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)

NEFOP Observer At-Sea Monitor Electronic Monitoring Portside Sampling Education Requirements Bachelor’s Degree* High School Diploma or Equivalency None High School Diploma or Equivalency? Data Collected

• n Retained

Catch High Volume Sampling (effort, species comp) None Verify retention of catch Species Composition Data Collected

• n Discarded

Catch High Volume Sampling (fishing effort, species comp, slippage) Species composition and slippage Frequency of discard events None Biological Sampling Age and length data Age and length data? None Age and length data? Supplemental Research Projects Collects additional data as requested None None Additional data as requested? * Exceptions may be made for individuals with appropriate work experience

Total herring catch accounting (p. 11)

Table 2 Self-Reporting Independent monitoring Data Need Vessel Dealer Affidavits VMS NEFOP Observers Cameras Portside At-sea monitors At-sea monitors

With sampling for species comp Without sampling for species comp

Verifying retained Vessels report by species Dealer reports by species Can verify location fishing activity Verifying location of fishing activity Confirms retention (no discard estimate) Species comp Verifying location

• f fishing

activity Confirms retention (no discard estimate) Quantifying discards Vessels report by species Can verify location fishing activity Species comp data Estimates amount of discards Confirms retention (no discard estimate) Species comp data Confirms retention (no discard estimate)

Ability to meet data need: High Medium Low N/A

Non-target catch accounting (p. 11)

Table 2 Self-Reporting Independent monitoring Data Need Vessel Dealer Affidavits VMS NEFOP Observers Cameras Portside At-sea monitors At-sea monitors

With sampling for species comp Without sampling for species comp

Haddock catch cap monitoring [ACL] Used for total retained

Can help with details

• f why

slippage

• ccurs

Can verify location fishing activity Species composition data Estimates amount of discards Confirms retention (no discard estimate) Species comp data Species comp and estimates

• f

discarded catch Confirms retention (no discard estimate) River herring and shad catch cap monitoring Used for total retained

Can help with details

• f why

slippage

• ccurs

Can verify location fishing activity Species comp data Estimates amount of discards Confirms retention (no discard estimate) Species comp data Species comp and estimates

• f

discarded catch Confirms retention (no discard estimate)

Ability to meet data need: High Medium Low N/A

Scientific Information (p. 11)

Table 2 Self-Reporting Independent monitoring Data Need Vessel Dealer Affidavits VMS NEFOP Observers Cameras Portside At-sea monitors At-sea monitors

With sampling for species comp

Without sampling for species comp

Stock assessments for herring

VTR only Dealer reports by species

Collect age, length data Collect age, length data Collect age, length data for discards

• nly

Stock assessments for non- target species

VTR only Dealer reports by species Collect age, length data Collect age, length data Collect age, length data for discards

• nly

Spawning information

Collect age, length data Collect age, length data Collect age, length data for discards

• nly

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

13

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% ASM 50, 75, 100% ASM 50, 75, 100% ASM Alt 2.3: Permit-Based B 50, 75, 100% ASM EM & Portside 50, 75, 100% ASM Alt 2.4: Fleet-Based SBRM

(No Action)

EM & Portside SBRM

(No Action)

Alt 2.5: Groundfish Closed Areas SBRM

(No Action)

100% NEFOP SBRM

(No Action) *Includes Sub-Options: (1) Waiver Allowed, (2) Wing Vessel Exemption, (3) 2 Yr Sunset, and (4) 2 Yr Re-Evaluation

Suggested Range of Mackerel Alternatives

14

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% ASM 50, 75, 100% ASM SBRM

(No Action)

SBRM

(No Action)

Alt 2.3: Permit-Based B EM & Portside 50, 75, 100% ASM SBRM

(No Action)

SBRM

(No Action)

Alt 2.4: Fleet-Based EM & Portside SBRM

(No Action)

SBRM

(No Action) SBRM (No Action) *Includes Sub-Options: (1) Waiver Allowed, (2) Wing Vessel Exemption, (3) 2 Yr Sunset, and (4) 2 Yr Re-Evaluation

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
• ther, similar programs

Estimate of Industry Cost Responsibilities (p. 20)

Table 8 NEFOP ASM EM Portside Per seaday cost to industry $816 $710 (max) [PENDING] $106

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

EM Alternative

• Electronic Monitoring used to:

– Verify retention of catch for portside sampling – Possibly used to verify compliance with discard reporting requirements (i.e., released catch affidavits)

• Sampling design

– Carry EM for duration of fishing year – EM video footage recorded throughout entire trip or around haulback – EM video footage sampled (either 100% or less than 100%) to verify retention – Hard drives for storing EM data will need to be switched

• ut between fishing trips

19

Individual Vessel Monitoring Plans

• NMFS would specify IVMP requirements in

regulation

• Each vessel would develop its own IVMP
• IVMPs would be approved and reviewed bi-

annually or upon adjustment

• IVMPs would address:

– Discard documentation – Equipment operation and configuration – Catch handling protocol – Data storage/sampling/transfer protocols

20

Retention Requirements

21

• Upon implementation, MWT fishery continues

to operate as it has in the past

• Through IVMPs, NMFS can develop and

modify retention requirements

• Maximized and optimized retention are
• ptions for retention requirements
• NMFS can define retention, if necessary, after

NMFS determines camera capabilities

Portside Sampling Alternative

• Portside sampling used to:

– Verify amount/species composition of catch in the herring and mackerel fisheries – Help track catch against caps for RH/S and haddock

• Sampling would occur in specific ports
• Service provider model would be developed

during implementation

22

Portside Sampling Alternative

Sampling design

– Sample MWT trips in port – Methodology consistent with NEFOP protocols – Basket samples taken at specific intervals – Baskets sorted and weighed by species – Species composition of sub-samples extrapolated to total catch based on vessel hail weight – Actual weights verified against VTR – Age and length data could also be collected

23

EM/Portside Issues to Resolve

To be resolved before Councils select preferred alternatives

• Portside service provider model
• Clarify how the prioritization process would be affected by

data need and the type of data collected

• Percent coverage for EM
• Cost estimates for coverage and completed economic analysis
• Components of IFM programs combined to create

comprehensive monitoring program

• Interaction with existing/recommended slippage

requirements

24

EM/Portside Issues to Resolve

To be resolved before Councils take final action

• Data flow (harddrive transfer, provider submissions to

NMFS, etc.)

• Vessel, service provider and NMFS responsibilities (in

flux due to national policy and regional coordination) To be resolved during rulemaking/implementation

• Data and training standards
• EM type approval
• Service provider standards (EM/Portside)
• Available NMFS funding

25

Timeline

Dates Meeting/Deadline Action September 2015 Herring and Observer Policy Committee Meetings September 11, 2015 NEFMC Briefing book deadline Revised EA complete for release September 29 – October 1, 2015 NEFMC Meeting NEFMC selects preferred alternatives October 6 – 8, 2015 MAFMC Meeting MAFMC selects preferred alternatives October/November 2015 30-day comment period on draft EA January 2016 NEFMC Meeting NEFMC takes final action February 2016 MAFMC Meeting MAFMC takes final action March - June 2016 EA finalized, proposed rule and final rulemaking July 2016 Final rule effective

26

27

How Coverage is Allocated

Permit-Based Coverage Fleet-Based Coverage

Councils manage fisheries by FMP and vessel permit Resulting data can be used to monitor FMP-specific quotas and catch caps Consistent with how SBRM allocates

• bserver coverage

Resulting data may be used for quota/catch cap monitoring, stock assessments, and total removals Not consistent with how SBRM allocates

• bserver coverage

Resulting data may not suitable for stock assessment or estimating total removals Fleets typically extend across FMPs Not consistent with how Councils manage fisheries by FMP and vessel permit

28

29

Table 5. Herring Data Needs (Page 15) Alt 1: No Action (SBRM coverage only) Total herring catch accounting [ACL monitoring] Verifying retained

• VTR Reports
• Dealer Reports
• VMS catch reports
• NEFOP observer coverage verifies location of fishing activity

Quantifying discards

• VTR Reports
• VMS catch reports
• NEFOP observers

Non-target catch accounting Haddock catch cap monitoring [ACL monitoring]

• VTRs used for total retained
• VMS catch reports
• NEFOP observers collect species comp data and estimate discards
• Affidavits detail why slippage occurs

River herring and shad catch cap monitoring

• VTRs used for total retained
• VMS catch reports
• NEFOP observers collect species comp data and estimate discards
• Affidavits detail why slippage occurs

Scientific information Stock assessments for herring

• VTR reports
• NEFOP observers collect age/length data

Stock assessments for non-target species

• VTR reports
• NEFOP observers collect age/length data

Spawning information • VTR reports

• NEFOP observers collect age/length data

30

Table 5. Herring Data Needs (Page 15) Alt 2.1: 100% NEFOP

• n Category A and B Vessels

Total herring catch accounting [ACL monitoring] Verifying retained Information on location of fishing activity; Species composition data on retained catch Quantifying discards Discard estimate; Species composition of discarded catch Non-target catch accounting Haddock catch cap monitoring [ACL monitoring] Species composition data to track catch against catch caps; Data on both retained and discarded catch River herring and shad catch cap monitoring Species composition data to track catch against catch caps; Data on both retained and discarded catch Scientific information Stock assessments for herring Age and length data Stock assessments for non-target species Age and length data Spawning information Age and length data

31

Table 5. Herring Data Needs (Page 15) Alt 2.2: ASM (50%, 75%, or 100%)

• n Category A and B Vessels

Total herring catch accounting [ACL monitoring] Verifying retained Confirms retention; No species composition data on retained catch Quantifying discards Estimate and species composition data for discarded catch Non-target catch accounting Haddock catch cap monitoring [ACL monitoring] Estimate and species composition data for discarded catch River herring and shad catch cap monitoring Estimate and species composition data for discarded catch Scientific information Stock assessments for herring Age and length data on discarded catch Stock assessments for non-target species Age and length data on discarded catch Spawning information Age and length data on discarded catch

32

Table 5. Herring Data Needs (Page 15) Alt 2.3: EM/PRT on MWT Vessels and ASM (50%, 75%, or 100%) on other Category A and B Vessels Total herring catch accounting [ACL monitoring] Verifying retained Confirms retention; Species composition data

• n retained catch

Quantifying discards Flag discarding, Discard estimate; Species composition data for discarded catch Non-target catch accounting Haddock catch cap monitoring [ACL monitoring] Species composition data to track catch against catch caps; Data on both retained and discarded catch River herring and shad catch cap monitoring Species composition data to track catch against catch caps; Data on both retained and discarded catch Scientific information Stock assessments for herring Age and length data Stock assessments for non-target species Age and length data Spawning information Age and length data

33

Table 5. Herring Data Needs (Page 15) Alt 2.4: EM/PRT on MWT Vessels Total herring catch accounting [ACL monitoring] Verifying retained Confirms retention; Species composition data

• n retained catch

Quantifying discards Flags discarding; No estimate or species composition data for discarded catch Non-target catch accounting Haddock catch cap monitoring [ACL monitoring] Confirms retention; Species composition data

• n retained catch to track catch against catch

caps River herring and shad catch cap monitoring Confirms retention; Species composition data

• n retained catch to track catch against catch

caps Scientific information Stock assessments for herring Age and length data on retained catch Stock assessments for non-target species Age and length data on retained catch Spawning information Age and length data on retained catch

34

Table 5. Herring Data Needs (Page 15) Alt 2.5: 100% NEFOP on MWT Vessels Fishing in the Groundfish Closed Areas Total herring catch accounting [ACL monitoring] Verifying retained Information on location of fishing activity; Species composition data on retained catch Quantifying discards Discard estimate; Species composition of discarded catch Non-target catch accounting Haddock catch cap monitoring [ACL monitoring] Species composition data to track catch against catch caps; Data on both retained and discarded catch River herring and shad catch cap monitoring Species composition data to track catch against catch caps; Data on both retained and discarded catch Scientific information Stock assessments for herring Age and length data Stock assessments for non-target species Age and length data Spawning information Age and length data