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 would…

• Establish a

standardized structure for new industry-funded programs

• Set coverage targets

for herring & mackerel fisheries

This amendment would not…

• Set coverage targets

for fisheries other than herring & mackerel

• Impact existing

industry-funded monitoring programs, 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
• mnibus 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

9

Gear Type Purse Seine MWT Bottom Trawl Alt 1: No Coverage Target for IFM Programs (No Action) SBRM SBRM SBRM 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 and B Vessels 100% NEFOP 100% NEFOP 100% NEFOP Alt 2.2: ASM Coverage on Category A and B Vessels 25% - 100% ASM 25% - 100% ASM 25% - 100% ASM Alt 2.3: Combination Coverage on Category A and B Vessels and Midwater Trawl Fleet 25% - 100% ASM EM & Portside 25% - 100% ASM Alt 2.4: EM and Portside Sampling on Midwater Trawl Fleet SBRM EM & Portside SBRM Alt 2.5: 100% NEFOP-Level Coverage on Midwater Trawl Fleet Fishing in Groundfish Closed Areas SBRM 100% NEFOP SBRM Alt 2.6: Combination Coverage on Midwater Trawl Fleet Fishing in Groundfish Closed Areas SBRM Same as 2.1-2.4 SBRM

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
• bservers 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%
• f 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,

• toliths, 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 Electronic Monitoring Year 1: $36,000 startup plus $97 per sea day Year 2: $97 per sea day Year 1: $15,000 startup plus $3251 or $1872 per sea day Year 2: $3251 or $1872 per sea day Portside Sampling $479-$530 per sea day $5.121 or $3.842 per mt

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).

23

Gear Type Paired MWT Median Return-to-Owner (RTO) $159,529 Median Sea Days Alternative Median Potential Reduction to RTO ≥1 lb > 25 MT ≥1 lb > 25 MT 2.1 100% NEFOP-level 44.7% 42.2% 104 84 2.2 100% ASM 38.9% 36.7% 104 84 75% ASM 29.5% 28.2% 77 63 50% ASM 20.4% 18.9% 51 42 25% ASM 10.1% 9.6% 26 21 2.3 and 2.4 EM/Portside Year 11 42.2% 40.1% 104 84 EM/Portside Year 21 29.1% 27.5% 104 84 EM/Portside Year 12 25.1% 24.2% 51 42 EM/Portside Year 22 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

Estimated Impacts on Paired Midwater Trawl Vessels

24

Gear Type Single MWT Median Return-to-Owner (RTO) $60,156 Median Sea Days Alternative Median Potential Reduction to RTO ≥1 lb > 25 MT ≥1 lb > 25 MT 2.1 100% NEFOP-level 24.4% 5.8% 23 16 2.2 100% ASM 21.3% 5.1% 23 16 75% ASM 15.9% 3.8% 18 12 50% ASM 10.5% 2.5% 12 8 25% ASM 5.6% 1.4% 7 5 2.3 and 2.4 EM/Portside Year 11 37.3% 19.5% 23 16 EM/Portside Year 21 12.8% 4.9% 23 16 EM/Portside Year 12 26.7% 16.9% 12 8 EM/Portside Year 22 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

Estimated Impacts on Single Midwater Trawl Vessels

25

Gear Type Purse Seine Median Return-to-Owner (RTO) $253,048 Median Sea Days Alternative Median Potential Reduction to RTO ≥1 lb > 25 MT ≥1 lb > 25 MT 2.1 100% NEFOP-level 13.9% 10.4% 57 26 2.2 100% ASM 12.1% 9.1% 57 26 75% ASM 9.1% 6.8% 43 20 50% ASM 6.0% 4.5% 29 13 25% ASM 3.0% 2.2% 14 7 2.3 100% ASM 12.1% 9.1% 57 26 75% ASM 9.1% 6.8% 43 20 50% ASM 6.0% 4.5% 29 13 25% ASM 3.0% 2.2% 14 7

Alternatives 2.4 and 2.5 would not apply to purse seine vessels.

Estimated Impacts on Purse Seine Vessels

26

Gear Type SMBT Median Return-to-owner (RTO) $121,026 $135,782 Median Sea Days Alternative Median Potential Reduction to RTO ≥1 lb > 25 MT ≥1 lb > 25 MT 2.1 100% NEFOP-level 11.5% 14.2% 17 15 2.2 100% ASM 10.0% 12.3% 17 15 75% ASM 7.5% 9.4% 13 11 50% ASM 5.4% 6.4% 9 8 25% ASM 3.5% 3.8% 6 6 2.3 100% ASM 10.0% 12.3% 17 15 75% ASM 7.5% 9.4% 13 11 50% ASM 5.4% 6.4% 9 8 25% ASM 3.5% 3.8% 6 6

Alternatives 2.4 and 2.5 would not apply to small mesh bottom trawl vessels.

Estimated Impacts on Small Mesh Bottom Trawl Vessels

27

Fleet Paired MWT Single MWT Purse Seine SMBT Catch Level > 1 LB > 25 MT > 1 LB > 25 MT > 1 LB > 25 MT > 1 LB > 25 MT Total Revenue (million) $10.6 $9.8 $4.5 $4.2 $11.0 $10.3 $2.6 $1.8 % Revenue Herring 89% 93% 86% 100% 58% 78% % Revenue Mackerel 11% 7% 13%

• 3%

2% % Revenue Squid

• 20%

10%

Comparison of Revenue Sources Across Vessels

28

Monitoring Cost as a Percentage

• f Revenue

Paired MWT Single MWT Purse Seine SMBT Total HER Total HER Total HER Total HER HER ALT 2.1 6.4% 7.2% 3.1% 3.6% 2.9% 2.9% 6.0% 10.5% HER Alt 2.2 (100%) 5.5% 6.2% 2.7% 3.1% 2.5% 2.5% 5.2% 9.2% HER Alt 2.4 (100% in Year 2) 4.3% 4.9% 3.0% 3.5% NA

Monitoring Cost as a Percentage of Revenue

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

29

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 and Portside is generally less expensive than

comparable levels of ASM coverage in Year 2, but not Year 1

• Using revised cost assumptions for EM and Portside

reduce cost by over 50% in Year 2

30

SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

31

Herring Alternatives 2.1 – 2.5

• Differ by type of data collected
• Differ by how coverage is allocated
• Differ by amount of coverage

32

How Type of Monitoring Affects Data Utility

Data Interests NEFOP- Level Observe At-Sea Monitor EM Portside Sampling Fishing Effort High High Low Medium Retained Catch High Low Medium High Discarded Catch High High Medium Low Catch Caps High Low Low High Stock Assessments High Low Low High

33

How Allocation of Coverage Affects Data Utility

Pros Cons Permit-Based Coverage Target Alternatives Councils manage fisheries by FMP and vessel permit Not consistent with how SBRM allocates observers Can be used to monitor FMP-specific quotas and catch caps Resulting data may be biased and not used for stock assessment and/or total removals Difficult to design, deploy, and analyze results because vessels typically don't structure trips by permit category Fleet-Based Coverage Target Alternatives Consistent with how SBRM allocates

• bserver coverage

Typically extends across FMPs Resulting data may be combined with SBRM data for stock assessments and/or total removals Not consistent with how Councils manage fisheries by FMP and vessel permit

34

How Additional Coverage May Affect CVs

• n Catch Tracked Against Catch Caps

Catch Caps in the Herring Fishery HER Alt 2.1 HER Alt 2.2 HER Alt 2.3 HER Alt 2.4 MWT – Haddock Positive Negligible Positive Positive MWT – River Herring/Shad Positive Negligible Positive Positive SMBT – River Herring/Shad Low Positive Negligible Negligible Negligible

35

How the Amount of Coverage Affects Data Utility

• Herring Alternatives range from 25% coverage to 100%
• It is unlikely that 100% coverage is necessary to

increase accuracy around catch estimates in the herring fishery

• Previous analysis of midwater trawl fleet showed 50%-

60% NEFOP-level coverage for 30% CV on RH/S catch

• CV analysis indicated that ASM coverage will not

improve accuracy of catch cap monitoring

• Remaining alternatives specify 100% NEFOP-level

coverage or 50% or 100% EM and Portside Sampling

36

Summary of Biological Impacts of Herring Coverage Target Alternatives

• Herring Alternative 1 – Low Positive
• Herring Alternative 2 – Positive
• Catch and bycatch data collected - Positive
• Just bycatch data collected - Negligible
• Coverage allocated by permit - Low Positive
• Coverage allocated by fleet – Positive
• Coverage only in GF Closed Areas - Low Positive
• Sub-Option 1 – Positive
• Sub-Option 5 - Negative

37

Coverage Target Considerations

• Type of information collected and program cost

are two major considerations with industry- funded monitoring

• Benefits of increased monitoring should equal or
• utweigh the costs of monitoring
• If Sub-Option 1 is not selected and fishing effort is

reduced to match available monitoring, OY may not be achieved

• FMPs should allow OY to be achieved on a

continuing basis, if management measures are to restrictive then they should be modified

38

Summary of Herring Coverage Target Alternative Impacts

39

Alternatives Biological Impacts Economic Impacts HER Alt 1 Low Positive Low Positive HER Alt 2 Positive Negative HER Alt 2.1 Low Positive Negative HER Alt 2.2 Negligible Negative HER Alt 2.3 Low Positive Negative HER Alt 2.4 Positive Negative HER Alt 2.5 Low Positive Negative HER Alt 2.6 Low Positive Negative

Slippage Requirements

• Limited access herring vessels must bring catch aboard for

sampling by an observer unless there is a safety issue, mechanical failure, or excess catch of dogfish

• If slippage occurs, limited access vessels must complete a

released catch affidavit

• Herring Framework 4 proposed requirements for reporting

slippage via VMS and slippage consequence measures

• Does the Committee want to extend slippage reporting

requirements (affidavit, VMS) and slippage restrictions (unless safety, mechanical failure, or dogfish) to trips selected for at-sea monitoring or portside sampling coverage?

40

Timeline

Dates Meeting/Deadline Action January 2016 NEFMC Meeting NEFMC selected preliminary preferred omnibus alternatives February 2016 MAFMC Meeting MAFMC seleceds preliminary preferred omnibus alternatives April 2016 MAFMC and NEFMC Meetings NEFMC and MAFMC select preliminary preferred herring/mackerel alternatives May 2016 30-day comment period on draft EA and public hearings June 2016 MAFMC and NEFMC Meetings NEFMC and MAFMC take final action August – November 2016 EA finalized, proposed rule and final rulemaking December 2016 Final rule effective

41

Data Utility for Consideration Maria Jacob, NEFMC Staff

Herring Advisory Panel and Committee Meeting March 15-16, 2016

Data Utility for At-Sea Monitors

2

Industry-Funded Observer Coverage Options (OBS) NE GROUNDFISH ASM PROGRAM Industry-Funded Herring ASM Options (Herring ASM) Sampling Objectives SBRM, MMPA, MSA, ESA Stock Assessment, Discard Estimation MSA Catch monitoring; discard estimation Bycatch documentation - catch that is not kept/landed on Herring Category A/B herring vessels, including full and partial slippage events and operational discards; also including catch that may be brought aboard, sorted, and then discarded Elements of data collection based on GF ASM; Herring ASM program is intended to complement portside sampling/EM for comprehensive catch monitoring program (landings + discards) Sampling Design Comprehensive catch and bycatch data collection program; protected species documentation; biological sampling; environmental parameters; economic information Catch monitoring to ensure that ACLs are not exceeded; data on catch composition to estimate total discards by sectors and common pool vessels, by gear type and stock area Sampling protocols based on NEFOP Haul Log ("modified" - discards); Discard Log; Documentation of bycatch (discards); Protected species interactions; (in addition to pre-trip safety checklist and other logs/reports as determined by NEFOP) Data Collected Comprehensive catch/bycatch catch/bycatch; biological samples; protected species; fishery information; environmental parameters Catch/Bycatch Catch not brought on board the vessel for any reason; Slippage events; Operational discards; Discards brought on board No subsampling for kept catch estimation

Observer Training, Certification, Equipment

• Cross-certification allowed and encouraged – Observer

training (and equipment) for NEFOP observer coverage and/or GF ASM programs would apply to HER ASM certification

• Training trips for HER ASM not required for existing
• bservers (OBS or GF ASM)
• Should significantly reduce training and equipment

costs for existing GF ASM providers

• Focus on discard data only under HER ASM options will

reduce training and equipment costs for new service providers/observers

3

Observer Training, Certification

4

Industry-Funded Observer Coverage Options (OBS) NE GROUNDFISH ASM PROGRAM Industry-Funded Herring ASM Options (Herring ASM) Training and Certification Training Courses Certification/Shadow Trips Yes, 4 trips incl. 1 with trainer Yes, 4 trips incl. 1 with trainer Not required for existing NEFOP and GF ASM-certified

• bservers (already certified);

New HER ASM only observers - one shadow trip with trainer; first four trips would be training trips Re-certification No Yes, Annual Yes, annual - one day (Gfish ASM - 3 days; cost reduced by 2/3) Safety Refresher (two days) Yes, every 18 months Yes, every 18 months Yes; cross-certify; additional cost only for HER ASM-only

• bservers

CPR/First Aid Certification Annual Annual Annual; cross-certify; additional cost only for HER ASM-

• nly observers

15 days (3 working weeks) comprehensive training, plus high-volume certification for qualified observers (one extra day); Current Groundfish ASM-certified Observers - can certify for OBS with additional training days and high-volume certificaiton 11 days (covers multiple gear types - gillnet, longline,

• tter trawl, handline - catch

estimation procedures, protected species) NEFOP-Certified Observers with Current High-Volume Certification - no extra training days, but possibly some instruction on protocols for ASM trips; GF ASM-Certified Observers - 1-2 training days for herring/high-volume; New HER ASM Observers - 4-5 training days for HER ASM only certification (2 days safety, plus herring/high- volume training); Providers pay for travel/lodging, and daily pay to

• bservers for attending training;
• Est. provider cost for Gfish ASM training (11 days) -

$3000-$4000 per observer ($325/day)

Sampling Equipment

5

Industry-Funded Observer Coverage Options (Herring OBS) NE GROUNDFISH ASM PROGRAM Industry-Funded Herring ASM Options (Herring ASM) Equipment Comprehensive - 83 items Limited - 44 items Limited - Similar to Groundfish ASM; any equipment necessary for discard sampling/documentation Personal Safety Equipment- Immersion suit, PLB, Inflattable Vest Yes Yes, covered by provider Yes, covered by provider; Equipment for NEFOP and GFASM can be used; Additional cost only for HER ASM-only observers Personal Issue and Off- the-Shelf Gear (baskets, small scales, gloves, bags, measuring tapes, disposable cameras, knives, clipboards) Yes, covered by provider Yes, covered by provider;

• Est. total cost for new observer ($2,600 amortized

for life of equipment);

• Est. sea day cost (service provider) per observer

(150 days) - $17.50 Special Prints, Electronics, Not Off-the- Shelf Gear (manuals, guides, Marel scales, tablets, logs, electronics) Yes, covered by NMFS Yes, covered by NMFS; future funding unknown

Additional Slides

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/training/ASM_NEFOP_log_comparisi

• n.pdf

6

Factors that may increase long-term costs

 If using ASMs to monitor discards only on herring vessels, the

information would only verify retention of catch (i.e. slippage compliance).

 New Herring ASMs operating in a limited sampling role for

monitors would not be able to deploy on other types of vessels, therefore:

 Herring ASMs would not be able to collect other useful information (i.e.

incidental catch of haddock, river herring, and shad, and length information on catch).



If there is a need to also increase monitoring in other herring fleets, information on landings and discards from the bottom trawl trips would be necessary to improve the Coefficient of Variation (CV).

7

Atlantic Herring Fishery Catch Cap Totals

Table 1. PRELIMINARY FY2015¹ Atlantic Herring Fishery Catch Cap Totals Catch Cap Fishery

Catch Cap (mt) Discard (mt) Incidental Kept (mt) Catch (mt)

Haddock: Gulf of Maine Midwater Trawl 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 Haddock: Georges Bank Midwater Trawl 227 0.6 235.0 235.5 Herring-River Herring/Shad: Gulf of Maine Midwater Trawl 86 0.0 11.1 11.1 Herring-River Herring/Shad: Cape Cod Midwater Trawl 13 0.0 0.7 0.7 Herring-River Herring/Shad: Southern New England Bottom Trawl 89 13.1 87.6 100.7 Herring-River Herring/Shad: Southern New England Midwater Trawl 124 0.1 63.9 64.0

Source: GARFO-prepared analysis using GARFO Quota Monitoring Database Archives

8

Selection of Preliminary Preferred Alternatives

Update on IFM Amendment Herring Coverage Target Alternatives September 2015 Observer Committee Meeting Outcome Herring Alternatives for IFM Amendment need:

 A clear purpose/need for herring alternatives.  Additional discussion regarding data usage.  A thorough technical review of an industry-funded

monitoring program for the herring fishery including

• bserver/at-sea monitoring, portside sampling, and EM, in
• rder to determine appropriate coverage levels based on the

purpose/need identified by the Committee.

10

Herring Alternatives - Purpose and Need The NEFMC recommended increased monitoring in the herring fishery to 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.

11

Considerations for EM and PS Sampling

 September 2015 Observer Policy Committee Meeting:

 Committee members raised concerns raised regarding the high

cost for EM and portside sampling; Suggestions were made to have the PDT update the analysis to reflect options for less than 100% video recording and review.

 Refer to revised cost estimates in the Discussion Document,

Appendix 2 (pages 7-9).

 Electronic Monitoring:

 Consider choosing two options for a review rate of EM footage

(50% or 100%).

 Consider choosing a recording rate of 100% or recording during

haul-back only.

 Portside Sampling:

 Consider choosing a portside sampling rate of 50% or 100%.

12

Electronic Monitoring Costs

 Initial Analysis on EM Costs:

 100% recording, 100% Review: $325

 Updated Analysis on EM Costs:

 Haulback Recording Only, 100% Review: $248

 Reduction: $78 of the $160 data services cost (49%).

 Haulback Recording Only, 50% Review: $218

 Reduction: $61 is the cost for haulback review, so if only

half of the trips are reviewed, this would save about another $30.

 Field Services: $78/day  Additional Reduction: 40% of $78 = $31. Saving $31

would reduce the overall cost to around $187 per seaday.

13

Portside Sampling Costs

 Initial Analysis on Portside Sampling Costs:

 The Portside Monitoring cost estimate is $5.12 per metric ton, which

includes admin costs that could be paid for by NMFS

 Updated Analysis on Portside Sampling Costs

 Assuming that 25% or 33% of these costs are admin costs, they would

not be directed at vessels, and the cost for vessels (per mt) would be $3.84/mt and $3.41/mt respectively.

 If only 50% of trips were sampled, while any particular trip might still

have to pay $3.84/mt or $3.41/mt, over the course of a year it should reduce average costs to $1.92/mt or $1.71/mt.

14

Selection Process

 Alternatives 2.1 - 2.4: May choose one out of the four

alternatives.

 Alternatives 2.5 and 2.6: May choose either

alternative.

 Alternative 2.5: May be chosen alone  Alternative 2.6 may be chosen; if chosen, it must

be chosen along with one of the Herring Alternatives 2.1 through 2.4.

 There are five non-compulsory sub-options, which

may be selected for any of the coverage target alternatives, except Alternative 2.5.

15

Additional Slides

16

Herring Coverage Target Alternatives 2.1 through 2.4

 Alternative 2.1 – Would apply 100% NEFOP-level observer coverage on

Category A and B vessels.

 Alternative 2.2 – Would apply ASM coverage on Category A and B vessels.

Choose an at-sea monitor coverage target (25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%).

 Alternative 2.3 – Would apply a combination of monitoring coverage based

• n permit category or vessel type:

 Category A and B vessels using purse seine and small mesh bottom

trawl gear would be required to carry an ASM on every declared herring trip selected for coverage by NMFS. Choose an ASM coverage target (25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%).

 Would employ the use of an electronic monitoring system and portside

sampling of catch on midwater trawl vessels.

 Alternative 2.4 – Would employ the use of an electronic monitoring system

and portside sampling of catch on midwater trawl vessels.

17

Herring Coverage Target Alternatives 2.5 and 2.6

 Alternative 2.5 – Would apply 100% NEFOP-level observer coverage on

midwater trawl vessels fishing in Groundfish Closed Areas. May be chosen alone.

 Sub-options 1 through 5 do not apply to this alternative.

 Alternative 2.6 – Combination coverage on midwater trawl fleet fishing in

groundfish closed areas. Alternative 2.6 may be selected in conjunction with one of the previous alternatives (Alternatives 2.1 through 2.4).

 Would require vessels fishing with midwater trawl gear in the Groundfish

Closed Areas to comply the selected monitoring type(s) specified for the herring fishery in this amendment. Alternative 2.6 must be selected in conjunction with one of the alternatives described above (Alternative 2.1 through 2.4)

 If the appropriate type of monitoring coverage is not available to cover a

specific herring trip inside a groundfish closed area (either due to logistics or a lack of funding), that vessel would be prohibited from fishing inside a Groundfish Closed Area on that trip.

18

Sub-Options 1-5

 May select some, all, or none of the sub-options

 Sub-Option 1 – Would allow vessels to be issued waivers to exempt them from

industry-funded monitoring requirements, for either a trip or the fishing year, if coverage was unavailable due to funding or logistics. If not selected, fishing effort would be reduced to match the available level of monitoring.

 Sub-Option 2 – Would exempt a paired mid-water trawl vessel from industry-

funded monitoring requirements if the vessel does not pump or retain fish onboard (i.e. only one vessel in the paired operations pumps fish and would be subject to monitoring coverage requirements).

 Sub-Option 3 – Would require that industry-funded monitoring requirements to

expire 2 years after implementation.

 Sub-Option 4 – Would require the Council to examine the results of IFM coverage

levels in herring fishery 2 years after implementation, and consider whether adjustments to the coverage targets are warranted. Depending on the results and desired actions, subsequent action to adjust the coverage targets could be accomplished a framework adjustment or an amendment to the Herring FMP.

 Sub-Option 5 – Would exempt vessels that land less than 25 metric tons of herring

from industry-funded monitoring requirements.

19

Accountability Measure Areas - Haddock

20