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