(1) The blend of two types of harvest data
for 1991-1994 was necessary because there is no single data source which includes all the
sablefish harvest. Therefore, the 1991-1994 sablefish harvest data presented herein may
differ from other blended data sources.
The 1991-1994 WPR data for catcher/processors does not include a port of landing.
Although the 1995-1996 NMFS-RAM data do include a port of delivery, the 1995-1996
catcher/processor harvest was not assigned to a port in order to provide a consistent time
series.
(2) This was a complicated
exercise. ADF&G information sources were necessary because the NMFS-RAM Registered
Buyers file lacks precise characterization of buying operations, especially catcher/sellers
and catcher/processors. For example, registered buyers are allowed to indicate
several processor types on their permit form, but the corresponding electronic
data entry form contains space for only one processor type; therefore, data entry
personnel must make a choice on which processor type is entered. Consequently,
there were numerous operations which were labeled as catcher/sellers (catchers
who sell unprocessed fish) on the NMFS-RAM system, but which were classified
as catcher/processors on the ADF&G system. Since the ADF&G
system has a more strict methodology of assigning processor type, and since a
number of these entities had harvests exceeding 300,000 pounds, it was deemed
prudent to use the ADF&G data to identify catcher/processors.
State processor codes from fish ticket data were also used to augment the NMFS-RAM
Registered Buyers file. Most processors on the NMFS-RAM Registered Buyers file
have been assigned state processor codes; however, individuals sometimes do not
list their state processor codes when they fill out their Registered Buyers permit
forms. When state processor codes were missing from the NMFS-RAM Registered Buyers
file, it was possible to find state processor codes for some of the registered
buyers by linking specific fish tickets with NMFS-RAM IFQ harvest data by pre-printed
fish ticket number.
The final step in this procedure was to hand review the names and addresses and
harvest amounts of each processor within each category.
(3)
It is necessary to aggregate some census areas to preserve confidential delivery
data.
(4) See 50 CFR 679.32(i). (5) See 50 CFR 679.42 (j). (6) CFR 679.42 (c) and (i).