1 / 19

Setting ABC in Scallop A15 Summary of updated ACL section since Feb SSC meeting

Setting ABC in Scallop A15 Summary of updated ACL section since Feb SSC meeting. SSC Meeting August 11, 2009. SSC meeting on Feb 6, 2009. Review and provide input on the methods used for deriving ABC, ACL and ACT under consideration in Scallop Amendment 15.

gclyde
Download Presentation

Setting ABC in Scallop A15 Summary of updated ACL section since Feb SSC meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Setting ABC in Scallop A15Summary of updated ACL section since Feb SSC meeting SSC Meeting August 11, 2009

  2. SSC meeting on Feb 6, 2009 • Review and provide input on the methods used for deriving ABC, ACL and ACT under consideration in Scallop Amendment 15. • Scallop PDT presented a qualitative evaluation of scientific and management uncertainty to support buffer % alternatives • The SSC agreed with the general process for setting ACLs, but requested the PDT present a modified analysis that would quantify the uncertainty of OFL and estimate the uncertainty of projections.

  3. Updated PDT analyses • PDT has met several times to finalize these analyses • Dr. Dvora Hart on the PDT is going to present these analyses following this overview presentation • She has met individually with Dr. Pat Sullivan • The PDT recommends that the SSC consider setting ABC at an F level for which there is a 25% probability of overfishing OR the F level that has 1% loss in yield, whichever is less.

  4. Scientific uncertainty • Based on a combination of the qualitative analyses and quantitative analyses, the SSC recommends that ABC be set at X% of OFL. • Qualitative analyses – Section 3.2.3.7.1 – p.25 • PDT evaluated the level of uncertainty and importance of each parameter used in the assessment

  5. Modifications to ACL section since Feb • Final guidance published in Jan and document has been updated • At April Council meeting ACL structure modified • Specific AMs have been developed • Progress on quantifying management uncertainty

  6. 1. Updates post final rule • Definitions updated – Sect 3.2.1 – p.10 • Scallop specific info in boldface • Table 2 – p.16

  7. 2. ACL structure modified • The overall ACL will be divided into two sub-ACLs: one for the limited access scallop fishery (LA) and one for the limited access general category scallop fishery (LAGC) • Each sub-ACL will have an associated ACT • Council modified this in April to recognize that each fishery managed differently with different management uncertainty • In Feb - uncertain what to do with NGOM • Figure 1 – p.21

  8. Flowchart presented in Feb Directed Scallop Fishery ACL Reduced 10% for management uncertainty Directed Scallop Fishery ACT minus Research and Observer Set-Asides from access areas LA Sub-ACL LAGC IFQ Sub-ACL

  9. 3. Specific AMs developed • Section 3.2.3.9 – p.44 • LA – use of ACT, DAS reduction following year. Option for a “disclaimer" under consideration - if recalculated biomass (or F) over 20% of projected AMs not triggered • GC – use of ACT, individual quota reduced • NGOM – hard TAC reduced following year • AMs for YT sub-ACL – several ideas under consideration – shift DAS and/or trips, max # of DAS following year, reduced poss limits

  10. 4. Quantifying mngt uncertainty • PDT tried to echo SSC advice on setting ABC • 7 sources - more quantified approach • Similar rationale in terms of identifying an F level that is above a certain threshold for exceeding OFL/ABC as well as a minimal reduction in yield.

  11. Management Uncertainty • Council has decided to use ACTs as in-season AMs • Mngt uncertainty will be accounted for as the buffer between ACLs and ACTs, rather than the difference between ABC and ACL • Overall approach: OFL>ABC=ACL>ACT • Section 3.2.3.8 – p.35

  12. Sources of mngt uncertainty Overall, there are only a handful of issues that contribute to management uncertainty in the scallop fishery: • fishing mortality from the general category fishery; • increases in fishing effort from limited access vessels becoming “active” and switching from the confirmation of permit history (CPH) permit category; • mortality from the allowance of vessels to carry-over up to 10 DAS to the next fishing year; • increased mortality from vessels that upgrade or are replaced with new vessels; • uncertainty in catch from open area DAS (estimated versus actual landings per DAS); • ability of plan to monitor and enforce all catch; and • changes in fishing behavior that could increase landings above projected values.

  13. Mgnt Uncertainty Addressed • Fishing mortality from the general category fishery • Has fluctuated from 1-14% of total landings • A11 – limited entry IFQ, 5% cap on total landings • Increases in fishing effort from vessels in CPH • In the past there were several dozen permits in CPH on an annual basis, but in recent years that trend has changed and now there are zero permits in CPH • PDT estimates # of FT equivalent vessels to set allocations, and that # has only recently stabilized

  14. Potential sources of mngt uncertainty • Mortality from the allowance of vessels to carry-over up to 10 DAS to the next fishing year (Table 11); • Increased mortality from vessels that upgrade or are replaced with new vessels (Table 12 and 13); • Uncertainty in catch from open area DAS (estimated versus actual landings per DAS); • Ability of plan to monitor and enforce all catch; and • Changes in fishing behavior that could increase landings above projected values (i.e. with fewer DAS vessels fishing most efficient times and areas, Captain is shucking more, etc.)

  15. Initial PDT input on ACTs - DRAFT • At a minimum one SD around Ftarget If Ftarget = 0.20 (range would be 0.16 - 0.24) • Additional amount to account for other sources of mngt uncertainty (0.01 and 0.02) • Total of 0.05 and 0.06 considered • PDT considering option where ACT be set at F level where the probability of overfishing is not more than 25% and not more than 1% loss of yield (may consider relative to ABC instead of OFL)

  16. Initial PDT input on ACTs - DRAFT • Gen Cat sub-ACT - PDT may try to get a “compliance index” from NMFS Enforcement Division - % of current LAGC permit holders that have had violations of the possession limit and by how much - That % could be used as a buffer to assume some level of “cheating” but PDT uncomfortable with setting a buffer based on an assumed level of cheating - PDT still discussing - likely recommend 0% and another small value to account for monitoring and enforcement issues • PDT meeting on Aug 12 to finalize % buffers for sub- ACTs – no specific buffers recommended at this time

  17. TORs for this SSC meeting • Review an updated quantitative analyses of uncertainty of OFL, which is intended to enable the SSC to recommend a method for deriving ABC for the Scallop FMP (Doc #3) • Review and approve ABC for FY2010 for Framework 21 (Doc #4) • If time permits, provide feedback on other ACL related issues (i.e. mngt uncertainty analyses, methods for setting ACT buffers, AMs)

More Related