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

▶
industry funded monitoring
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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

Jan 16, 2024 374 likes •809 views

Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment Omnibus and Coverage Target Alternatives New England Fishery Management Council Portsmouth, New Hampshire January 24, 2017 1 What is the Purpose of this Amendment? Allow industry funding to

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment Omnibus and Coverage Target Alternatives

New England Fishery Management Council Portsmouth, New Hampshire January 24, 2017

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

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

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Key results if adopted

This amendment would…

  • Establish a

standardized structure for new IFM programs

This amendment would not…

  • Impact existing IFM

programs, including groundfish and scallop programs

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Opportunity for Public Comment?

  • Public comment period from September 23 –

November 7

  • Comments were accepted electronically, by mail,
  • r 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

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Amendment Timeline

Dates Action January-February 2016 NEFMC and MAFMC selected preliminary preferred omnibus alternatives June 2016 MAFMC and NEFMC approved Draft EA for public comment September- November 2016 Public comment period and public hearings EM 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 December 2017 Final report on EM project January 2018 Amendment implemented

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

OMNIBUS ALTERNATIVES

6

slide-7
SLIDE 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

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Omnibus Alternative 2: Prioritization Process

Alternatives Description Alternative 2.1: NMFS-Led

NMFS develops process and consults with the Councils

Alternative 2.2: Council-Led

(Preliminary Preferred Alternative)

Councils develop process and consult with NMFS and initially use equal weighing scheme

Alternative 2.3: Proportional

Allocate funding equally across new IFM programs

Alternative 2.4: Lowest Coverage Ratio

Allocate funding to IFM programs with low coverage needs and active fleets

Alternative 2.5: Highest Coverage Ratio

Allocate funding to IFM programs with high coverage needs and less active fleets

8

slide-9
SLIDE 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

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Impacts of Omnibus Alternatives

Alternatives Biological Impacts Economic Impacts Alternative 1: No Action Low Negative Low Negative Alternative 2: Action Alternative Low Positive Low Positive Alternatives 2.1 – 2.5: Prioritization Processes Low Positive Low Positive Alternative 2.6: Monitoring Set- Aside Negligible Negligible

10

slide-11
SLIDE 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

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

14 Comments on Omnibus Alternative 2

Alternatives Comment Alternative 2.1: NMFS-Led Process 0 Support, 1 Against Alternative 2.2: Council-Led Process

(Preliminary Preferred Alternative)

6 Support, 2 Against Alternative 2.6: Monitoring Set-Aside

(Preliminary Preferred Alternative)

5 Support, 0 Against

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

HERRING ALTERNATIVES

13

slide-14
SLIDE 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.

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

NEFOP-Level Observer At-Sea Monitor (ASM) Electronic Monitoring (EM) Portside Sampling Retained Catch Fishing Effort and Species Composition Data Fishing Effort and Species Composition Data Verify Retention

  • f Catch

Species Composition Data Discarded Catch Fishing Effort and Species Composition Data Fishing Effort and Species Composition Data Frequency of Discarding Events None Biological Sampling Age and Length Data Length Data None Age and Length Data

Comparison of IFM Types

slide-16
SLIDE 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

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Herring Alternative 2

MWT Purse Seine SMBT Herring Alternative 2.1: 100% NEFOP-Level Coverage on Category A and B Vessels 100% NEFOP-Level Observer Herring Alternative 2.2: ASM Coverage on Category A and B Vessels 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% ASM Herring Alternative 2.3: Combination Coverage on Category A and B Vessels and Midwater Trawl Fleet 50% or 100% EM/Portside 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% ASM Herring Alternative 2.4: EM and Portside Coverage on Midwater Trawl Fleet 50% or 100% EM/Portside SBRM (No Action) Herring Alternative 2.5: 100% NEFOP-Level Coverage on Midwater Trawl Fleet in Groundfish Closed Areas 100% NEFOP- Level Coverage SBRM (No Action) Herring Alternative 2.6: Combination Coverage on Midwater Trawl Fleet in Groundfish Closed Areas Coverage would match 2.1-2.4 or 2.7 SBRM (No Action) Herring Alternative 2.7: ASM Coverage on Category A and B Vessels, then Vessels may choose either ASM or EM/Portside Coverage 25%, 50%, 75%

  • r 100% ASM or

EM/Portside 25%, 50%, 75%

  • r 100% ASM or

EM/Portside 25%, 50%, 75%

  • r 100% ASM or

EM/Portside

slide-18
SLIDE 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

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Alternatives Herring Resource Non-Target Species Protected Species Physical Environment Fishery-Related Businesses and 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

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Comments on Herring Alternatives

Alternatives Comments

Alternative 1:

(No Action)

37 Support, 0 Against Alternative 2.1:

(NEFOP-Level Observer Coverage)

2 Support, 2 Against Alternative 2.4:

(EM/Portside Coverage)

1 Support, 1 Against Alternative 2.5:

(Observer Coverage in GF Closed Areas)

3 Support, 3 Against Alternative 2.6:

(Selected Coverage in GF Closed Areas)

3 Support, 1 Against Alternative 2.7:

(ASM or EM/Portside Coverage)

5 Support, 0 Against

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Comments on Herring Sub-Options

Alternative 2 Sub-Options Comments Sub-Option 1:

(Waivers)

5 Support, 3 Against Sub-Option 2:

(Wing Vessel Exemption)

6 Support, 1 Against Sub-Option 3:

(2 Year Sunset)

0 Support, 5 Against Sub-Option 4:

(2 Year Re-Evaluation)

6 Support, 1 Against Sub-Option 5:

(Exempt trips less than 25 mt)

4 Support, 2 Against

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

MACKEREL ALTERNATIVES

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Gear Type MWT SMBT SMBT SMBT Permit Categories All Tiers Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Mackerel Alternative 1: SBRM Mackerel Alternative 2: Includes Sub-Options: 1) Waiver Allowed, 2) Wing Vessel Exemption, 3) 2 Year Sunset, 4) 2 Year Re- evaluation, and 5) 25 mt Threshold Mackerel Alternative 2.1: 100% NEFOP 50% NEFOP 25% NEFOP Mackerel Alternative 2.2: 25%-100% ASM SBRM (No Action) Mackerel Alternative 2.3: 50% or 100% EM/PS 25%-100% ASM SBRM (No Action) Mackerel Alternative 2.4: 50% or 100% EM/PS SBRM (No Action) Mackerel Alternative 2.5: 25%-100% ASM or EM/PS SBRM (No Action)

All slippage requirements would apply under Alternatives 2.1-2.5., with the exception that the Council will evaluate whether slippage consequence measures should apply to vessels using EM in a future framework.

Mackerel Alternatives

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Alternatives Mackerel Resource Non-Target Species Protected Species Physical Environment Fishery- Related Businesses and Communities Mackerel Alternative 1 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Low Positive Mackerel Alternative 2 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative Mackerel Alternative 2.1 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative Mackerel Alternative 2.2 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative Mackerel Alternative 2.3 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative Mackerel Alternative 2.4 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative Mackerel Alternative 2.5 Low Positive Low Positive Low Positive Negligible Negative

Impacts of Mackerel Alternatives

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Comments on Mackerel Alternatives

Alternatives Comments Alternative 1:

(No Action)

40 Support Alternative 2.1:

(NEFOP-Level Observer Coverage)

2 Support, 2 Against Alternative 2.2:

(ASM Coverage)

0 Support, 1 Against Alternative 2.5:

(ASM or EM/Portside Coverage)

3 Support, 2 Against

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Comments on Mackerel Sub-Options

Alternative 2 Sub-Options Comments Sub-Option 1:

(Waivers)

4 Support, 3 Against Sub-Option 2:

(Wing Vessel Exemption)

5 Support, 1 Against Sub-Option 3:

(2 Year Sunset)

0 Support, 1 Against Sub-Option 4:

(2 Year Re-Evaluation)

5 Support, 1 Against Sub-Option 5:

(Exempt trips less than 25 mt)

3 Support, 2 Against

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

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)

27

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Herring Meetings – January 2017

  • AP recommended the Herring Committee

consider recommending the Council postpone action on the IFM Amendment until completion

  • f the EM pilot project and until the Agency has

evaluated the value of the state shoreside monitoring program. (9/0/2)

  • Committee did not pass any recommendations to

the Council.

28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Update on EM Project

  • NMFS and Saltwater Inc. working with the

industry on the EM project

  • EM equipment installed and vessel

monitoring plans completed for 11 vessels

  • EM footage review template completed
  • EM data collected aboard 8 vessels
  • EM data collected from 46 trips
  • EM data reviewed from 15 trips
slide-30
SLIDE 30

Next Steps for EM Project

  • Install EM equipment and complete vessel

monitoring plan for last vessel

  • Continue to review EM footage
  • Troubleshoot/modify/adjust cameras, sensors and
  • ther equipment
  • Mounting cameras on boom arms aboard some

vessels to improve the view of the side of the vessel during haulback

  • Track and analyze discarding events
slide-31
SLIDE 31

***Council Consideration***

  • Select Omnibus Alternative 1 (No Action) or

Omnibus Alternative 2 (Standardize New IFM Programs)

  • If selecting Omnibus Alternative 2, then select

prioritization process (Alternatives 2.1-2.5) and frequency of re-evaluating process

  • Alternative 2.2 – Preliminary Preferred
  • Re-evaluate every 3 years or as needed
  • If selecting Omnibus Alternative 2, then consider

selecting monitoring set-aside (Alternative 2.6)

  • Alternative 2.6 – Preliminary Preferred

31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

***Council Consideration***

  • Select Herring Alternative 1 (No Action) or

Herring Alternative 2 (IFM Coverage Target)

  • If selecting Herring Alternative 2, then select

coverage target alternative (Alternatives 2.1-2.7)

  • If selecting Herring Alternative 2, then consider

selecting sub-options (Sub-Options 1-5)

32

slide-33
SLIDE 33

***Council Consideration***

  • If selecting Herring Alternatives 2.1-2.7
  • Consider specifying that combined coverage

targets would be calculated by NMFS, in consultation with Council staff

  • If selecting Herring Alternative 2.7
  • Consider specifying that Council would send its

determination on whether EM/Portside coverage is an acceptable alternative to ASM coverage to NMFS in a letter

33

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Final Action on Omnibus Alternatives

  • NEFMC selects preferred alternatives at its January meeting
  • Update MAFMC at its February meeting
  • Request MAFMC to reconsider final action on omnibus

alternatives at its April meeting

  • MAFMC may consider final action on omnibus alternatives

April 11-13

  • NEFMC would consider final action on omnibus alternatives

April 18-20

  • Final action on omnibus alternatives would require action

by both Councils

  • IFM Amendment would consist of just omnibus measures
  • Target implementing amendment in January 2018
  • Herring/mackerel alternatives would become the first

framework under the IFM Amendment in 2019

35

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Final Action on Herring Alternatives

  • NEFMC selects preferred alternatives at its

January meeting

  • Re-package herring alternatives and IFM cost

responsibility and IFM service provider requirements into new herring amendment

  • NEFMC would consider final action on herring

amendment April 18-20

  • Target implementing amendment in January 2018
  • IFM Amendment would consist of omnibus and

mackerel measures

  • Target implementing IFM Amendment in 2019

36

slide-37
SLIDE 37

37

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Omnibus Alternative 2: Standardized Cost Responsibilities

NMFS (Administrative) Costs Industry (Sampling) Costs Facilities and labor for training and debriefing Program management and provider overhead NMFS-issued gear Salary and per diem for training and debriefing Certification Equipment Vessel selection Deployments and sampling Data processing All other costs Compliance and safety liaison

38

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Biological Impacts of Herring Alternatives

  • Herring Alternative 1 – Low Positive
  • Herring Alternative 2 – Low Positive
  • Data on retained and discarded catch – Positive
  • Data collected on retained catch – Low Positive
  • Coverage allocated by fleet – Positive
  • Coverage allocated by permit – Low Positive
  • Coverage targets above 50% - Positive
  • Coverage targets between 25% and 50% - Low Positive
  • Coverage only in GF Closed Areas – Low Positive
  • Not Selecting Sub-Option 1 – Positive
  • Selecting Sub-Option 5 – Low Negative

39

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Calculating Coverage Targets

  • NEFOP-level observer and at-sea monitoring coverage targets

would be calculated by combining SBRM and IFM monitoring

– 10% SBRM coverage + 15% IFM coverage = 25% coverage target – A vessel would not carry an SBRM observer and IFM at-sea monitor on the same trip – A combined coverage target is intended to reduce IFM costs

  • EM and portside sampling coverage targets would be calculated

independent of and in addition to SBRM

– 50% EM video review and 50% portside sampling = 50% coverage target – A vessel may carry on SBRM observer on the same trip that would be sampled portside – Value in comparing SBRM observer data with data collected by EM and portside sampling

40

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Slippage Requirements

  • NEFMC recommended that slippage reporting requirements,

restrictions, and consequence measures be extended to IFM trips covered by at-sea monitors and EM/portside samplers

  • MAFMC recommended that slippage consequence measures

would apply to trips covered by at-sea monitors but not trips covered by EM/portside samplers.

  • MAFMC recommended that applying slippage consequence to

trips covered by EM/portside samplers would be further reviewed after the EM pilot project is complete and that requiring slippage consequence measures could be done via a framework.

41

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Midwater Trawl Landing Ports

Ports Currently Sampled (Y/N) Issues Affecting Sampling Maine Portland Y None Rockland Y None Vinalhaven N Not cost effective; fish sold over the side of vessels Prospect Harbor Y None Jonesport Y None Massachusetts Boston N Costly to sample; logistically challenging; unsafe area Gloucester Y Only a few landings during the year New Bedford Y Logistically challenging; safety issues Rhode Island Point Judith Y None North Kingstown N Only frozen product landed Newport N Safety issues New Jersey Cape May Y None