Industry-funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment Omnibus and Herring - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Industry-funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment Omnibus and Herring Alternatives By Aja Szumylo and Carrie Nordeen Observer Policy and Herring Committee Meeting July 1, 2015 1

Presentation Overview • Update on Omnibus Alternatives • Data Need vs Program Cost • Herring/Mackerel alternative packages • Update on economics [survey, RFP, costs] • Update on MWT Portside and EM

Purpose and Need • Allow Councils to implement IFM programs with available Federal funding • Allow Councils and NMFS to prioritize available Federal funding among FMPs • Establish monitoring coverage targets for the Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel fisheries 3

Omnibus Alternatives • Alternative 1: No Standardized Industry-Funded Monitoring Programs (No action) • Alternative 2: Standardized Industry-funded Monitoring Programs • Standardize cost responsibilities for NMFS and the fishing industry • Establish framework process for FMP-specific industry-funded monitoring programs • Standardize administrative requirements for industry- funded monitoring service providers • Establish process to prioritize available Federal funding for industry-funded monitoring across FMPs 4

Update on Prioritization Process Previous description: “…any funds in excess of those allocated to meet SBRM or other existing monitoring requirements.”

Update on Prioritization Process What funding lines are available to fund industry- funded monitoring programs? (p. 4 of discussion document) • Some funding lines must be used for specific monitoring programs • Example: lines in SBRM amendment; MMPA monitoring • Other funding lines that include monitoring or other administrative aspects of monitoring programs can be used to fund IFM • Example: funding for EM databases • Not possible to estimate amount of funding available until we enter the process

Selection of Coverage Alternatives How should coverage alternatives be compared? (p. 8 of discussion document) • Data Need – Target species catch accounting – Non-target species catch accounting – Scientific information • Program Cost – NMFS administration cost – Cost to industry per seaday – Total program cost

Comparison of Monitoring Types (p. 9) Electronic NEFOP Observer At-Sea Monitor Portside Sampling Monitoring High School High School Education Requirements Bachelor’s Degree* Diploma or None Diploma or Equivalency Equivalency? Data Collected High Volume Verify retention of Species on Retained Sampling (effort, None catch Composition Catch species comp) High Volume Data Collected Species Sampling (fishing Frequency of on Discarded composition and None effort, species discard events Catch slippage comp, slippage) Biological Age and length Age and length Age and length None Sampling data data? data? Supplemental Collects additional Additional data as Research None None data as requested requested? Projects * Exceptions may be made for individuals with appropriate work experience

Total herring catch accounting (p. 11) Table 2 Self-Reporting Independent monitoring NEFOP At-sea At-sea Vessel Dealer Affidavits VMS Observers Cameras Portside monitors monitors Data Need With Without sampling for sampling for species comp species comp Vessels Dealer Can verify Verifying Confirms Species Verifying Confirms report reports location location of retention comp location retention Verifying by by fishing fishing (no of fishing (no retained species species activity activity discard activity discard estimate) estimate) Vessels Can verify Species Confirms Species Confirms report location comp data retention comp retention Quantifying by fishing Estimates (no data (no discards species activity amount of discard discard discards estimate) estimate) Ability to meet data need: High Medium Low N/A

Non-target catch accounting (p. 11) Table 2 Self-Reporting Independent monitoring NEFOP At-sea At-sea Vessel Dealer Affidavits VMS Cameras Portside Observers monitors monitors Data Need With Without sampling for sampling for species comp species comp Used for Can help Can verify Species Confirms Species Species Confirms with details Haddock total location composition retention comp comp and retention of why catch cap retained fishing data (no data estimates (no slippage monitoring activity Estimates discard of discard occurs [ACL] amount of estimate) discarded estimate) discards catch Used for Can help Can verify Species Confirms Species Species Confirms River with details total location comp data retention comp comp and retention herring and of why retained fishing Estimates (no data estimates (no shad catch slippage activity amount of discard of discard occurs cap discards estimate) discarded estimate) monitoring catch Ability to meet data need: High Medium Low N/A

Scientific Information (p. 11) Table 2 Self-Reporting Independent monitoring NEFOP At-sea At-sea Vessel Dealer Affidavits VMS Cameras Portside Observers monitors monitors Data Need Without With sampling for sampling for species species comp comp VTR only Dealer Collect age, Collect Collect reports by Stock length data age, age, length species length data for assessments data discards for herring only VTR only Dealer Collect age, Collect Collect age, Stock reports by length data age, length length data assessments species data for discards for non- only target species Collect age, Collect Collect age, Spawning length data age, length length data data for discards information only Ability to meet data need: High Medium Low N/A

Herring Alternatives • Herring Alternative 1: No coverage target specified for industry-funded monitoring programs (No action) • Herring Alternative 2: Coverage target specified for industry- funded monitoring programs – Permit-based alternatives (would apply to Category A + B vessels) : • 50%, 75%, or 100% NEFOP-equivalent coverage target • 50%, 75%, or 100% At-sea monitor coverage target – Fleet-based alternatives: • NEFOP-equivalent coverage on MWT Fleet to achieve a 30% CV on river herring and shad catch • 100% NEFOP-equivalent coverage on MWT Fleet in Groundfish Closed Areas • Electronic monitoring and portside sampling on MWT Fleet – Other alternatives : • Wing vessel exempt from coverage; vessels prohibited from carrying fish • Allow waivers • Selected coverage levels expire or re-evaluated after 2 years 12

Suggested Range of Herring Alternatives Gear Type Purse Seine MWT Bottom Trawl Permit Categories A and B A - E A and B Alt 1: No Action SBRM SBRM SBRM Alt 2: Coverage Targets* Alt 2.1: Herring Amendment 5 100% NEFOP 100% NEFOP 100% NEFOP Alt 2.2: Permit-Based A 50, 75, 100% 50, 75, 100% 50, 75, 100% ASM ASM ASM Alt 2.3: Permit-Based B 50, 75, 100% EM & Portside 50, 75, 100% ASM ASM Alt 2.4: Fleet-Based SBRM EM & Portside SBRM (No Action) (No Action) Alt 2.5: Groundfish Closed Areas SBRM 100% NEFOP SBRM (No Action) (No Action) *Includes Sub-Options: (1) Waiver Allowed, (2) Wing Vessel Exemption, (3) 2 Yr Sunset, and (4) 2 Yr Re-Evaluation 13

Suggested Range of Mackerel Alternatives Gear Type MWT SMBT SMBT SMBT Permit Categories All LA Tiers Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Alt 1: No Action SBRM SBRM SBRM SBRM Alt 2: Coverage Targets* Alt 2.1: MSB Amend 14 100% NEFOP 100% NEFOP 50% NEFOP 25% NEFOP Alt 2.2: Permit-Based A 50, 75, 100% 50, 75, 100% SBRM SBRM (No Action) (No Action) ASM ASM Alt 2.3: Permit-Based B EM & 50, 75, 100% SBRM SBRM Portside ASM (No Action) (No Action) SBRM Alt 2.4: Fleet-Based EM & SBRM SBRM (No Action) (No Action) (No Action) Portside *Includes Sub-Options: (1) Waiver Allowed, (2) Wing Vessel Exemption, (3) 2 Yr Sunset, and (4) 2 Yr Re-Evaluation 14

Herring/Mackerel Economics Survey (p. 19) • Expanded economics survey in response to concern about previous illustration of economic impacts • Survey instrument (Appendix) collects cost of – Observer collected costs (fuel, food, oil, water, supplies, bait, damage) – Repairs/maintenance – Insurance – Payments to crew – Mooring/dockage • Survey sent to 18 vessel owners (about 28 vessels)

RFP for Herring/Mackerel (p. 19) • MAFMC RFP to get cost estimates for herring/mackerel portside and at-sea monitoring programs • Similar RFP used to solicit EM costs • Only received 2 applications • Instead going to use public estimates for other, similar programs

Estimate of Industry Cost Responsibilities (p. 20) Table 8 NEFOP ASM EM Portside Per seaday cost $816 $710 (max) [PENDING] $106 to industry

Electronic Monitoring (EM) and Portside Sampling • May be a more cost effective way to monitor herring and mackerel fisheries • Coverage would initially focus on MWT fleet • Fewer than 20 vessels • ME to NJ • Harvests majority of herring (73%) and river herring and shad in herring and mackerel fisheries (57%) • Discard less than 5% of catch at sea 18