Electronic Monitoring Cost Reports Released

From: Lori Steele Date:09/09/2015 1:27 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Lori Steele Subject: FW: Electronic Monitoring Cost Reports Released

Observer Committee members, Herring Committee members, and Herring Advisory Panel members,

Please see below for links to reports re. cost information related to electronic monitoring (EM).  This information will also be provided as part of the omnibus Draft Industry-Funded Monitoring (IFM) Amendment, to be released in the immediate future.

The second report may be of particular interest, as it compares the costs of a hypothetical at-sea observer program with an electronic monitoring program for midwater trawl vessels to monitor maximized retention in the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries.

This information will be provided as part of the Draft IFM Amendment for discussion at next week’s Hering Advisory Panel and Committee meetings.

Thanks,

Lori

From: Mark Grant – NOAA Federal [mailto:mark.gra[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 9:34 AM To: _NMFS GAR Sector Managers; Mark Grant; _NMFS GAR Sector Public Subject: Electronic Monitoring Cost Reports Released

Dear Sector Managers,

I’m happy to announce that today we have released two NOAA Fisheries reports that provide cost comparisons between electronic monitoring and the use of human observers.

The first report compares the costs of the existing at-sea monitoring program (ASM) with an electronic monitoring (EM) program for discard monitoring in the Northeast multispecies (groundfish) fishery.  The comparison shows that after the initial electronic monitoring implementation costs, the hypothetical EM program would cost about twice as much as the current ASM program annually, though the report emphasizes that the final EM program design could reduce the projected costs.

The second report compares the costs of a hypothetical at-sea observer program with an electronic monitoring program for midwater trawl vessels to monitor maximized retention in the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries.  The comparison shows that, after the initial EM implementation costs, the hypothetical EM program would cost about one-third as much as the at-sea observer program annually.  The herring/mackerel monitoring program would also include portside catch monitoring, which would increase the total program costs–however, the total cost would still be about half as much as an at-sea observer program.

An independent review of the groundfish report is also available; all applicable recommendations from the review were incorporated into the midwater trawl report.

Both reports estimated program costs for hypothetical programs.  Costs are based on agency spending and cost estimates provided by three electronic monitoring service providers in the fall of 2014.  These reports are a first step to incorporate costs into our ongoing discussions regarding the most cost-effective ways to monitor fisheries.

The reports are posted on our website at:

http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/fish/index.html

Please feel free to contact me with questions.

Mark

Mark Grant, Sector Policy Analyst

National Marine Fisheries Service

Sustainable Fisheries Division

55 Great Republic Drive

Gloucester, MA  01930

Phone:  978-281-9145