Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment Herring Coverage - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment Herring Coverage Target Alternatives By Carrie Nordeen and Carly Bari New England Fishery Management Council Herring Advisory Panel and Committee Meetings March 15-16, 2016 1

Presentation Overview • Purpose and Need • Range of coverage target alternatives • Updates to economic analysis • Summary of coverage target economic impacts • Summary of data utility issues • Summary of coverage target biological impacts

Purpose and Need • Allow Councils to develop new IFM programs using a standardized approach • Allow industry funding to be used in conjunction with available Federal funding to meet FMP-specific coverage targets above existing requirements • Allow Councils and NMFS to prioritize available Federal funding across new IFM programs 3

General Approach • New IFM programs would specify fishery- specific coverage targets • Tool to approve Council’s desired levels of monitoring, without NMFS committing to supporting coverage levels before funding determined to be available. • No IFM for herring fishery in years when there is no additional Federal funding to cover NMFS administration costs 4

Key results if adopted This amendment This amendment would… would not… • Establish a • Set coverage targets standardized for fisheries other structure for new than herring & industry-funded mackerel programs • Impact existing • Set coverage targets industry-funded for herring & monitoring programs, mackerel fisheries including groundfish & scallops 5

Two Types of Alternatives in this Amendment • Omnibus Alternatives - Apply to all NEFMC and MAFMC FMPS - Both Councils selected preliminary preferred omnibus alternatives earlier this year • Herring and Mackerel Coverage Target Alternatives - Specify IFM coverage targets for herring and mackerel fisheries 6

HERRING COVERAGE TARGET ALTERNATIVES 7

Goals of IFM 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 8

Gear Type Purse Seine MWT Bottom Trawl Alt 1: No Coverage Target for IFM Programs (No SBRM SBRM SBRM Action) Alt 2: Coverage Targets Specified for IFM Programs Includes Sub-Options: Waiver Allowed, Wing Vessel Exemption, 2 Yr Sunset, 2 Yr Re- Evaluation, and 25 mt threshold Alt 2.1: 100% NEFOP-Level Coverage on Category A 100% NEFOP 100% NEFOP 100% NEFOP and B Vessels Alt 2.2: ASM Coverage on Category A and B Vessels 25% - 100% 25% - 100% 25% - 100% ASM ASM ASM Alt 2.3: Combination Coverage on Category A and B 25% - 100% EM & 25% - 100% Vessels and Midwater Trawl Fleet ASM Portside ASM Alt 2.4: EM and Portside Sampling on Midwater EM & SBRM SBRM Trawl Fleet Portside Alt 2.5: 100% NEFOP-Level Coverage on Midwater SBRM 100% NEFOP SBRM Trawl Fleet Fishing in Groundfish Closed Areas Alt 2.6: Combination Coverage on Midwater Trawl Same as SBRM SBRM Fleet Fishing in Groundfish Closed Areas 2.1-2.4 9

Herring Alternative 2 Sub-Options • 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 10

Herring Monitoring and Service Provider Requirements • Omnibus Alternative 2 would set standard monitoring and service provider requirements • Herring Alternative 2 would specify that IFM observers would need to hold a high volume fishery (HVF) certification 11

How Current Herring Data Used • Dealer and vessel data are used to estimate landed catch • SBRM Observer data are used to estimate herring discards • SBRM Observer data are used to estimate the catch of haddock and river herring and shad • SBRM Observer data are used to estimate species composition of catch in Groundfish Closed Areas • Vessel data and Maine portside age and length data are used in stock assessment 12

Haddock Catch Caps • Haddock caps are equal to 1% of the haddock ABC for each stock – Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank • Approximately 104% of the GB cap (227 mt) has been caught so far this year • Approximately 0% of the GOM cap (14 mt) has been caught so far this year 13

River Herring and Shad Catch Caps • Herring Framework 3 established gear and area specific caps in 2014 • MWT caps exist in Gulf of Maine (86 mt), Cape Cod (13 mt) and Southern New England (124 mt) • SMBT caps exist in Southern New England (89 mt) • So far this year approximately 13% of the SNE SMBT cap and 19% of the SNE MWT cap have been caught 14

Groundfish Closed Areas • Amendment 5 expanded observer requirement for MWT vessels fishing in Closed Area I to all Groundfish Closed Areas • Revised SBRM Amendment prohibits observer coverage from being allocated to the Groundfish Closed Areas independent of SBRM • During 2005-2010, less than 10% of herring effort , 12% of harvest, and 13% of revenue came from Groundfish Closed Areas • Haddock is the primary non-target species harvested by MWT vessels in Groundfish Closed Areas 15

Under Herring Alternative 2, NEFOP-Level Observers Would Collect • Data on retained and discarded catch (species, weight, composition); • Tow-specific information (depth, water temperature, wave height, and location and time when fishing begins and ends); • Fishing gear information (size of nets and dredges, mesh sizes, and gear configurations); • Biological samples from catch (scales, otoliths, and/or vertebrae from fish, invertebrates, and incidental takes); • Information on interactions with protected species (sea turtles, marine mammals, and birds); and • Vessel trip costs (operational costs for trip including food, fuel, oil, and ice). 16

Under Herring Alternative 2, At-Sea Monitors Would Collect • Data on discarded catch (species, weight, composition); • Fishing gear information (size of nets and dredges, mesh sizes, and gear configurations); • Tow-specific information (depth, water temperature, wave height, and location and time when fishing begins and ends); • Biological samples from discarded catch (scales, otoliths, and/or vertebrae from fish, invertebrates, and incidental takes); and • Vessel trip costs (operational costs for trip including food, fuel, oil, and ice). 17

Under Herring Alternative 2, EM and Portside Sampling Would Collect • EM would be used to verify retention of catch for sampling portside • Portside samplers would collect – Data on retained catch (species, weight, composition); and – Biological samples from retained catch (scales, otoliths, and/or vertebrae from fish, invertebrates, and incidental takes). 18

SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS 19

Monitoring Cost Estimates Types of Monitoring NMFS Cost Vessel Cost NEFOP-Level Observer $479 per sea day $818 per sea day At-Sea Monitor $530 per sea day $710 per sea day Year 1: $15,000 startup plus $325 1 or $187 2 per Year 1: $36,000 startup plus $97 per sea day sea day Electronic Monitoring Year 2: $325 1 or $187 2 Year 2: $97 per sea day per sea day $5.12 1 or $3.84 2 per mt Portside Sampling $479-$530 per sea day 1 – Initial cost assumptions 2 – Revised cost assumptions

Special Considerations Regarding Estimates of Monitoring Costs • Monitoring program costs vary within and between years • NMFS costs do not scale well to sea day • Appendix 2 describes several industry cost estimates from public sources • Herring economic analysis uses costs comparable to proposed alternatives

MWT Landing Ports • Maine (Portland, Rockland, Vinalhaven , Prospect Harbor, Jonesport, Milbridge ); • New Hampshire ( Newington ); • Massachusetts (Boston, Gloucester, New Bedford); • Rhode Island (Point Judith, North Kingston ); and • New Jersey (Cape May).

Estimated Impacts on Paired Midwater Trawl Vessels Gear Type Paired MWT Median Return-to-Owner $159,529 Median Sea Days (RTO) Median Potential Alternative ≥1 lb > 25 MT ≥1 lb > 25 MT Reduction to RTO 2.1 100% NEFOP-level 44.7% 42.2% 104 84 100% ASM 38.9% 36.7% 104 84 75% ASM 29.5% 28.2% 77 63 2.2 50% ASM 20.4% 18.9% 51 42 25% ASM 10.1% 9.6% 26 21 EM/Portside Year 1 1 42.2% 40.1% 104 84 EM/Portside Year 2 1 2.3 and 29.1% 27.5% 104 84 2.4 EM/Portside Year 1 2 25.1% 24.2% 51 42 EM/Portside Year 2 2 14.4% 13.3% 51 42 2.5 100% NEFOP-level 5.4% 5.4% 11 9 1- Initial cost assumptions and 2- Revised cost assumptions 23

Estimated Impacts on Single Midwater Trawl Vessels Gear Type Single MWT Median Return-to-Owner $60,156 Median Sea Days (RTO) Median Potential Alternative ≥1 lb > 25 MT ≥1 lb > 25 MT Reduction to RTO 2.1 100% NEFOP-level 24.4% 5.8% 23 16 16 100% ASM 21.3% 5.1% 23 75% ASM 15.9% 3.8% 18 12 2.2 50% ASM 10.5% 2.5% 12 8 25% ASM 5.6% 1.4% 7 5 EM/Portside Year 1 1 37.3% 19.5% 23 16 EM/Portside Year 2 1 2.3 and 12.8% 4.9% 23 16 EM/Portside Year 1 2 8 2.4 26.7% 16.9% 12 EM/Portside Year 2 2 6.9% 2.4% 12 8 2.5 100% NEFOP-level 1.0% 1.0% 4 4 1- Initial cost assumptions and 2- Revised cost assumptions 24