Industry ‐ Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment Omnibus and Herring Coverage Target Alternatives Herring Advisory Panel and Committee Meetings Wakefield, Massachusetts January 10 ‐ 11, 2017 1
What is the Purpose of this Amendment? • Allow industry funding to be used to increase monitoring above current levels • Allow Councils to implement new IFM programs with available Federal funding • Allow Councils and NMFS to prioritize available Federal funding among IFM programs • Specify IFM coverage targets for Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel fisheries • Allow NMFS to approve new IFM programs 2
Key results if adopted This amendment This amendment would… would not… • Establish a • Impact existing IFM standardized programs, including structure for new groundfish and IFM programs scallop programs 3
Opportunity for Public Comment? • Public comment period from September 23 – November 7 • Comments were accepted electronically, by mail, or during public hearings • Public hearings were held • October 4 ‐ Gloucester, MA • October 17 ‐ Webinar • October 20 ‐ Portland, ME • October 27 ‐ Cape May, NJ • November 1 ‐ Narragansett, RI 4
Amendment Timeline Dates Action NEFMC and MAFMC selected preliminary January ‐ February 2016 preferred omnibus alternatives June 2016 MAFMC and NEFMC approved Draft EA for public comment September ‐ November Public comment period and public hearings 2016 EM pilot project began December 2016 MAFMC considers taking final action January 2017 NEFMC considers taking final action February –July 2017 EA finalized and proposed and final rulemaking August 2017 Final rule publishes November 2017 EM pilot project is completed January 2018 Amendment implemented 5
MAFMC Meeting – December 2016 • MAFMC considered taking final action on the IFM Amendment • MAFMC moved that the Council postpone action on the IFM Amendment until completion of the EM pilot project. (13/6/0) Motion Passed. 6
OMNIBUS ALTERNATIVES 7
Which Alternatives Apply to all FMPS? • Omnibus Alternative 1: No Standardized IFM Programs (No action) • Omnibus Alternative 2: Standardize New IFM Programs • Standardize cost responsibilities • Framework adjustment process for IFM programs • Standardized IFM service provider requirements • Prioritization process • Option for Monitoring Set ‐ Aside 8
Omnibus Alternative 2: Prioritization Process Alternatives Description Alternative 2.1: NMFS develops process and consults with the Councils NMFS ‐ Led Councils develop process and consult Alternative 2.2: with NMFS and initially use equal Council ‐ Led weighing scheme (Preliminary Preferred Alternative ) Allocate funding equally across new IFM Alternative 2.3: programs Proportional Alternative 2.4: Allocate funding to IFM programs with low coverage needs and active fleets Lowest Coverage Ratio Allocate funding to IFM programs with Alternative 2.5: high coverage needs and less active fleets Highest Coverage Ratio 9
Omnibus Alternative 2.6: Monitoring Set ‐ Aside • Allows FMPs to establish a monitoring set ‐ aside via framework adjustment • For example: • Set aside percent of ACL • If a vessel is selected for monitoring, then vessel may harvest a certain amount above the possession limit • Revenue from sale of extra fish helps offset cost of monitoring • This amendment does not implement monitoring set ‐ asides for individual FMPs
Impacts of Omnibus Alternatives Alternatives Biological Impacts Economic Impacts Alternative 1: Low Negative Low Negative No Action Alternative 2: Action Low Positive Low Positive Alternative Alternatives 2.1 – 2.5: Low Positive Low Positive Prioritization Processes Alternative 2.6: Monitoring Set ‐ Negligible Negligible Aside 11
70 Comments Supporting Omnibus Alternative 1 (No Action) • Was not aware amendment involved all FMPs • NMFS should fund additional monitoring • IFM does not account for affordability • IFM will use funds needed for vessel upkeep/safety • IFM will increase tension with observers • Observer data not used, why collect more • Concern that amendment is not consistent with MSA • Inadequate notice/locations for public comment and hearings 12
14 Comments on Omnibus Alternative 2 Alternatives Comment Alternative 2.1: 0 Support, 1 Against NMFS ‐ Led Process Alternative 2.2: 6 Support, 2 Against Council ‐ Led Process (Preliminary Preferred Alternative ) Alternative 2.6: 5 Support, 0 Against Monitoring Set ‐ Aside (Preliminary Preferred Alternative ) 13
HERRING ALTERNATIVES 14
Goals of Industry ‐ Funded Monitoring Increased monitoring in the herring fishery should address the following goals: • Accurate estimates of catch (retained and discarded), • Accurate catch estimates for incidental species for which catch caps apply, and • Affordable monitoring for the herring fishery. 15
Comparison of IFM Types NEFOP ‐ Level At ‐ Sea Monitor Electronic Portside Observer (ASM) Monitoring Sampling (EM) Retained Fishing Effort Fishing Effort Verify Retention Species Catch and Species and Species of Catch Composition Composition Composition Data Data Data Discarded Fishing Effort Fishing Effort Frequency of None Catch and Species and Species Discarding Composition Composition Events Data Data Biological Age and Length Length Data None Age and Length Sampling Data Data 16
Herring Alternatives Herring Alternative 1 (No Action) Herring Alternative 2 (IFM Coverage Targets) • Sub ‐ Option 1: Waiver allowed if IFM coverage is not available • Sub ‐ Option 2: Wing vessel exempt from IFM requirements • Sub ‐ Option 3: IFM requirements sunset in two years • Sub ‐ Option 4: IFM requirements are re ‐ evaluated in two years • Sub ‐ Option 5: IFM requirements only apply on trips that land more than 25 mt of herring 17
MWT Purse Seine SMBT Herring Alternative 2 Herring Alternative 2.1: 100% NEFOP ‐ Level 100% NEFOP ‐ Level Observer Coverage on Category A and B Vessels Herring Alternative 2.2: ASM Coverage on 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% ASM Category A and B Vessels Herring Alternative 2.3: Combination 50% or 100% Coverage on Category A and B Vessels and 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% ASM EM/Portside Midwater Trawl Fleet Herring Alternative 2.4: EM and Portside 50% or 100% SBRM (No Action) Coverage on Midwater Trawl Fleet EM/Portside Herring Alternative 2.5: 100% NEFOP ‐ Level 100% NEFOP ‐ Coverage on Midwater Trawl Fleet in SBRM (No Action) Level Coverage Groundfish Closed Areas Herring Alternative 2.6: Combination Coverage would Coverage on Midwater Trawl Fleet in match SBRM (No Action) Groundfish Closed Areas 2.1 ‐ 2.4 or 2.7 Herring Alternative 2.7: ASM Coverage on 25%, 50%, 75% 25%, 50%, 75% 25%, 50%, 75% Category A and B Vessels, then Vessels may or 100% ASM or or 100% ASM or or 100% ASM or choose either ASM or EM/Portside Coverage EM/Portside EM/Portside EM/Portside 18
Industry Cost Responsibilities • NEFOP ‐ Level Observer Coverage = $818 per sea day • ASM = $710 per sea day • EM = $172 ‐ $325 per sea day (plus estimated $15,000 in startup costs during Year 1) • Portside Sampling = $3.84 ‐ $5.12 per mt 19
Summary of Median Potential Reduction in RTO From Monitoring Costs • Herring Alternative 2.1 – 44.7% to 5.8% • Herring Alternative 2.2 – 38.9% to 1.4% • Herring Alternative 2.3 – 38.5% to 1.4% • Herring Alternative 2.4 – 29.1% to 2.4% • Herring Alternative 2.5 – 5.4% to 1.0% • Herring Alternative 2.6 – Same as 2.1 to 2.4 and 2.7 • Herring Alternative 2.7 – 42.3% to 0.8% 20
Conclusions of Economic Analysis • Paired MWT vessels have highest monitoring costs as a percentage of RTO because of more sea days • Revenue sources differ across gear types, 50% of SMBT revenue is from other fisheries • Exempting trips that catch < 25 mt of herring reduces monitoring costs • EM/Portside coverage is generally less expensive than comparable levels of ASM coverage, but not during Year 1 with startup costs for EM equipment • Herring Alternative 2.7 may reduce some of the economic impact by allowing vessels to choose ASM or EM/Portside coverage 21
Fishery ‐ Related Herring Non ‐ Target Protected Physical Alternatives Businesses and Resource Species Species Environment Communities Herring Alternative 1 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Low Positive Herring Alternative 2 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative Herring Alternative 2.1 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative Herring Alternative 2.2 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative Herring Alternative 2.3 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative Herring Alternative 2.4 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative Herring Alternative 2.5 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative Herring Alternative 2.6 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative Herring Alternative 2.7 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative 22
Comments on Herring Alternatives Alternatives Comments Alternative 1: 37 Support, 0 Against (No Action) Alternative 2.1: 2 Support, 2 Against (NEFOP ‐ Level Observer Coverage) Alternative 2.4: 1 Support, 1 Against (EM/Portside Coverage) Alternative 2.5: 3 Support, 3 Against (Observer Coverage in GF Closed Areas) Alternative 2.6: 3 Support, 1 Against (Selected Coverage in GF Closed Areas) Alternative 2.7: 5 Support, 0 Against (ASM or EM/Portside Coverage) 23
Recommend
More recommend
