112 Placing Certain Small Catcher/Processors in Partial Observer Coverage
Purpose and Need
Under the restructured Observer Program (Amendment 86), all catcher/processors were in the full observer coverage category, unless they met certain requirements to be placed in the partial coverage category. The placement of catcher/processors in full coverage enabled NMFS to obtain independent estimates of catch, at-sea bycatch, and prohibited PSC for catcher/ processors. In recognition of the relatively high cost of full coverage for small catcher/ processors and the limited amount of catch, PSC, and bycatch by these vessels, the Council recommended two limited allowances for placing a catcher/processor in partial coverage. Both of these allowances were based on vessel activity from 2003 through 2009. Since implementation of the restructured Observer Program, owners and operators of some catcher/processors with relatively small production requested that the Council and NMFS revise these allowances to include vessels that began processing after 2009. These operators believed that the costs they incurred for full observer coverage were disproportionate to the revenues they earned, and that these high costs precluded them from operating in some fisheries. In December 2014, the Council adopted a motion to initiate analysis for revising the allowances for placing small catcher/ processors in the partial coverage category. The Council motion contained a Purpose and Need statement that the allowance for placing a catcher/processor in partial coverage should, at a minimum, be based on a measurement of ongoing production that shows that the catcher/processor processed a small amount of groundfish relative to the rest of the catcher/processor fleet. The Council motion also stated that the current regulations did not provide a way to move a catcher/processor placed in partial coverage into full coverage if production increased to a level deemed appropriate for full coverage
Analysis
The RIR/IRFA prepared for Amendment 112 analyzed one action alternative that consisted of five elements. These elements considered
1) the production threshold for placing a C/P in partial coverage,
2) the basis year for placing a C/P in partial coverage,
3) How NMFS should determine whether to place a C/P in partial coverage if the C/P has no production in the basis year identified as part of Element 2,
4) Whether the C/P would have to specify its desire to be placed in the partial coverage category, and
5) Whether the basic production criterion for placing a C/P in partial coverage should be modified based on additional factors.
Alternatives considered but not moved forward included:
1) eliminating all allowances to place a catcher/processor in partial coverage
2) another one-time election
3) an allowance based on crew size
Regulation Summary
Amendment 112 modified the criteria for NMFS to place small C/Ps in the partial observer coverage category. The owner of a non-trawl C/P can choose to be in the partial observer coverage category on an annual basis if the vessel processed less than 79,000 lb (35.8 mt) of groundfish on an average weekly basis in a particular prior year. This regulation provided a relatively limited exception to the general requirement that all C/Ps fall under the full coverage category, and maintains the full coverage requirement for all trawl C/Ps, and C/Ps participating in a catch share program that requires full observer coverage.
Results
It is too early to determine the effects of allowing small C/Ps to opt out of the full coverage category and be placed in the partial coverage category