Revisiting the SSC Decision to Use all Available Data to Calculate Average Landings/OFLs/ABCs

1. Revisiting the SSC Decision to Use all Available Data to Calculate Average Landings/OFLs/ABCs Southeast Fisheries Science Center

2. SUMMARY STATEMENT • SEFSC reviewed the SSC’s decision to base the OFL and ABC on the average landings in Puerto Rico from 1983 – present (for all remaining species included in the 2011 Amendment ) • SEFSC recommends that the CFMC request the SSC to revisit this decision, evaluating the data on a case-by-case basis.

3. Why Use Average Landings? • Inability to determine stock status in relationship to MSY. • Best available information is reported (USVI) and expanded (PR) landings. • Key Assumptions of approach: • Period of Sustainability (i.e. stock in equilibrium; trends are problematic) • Representative of current fishery (i.e. ability to monitor ACL given reported landings in near future)

4. Puerto Rico Expansion Factors USVI - ?? How do Annual Reported Landings Relate to Stock Biomass? Reported Landings Estimated Landings Models that include: Spatial data Bycatch/Discard data Gear specific Effort Reporting Behavior Fishing Behavior Effort Quantity Gear Type “True” Biomass

5. Sources of uncertainty in annual landings estimates and factors affecting variability over time • Stable Fishery and Accurate Data • Fishing behavior • Reporting behavior • Stable Stock size • Changes due to natural causes (e.g., environmental fluctuations) • Changes due to removals from fishing

6. What is an appropriate year sequence? The year sequences recommended in the 2010 Amendment were based on extensive evaluations during multiple meetings between 2008 - 2010 : • Caribbean SEDAR Data Evaluation • Technical Monitoring and Compliance Team (TMCT) • Annual Catch Limit Working Group (ACLG) • Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) • Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC)

7. What is an appropriate year sequence? • Single year Not appropriate due to measurement error. Averaging years provides more stable estimate

8. Mean of multiple years gives better approximation What is an appropriate year sequence? • Single year Not appropriate due to measurement error. Averaging years provides more stable estimate

9. What is an appropriate year sequence? • Single year – Not appropriate due to measurement error. Averaging years provides more stable estimate • Average of recent period • Stable reporting • Stable fisheries • For 2010 Ammendment most recent years excluded due to effects of regulatory change

10. Average of most recent years (Figure from 2011 Options Paper)

11. 2010 Amendment Decision (Figure from 2011 Options Paper)

12. What is an appropriate year sequence? • Single year – Not appropriate due to measurement error. Averaging years provides more stable estimate • Average of recent years – used for 2010 Amendment • Average of longer time series – • Objective: remove ‘noise’ from annual estimates • Difficulties: longer term trends in: • fishery changes (e.g. gear, targeting behavior, GPS use) • reporting changes (e.g. species specific vs. aggregate reporting) • environmental changes (e.g. carrying capacity; coral bleaching) • changes in biomass due to exploitation

13. Trend – Declining landings (e.g. overfished stocks, declining effort)

14. Trend – Declining landings (e.g. overfished stocks, declining effort) 1983-2008 average is high relative to current landings: Risk Prone in regards to NS1

15. Trend – Increasing Landings (e.g. Developing Fishery, improved species specific reporting)

16. Trend – Increasing Landings (e.g. Developing Fishery, improved species specific reporting) Avg. of 1983 – 2008 includes 0’s before fishery and low relative to current landings

17. Real Examples from 2010 Amendment

18. Average of 1983-2008 (2011 Amendment – SSC) Average of 1999-2005 * 0.85 scalar (2010 Amendment – CFMC)

19. Average of 1983-2008 (2011 Amendment – SSC) Average of 1999-2005 * 0.85 scalar (2010 Amendment – CFMC)

20. Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC determination

21. Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC determination

22. Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC determination

23. Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC determination

24. Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC determination

25. Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC determination

26. SUMMARY STATEMENT • SEFSC reviewed the SSC’s decision to base the OFL and ABC on the average landings in Puerto Rico from 1983 – present (for all remaining species included in the 2011 Amendment ) • SEFSC recommends that the CFMC request the SSC to revisit this decision, evaluating the data on a case-by-case basis.

27. SEFSC also recommends that the CFMC request the SSC to reconsider the USVI OFL and ABC determinations for Angelfish and Hogfish

28. St. Croix St. Thomas SEFSC questions the use of the average landings in Puerto Rico from 1983 – present as the basis for the OFL and the ABC determinations for all remaining species included in the 2011 Amendment SEFSC also recommends the SSC reconsider the OFL/ABC determinations for Angelfish and Hogfish where reported landings are questionable

29. SUMMARY STATEMENT • SEFSC reviewed the SSC’s decision to base the OFL and ABC on the average landings in Puerto Rico from 1983 – present (for all remaining species included in the 2011 Amendment ) • SEFSC recommends that the CFMC request the SSC to revisit this decision, evaluating the data on a case-by-case basis. • SEFSC also recommends that the CFMC request the SSC to reconsider the OFL and ABC determinations for Angelfish and Hogfish (where reported landings are questionable )

30. Thank you

32. Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC determination

33. What is an appropriate year sequence? • Consider: • 1) Changes in people and the dynamics of fishery • 2) Changes in fish and population dynamics • 1983 - 2009 = 27 Years • 1 generation for longest lived species (e.g. lemon shark) • 3 generations for longest lived parrotfish • 5+ generations for others

34. Definition FrameworkOFL > ABC > ACL ABC may not exceed OFL. The distance between the OFL and ABC depends on how scientific uncertainty is accounted for in the ABC control rule. The ACL may not exceed the ABC. ABC is one of the fishing level recommendations under MSA section 302(h)(6). Catch in Tons of a Stock Increasing Year 1 Difficult to assess with limited data Corresponds with MSY Overfishing Limit Acceptable Biological Catch Annual Catch Limit Annual Catch Target Recommended § 600.310 (f)(1)-(7)

36. NS 8 as it Relates to NS1 • And within the NS1 Guidance: Does NS1 “trump” the other National Standards, especially NS8? • Under section 600.310(l)(4) covering the relationship of National Standard 8 to National Standard 1: “NS8 directs the Councils to apply economic and social factors towards sustained participation of fishing communities and to the extent practicable, minimize adverse impacts on such communities within the context of preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks as required under NS1. • Therefore, calculation of OY as reduced from MSY should include economic and social factors, but the combination of management measures chosen to achieve the OY must principally be designed to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks.

37. National Standard (NS) 1 “Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.” (MSA Section 301(a)(1))