Industry-funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment Supplement Discussion - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

By Aja Szumylo Observer Policy Committee Meeting New England Council Meeting September 2015

Industry-funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment Supplement Discussion Document

Overview

• Highlight of changes to EA
• Monitoring Set-Aside Alternative
• Possible revisions to Herring Alternative 2.4

(EM/Portside Sampling)

Changes to EA (p. 3)

• Section 1.0 – Introduction and Background

– Revised to Q & A Format

• Included information on current Greater Atlantic Region

industry-funded programs (p. 26 and 29)

• Included information on monitoring costs in other regions

(p. 37 and throughout Omnibus Alternative Descriptions)

• Can accept funding from external groups to cover

administrative costs? (p. 35)

• Can there be a fully industry funded program? (p. 38)

– Revised purpose and need consistent with July 1 Joint Herring/Observer Policy Committee motion

Changes to EA (continued)

• Section 2.1 – Omnibus Alternative Description

– Expanded description of current monitoring types in the Greater Atlantic Region (p.43) – Standardized cost responsibilities

• Added NMFS cost estimates (p. 49)
• Expanded descriptions of portside and EM
• Included discussion of cost drivers for all programs (p. 62)

– Monitoring Service Provider Requirements

• Included discussion of education standards, FLSA/SCA

requirements, and streamlining provider applications (p. 76- 79)

Changes to EA (continued)

• Section 2.1 – Omnibus Alternative Description

– Prioritization alternatives

• Made weighting approach optional for Council-led

prioritization

• Made clear that portions of NMFS/Council-led

prioritization would need to occur in a Joint MAFMC/NEFMC Committee meeting

• Timing options – indefinitely until new program added,
• r every 3 years unless new programs added

Changes to EA (continued)

• Section 2.2 – Herring Alternative Description

– Service provider standards for herring (allow

• bserver deployment on 2 consecutive days;

education requirement) (p. 122) – Maintained Herring Alternative 2.1 (the Am 5 alternative – 100% NEFOP-level on Cat A+B) in the range – Range of changes from the July 1 Committee meeting (25% ASM option, fleet-based alternatives to considered but rejected, etc.)

Changes to EA (continued)

• Revised Impacts analysis

– Expanded economic analysis to include fixed costs for herring and mackerel vessels, based on recent industry survey – Revised and expanded herring alternative packages, based on July 1 Committee meeting (25% ASM option, fleet-based alternatives to considered but rejected, etc.)

Monitoring Set-Aside Alternative (p. 6)

• Include general language to allow individual FMPs to

establish a monitoring set-aside via framework adjustment

• Example:

– Reserve X% of ACL – If a vessel is selected to carry an observer, then vessel granted a certain amount of extra lbs to land above possession limit – Revenue from sale of extra fish helps offset cost of

• bserver
• If added, the IFM Omnibus WOULD NOT implement

monitoring set-asides for individual FMPs

Framework process for Monitoring Set-Asides (p. 6)

• Details for set-aside program would be developed in a

subsequent framework or amendment to the FMP, and should include:

1. The basis for the monitoring set-aside; 2. The amount of the set-aside (e.g., quota, DAS, etc.); 3. How the set-aside is allocated to vessels paying for monitoring (e.g., an increased trip limit, differential DAS counting, additional trips, an allocation of the quota, etc.); 4. The process for vessel notification; 5. How funds are collected and administered from the industry; and 6. Any other necessary measures.

• Additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

analysis would be required.

Important considerations for Monitoring Set-Asides (p. 7)

• Value of Resource
• Management measures and fishery operations
• ACL allocation within fishery
• Shared Burden/Benefit
• Availability of resources
• Enforcement issues

Impacts of Monitoring Set-Aside Framework Process (p. 12)

• No direct or indirect impact on biological

resources, the physical environment, or fishery-related businesses

• Any impacts associated with implementing a

monitoring set-aside in a future framework adjustment would need to be fully analyzed in documents supporting documents

Possible Revisions to Herring Alternative 2.4

• Herring AP and Committee concern about the

estimated costs of the EM/Portside sampling alternative

• Developed options to reduce estimated costs

Industry Cost per Seaday Electronic Monitoring Year 1: $15,000 startup + $325 per seaday Year 2: $325 Portside $0.002/lb ($5.12 per mt)

Discussion on cost estimates (p. 13)

• Best available estimates
• High-end estimates
• EM cost estimate ($325 per seaday)

– Based on 100 percent video review – Not clear how changing one aspect of program cost will affect other parts of estimate

• Portside cost ($5.12 per mt; $0.002 per lb)

– Based on MA DMF MWT portside sampling program – Includes administrative costs – Cannot isolate sampling costs due to data confidentiatlity – True cost is likely lower

• We attempted to solicit estimates, but did not find

willing providers

Options to revise EM/Portside program costs (p. 14)

• Very limited information to show reductions in

cost, however:

• 1. Used cost to review EM video footage only around

haulback (Year 2+ = $248 per seaday)

• 100% review of EM video footage around haulback
• Analysis used review time ratios from pacific whiting

fishery, may be different here

• 2. Reduced % of trips covered with EM to 50%
• Also reduced portside sampling to 50%
• 3. Reduced portside sampling coverage to 75%, 50%

and 25%.

• Maintained 100% review of EM video footage around

haulback

Amount of EM Video Footage Review EM Year 1 Startup Costs EM Per Seaday Costs Percentage

• f trips

covered with EM Percentage

• f trips

covered with Portside Sampling Alternative 2.4 100% (camera running all the time, all video reviewed) $15,000 $325 100% 100% Modification 1 Haulback Only (camera running only around haulback, 100% of haulback video reviewed) $248 100% 100% Modification 2 100% $325 50% 50% Modification 3 Haulback Only $248 50% 50% Modification 4 Haulback Only $248 100% 75% Modification 5 Haulback Only $248 100% 50% Modification 6 Haulback Only $248 100% 25%

Discussion of results (p. 15 - 17)

• The estimated reductions RTO for Alternative 2.4

are:

– 44.3% in Year 1 and 35.1% for Year 2+ for paired MWT – 23.7% for Year 1 and 12.5% for Year 2+ for single MWT

• Reducing EM review to only around haulback,

and reducing the level of portside sampling coverage led to lower reductions in returns to

• wner for Year 2+.
• All of the modifications have lower negative

economic impacts on the average paired and single midwater trawl vessel than Alternatives 2.1 – 2.4 that are currently included in the Draft EA.

Modifications 4 -6: Reduced Portside Sampling

• For modifications 4 – 6, per seaday coast for Year 2 in

Table 2 should be considered an average seaday cost for the entire year.

• Annual costs for portside sampling spread out over all
• f the trips that the vessel would take that year.
• Practically, under modifications 4 – 6:

– Vessels would pay the EM cost of $248 per seaday for each day at sea for all trips – Would then pay a cost for portside sampling for some trips (25 percent, 50 percent, or 75 percent) based on landings – Table 3 outlines the trip cost for portside sampling based

• n cost of $5.12/mt of herring, and frequency of certain

landings levels ranging from 25 mt to 454 mt.

Example

• If a 3-day single MWT trip is selected for

portside sampling and lands 300,000 lb of herring:

– Vessel pays $248 per day for EM and – $697 for portside sampling – Total of $1,441 for the entire trip ($248 x 3 + $697), or an average of $481 per seaday

Landing amount frequency (p. 18)

• Table 3 on p. 18
• Portside sampling cost of $5.12/mt is the high

end estimate of portside sampling costs.

• The true portside sampling costs are likely lower
• During 2014 fishing year:

– 58% of paired MWT and 72% of single MWT trips landed less than 300,000 lb of herring per trip. – Using $5.12 per metric ton and assuming an average trip length of 3 days, a majority of trips can expect a portside sampling cost estimated at $232 per seaday.

Questions?