Industry-funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment Omnibus Alternatives - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Industry-funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment Omnibus Alternatives Under Consideration

By Carrie Nordeen and Aja Szumylo Observer Policy Committee Meeting December 17, 2014

1

Legal Constraints

• Anti-Deficiency Act – prohibits

augmenting or improperly shifting appropriations

• Criminal prohibition – prohibits

supplementing employee salaries

• Miscellaneous Receipts Statute –

requires funds be deposited in general Treasury

2

Problem Statement

• 1. Legal constraints prevent NMFS from sharing

monitoring costs with the fishing industry.

• 2. Limited Federal funding for NMFS’s costs

prevents NMFS from approving proposals for industry-funded monitoring programs it cannot guarantee funding to support.

• 3. Need to remedy disapprovals of Herring Am. 5

and Mackerel Am. 14.

Need to enhance monitoring of herring, mackerel, river herring, shad, haddock, and other species.

3

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

4

Omnibus Alternatives

• Alternative 1: No action
• Alternative 2: 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

5

Omnibus Alternatives

• Alternative 1: No action
• Alternative 2: 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

6

Omnibus Alternative 1: No action

• SBRM coverage by gear, mesh, area
• Industry-funded monitoring programs are developed and

evaluated on case-by-case basis

• Scallops
• Industry required to pay sampling costs
• Sampling funded by a 1% harvest set-aside
• Coverage addresses SBRM/ESA/MMPA requirements
• SBRM and ESA funding available to cover NMFS infrastructure costs
• Groundfish sectors
• Monitoring required to meet a 30% CV for groundfish stock catch

across sectors

• 30% CV met with SBRM and ASM coverage
• NMFS has paid for sampling and infrastructure costs for ASM in past

years

• Sectors are required to cover ASM sampling costs if NMFS cannot
• If NFMS cannot cover infrastructure costs, FMP objectives cannot be

met

7

Omnibus Alternative 1: No action

• No standardized cost responsibilities for NMFS

and the fishing industry

• No framework process for FMP-specific

industry-funded monitoring programs

• No standardized administrative requirements

for industry-funded monitoring service providers

• No process to prioritize available Federal

funding for industry-funded monitoring across FMPs

8

Timing of Alternative 1: No Action

Year Month SBRM/ASM/Scallop Schedule (No Action) Year 1 January to April SBRM analyses are completed late January/early February April to October October to December  Begin analysis for SBRM and sector ASM  Work on SBRM discard estimation analysis (November through early February) Year 2 January to February  Receive Year 2 budget  Proposed Rule listing Sector ASM coverage rates Determine scallop compensation rate March  If funding shortfall, run SBRM prioritization  Start of scallop Year 2 April  Begin Year 2 seaday schedule  Final Rule listing Sector ASM coverage rates May Begin Sector ASM Year 2

9

Omnibus Alternatives

• Alternative 1: No action
• Alternative 2: 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

10

Omnibus Alternative 2: Standardized cost responsibilities

NMFS Costs Industry 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

11

August 2014 Observer Policy Committee Motions

• MOTION 4: To include for analysis…alternative

that would allow for the direct contracting between a vessel/fishing business and a NMFS approved…monitoring provider to meet the coverage levels...

• MOTION 5: To request…the Agency to develop a

mechanism to accept outside funding for monitoring...

• MOTION 6: To request…the Agency…to review

the proposed division of cost responsibilities with the goal being a 50-50 cost-split...

12

August 2014 Observer Policy Committee Motions

• MOTION 4: To include for analysis…alternative

that would allow for the direct contracting between a vessel/fishing business and a NMFS approved…monitoring provider to meet the coverage levels...

• MOTION 5: To request…the Agency to develop a

mechanism to accept outside funding for monitoring...

• MOTION 6: To request…the Agency…to review

the proposed division of cost responsibilities with the goal being a 50-50 cost-split...

13

August 2014 Observer Policy Committee Motions

• MOTION 4: To include for analysis…alternative

that would allow for the direct contracting between a vessel/fishing business and a NMFS approved…monitoring provider to meet the coverage levels...

• MOTION 5: To request…the Agency to develop a

mechanism to accept outside funding for monitoring...

• MOTION 6: To request…the Agency…to review

the proposed division of cost responsibilities with the goal being a 50-50 cost-split...

14

Omnibus Alternative 2: Standardized cost responsibilities

NMFS Cost Responsibilities Annual Cost (FY2013) Training and Data Processing Costs Facilities and labor for training and debriefing

$805,700

Data processing

$2,057,100

Operational Costs Certification

$2,244,700

Developing and executing vessel selection Compliance and safety liaison

Total

$5,107,500

15

Omnibus Alternative 2: Standardized cost responsibilities

Industry Cost Responsibilities Cost per observed sea day (FY2013) Salary and per diem for travel, deployments and debriefing

• Sea day charges paid to providers:

$640/day

• Travel: $71/day
• Meals: $22/day
• Hourly rate: $12/hour

Equipment $11/day Costs for cancellation without notification $1/day Provider overhead and project management costs Training: $61/day Other costs TBD – depends on implemented program Total (not including other costs) $818/day

16

Omnibus Alternatives

• Alternative 1: No action
• Alternative 2: 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

17

Omnibus Alternative 2: Framework Adjustment Process

• Details of any industry-funded monitoring program (at-sea,

dockside, or electronic monitoring) would be specified/modified in a framework to the relevant FMP.

• Details may include, but are not limited to:

1. Level and type of coverage target 2. Rationale for level and type of coverage 3. Minimum level of coverage necessary 4. Consideration of coverage waivers 5. Process for vessel notification and selection 6. Fee collection and administration 7. Standards for monitoring service providers 8. Any other measures necessary

18

COMMITTEE DECISION POINT 1

• Does the Committee agree with the list of

details necessary to include in the framework adjustment process?

• Does the Committee have any additions to

this list?

19

Omnibus Alternatives

• Alternative 1: No action
• Alternative 2: 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

20

Omnibus Alternative 2: Monitoring Service Providers

• Expanding SBRM observer service provider to

apply to at-sea observer and dockside service providers for all New England and Mid-Atlantic FMPs.

• Would not implement any new observer or

dockside monitoring programs, only a process to approve and certify monitoring service providers.

• If the Councils implement any industry-funded

monitoring programs through a future action, the process to develop those monitoring programs would be streamlined.

21

COMMITTEE DECISION POINT 2

• Does the Committee agree with the outlined

service provider standards for at-sea and dockside observers?

• Does the Committee agree with continuing

the requirement that observers have a college degree?

• Does the Committee have any specific

additions related to dockside observer provider standards?

22

Omnibus Alternatives

• Alternative 1: No action
• Alternative 2: 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

23

Omnibus Alternative 2: Prioritization Process

General Approach:

• Individual FMPs specify coverage targets
• A prioritization process used to determine actual

coverage rates for each FMP based on available Federal funding

• Allows NMFS to approve industry-funded

monitoring programs contingent upon funding

• Process addresses both New England and Mid-

Atlantic FMPs

24

Omnibus Alternative 2: Prioritization Process

• Discretionary
• Alternative 2.1 – NMFS led
• Alternative 2.2 – Council led
• Formulaic
• Alternative 2.3 – Proportional
• Alternative 2.4 – Coverage Ratio-based

25

Omnibus Alternative 2: Prioritization Process

• Discretionary (Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2)

Pros Cons Discretion over funding priorities Complexity and workload Takes objectives and context into account Requires rulemaking Timeline > 1yr

26

Omnibus Alternative 2: Prioritization Process

• Formulaic (Alternatives 2.3 and 2.4)

Pros Cons Shorter timeline No discretion Adaptive to budget changes and timing Blunt instrument

27

Omnibus Alternative 2: Prioritization Process

• Discretionary
• Alternative 2.1 – NMFS led
• Alternative 2.2 – Council led
• Formulaic
• Alternative 2.3 – Proportional
• Alternative 2.4 – Coverage Ratio-based

28

Alternative 2.3: Proportional Prioritization

If available funding cannot cover all of NMFS costs for all industry-funded monitoring programs:

• The funding available to cover NMFS costs for

each program would be proportionally reduced.

• If there is a 20% shortfall to cover NMFS costs,

each industry-funded monitoring program would be allocated 80% of available funding.

• Actual coverage would be 80% of coverage

target for each industry-funded monitoring program.

29

Alternative 2.4: Coverage Ratio-Based Prioritization

• Sequentially eliminate FMP with highest coverage ratio
• Coverage Ratio =

𝐸𝑏𝑧𝑡 𝑑𝑝𝑤𝑓𝑠𝑏𝑕𝑓 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑓𝑒 𝑔𝑝𝑠 𝑣𝑞𝑑𝑝𝑛𝑗𝑜𝑕 𝑧𝑓𝑏𝑠 𝐸𝑏𝑧𝑡 𝑔𝑗𝑡ℎ𝑓𝑒 𝑗𝑜 𝑞𝑠𝑓𝑤𝑗𝑝𝑣𝑡 𝑧𝑓𝑏𝑠

• Prioritizes the most active fisheries, or fisheries with the

fewest days of coverage needed relative to fleet activity

30

Alternative 2.4: Coverage Ratio-Based Prioritization

Example:

• FMP 1 - 100 days needed/500 days fished = 0.2
• FMP 2 - 50 days needed/500 days fished = 0.1
• FMP 3 - 50 days needed/100 days fished = 0.5
• FMP 3 eliminated, FMP 1 and 2 funded

31

Observer Policy Committee Recommendation from August 2014

• Committee agreed by consensus that

PDT/FMAT should analyze elimination of FMPs with the lowest coverage ratio

• Purpose of this approach is unclear
• Is the Committee’s intent to prioritize least

active fisheries, or fisheries with the greatest days of coverage needed relative to fleet activity?

32

Timing of Alternative 2: Formulaic Alternatives

Year Month SBRM/ASM/Scallop Schedule (No Action) Alternatives 2.3 and 2.4 Year 1 January to April SBRM analyses completed January/February April to October October to December  Begin analysis for SBRM and sector ASM  Work on SBRM discard estimation (November through February) Begin analysis to determine necessary IFM seadays

33

Timing of Alternative 2: Formulaic Alternatives

Year Month SBRM/ASM/Scallop Schedule (No Action) Alternatives 2.3 and 2.4 Year 2 January to February  Receive Year 2 budget  Proposed Rule for Sector ASM coverage  Determine scallop compensation rate March  If funding shortfall, run SBRM prioritization  Start of scallop Year 2 If funding shortfall, issue funding based weighting scheme April  Begin Year 2 seaday schedule  Final Rule for Sector ASM coverage Implement Year 2 IFM coverage levels May Begin Sector ASM Year 2 June NMFS briefs Councils on final year 2 IFM seaday allocation

34

Omnibus Alternative 2: Prioritization Process

• Discretionary
• Alternative 2.1 – NMFS led
• Alternative 2.2 – Council led
• Formulaic
• Alternative 2.3 – Proportional
• Alternative 2.4 – Coverage Ratio-based

35

Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: NMFS or Council-led Prioritization

• 1. NMFS or Council uses weighting scheme to

develop proposed allocation of resources across FMPs.

a. If funding is sufficient, fully implement coverage targets for all FMPs.

• b. If funding is not sufficient, prioritize among FMPs

using certain criteria.

• 2. At joint meeting, NMFS and Councils discuss

recommendation, make modifications

• 3. NMFS presents final coverage levels to Councils

at a public meeting

36

COMMITTEE DECISION POINT 3

• For the Alternative 2.1 (NMFS-led) and

Alternative 2.2 (Council-led) does the Committee agree that the best forum to develop the Council’s recommended prioritization is a joint Committee/Council meeting?

37

Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: NMFS or Council-led Prioritization

• Weighting Scheme
• Based on a draft process developed by the

MAFMC SSC to prioritize research proposals

• Transparent, deliberative framework to decide

how to allocate resources to cover NMFS costs to achieve coverage targets

38

Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme

STEP 1: NMFS/Council weigh 5 criteria

• IFM Evaluation Criteria
• Stock status
• Ecosystem importance
• Strong statistical basis
• SBRM compatibility
• Risk to management

39

COMMITTEE DECISION POINT 4

• Does the Committee think that the list of 5

criteria to evaluate industry-funded monitoring programs is comprehensive?

• Are there any suggested additions to this list?

40

Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme

• 5 criteria may not have equal importance
• NMFS or Council assigns weights
• One on one comparison to facilitate

consideration of relative importance

• End result is a percentage weight for each

criterion (e.g., 15%)

41

Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme

Comparison values:

• 1 = criteria are equally important
• 5 = criterion is more important
• 10 = criterion is much more important
• 0.2 = criterion is less important
• 0.1 = criterion is much less important

42

Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme

IFM Evaluation Criteria

Stock status Ecosystem importance Strong statistical basis Row total IFM Criterion Weighting Stock status

x 5 0.1 5.1 0.30

Ecosystem importance

0.2 x 1 1.2 0.07

Strong statistical basis

10 1 x 11 0.63 Grand Total 17.3

43

Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme

IFM Evaluation Criteria

Stock status Ecosystem importance Strong statistical basis Row total IFM Criterion Weighting Stock status

x 5 0.1 5.1 0.30

Ecosystem importance

0.2 x 1 1.2 0.07

Strong statistical basis

10 1 x 11 0.63 Grand Total 17.3

44

Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme

IFM Evaluation Criteria

Stock status Ecosystem importance Strong statistical basis Row total IFM Criterion Weighting Stock status

x 5 0.1 5.1 0.30

Ecosystem importance

0.2 x 1 1.2 0.07

Strong statistical basis

10 1 x 11 0.63 Grand Total 17.3 63% 7% 30%

45

Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme

STEP 2: NMFS/Council rate each IFM program

• Rate each industry funded monitoring

program for how much it meets each criteria

• Rating scale:
• 0 = doesn’t meet criterion at all
• 1 = slightly meets criterion
• 2 = somewhat meets criterion
• 3 = mostly meets criterion
• 4 = fully meets criterion

46

Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme

IFM Evaluation Criteria IFM Criteria Weighting FMP 1 IFM Criteria Weighting x FMP 1 Ranking FMP 2 IFM Criteria Weighting x FMP 2 Ranking FMP 3 IFM Criteria Weighting x FMP 3 Ranking Stock status

30% 4 1.2

Ecosystem importance

7% 0.0

Strong

• bjective

63% 3 1.9

IFM Program Overall Ranking

3.1

47

Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme

IFM Evaluation Criteria IFM Criteria Weighting FMP 1 IFM Criteria Weighting x FMP 1 Ranking FMP 2 IFM Criteria Weighting x FMP 2 Ranking FMP 3 IFM Criteria Weighting x FMP 3 Ranking Stock status

30% 4 1.2 0.0 2 0.6

Ecosystem importance

7% 0.0 2 0.1 4 0.3

Strong

• bjective

63% 3 1.9 3 1.9 1 0.6

IFM Program Overall Ranking

3.1 2 1.5

48

Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme

• FMP 1 is ranked highest, followed by FMP 2, then

FMP 3

• NMFS or Councils may now use the rankings to

prioritize the allocation of available funding to the FMPs to cover NMFS’s costs.

• One possible way is to fully fund the highest

ranked program, and then work through the ranking list sequentially.

• Funding would not be allocated to a program if

the available allocation would fund less than ¼ of the necessary funding.

49

COMMITTEE DECISION POINT 5

• Does the Committee agree that the highest

ranked industry-funded monitoring program should receive full funding priority, with remaining funding allocated sequentially until funding is completely allocated?

• Are there other ideas about how to allocate

funding once the different industry-funded monitoring programs are ranked?

50

Timing of Alternative 2: Discretionary Alternatives

Year Month SBRM/ASM/Scallop Schedule (No Action) Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2 Year 1 January to April SBRM analyses completed January/February NMFS (2.1) or Council (2.2) conducts weighting scheme April to May Council and NFMS meet to review IFM program ranking May to October Proposed and final rulemaking for IFM programs for Years 2-4 (or for indefinite period). October to December  Begin analysis for SBRM and sector ASM  Work on SBRM discard estimation (November through February) Begin analysis to determine necessary IFM seadays

51

Timing of Alternative 2: Discretionary Alternatives

Year Month SBRM/ASM/Scallop Schedule (No Action) Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2 Year 2 January to February  Receive Year 2 budget  Proposed Rule for Sector ASM coverage  Determine scallop compensation rate March  If funding shortfall, run SBRM prioritization  Start of scallop Year 2 If funding shortfall, issue funding based weighting scheme April  Begin Year 2 seaday schedule  Final Rule for Sector ASM coverage Implement Year 2 IFM coverage levels May Begin Sector ASM Year 2 June NMFS briefs Councils on final year 2 IFM seaday allocation

52

Timing of Alternative 2: Discretionary Alternatives

• Option 1: Weighting scheme revised every 3

years, new/revised industry-funded monitoring programs would have to wait until the 3rd year for incorporation.

• Option 2: Entire process occur on an as-needed
• basis. The weighting scheme is in place

indefinitely until new/revised programs industry- funded monitoring programs are approved.

• Option 3: Weighting scheme revised every 3

years, unless new/revised industry-funded monitoring programs are approved.

53

COMMITTEE DECISION POINT 6

• What is the Committee’s preference regarding

the timing of the discretionary prioritization programs?

• Every 3 years?
• As-needed when new or adjusted industry-funded

programs are finalized?

• Every 3 years, unless there are new or adjusted

industry-funded programs are finalized?

54

Preliminary Impacts Discussion

Alternatives Target Species Non-Target Species Protected Species Human Communities Alternative 1: No Action Potential low negative

• No additional catch

monitoring Potential low negative

• Continued uncertainty about

true discard rates Alternative 2: Industry- Funded Monitoring Programs (Action Alternative) Negligible

• Cost responsibilities and

framework process Potential low positive

• Service provider requirements

and prioritization process Negligible

• Cost responsibilities and

framework process Potential low positive

• Service provider requirements

and prioritization process Potential negative

• New cost for industry

55

Preliminary Impacts Discussion

Alternatives Target Species Non-Target Species Protected Species Human Communities Alternative 2.1: NMFS-Led Prioritization Process Potential low positive impact

• Process allows an evaluation of program

need/design when assigning priority Alternative 2.2: Council-Led Prioritization Process Alternative 2.3: Proportional Prioritization Process Potential low negative

• Prioritization is formulaic, and does not

allow for prioritization based on program need/design Alternative 2.4: Coverage Ratio- Based Prioritization Process

56

Questions?

57