revisiting the ssc decision to use all available data to calculate average landings/ofls/abcs...
TRANSCRIPT
Revisiting the SSC Decision to Use all Available Data to
Calculate Average Landings/OFLs/ABCs
Southeast Fisheries Science Center
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.
1. Inability to determine stock status in relationship to MSY.
2. Best available information is reported (USVI) and expanded (PR) landings.
3. Key Assumptions of approach: a) Period of Sustainability (i.e. stock in
equilibrium; trends are problematic)
b) Representative of current fishery (i.e. ability to monitor ACL given reported landings in near future)
Why Use Average Landings?
“True” Biomass
ReportedLandings
EstimatedLandings
How do Annual Reported Landings Relate to Stock Biomass?
Puerto RicoExpansion Factors
Fishing BehaviorEffort Quantity
Gear Type
Models that include:Spatial data
Bycatch/Discard dataGear specific Effort
USVI - ??
Reporting Behavior
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
What is an appropriate year sequence?
• 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)
The year sequences recommended in the 2010 Amendment were based on extensive evaluations during multiple meetings between 2008 - 2010 :
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year
Lan
din
gs
What is an appropriate year sequence?
• Single year Not appropriate due to measurement error. Averaging years provides more stable estimate
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year
Lan
din
gs
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
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
Average of most recent years(Figure from 2011 Options Paper)
2010 Amendment Decision(Figure from 2011 Options Paper)
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
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Year
Lan
din
gs
Trend – Declining landings(e.g. overfished stocks, declining effort)
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Year
Lan
din
gs
Trend – Declining landings(e.g. overfished stocks, declining effort)
1983-2008 average is high relative to current landings: Risk Prone in regards to NS1
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Year
Land
ings
Trend – Increasing Landings(e.g. Developing Fishery, improved species specific reporting)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Year
Land
ings
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
Queen Snapper (PR)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Year
La
nd
ing
s
Silk Snapper (PR)
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,00019
80
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Year
Lan
din
gs
Real Examples from 2010
Amendment
Silk Snapper (PR)
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Year
Lan
din
gs
Average of 1983-2008 (2011 Amendment – SSC)
Average of 1999-2005 * 0.85 scalar (2010 Amendment – CFMC)
Queen Snapper (PR)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Year
Land
ings
Average of 1983-2008 (2011 Amendment – SSC)
Average of 1999-2005 * 0.85 scalar (2010 Amendment – CFMC)
Species in 2011 Amendment where use of
1983-current average catch may be in-
appropriate for OFL/ABC determination
Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC
determination
Goatfishes
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009
Year
Ex
pa
nd
ed
La
nd
ing
s
Annual Landings
Average 1983 - 2008
Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC
determination
White Grunt
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009
Year
Ex
pa
nd
ed
La
nd
ing
s
Annual Landings
Average 1983-2008
Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC
determination
Horse- eye Jack
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009
Year
Ex
pa
nd
ed
La
nd
ing
s
Annual Landings
Average 1983-2008
Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC
determination
Bar Jack
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008
Year
Ex
pa
nd
ed
La
nd
ing
s
Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC
determination
Boxfish
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008Year
Ex
pa
nd
ed
La
nd
ing
s
Annual Landings
Average 1983-2008
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 USVI OFL and ABC determinations for Angelfish and Hogfish
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
St. CroixSt. Thomas
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 )
Thank you
Species in 2011 Amendment where use of 1983-current average catch may be in-appropriate for OFL/ABC
determination
Greater Amberjack
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009
Year
Ex
pa
nd
ed
La
nd
ing
s
Annual Landings
Average 1983-2008
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).
Cat
ch i
n T
on
s o
f a
Sto
ck
Incr
easi
ng
Year 1
Annual Catch Limit
Acceptable Biological Catch
Overfishing Limit
Annual Catch Target
Corresponds with MSY
§ 600.310 (f)(1)-(7)
Recommended
Difficult to assess with limited data
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))