI
LTER
ED D
ays
2 Longline, NE 426 25 2,501 29 152 25 25 … 25 2,501 25
5 Otter Trawl, MA sm 3,077 3,348 2,103 436 533 1,359 1,415 … 180 3,348 1,415
6 Otter Trawl, MA lg 2,141 1,458 216 163 2,175 265 240 … 240 2,175 2,175
8 Otter Trawl, NE lg 1,479 1,201 786 64 668 370 9,950 … 520 9,950 668
22 Sink Gillnet, NE lg 776 1,473 207 60 378 1,044 207 … 207 1,473 159
35 Mid-water Trawl, NE 575 44 44 697 379 1,096 44 … 44 1,096 379
… … … … … … … … … … …
Total Baseline 26,270 24,017 13,584 8,106 11,362 11,408 20,422 … 4,165 51,256
Total Filtered 534 940 970 1,736 5,969 5,568 8,508 … 4,165 14,147
MA OTTER TRAWL LARGE-MESH (ROW 6)
Sea Days Need to acheive 30% CV0 2000 4000 6000
CV
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.92.0
Number of Trips0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Percentage of Trips based on previous year's activity0 10 20 30 40 50
30% CVRCRAB DOGFSBMONKGFLSKATE
Days Needed for fleet5,551
Days Prioritized to fleet333
Impact:Red crab 140% CV Other FISHspecies groups <= 30% CV
5,218 day difference$6.3 million dollars
SBRM Element 7
Industry-Funded Observer Programs• Status quo• Observer provider approval• Framework provisions
Summary of AlternativesFull list of potential SBRM alternatives for analysisBold = Implemented 2007 SBRM alternatives* = New alternative from FMAT 1) Bycatch Reporting and Monitoring Mechanisms
1.1 Status quo1.2 Implement electronic video monitoring
2) Analytical Techniques and Allocation of Observers2.1 Pre-2007 SBRM process2.2 Integrated allocation approach2.3 Integrated allocation approach w/ importance filter– Option A: Importance filters as in draft 2007 SBRM– Option B: Importance filters as adopted in 2007 SBRM– Option C: Option B, but without unlikely (gray-cell) filter
based on 3-yr review analysis (Status quo)*2.4 Minimum percent observer coverage
3) SBRM Performance Standard3.1 No SBRM Performance Standard3.2 Establish a CV standard (Status quo)
4) SBRM Review/Reporting Process4.1 Status quo – no required report or periodic review4.2 Specify an SBRM review process– Option A – Annually– Option B – Every 5 years
– Option C – SAFE report schedule– Option D – Every 3 years4.3 Require periodic discard reports– Option A – Semi-annual– Option B - Annual
5) Framework Adjustment Provisions5.1 Status quo 5.2 Framework adjustment5.3 Frameworks and annual adjustments5.4 Frameworks and annual adjustments without required
Council action to add new fleets*6) Prioritization Process
6a) Trigger6.1 Status quo6.2 Identify dedicated SBRM funding sources*
6b) Sea day adjustments6.3 Status quo6.4 Proportional adjustments*6.5 Penultimate cell approach*
7) Industry-Funded Observer Programs7.1 Status quo7.2 Observer provider approval7.3 Framework provisions
24
Schedule
Draft amendment to Councils April MA & NE Council
Draft available for comment May 2013
Final Council approvals June MA & NE Council Proposed rule September 2013 Final rule November 2013 Final implementation 2014 coverage levels
Questions ?
Other SBRM Alternatives
Alternatives considered, but rejected• Alternative CV levels • Quarterly discard reports • Additional mechanisms to collect bycatch
information • Setting coverage levels based on non-managed
species • Alternative prioritization by adjusting filter cut
points