Staff Presentation
Jonathon Peros, NEFMC Staff
Scallop Advisory Panel Meeting March 22, 2016 Scallop Committee Meeting March 23, 2016
1
Document #3 Section 2.0 – DRAFT Problem Statement (p.5) Section 3.0 – Background (p.5) Section 4.0 – DRAFT Objectives (p.14) Section 5.0 – DRAFT Measures (p.15) Section 6.0 – PDT Discussion and Recommendations
(p.23) Goal of Meeting Today
Receive AP/CTE input on the ACL structure discussion paper Discuss ideas for Council to consider if necessary 2
Background on Priority PDT Recommendation to Committee (November 9, 2015) The PDT recommends that the overall performance of the ACL structure be reviewed since it
was adopted under A15 in 2010.
Committee Motion (November 19, 2015) By consensus, the Committee recommends adding the PDT recommendation for
potential 2016 priorities. Specifically, the overall performance of the ACL structure should be reviewed since it was adopted under Amendment 15 in 2010. This issue could be considered in a future action in 2016 or later.
2016 Council Priority PDT discussions on February 4 and March 9, 2016 Staff updated the discussion document to reflect PDT input
3
Section 2.0 DRAFT Problem Statement AP/CTE Input
Annual catch limits are based on total scallop biomass in all areas. Includes Habitat Closures, Groundfish Closed Areas, Closed Access Areas Projected landing are limited to areas that are open to the fishery
in a given year. When more biomass is in closed areas than is available to the fishery there is a disconnect between catch limits and allocations . For example, in FY2015 and FY2016 a large proportion of total
biomass was within EFH and GF closed areas as well as very large year classes of small scallops closed within scallop access areas. p.5 4
Section 3.0 - Background Amendment 11 Limited entry for three LAGC permit categories Separate TACs for NGOM and incidental permits Allocation divide – 94.5% and 5.5% of projected catch Amendment 15 OFL > ABC = ACL > ACT Allocations based on annual catch limits (not projected catch) LA sub-ACT lower than sub-ACL LAGC sub-ACL = ACT p.5 5
Status Quo
NGOM TAC
State Waters Catch
OFL >
OFL = F of 0.48 Reduced by scientific uncertainty
ABC = ACL (F of 0.38)
ABC = ACL
Reduced by estimated discards ABC after discards are removed Reduced by LAGC incidental catch, observer (1%), and RSA set asides
ACL after set‐asides removed Allocate sub-ACLs to LA and LAGC IFQ
LA Sub‐ACL (94.5%)
> Reduced for Management Uncertainty
LA Sub‐ACT
LAGC IFQ sub‐ACL = sub‐ACT (5.5%, no reduction for management uncertainty)
ACT
(must be below overall limit of F=.34 Allocate DAS and AA trips
Open Area Landings
AA Landings
GC – 5%
LA qualifiers 6 .5%
Figure 1, p.7
OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT 75,000
Figure 3, p.11
70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000
(mt)
45,000
Difference between ABC/ACL and Projected Landings FY 2011 – FY2015 3,016 mt – 3,852 mt (6,649,142 lbs - 8,492,206 lbs)
OFL at F=0.48 ABC/ACL at F=0.38
40,000
ACT at F=0.34 35,000
Projected Landings
30,000
LA sub‐ACT LAGC IFQ sub‐ACL
25,000 20,000 15,000
FY2016 16,564 mt (36,517,369 lbs)
10,000 5,000 0 FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
7
Allocations as Percentage of Projected Landings (FY2011‐FY2016): LAGC IFQ, RSA, Observer Set‐Aside, incidental and LA ACT 12.00% 100.00% 90.00%
Percentage of Projected Landings
10.00% 80.00%
Data from Table 2, p.9
70.00% 8.00% 60.00% 50.00% 6.00% 40.00% 30.00% 4.00% 20.00% 2.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% LAGC incidental RSA LAGC incidental OBS RSA IFQ OBS LA ACT IFQ
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
0.10% FY 2011 2.39% 0.10% 1.15% 2.39% 6.12% 1.15% 90.34% 6.12%
0.09% FY 2012 2.19% 0.09% 1.12% 2.19% 5.95% 1.12% 90.75% 5.95%
0.13% FY 2013 3.27% 0.13% 1.21% 3.27% 6.41% 1.21% 88.40% 6.41%
0.13% FY 2014 3.27% 0.13% 1.20% 3.27% 6.34% 1.20% 89.84% 6.34%
0.11% FY 2015 2.64% 0.11% 1.18% 2.64% 6.27% 1.18% 89.91% 6.27%
0.11% FY 2016 2.66% 0.11% 1.78% 2.66% 9.53% 1.78% 85.92% 9.53%
8
Performance of Observer Set-Aside 400
100% 90%
350
80% 70% 250
60%
(mt) 200
50% 40%
150
30%
Percentage of Allocation Landed
300
100
Data from Table 2, p.9
20% 50
0
10%
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Actual Landings
104
120
174
177
220
Allocated Observer Set‐Aside (1% of ACL)
273
290
210
208
254
Landings as % of set‐aside
38%
41%
83%
85%
87%
FY2016
0%
379
9
Performance of LAGC IFQ 120%
2,500
110% 100% 2,000
80% 1,500
70%
(mt)
60% 50%
1,000
40% 30% 500 20%
Figure 4, p.12 (Table 2, p.9)
10% 0
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
LAGC actual landings
1,382
1,511
1,095
948
1,161
LAGC IFQ sub‐ACL/ACT
1,452
1,544
1,111
1,099
1,348
LAGC Landing as % of ACL/ACT
95%
98%
99%
86%
86%
FY2016
0%
2,029
10
Percentage of ACL/ACT landed
90%
Performance of LA component 30,000
120% 110%
25,000
100% 90%
20,000
Percentage of ACT landed
80% 70%
(mt)
15,000
60% 50%
10,000
40% 30%
5,000
Figure 5, p.13 (Table 2, p.9)
20% 10%
0
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
LA actual landings
24,462
23,711
16,213
12,948
14,317
LA sub‐ACT
21,431
23,546
15,324
15,567
19,331
LA Landings as % of ACT
114%
101%
106%
83%
74%
FY2016
0%
18,290
11
Section 4.0 DRAFT Objectives
p.14
AP/CTE Input
Modify the current ACL structure to set allocations that
account for: Changes in management during and since A15. Spatial management.
Reduce potential impacts on the resource from allocations
that are based on all areas, but only fished in areas available to the fishery. Other objectives that would address the problem statement? 12
Section 5.0 DRAFT Measures
p.15
PDT developed DRAFT measures for discussion purposes AP/CTE Input
Status Quo – No Change to ACL flowchart (Section 5.1.1, p. 15) Modifications to ACL flowchart (Section 5.1.2, p.15) Option A – Management Uncertainty Buffers for LAGC IFQ component Option B – Incorporate spatial management into allocations Other Potential Measures (Section 5.2, p.22) Modify how observer set-aside is set (p.22) 13
Section 5.1.1 – Status Quo (No Action) No changes would be made to the current ACL
flowchart process. Rationale: Under the current approach fishery catches have
remained below the OFL and ABC, while components of the fishery have achieved catch targets in some years. Cons: This ACL system is not spatially explicit and does not
function as well when relatively large amounts of total scallop biomass are in closed areas p.15
14
5.1.2.1 Option A – LAGC IFQ Management Uncertainty Buffer Staff has identified 10% and 20% management uncertainty buffers
for discussion purposes. This is not a spatially explicit approach (does not follow projected landings estimate) Rationale: Measures adopted during and since Amendment 15 have
introduced the potential for management uncertainty. For example, the LAGC IFQ component is now allowed to carryover up to 15% of allocated quota from one fishing year to the next.
Cons: This modification does not address the spatial nature of the
Scallop FMP. LAGC allocation would still be based on percentage of all biomass, in both open and closed areas. p.15
15
Option A
NGOM TAC
State Waters Catch
OFL >
OFL = F of 0.48 Reduced by scientific uncertainty
ABC = ACL (F of 0.38)
ABC = ACL
Reduced by estimated discards ABC after discards are removed Reduced by LAGC incidental catch, observer (1%), and RSA set asides
ACL after set‐asides removed Allocate sub-ACLs to LA and LAGC IFQ
LA Sub‐ACL (94.5%)
LAGC IFQ sub‐ACL (5.5%)
> Reduced for Management Uncertainty
Option A: Uncertainty Reduced for Management 10%/20% • Percentage of sub-ACL? • F limit?
LA Sub‐ACT
ACT
(must be below overall limit of F=.34
LAGC IFQ sub‐ACT
Allocate DAS and AA trips
Open Area Landings
AA Landings
GC – 5%
LA qualifiers 16 .5%
Figure 6, p.16
5.2.1.2 Option B – Allocations based on projected landings Calculate ACLs/ACTs based on projected landings from areas
that are open (“spatially explicit” bottom-up approach) F ceiling that would reflect management uncertainty for each component. Rationale: Basing allocations only on the biomass that is
available to the fishery more closely aligns allocations with the available resource; Cons: Allocations that are not spatially explicit may have a higher risk of higher fishing rates than target levels since some areas will not be open to the fishery. pp.17‐18 17
Option B
OFL > ABC = ACL
Accountability Measures
NGOM TAC
State Waters Catch
OFL = F of 0.48
No change to current OFL/ABC/ACL process
ABC = ACL (F of 0.38) ABC after discards are removed Reduced by LAGC incidental catch, observer (1%), and RSA set asides
ACL after set‐asides removed
>
LA sub‐ACL (94.5%)
LAGC IFQ sub‐ACL (5.5%)
ACT
Reduced for Management Uncertainty
LAGC IFQ sub‐ACT
LA Sub‐ACT (must be below overall limit of F=.34)
Spatial Management
Ceiling of F = 0.34 Open Area Landings LA 94.5%
Ceiling of F = 0.38 GC – 5%
AA Landings
LA Qualifiers 0.5% LAGC IFQ 5.5%
Minus set‐asides, LAGC incidental catch
Projected Landings (Including set‐asides, and LAGC incidental catch)
Figure 7, p.18
Comparison of Possible Options Percent reduction from LA and LAGC IFQ sub‐ACLs for
management uncertainty under status quo, Option A 10%, Option A 20%, and Option B. Table 6, p.21 Status Quo
Option A ‐ 10%
Option A ‐ 20%
Option B ‐ Spatially Explicit LA LAGC ‐13% ‐15%
FY2011
LA ‐14%
LAGC 0%
LA ‐14%
LAGC ‐10%
LA ‐14%
LAGC ‐20%
FY2012
‐11%
0%
‐11%
‐10%
‐11%
‐20%
‐11%
‐12%
FY2013
‐20%
0%
‐20%
‐10%
‐20%
‐20%
‐18%
‐22%
FY2014
‐18%
0%
‐18%
‐10%
‐18%
‐20%
‐17%
‐21%
FY2015
‐17%
0%
‐17%
‐10%
‐17%
‐20%
‐16%
‐19%
FY2016
‐48%
0%
‐48%
‐10%
‐48%
‐20%
‐45%
‐82% 19
Section 5.2.1.1 – Modify Observer Set-Aside Allocation The observer set-aside is set at 1% of the ACL. (F=0.38) In some years this set aside is based on resources the fishery
does not have access to. Two alternative approaches for calculating the observer set-
aside for consideration: Catch level associated with F=0.34 of the total biomass in all areas. This is not a spatially explicit approach. Projected landings in “Option B” before allocating to the LA and LAGC components. This is a spatially explicit approach. p.22 20
Performance of Observer Set-Aside Options 400
350
300
250 (mt)
Actual catch Allocated ‐ 1% of ACL at F=0.38 (Status Quo)
200
1% of ACT at F=0.34 1% from Projected Landings in Option B
150
100
50
0 FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Figure 8, p.22 21
Observer Coverage Rate Data LA Fishing Year 2013 2014 2015
Total Days Absent 19362 17237 14944
Coverage Rate 12.73% 13.69% 15.99%
SBRM Sea Days Tasked/Total SBRM Sea Days Tasked Days Absent 1637 8.45% 1488 8.63% 2302 15.40%
Coverage Rate 4.07% 5.08% 4.83%
SBRM Sea Days Tasked/Total SBRM Sea Days Tasked Days Absent 116 1.45% 125 1.48% 210 2.28%
Observed Days 2465 2359 2390
LAGC IFQ Fishing Year 2013 2014 2015
Total Days Absent 7984 8460 9206 Set‐Aside and Use
Observed Days 325 430 445
FY 2013
Set Aside Quota 463,059 lbs
FY 2014
458,562 lbs
84.56%
FY 2015
559,974 lbs
86.60%
Data provided by NEFSC Observer Program, 3/18/2016
% Quota used 88.50%
22
Section 6.0 - PDT Discussion DRAFT has evolved since last PDT meeting (March 9) Additional analyses: Comparison of projected and realized estimates of F AP/CTE Input
Additional analyses?
23
Section 6.0 - Input from AP Topics highlighted green on page 23
Refinement/changes to draft problem statement? Does the AP/CTE support the following for further
consideration? Modifications to the ACL flowchart Ideas for modifying the process for setting observer set‐
aside Scientific and management uncertainty buffers?
Other ideas? Additional Analyses? 24
Scallop Advisory Panel Meeting March 22, 2016 Scallop Committee Meeting March 23, 2016
1
Document #3 Section 2.0 – DRAFT Problem Statement (p.5) Section 3.0 – Background (p.5) Section 4.0 – DRAFT Objectives (p.14) Section 5.0 – DRAFT Measures (p.15) Section 6.0 – PDT Discussion and Recommendations
(p.23) Goal of Meeting Today
Receive AP/CTE input on the ACL structure discussion paper Discuss ideas for Council to consider if necessary 2
Background on Priority PDT Recommendation to Committee (November 9, 2015) The PDT recommends that the overall performance of the ACL structure be reviewed since it
was adopted under A15 in 2010.
Committee Motion (November 19, 2015) By consensus, the Committee recommends adding the PDT recommendation for
potential 2016 priorities. Specifically, the overall performance of the ACL structure should be reviewed since it was adopted under Amendment 15 in 2010. This issue could be considered in a future action in 2016 or later.
2016 Council Priority PDT discussions on February 4 and March 9, 2016 Staff updated the discussion document to reflect PDT input
3
Section 2.0 DRAFT Problem Statement AP/CTE Input
Annual catch limits are based on total scallop biomass in all areas. Includes Habitat Closures, Groundfish Closed Areas, Closed Access Areas Projected landing are limited to areas that are open to the fishery
in a given year. When more biomass is in closed areas than is available to the fishery there is a disconnect between catch limits and allocations . For example, in FY2015 and FY2016 a large proportion of total
biomass was within EFH and GF closed areas as well as very large year classes of small scallops closed within scallop access areas. p.5 4
Section 3.0 - Background Amendment 11 Limited entry for three LAGC permit categories Separate TACs for NGOM and incidental permits Allocation divide – 94.5% and 5.5% of projected catch Amendment 15 OFL > ABC = ACL > ACT Allocations based on annual catch limits (not projected catch) LA sub-ACT lower than sub-ACL LAGC sub-ACL = ACT p.5 5
Status Quo
NGOM TAC
State Waters Catch
OFL >
OFL = F of 0.48 Reduced by scientific uncertainty
ABC = ACL (F of 0.38)
ABC = ACL
Reduced by estimated discards ABC after discards are removed Reduced by LAGC incidental catch, observer (1%), and RSA set asides
ACL after set‐asides removed Allocate sub-ACLs to LA and LAGC IFQ
LA Sub‐ACL (94.5%)
> Reduced for Management Uncertainty
LA Sub‐ACT
LAGC IFQ sub‐ACL = sub‐ACT (5.5%, no reduction for management uncertainty)
ACT
(must be below overall limit of F=.34 Allocate DAS and AA trips
Open Area Landings
AA Landings
GC – 5%
LA qualifiers 6 .5%
Figure 1, p.7
OFL, ABC, ACL, ACT 75,000
Figure 3, p.11
70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000
(mt)
45,000
Difference between ABC/ACL and Projected Landings FY 2011 – FY2015 3,016 mt – 3,852 mt (6,649,142 lbs - 8,492,206 lbs)
OFL at F=0.48 ABC/ACL at F=0.38
40,000
ACT at F=0.34 35,000
Projected Landings
30,000
LA sub‐ACT LAGC IFQ sub‐ACL
25,000 20,000 15,000
FY2016 16,564 mt (36,517,369 lbs)
10,000 5,000 0 FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
7
Allocations as Percentage of Projected Landings (FY2011‐FY2016): LAGC IFQ, RSA, Observer Set‐Aside, incidental and LA ACT 12.00% 100.00% 90.00%
Percentage of Projected Landings
10.00% 80.00%
Data from Table 2, p.9
70.00% 8.00% 60.00% 50.00% 6.00% 40.00% 30.00% 4.00% 20.00% 2.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% LAGC incidental RSA LAGC incidental OBS RSA IFQ OBS LA ACT IFQ
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
0.10% FY 2011 2.39% 0.10% 1.15% 2.39% 6.12% 1.15% 90.34% 6.12%
0.09% FY 2012 2.19% 0.09% 1.12% 2.19% 5.95% 1.12% 90.75% 5.95%
0.13% FY 2013 3.27% 0.13% 1.21% 3.27% 6.41% 1.21% 88.40% 6.41%
0.13% FY 2014 3.27% 0.13% 1.20% 3.27% 6.34% 1.20% 89.84% 6.34%
0.11% FY 2015 2.64% 0.11% 1.18% 2.64% 6.27% 1.18% 89.91% 6.27%
0.11% FY 2016 2.66% 0.11% 1.78% 2.66% 9.53% 1.78% 85.92% 9.53%
8
Performance of Observer Set-Aside 400
100% 90%
350
80% 70% 250
60%
(mt) 200
50% 40%
150
30%
Percentage of Allocation Landed
300
100
Data from Table 2, p.9
20% 50
0
10%
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Actual Landings
104
120
174
177
220
Allocated Observer Set‐Aside (1% of ACL)
273
290
210
208
254
Landings as % of set‐aside
38%
41%
83%
85%
87%
FY2016
0%
379
9
Performance of LAGC IFQ 120%
2,500
110% 100% 2,000
80% 1,500
70%
(mt)
60% 50%
1,000
40% 30% 500 20%
Figure 4, p.12 (Table 2, p.9)
10% 0
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
LAGC actual landings
1,382
1,511
1,095
948
1,161
LAGC IFQ sub‐ACL/ACT
1,452
1,544
1,111
1,099
1,348
LAGC Landing as % of ACL/ACT
95%
98%
99%
86%
86%
FY2016
0%
2,029
10
Percentage of ACL/ACT landed
90%
Performance of LA component 30,000
120% 110%
25,000
100% 90%
20,000
Percentage of ACT landed
80% 70%
(mt)
15,000
60% 50%
10,000
40% 30%
5,000
Figure 5, p.13 (Table 2, p.9)
20% 10%
0
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
LA actual landings
24,462
23,711
16,213
12,948
14,317
LA sub‐ACT
21,431
23,546
15,324
15,567
19,331
LA Landings as % of ACT
114%
101%
106%
83%
74%
FY2016
0%
18,290
11
Section 4.0 DRAFT Objectives
p.14
AP/CTE Input
Modify the current ACL structure to set allocations that
account for: Changes in management during and since A15. Spatial management.
Reduce potential impacts on the resource from allocations
that are based on all areas, but only fished in areas available to the fishery. Other objectives that would address the problem statement? 12
Section 5.0 DRAFT Measures
p.15
PDT developed DRAFT measures for discussion purposes AP/CTE Input
Status Quo – No Change to ACL flowchart (Section 5.1.1, p. 15) Modifications to ACL flowchart (Section 5.1.2, p.15) Option A – Management Uncertainty Buffers for LAGC IFQ component Option B – Incorporate spatial management into allocations Other Potential Measures (Section 5.2, p.22) Modify how observer set-aside is set (p.22) 13
Section 5.1.1 – Status Quo (No Action) No changes would be made to the current ACL
flowchart process. Rationale: Under the current approach fishery catches have
remained below the OFL and ABC, while components of the fishery have achieved catch targets in some years. Cons: This ACL system is not spatially explicit and does not
function as well when relatively large amounts of total scallop biomass are in closed areas p.15
14
5.1.2.1 Option A – LAGC IFQ Management Uncertainty Buffer Staff has identified 10% and 20% management uncertainty buffers
for discussion purposes. This is not a spatially explicit approach (does not follow projected landings estimate) Rationale: Measures adopted during and since Amendment 15 have
introduced the potential for management uncertainty. For example, the LAGC IFQ component is now allowed to carryover up to 15% of allocated quota from one fishing year to the next.
Cons: This modification does not address the spatial nature of the
Scallop FMP. LAGC allocation would still be based on percentage of all biomass, in both open and closed areas. p.15
15
Option A
NGOM TAC
State Waters Catch
OFL >
OFL = F of 0.48 Reduced by scientific uncertainty
ABC = ACL (F of 0.38)
ABC = ACL
Reduced by estimated discards ABC after discards are removed Reduced by LAGC incidental catch, observer (1%), and RSA set asides
ACL after set‐asides removed Allocate sub-ACLs to LA and LAGC IFQ
LA Sub‐ACL (94.5%)
LAGC IFQ sub‐ACL (5.5%)
> Reduced for Management Uncertainty
Option A: Uncertainty Reduced for Management 10%/20% • Percentage of sub-ACL? • F limit?
LA Sub‐ACT
ACT
(must be below overall limit of F=.34
LAGC IFQ sub‐ACT
Allocate DAS and AA trips
Open Area Landings
AA Landings
GC – 5%
LA qualifiers 16 .5%
Figure 6, p.16
5.2.1.2 Option B – Allocations based on projected landings Calculate ACLs/ACTs based on projected landings from areas
that are open (“spatially explicit” bottom-up approach) F ceiling that would reflect management uncertainty for each component. Rationale: Basing allocations only on the biomass that is
available to the fishery more closely aligns allocations with the available resource; Cons: Allocations that are not spatially explicit may have a higher risk of higher fishing rates than target levels since some areas will not be open to the fishery. pp.17‐18 17
Option B
OFL > ABC = ACL
Accountability Measures
NGOM TAC
State Waters Catch
OFL = F of 0.48
No change to current OFL/ABC/ACL process
ABC = ACL (F of 0.38) ABC after discards are removed Reduced by LAGC incidental catch, observer (1%), and RSA set asides
ACL after set‐asides removed
>
LA sub‐ACL (94.5%)
LAGC IFQ sub‐ACL (5.5%)
ACT
Reduced for Management Uncertainty
LAGC IFQ sub‐ACT
LA Sub‐ACT (must be below overall limit of F=.34)
Spatial Management
Ceiling of F = 0.34 Open Area Landings LA 94.5%
Ceiling of F = 0.38 GC – 5%
AA Landings
LA Qualifiers 0.5% LAGC IFQ 5.5%
Minus set‐asides, LAGC incidental catch
Projected Landings (Including set‐asides, and LAGC incidental catch)
Figure 7, p.18
Comparison of Possible Options Percent reduction from LA and LAGC IFQ sub‐ACLs for
management uncertainty under status quo, Option A 10%, Option A 20%, and Option B. Table 6, p.21 Status Quo
Option A ‐ 10%
Option A ‐ 20%
Option B ‐ Spatially Explicit LA LAGC ‐13% ‐15%
FY2011
LA ‐14%
LAGC 0%
LA ‐14%
LAGC ‐10%
LA ‐14%
LAGC ‐20%
FY2012
‐11%
0%
‐11%
‐10%
‐11%
‐20%
‐11%
‐12%
FY2013
‐20%
0%
‐20%
‐10%
‐20%
‐20%
‐18%
‐22%
FY2014
‐18%
0%
‐18%
‐10%
‐18%
‐20%
‐17%
‐21%
FY2015
‐17%
0%
‐17%
‐10%
‐17%
‐20%
‐16%
‐19%
FY2016
‐48%
0%
‐48%
‐10%
‐48%
‐20%
‐45%
‐82% 19
Section 5.2.1.1 – Modify Observer Set-Aside Allocation The observer set-aside is set at 1% of the ACL. (F=0.38) In some years this set aside is based on resources the fishery
does not have access to. Two alternative approaches for calculating the observer set-
aside for consideration: Catch level associated with F=0.34 of the total biomass in all areas. This is not a spatially explicit approach. Projected landings in “Option B” before allocating to the LA and LAGC components. This is a spatially explicit approach. p.22 20
Performance of Observer Set-Aside Options 400
350
300
250 (mt)
Actual catch Allocated ‐ 1% of ACL at F=0.38 (Status Quo)
200
1% of ACT at F=0.34 1% from Projected Landings in Option B
150
100
50
0 FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
Figure 8, p.22 21
Observer Coverage Rate Data LA Fishing Year 2013 2014 2015
Total Days Absent 19362 17237 14944
Coverage Rate 12.73% 13.69% 15.99%
SBRM Sea Days Tasked/Total SBRM Sea Days Tasked Days Absent 1637 8.45% 1488 8.63% 2302 15.40%
Coverage Rate 4.07% 5.08% 4.83%
SBRM Sea Days Tasked/Total SBRM Sea Days Tasked Days Absent 116 1.45% 125 1.48% 210 2.28%
Observed Days 2465 2359 2390
LAGC IFQ Fishing Year 2013 2014 2015
Total Days Absent 7984 8460 9206 Set‐Aside and Use
Observed Days 325 430 445
FY 2013
Set Aside Quota 463,059 lbs
FY 2014
458,562 lbs
84.56%
FY 2015
559,974 lbs
86.60%
Data provided by NEFSC Observer Program, 3/18/2016
% Quota used 88.50%
22
Section 6.0 - PDT Discussion DRAFT has evolved since last PDT meeting (March 9) Additional analyses: Comparison of projected and realized estimates of F AP/CTE Input
Additional analyses?
23
Section 6.0 - Input from AP Topics highlighted green on page 23
Refinement/changes to draft problem statement? Does the AP/CTE support the following for further
consideration? Modifications to the ACL flowchart Ideas for modifying the process for setting observer set‐
aside Scientific and management uncertainty buffers?
Other ideas? Additional Analyses? 24
