AT-SEA MONITORING

continued from Homepage

legal mechanism to allow cost-sharing of at-sea costs between NMFS and the industry. Budget uncertainties prevent NMFS from being able to commit to paying for increased observer coverage in the herring fishery. Requiring 100 percent observer coverage would amount to an unfunded mandate. Because Amendment 5 does not identify a funding source to cover all of the increased costs of observer coverage, the measure is not sufficiently developed to approve at this time. Therefore, I disapproved the 100 percent observer coverage requirement.”

Bullard disapproved two other provisions in Amendment 5:

A dealer reporting requirement; and a cap that, if achieved, would require vessels discarding catch before it had been sampled by observers (known as slippage) to return to port.

Bullard approved all other measures in Amendment 5, which is designed to improve the catch monitoring program for the herring fishery and address bycatch issues associated with river herring:

It establishes river herring monitoring and avoidance areas; and establishes the ability to consider a river herring catch cap in a future action.

The provision in the amendment says the industry contribution to at-sea monitoring would be phased in “while the Council develops/implements the option that utilizes both Federal and industry funds, with a target maximum contribution by the industry of $325 per sea day. The Federal/industry funding option is intended to become effective one year following the implementation of Amendment 5.”

The requirement for 100 percent coverage on Category A/B herring vessels would be reviewed two years after it becomes effective.

Support for 100 percent observer coverage on Category A/B herring vessels was largely supported by a majority of stakeholders who commented at public hearings on Amendment 5.

“Many stakeholders, as well as some members of the herring industry, feel that 100 percent observer coverage is necessary for the most active vessels to either confirm or disprove the claims that have been made by many regarding bycatch in the herring fishery,” the amendment says. “The Council also agrees that the requirement for 100 percent observer coverage should be focused on the most active vessels in the herring fishery and is proposing to limit this requirement to Category A and B vessels, which catch 97 percent or more of all Atlantic herring.

Category C vessels, although part of the limited access fishery, represent a small fraction of the overall herring catch, and because of the costs associated with the proposed requirements, the Council determined that limiting this measure to A and B vessels at this time would achieve the goals and objectives of the catch monitoring program while reducing some of the negative impacts on fishery-related businesses and communities.”

Some commenters wanted the federal government to cover the entire cost of observer coverage. But NEFMC supported a split coverage, due to NMFS’ concerns about the government’s ability to cover the entire cost.

Category A limited-access permit has no possession limit and may fish in all herring management areas.

Category B limited-access permit has no possession limit and may fish in Areas 2 and 3.

Category C limited-access is for the incidental catch of herring, and has a possession limit of 55,000 pounds per day.

Category D is an open access permit and has a 6,600-pound (3 metric tons) possession limit.

The herring fishery is split into management areas – Area 1 (Gulf of Maine, divided into inshore Area 1A and offshore Area 1B); Area 2 (southern New England/Mid-Atlantic); Area 3 (offshore Georges Bank).

In a letter dated June 6, NEFMC executive director Tom Nies told Bullard the issue of cost-sharing for monitoring programs cuts across several fisheries, including groundfish and herring in the northeast and, for the mid-Atlantic, the squid/mackerel/butterfish fisheries.

Nies asked Bullard to address “the development of legally and administratively viable alternatives” on the issue.

At its September meeting, NEFMC heard a presentation from NMFS, which formed a working group to examine funding for at-sea monitors, including industry-funded monitors.

Bullard said he hoped to solve the problem as quickly as possible, both for the herring fishery and for other fisheries.

“We subscribe to the overall goal,” Bullard said. However, “We have a very limited budget. It’s a reality we have to deal with.”

In the meantime, he said, he could approve Amendment 5 if NEFMC changed the language regarding observer coverage: “What would make for an approvable amendment is if the council did not specify either a coverage level like 100 percent, nor an industry rate, but just gave us indications of priority.”

NMFS is currently responsible for covering the onshore or overhead portion of observer coverage, which is a roughly equal component of the overall cost, Bullard said.

The working group on observer funding includes staff from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Northeast Regional Office, NOAA general counsel, and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

NEFMC heard a presentation from the working group that proposed an omnibus amendment that would develop a “universal and flexible solution” for industry funding across multiple fishery management plans.

There are two components to the cost of observer coverage. The challenge is to make sure funding is available for both components. One component is the basic observer monitoring cost, which includes costs incurred by the provider of observer services such as observer salary and travel expenses.

The second component is the funding NMFS provides for support and infrastructure related to monitoring, observer training, infrastructure, certification, and data processing. Increasing observer coverage increases both costs.

The problem is that NMFS can’t legally share the responsibility for observer monitoring costs. Therefore, the industry’s contribution cannot be capped with the expectation that NMFS will cover the remainder of the cost.

However, once the industry has fully funded the cost of monitoring, it becomes possible for NMFS to help offset the cost—when funding is available. However, there is currently no mechanism to enable NMFS to do that.

The working group is working on what that mechanism might be.

NMFS’ funding stream varies annually, so it’s not possible make a specific contribution in advance, or to specify funding in a fishery management plan. Any increase in coverage, even when industry is paying the full cost of observers, will result in some cost incurred by NMFS for the onshore portion; however, NMFS is still constrained by the federal budgeting process.

To address the problem, the working group developed recommendations for a transitional, short-term approach, using a mechanism modeled after a cost-sharing program in the northwest.

NMFS would continue its onshore responsibilities, industry would be responsible for the cost of obtaining certified observers, and NMFS would develop a partnership with a third party that would channel money from NMFS to the industry to help pay for observer coverage when NMFS has available funds.

Working forward, the next step would be to identify a third party partner. The goal is to implement the mechanism for the groundfish industry by the start of the next groundfish fishing year, in 2014, and for other fisheries through an omnibus amendment.

However, NEFMC members said they saw “red flags” concerning the third-party aspect of the proposal, including the additional cost incurred in payments to the third party for its service, and the potential for the third party’s influence on contracts between the industry and observer providers.

“This is a fundamental change of the roles and responsibilities of the council and NMFS,” said one NEFMC member. “What I hear is, we’re not allowed to make any management change that could result in even a marginal cost increase to the NMFS bureaucracy.”

The role of the council, he said, is to determine what is needed to ensure a fishery meets responsible management objectives.

“This isn’t the first time we’ve had budget uncertainties, and we haven’t stopped needed progress in our fisheries. So I’m very uncomfortable with this whole concept,” he said.

“It sounds like the third party simply launders the money for a fee,” said another NEFMC member.

Bullard responded that the NEFMC can go ahead and mandate 100 percent coverage and an industry portion to fund the coverage. But, he said, if NMFS doesn’t have the money to fund the rest, what that effectively means is that observers can’t be hired and therefore fishermen can’t leave the docks.

“When you say, ‘Spend money’ that we don’t have, we can’t do that,” Bullard said. “So we turned down a plan when you tell us to spend money that we don’t have. The only other option is, well, if there’s a requirement and we don’t have the money, people don’t leave the dock.”

Other NEFMC members said they accepted that, if the model has worked for fisheries on the West Coast, it might be worth trying in the Northeast.

“I hear all the red flags,” said one member, “but we do have a statement that it does exist and works on the West Coast, so there’s at least a model that gives us something to think about.”

“I think this shows some potential promise for us,” said Nies. “We may have a way to figure out how to share the cost of these programs, and then it will be up to each FMP [fishery management plan] to figure out what the details of the requirements are. What I’m concerned about is that we’re hoping this will be done and in place in 2014, and I think that timeline seems a little bit optimistic.”

NEFMC member David Goethel said it might also be worth exploring ways to control costs. One runaway cost, said NEFMC members, is observer turnover, which means more training for new observers.

In the end, the NEFMC provided Bullard with a consensus to move forward on the omnibus amendment, to be developed “as expeditiously as possible,” said Bullard.