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 Begin analysis for SBRM and sector ASM December Work on SBRM discard estimation analysis (November through early February) Year 2 January to Receive Year 2 budget February 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 Program management and and debriefing 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 Annual Cost NMFS Cost Responsibilities (FY2013) $805,700 Facilities and labor for training Training and and debriefing Data Processing Costs $2,057,100 Data processing Certification Operational Developing and executing $2,244,700 Costs vessel selection Compliance and safety liaison $5,107,500 Total 15
Omnibus Alternative 2: Standardized cost responsibilities Industry Cost Responsibilities Cost per observed sea day (FY2013) • Sea day charges paid to providers: $640/day Salary and per diem for travel, • Travel: $71/day deployments and debriefing • Meals: $22/day • Hourly rate: $12/hour Equipment $11/day Costs for cancellation without notification $1/day Provider overhead and project Training: $61/day management costs 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
Recommend
More recommend
