Industry-funded Monitoring Debate Continues

by Laurie Schreiber

“If the industry decides they wanted (to use collected biological data), and wanted to add that to their contract, they’re capable of doing that separately. But we shouldn’t be adding options here that require that.” – Ellen Goethel, NEFMC member. Fishermen’s Voice photo

PORTLAND—The draft Industry-Funded Monitoring Omnibus Amendment, in development by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), is slowly but surely moving forward.

The amendment includes options for tracking catch and bycatch in the Atlantic herring fishery.

The amendment is expected to authorize portside sampling and electronic monitoring (EM) across all fisheries, and includes various monitoring plans, including at-sea observer coverage, specific to the Atlantic herring fishery.

At its June meeting, the NEFMC approved a Draft Environmental Assessment for purposes of seeking input on the amendment at public hearings. NEFMC also recommended a 45-day public comment period and asked the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for an update on the progress of an electronic monitoring pilot project at its Sept. 20-22 meeting.

Earlier this year, NEFMC approved preferred alternatives for the omnibus elements of the amendment, or those that would apply to all programs initiated through this action. In June, NEFMC refined one of the omnibus alternatives and focused attention on changes to the monitoring coverage targets that would apply to the Atlantic herring fishery.

Specific changes approved by NEFMC include:

• An equal weighting approach to prioritize funding to support the administrative functions for new industry-funded monitoring programs among affected fisheries.

• Two options for at-sea monitoring sampling design. The additional option would include the collection of additional biological information on kept and discarded catch.

• After previously approving a measure that addressed slippage reporting requirements, restrictions, and consequence monitoring/portside sampling coverage, NEFMC reconsidered that decision in June. Their conversations were based on concerns that cameras might not be able to determine the cause of slippage events, possibly resulting in enforcement problems. Ultimately, the NEMFC members did not recommend removal of slippage consequence measures for any alternatives.

• An additional herring monitoring coverage target alternative that would apply monitoring coverage based on permit category or gear type.

• NEFMC also determined that, pending satisfactory completion of NMFS’ EM pilot project and an NEFMC review, vessels subject to industry-funded monitoring coverage could choose to continue with at-sea monitors or use EM/portside monitoring. These vessels would be limited to choosing one monitoring type per fishing year, and would be required to declare their preferred monitoring type six months in advance of the fishing year. The action would establish a minimum participation threshold for each monitoring type.

In speaking about the equal-weighting approach, one NEFMC member said, “I don’t see merit to equal weighting. One thing that can happen is you can add more and more considerations where equal weighting becomes virtually meaningless. I’d rather hear what the public has to say.”

Regarding herring coverage alternatives, some NEFMC members wondered if requiring at-sea monitors (ASM) to collect biological data makes them more like Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) observers.

“We had a discussion around this at the Mid-Atlantic council, with regard to when does an ASM stop becoming an ASM and starting becoming a NEFOP observer,” responded Northeast Fisheries Science Center science and research director Bill Karp. “We do have concerns about having several different designations of the type of individual and their responsibilities.” Foregoing opportunities to collect important biological data would be unfortunate, he said. And training ASMs to collect biological data, in the way NEFOP observers do, could mean a higher overall cost, he said. On the other hand, he said, the question of cost should be reconsidered anyway, given the way the fishing industry has been able to negotiate lower costs for their part of the program.

NEFMC member Mary Beth Tooley said the lack of clarity around ASM responsibilities is due to the ASM template already in place for the groundfish fishery. There, the monitoring program focuses on discards.

“And certainly for sectors, discards are the most important thing,” Tooley said. “But when you put someone on a herring boat and tell them to do that, you’re telling them to do nothing. And that seems extremely wasteful….What’s important on a herring boat is catch composition, not discards and not biological sampling….Clearly, we don’t need what the groundfish fishery needs. We need something different. And we certainly don’t need people on boats who do nothing. That’s just a waste of resources all around.”

NEFMC member Ellen Goethel said that requiring ASMs to collect biological data will add to the cost of training ASMs, thus adding to the final cost per day for the industry.

“The biological data should be the purview of the federal government and not the industry, because the industry will not be using it,” Goethel said. “If the industry decides they wanted that, and wanted to add that to their contract, they’re capable of doing that separately. But we shouldn’t be adding options here that require that. It’s absolutely not something I could ever vote in favor of.”

Jeff Kaelin, with Lund’s Fisheries in Cape May, N.J., agreed there are different perspectives in the groundfish sector system compared with the herring midwater trawl fleet.

“What we’ve been trying to get to is to make sure the people we’re paying to be on the boat, to monitor the fishery, are bringing back information that will be useful for the assessment, too,” Kaelin said. “There are some people on our council who feel they want to be more prescriptive than some of us want to be. But in the end, we want to…make sure the data collected has the maximum value. In the end, we’re thinking about costs, and we’ll get s better understanding of the calculation of costs when we get into negotiations with contractors. Maybe it’s risky, but we’re rolling the dice because we want the monkey off our back.”

Another NEFMC member said he opposed adding responsibilities to the ASMs, because it could mean additional costs, plus a potential reduction in the quality of information collected because of the time allotted to the added duties.

Regarding a proposal to remove consequence measures in slippage events, “I don’t understand why on earth you’re dong this, why we’re doing this at all,” said Chris Weiner, a tuna fisherman and CHOIR member. “Get rid of EM if you don’t have this. The only thing that matters is slippage. For six years, we all thought it was worthwhile to put consequences in. And we came up with a solution, which was a compromise. And now, for some reason, before you even go to public comment, you’re getting rid of that. You’re getting rid of the one thing people say make this thing work.” Weiner spoke for uniform slippage consequences. “Just have one consequence, but don’t get rid of everything. I’ve been the biggest supporter of EM. If you get rid of this, you get rid of EM, because the whole issue is slippage.”

Weiner continued, “If you guys can’t monitor slippage, just say that. Then this fleet is just unobservable. Slippage is why we’re here. Think this one out. The uniform measures that were brought up are the obvious logical solution.”

Erica Fuller, an attorney with the Herring Alliance, said the organization continues to support 10 percent NEFOP coverage.

“This fishery continues to claim it has very few discards, but management has no idea how much slippage there is,” Fuller said.

“The only reason we’re going to do EM is about slippage,” said Kaelin. “Ignoring slippage is completely unfathomable; that’s the only issue. Is this dumping at sea happening? And it isn’t. That’s why we said, ‘Okay, put the cameras on.’ None of our people are happy about it, and it’s going to raise the price of herring across the board someday….We don’t know yet if EM can determine slippage. Do the pilot program to determine whether or not you can identify a slippage event….This is not about getting away with something. It’s about providing the information the public wants at the industry’s cost. The industry is stepping up because we want to get this year after year after year of allegations behind us.”

EM is currently in a pilot phase. Results of the pilot program aren’t expected until the end of 2017. It’s expected that EM will determine that slippage events have occurred, but it won’t necessarily determine the causes.